Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

CHAPTER IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

4.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................4-5

4.2 BASIC ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

ASSESSMENT......................................................................................................................4-7

4.2.1 Ground-impacting Management Actions ......................................................................4-7

4.2.2 Oil Spills .......................................................................................................................4-58

4.3 ALTERNATIVE A...............................................................................................................4-70

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate ..............................................................................................4-70

4.3.2 Paleontological Resources............................................................................................4-74

4.3.3 Soil Resources...............................................................................................................4-76

4.3.4 Water Resources...........................................................................................................4-86

4.3.5 Vegetation.....................................................................................................................4-98

4.3.6 Wetlands and Floodplains .........................................................................................4-108

4.3.7 Fish .............................................................................................................................4-120

 4.3.8 Birds ........................................................................................................................... 4-136

4.3.9 Mammals ....................................................................................................................4-155

4.3.10 Threatened and Endangered Species........................................................................4-177

4.3.11 Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................4-191

4.3.12 Subsistence................................................................................................................4-195

4.3.13 Sociocultural Systems...............................................................................................4-208

4.3.14 Environmental Justice..............................................................................................4-216

4.3.15 Coastal Zone Management .......................................................................................4-219

4.3.16 Recreational Resources .............................................................................................4-228

4.3.17 Visual Resources .......................................................................................................4-233

4.3.18 Economy ....................................................................................................................4-237

4.3.19 Public Health.............................................................................................................4-241

4.4 ALTERNATIVE B.............................................................................................................4-262

4.4.1 Air Quality..................................................................................................................4-262

4.4.2 Paleontological Resources..........................................................................................4-264

4.4.3 Soil Resources.............................................................................................................4-266

4.4.4 Water Resources.........................................................................................................4-272

4.4.5 Vegetation...................................................................................................................4-280

4.4.6 Wetlands and Floodplains .........................................................................................4-285

 4.4.7 Fish............................................................................................................................. 4-291 

4.4.8 Birds ...........................................................................................................................4-301

4.4.9 Mammals ....................................................................................................................4-312

 4.4.10 Threatened and Endangered Species....................................................................... 4-324

4.4.11 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................4-335

4.4.12 Subsistence...............................................................................................................4-338

4.4.13 Sociocultural Systems ..............................................................................................4-348

4.4.14 Environmental Justice.............................................................................................4-352

 4.4.15 Coastal Zone Management ....................................................................................... 4-355

4.4.16 Recreational Resources ............................................................................................4-362

4.4.17 Visual Resources ......................................................................................................4-366

4.4.18 Economy ...................................................................................................................4-373

4.4.19 Public Health............................................................................................................4-373

4-1 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.5 ALTERNATIVE C.............................................................................................................4-386

4.5.1 Air Quality..................................................................................................................4-386

4.5.2 Paleontological Resources........................................................................................4-3868

4.5.3 Soil Resources.............................................................................................................4-390

4.5.4 Water Resources.........................................................................................................4-395

4.5.5 Vegetation...................................................................................................................4-403

4.5.6 Wetlands and Floodplains .........................................................................................4-408

4.5.7 Fish .............................................................................................................................4-414

4.5.8 Birds ...........................................................................................................................4-420

4.5.9 Mammals ....................................................................................................................4-430

4.5.10 Threatened and Endangered Species.......................................................................4-439

4.5.11 Cultural Resources....................................................................................................4-450

4.5.12 Subsistence...............................................................................................................4-453

4.5.13 Sociocultural Systems ..............................................................................................4-460

4.5.14 Environmental Justice.............................................................................................4-463

4.5.15 Coastal Zone Management ......................................................................................4-466

4.5.16 Recreational Resources ............................................................................................4-474

4.5.17 Visual Resources ......................................................................................................4-479

4.5.18 Economy ...................................................................................................................4-483

4.5.19 Public Health............................................................................................................4-485

4.6 ALTERNATIVE D ..............................................................................................................4-494

4.6.1 Air Quality..................................................................................................................4-494

4.6.2 Paleontological Resources..........................................................................................4-496

4.6.3 Soil Resources.............................................................................................................4-498

4.6.4 Water Resources.........................................................................................................4-504

4.6.5 Vegetation...................................................................................................................4-513

4.6.6 Wetlands and Floodplains .........................................................................................4-518

4.6.7 Fish .............................................................................................................................4-524

4.6.8 Birds ...........................................................................................................................4-530

4.6.9 Mammals ....................................................................................................................4-542

4.6.10 Threatened and Endangered Species......................................................................4-553

4.6.11 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................4-565

4.6.12 Subsistence...............................................................................................................4-569

4.6.13 Sociocultural Systems ..............................................................................................4-580

4.6.14 Environmental Justice.............................................................................................4-585

4.6.15 Coastal Zone Management ......................................................................................4-588

4.6.16 Recreational Resources ............................................................................................4-595

4.6.17 Visual Resources ......................................................................................................4-599

4.6.18 Economy ...................................................................................................................4-604

4.6.19 Public Health............................................................................................................4-606

4.7 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS .................................................................................................4-615

4.7.1 Structure of the Cumulative Impacts Analysis ........................................................4-616

4.7.2 Activities Not Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Considered 

in the Cumulative Effects Analysis ...........................................................................4-618

4.7.3 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities Considered in the 

Cumulative Effects Analysis ......................................................................................4-626

4.7.4 Advances in Technology.............................................................................................4-664

4.7.5 Resource Protection Measures Considered in the Cumulative Effects Analysis ....4-680

4.7.6 Other Information Considered in Cumulative Effects Analysis ..............................4-682

4.7.7 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................................................4-684

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-2 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7.8 Cumulative Effects Outside of the Planning Area from the Transport of Northeast 

National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska Produced Oil.................................................4-863

4.8 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS............................................................................4-866

4.8.1 Air Quality..................................................................................................................4-866

4.8.2 Paleontological Resources..........................................................................................4-866

4.8.3 Soil Resources.............................................................................................................4-866

4.8.4 Water Resources.........................................................................................................4-867

4.8.5 Vegetation...................................................................................................................4-867

4.8.6 Wetlands and Floodplains .........................................................................................4-868

4.8.7 Fish .............................................................................................................................4-868

4.8.8 Birds ...........................................................................................................................4-869

4.8.9 Mammals ....................................................................................................................4-869

4.8.10 Threatened and Endangered Species......................................................................4-870

4.8.11 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................4-871

4.8.12 Subsistence...............................................................................................................4-871

4.8.13 Sociocultural Systems ..............................................................................................4-872

4.8.14 Environmental Justice.............................................................................................4-872

4.8.15 Coastal Zone Management ......................................................................................4-872

4.8.16 Recreation Resources ...............................................................................................4-872

4.8.17 Visual Resources ......................................................................................................4-873

4.8.18 Economy ...................................................................................................................4-873

4.8.19 Public Health............................................................................................................4-873

4.9 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES AND MAINTENANCE 

AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY........................................4-874

4.9.1 Air Quality..................................................................................................................4-874

4.9.2 Paleontological Resources..........................................................................................4-874

4.9.3 Soil Resources.............................................................................................................4-875

4.9.4 Water Resources.........................................................................................................4-875

4.9.5 Vegetation...................................................................................................................4-875

4.9.6 Wetlands and Floodplains .........................................................................................4-876

4.9.7 Fish .............................................................................................................................4-876

4.9.8 Birds ...........................................................................................................................4-876 

4.9.9 Mammals ....................................................................................................................4-877

4.9.10 Threatened and Endangered Species......................................................................4-877

4.9.11 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................4-878

4.9.12 Subsistence...............................................................................................................4-878

4.9.13 Sociocultural Systems ..............................................................................................4-879

4.9.14 Environmental Justice.............................................................................................4-879

4.9.15 Coastal Zone Management ......................................................................................4-879

4.9.16 Recreation Resources ...............................................................................................4-879

4.9.17 Visual Resources ......................................................................................................4-880

4.9.18 Economy ...................................................................................................................4-880

4.9.19 Public Health............................................................................................................4-880

4.10 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES .........4-881

4.10.1 Air Quality................................................................................................................4-881

4.10.2 Paleontological Resources........................................................................................4-881

4.10.3 Soil Resources...........................................................................................................4-881

4.10.4 Water Resources.......................................................................................................4-881

4.10.5 Vegetation.................................................................................................................4-882

4.10.6 Wetland and Floodplains .........................................................................................4-882

4.10.7 Fish ...........................................................................................................................4-882

4-3 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.10.8 Birds .........................................................................................................................4-882

4.10.9 Mammals ..................................................................................................................4-883

4.10.10 Threatened and Endangered Species....................................................................4-883

4.10.11 Cultural Resources.................................................................................................4-884

4.10.12 Subsistence.............................................................................................................4-884

4.10.13 Sociocultural Systems ............................................................................................4-884

4.10.14 Environmental Justice...........................................................................................4-885

4.10.15 Coastal Zone Management ....................................................................................4-885

4.10.16 Recreation Resources .............................................................................................4-885

4.10.17 Visual Resources ....................................................................................................4-885

4.10.18 Economy .................................................................................................................4-885

4.10.19 Public Health..........................................................................................................4-885

4.10.20 Oil and Gas Resources ...........................................................................................4-886

4.11 LOW-PROBABILITY, VERY LARGE OIL SPILL..........................................................4-887

4.11.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................4-887

4.11.2 Blowout Assumptions ..............................................................................................4-889

4.11.3 Behavior and Fate of a Blowout Oil Spill During Various Seasons.......................4-890

4.11.4 Effects of a Low-Probability, Very Large Oil Spill .................................................4-891

4.11.5 Comparison of Alternatives .....................................................................................4-906

4.12 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL OF VARIOUS 

ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION MEASURES ......................................................4-907

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-4 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

CHAPTER IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

4.1 INTRODUCTION 

This section examines how authorized activities, including oil and gas exploration and 

development and non-oil and gas activities, may impact natural, cultural, and socioeconomic 

resources in the planning area under each alternative. The analyses for each alternative 

focuses on the potential impacts that may result from opening up areas currently closed to oil 

and gas exploration and development and from implementing prescriptive or performance-based

required operating procedures (ROPs) and lease stipulations. The impacts associated with 

Alternative A incorporates by reference the discussion of the Environmental Consequences of 

the Preferred Alternative in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS (see 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS; pages 

IV.6.1 through IV.6.88) and will focus further on those potential impacts that may have changed

since the analysis was done. In that IAP/EIS, our current No Action Alternative was the 

Preferred Alternative as modified by the Record of Decision (ROD) for the 1998 Northeast 

IAP/EIS. 

Within each resource area, applicable direct and indirect impacts are evaluated. In addition, 

cumulative impacts, unavoidable adverse impacts, and other impacts assessments are provided. 

These impact descriptions can be found in the following subsections: 

• Direct impacts – Those effects that occur at the same time and in the same general

location as the activity causing the effects (see sections 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6). 

• Indirect impacts – Those effects that occur at a different time or in a different location 

than the activity to which the effects are related (see sections 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6). 

• Cumulative impacts – Those effects that result from the incremental impact of the 

action when it is added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

(see section 4.7). 

• Unavoidable adverse commitments – Those effects that could occur as a result of 

implementing any of the action alternatives. Some of these effects would be short term, 

while others could be long term (see section 4.8). 

• Relationship between the local short-term uses and maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity – Discusses the short-term effects of the 

potential use of the planning area, i.e., the effects during the period of oil exploration

and development, and the long-term effects for the indefinite future (see section 4.9). 

• Irreversible commitments – Those commitments that cannot be reversed, except

perhaps in the extreme long term (see section 4.10). 

• Irretrievable commitments – Those commitments that are lost for a period of time 

(see section 4.10). 

• Low-probability, very large oil spill – Discusses the impacts that may be associated 

with a very unlikely very large oil spill, i.e., greater or equal to 120,000 barrels (see 

section 4.11). 

A summary of the relative degree of predicted effects for each resource was provided in Chapter 

2, Table 2-3. All effects disclosed in this chapter and in Table 2-3 assume that there would be 

compliance with the direction provided by lease stipulations and ROPs identified in Chapter 2. 

4-5 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

This chapter should be read together with Chapter 2 (Alternatives), which explains the 

alternatives, and Chapter 3 (Affected Environment), which describes the important resources 

and their occurrence and status within the planning area. The analyses of environmental 

consequences in this chapter build upon and relate to information presented in these earlier 

chapters to identify which resources may be impacted and how and where impacts might occur

under each of the alternatives. The maps, tables, and figures may be particularly useful to the 

reader’s understanding of the potential impacts of each alternative upon the different resources 

that occur in the planning area. 

As noted above, each of the alternatives includes protective measures in the form of lease 

stipulations and, in the case of Alternatives B, C, and D, ROPs. The effectiveness of protective

measures is evaluated for each resource and summarized in Chapter 2, Table 2-2. There are 

also NSB, state, and Federal agency (e.g. USFWS, USEPA) regulations that govern activities in 

the planning area. For example, there are state and Federal requirements that operators must 

have approved oil spill contingency plans. There are also state regulations that prohibit the 

harassment of wildlife by use of aircraft, snowmachines, or boats (5 AAC). Finally, in this 

chapter some additional “mitigation measures,” as the term is used in BLM’s NEPA Handbook 

(p. V-20), are suggested that may further reduce impacts. These mitigation measures are not 

part of the alternatives. Rather they are suggestions of additional means to lessen impacts that 

are identified in the impact analysis in this chapter. 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 the impacts these measures may themselves create, are included to allow for public 

consideration and comment. BLM’s ROD will identify which mitigation measures identified in 

Chapter 4 BLM will adopt. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-6 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.2 BASIC ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES ASSESSMENT 

4.2.1 Ground-impacting Management Actions 

Ground-impacting management actions refer to activities managed through BLM’s regulatory 

and permitting processes. These activities could have some level of impact “on the ground” in 

the planning area. For this Supplement, ground-impacting activities have been divided into 

those associated with, and those not associated with, oil and gas exploration and development. 

4.2.1.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

This section describes activities undertaken by BLM or requiring BLM authorization that are 

not associated with oil and gas exploration and development that could occur within the

planning area, including their probable location, their anticipated frequency of occurrence, and

the time of year in which they would likely take place. The anticipated extent of some of these 

activities under each of the alternatives is summarized in Table 4.2-A. Stipulations currently

applied to BLM authorizations for non-oil and gas activities are presented in Appendix D, which 

addresses the current stipulation scheme for both oil and gas activities and non-oil and gas 

activities. These prescriptive stipulations would be retained under Alternative A (the No Action

alternative); whereas under Alternatives B-D they would be replaced by a combination of 

performance based stipulations and ROPs (see Appendices E and F). Generally speaking,

among the alternatives little or no difference is expected in the type or degree of impacts 

associated with non-oil and gas activities. 

4-7 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Table 4.2-A. Summary of Selected Non-Oil and Gas Related Management Activities1 

Activity Alternative A 

No Action Alternative 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Aircraft Use 2 

Point-to-point Regular to daily Same as Alternative A 

Wildlife aerial 21 days during June and July Same as Alternative A 

Other Aerial surveys Several 1- to 3-week periods Same as Alternative A 

Excavation and Collection 

Research/archeologic 4-6 acres disturbed Same as Alternative A 

Ground Activities 3 

Large camps4 12 weeks Same as Alternative A 

Small camps 6 to 12 weeks Same as Alternative A 

Overland moves 20 to 60 trips Same as Alternative A 

Recreation (Colville River float trip parties) 5 

Above Umiat 6 with SRPs6; 3 casual parties Same as Alternative A 

Below Umiat 8 with SRPs; 5 casual parties Same as Alternative A 

1 All estimates are for levels of annual activity. 2 This does not include use that is associated directly with oil and gas development or recreation. It also 

assumes that fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters are used and that use occurs almost exclusively in summer. 3 Camps in this category are not associated directly with oil and gas development or recreation and assumes

that all camps occur in summer. 4 Large camps are at least 15 persons and may have 5,000 gallons of fuel. Camps are likely to be located at 

Umiat, Lonely, Ivotuk, Inigok, and sites near the headwaters of the Kiligwa and Meade rivers. 5 Average of four persons per party. 6 SRPs = Special Recreation Permits (i.e., guided and regulated by the BLM). 

Aircraft Use 

Almost all aircraft activity would take place during the summer. While it is likely that aircraft 

would fly over nearly all of the planning area, some areas would receive greater use than other 

areas. Aircraft activity associated with surveying resources and monitoring human use would 

be concentrated along the Colville and Ikpikpuk rivers. Use of aircraft to complete cultural and 

paleontological surveys would most likely occur in the central portion of the planning area. 

Aerial wildlife surveys would be most common during late June and early July, over caribou 

and waterfowl habitat areas. 

Watercraft Use 

Watercraft would be allowed for summer transportation and supply. Non-recreational airboat 

use would be allowed on all streams, lakes, and estuaries. Boats and other watercraft would 

likely be used by researchers during study efforts if facilities or areas of concern were located 

near large water bodies such as the Beaufort Sea, rivers, or large, deepwater lakes. These 

activities would occur during the summer months, but the type of activities and their frequency 

and locations remain speculative because data quantifying these activities have not been 

collected for the planning area. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-8 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Excavation and Collection 

Excavating and collecting archaeological, paleontological, geologic, and soil resources occurs 

during the summer. All excavation is done using a trowel or hand shovel, is usually limited to 

areas of several square feet, and rarely extends more than 3 feet below the surface. If an 

archaeological site is studied in detail or if a geologic section is mapped, then larger areas might

be excavated. Excavations are backfilled, and in most cases the vegetative layer is replaced 

atop the excavation. Most excavation would probably occur within the primary drainages of the 

planning area. 

Ground Activities and Camps 

Ground activities include small groups of scientists hiking across tundra or recreationists 

floating down a river. Ground camps range from those with their own aircraft to those with 

only a backpack’s worth of supplies. Larger camps include a fuel bladder of up to 5,000 gallons, 

or fuel in drums, and might have as many as 15 people. Smaller parties use “fly” camps that 

are set up and moved every few days by boat, raft, or aircraft, and have nothing more than stove 

fuel. Backpack camps have even fewer supplies than fly camps and tend to move every day. 

Small camps might be located throughout the planning area. Larger camps would most likely be 

placed at the Inigok airstrip, the Lonely DEW-Line site, and the Ivotuk airstrip, with a 

temporary camp on the Kiligwa River (Map 3-44). All of these camps would have fuel facilities, 

and a fuel cache might be established at some sites even if a camp were not present. Caches of 

jet fuel, commonly created to facilitate more economical aircraft use, must be equipped with 

spill clean-up material, and a cache of more than 50 gallons must be contained within a portable 

dike. Some solid wastes can be burned on site, and all non-burnable wastes would be removed. 

Human waste at small temporary camps is disposed of as recommended in the National 

Outdoor Leadership School’s Leave No Trace, Alaskan Tundra guidelines. Use of the Inigok

airstrip and pad is likely to remain at current levels or increase slightly over the next few years 

to support Native allotment fieldwork and monitoring of species of concern. 

Solid and Hazardous Waste Removal and Remediation 

Wastes, including those considered hazardous, are associated with human activity. A phased 

approach would be used to address hazardous and solid wastes in the planning area. This 

process would include verification and site evaluation of uncontrolled releases of hazardous 

substances on public land. The process for hazardous waste removal, described below, is 

consistent with guidance and regulations from CERCLA and the National Contingency Plan. 

Initial Incident/Site Examination 

In response to a discovery that a hazardous substance has been released, or the threat of a 

release into the environment, trained personnel perform an initial incident/site examination, 

confirming the release and verifying land ownership. This inspection and verification of

discovery information potentially requires the use of helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft to move 

personnel to the site. Time spent on these activities would likely amount to 2 to 3 weeks per

field season, but would depend on the number and types of reports or discoveries. 

If the initial examination were to suspect or verify a release, a risk assessment would be 

completed to determine whether the situation posed an imminent threat to either public health 

4-9 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

or sensitive environments. If the situation warranted immediate action, an emergency response

or removal action could be initiated. 

Site Evaluation 

If the initial examination verified that the release of a reportable quantity of a hazardous 

substance (as defined in 40 CFR § 302.4) occurred, a threat existed, or a release was suspected 

but the situation did not warrant an emergency response, a site evaluation would be conducted.

The site evaluation process would be concurrent with identifying potential responsible parties. 

The responsible party, once identified, would complete, under Federal and state oversight, all 

remaining evaluative and remedial actions. 

The first step in the site evaluation is to document whether the released material is a hazardous 

substance and to identify the potential targets of impact. Collection of non-intrusive samples is 

often required. The site evaluation also determines the need for, and appropriateness of, 

removal actions and whether expanded sampling is required. Expanded sampling programs 

take approximately 2 weeks per site and often involve the use of shovels and hand augers. 

It is estimated that 20% of release sites would need additional site characterization, based on 

analytical results of the site evaluation (for example, if sensitive potential targets or impact 

pathways are identified). Advanced studies to determine the extent of contamination typically 

require 3 to 4 weeks of field time, and may involve the use of drill rigs for deep sampling or 

hydropunches and backhoes for near-surface sampling. Approximately 80% of the drilled holes 

are backfilled immediately, and the remaining borings usually become monitoring wells. The 

final recommendation of the site evaluation may call for removal of contaminated material or

other remediation measures. 

If further investigation of the site was necessary, a remedial site evaluation could be required to 

determine the relative significance of the site in terms of risk to targets. This stage would also 

identify cost-effective and efficient permanent solutions for important sites. These studies 

generally address complex situations that require long-term treatments, and are subject to the

regulatory time frames for submitting remedial reports once the process has been initiated and

the sites are published in the Federal Register. 

 Site Clean-up 

Areas that support relatively high levels of human contact and biologically sensitive areas 

would have the highest priority for contaminant removal actions. At lower priority sites, 

alternatives to removal could include in-situ treatments such as fencing the site to secure it and 

prevent contact by humans or wildlife, or capping the contaminated area with clean soil or 

gravel. 

During removal, contaminated materials would be excavated (generally no deeper than 5 feet) 

and removed for treatment and disposal, if necessary. Disturbed areas would be backfilled and 

leveled, and erosion-control measures would be engineered. Removal activities could involve 

heavy equipment, such as large and small backhoes, front-end loaders, bulldozers, dump trucks, 

pickups, and all-terrain vehicles. This type of equipment would be transported overland in 

winter, or a barge could be used if the site was accessible by water. At sites where cleanup 

could only be accomplished in summer, a gravel pad or road might be constructed for use during 

the operation to protect the underlying soil and vegetation, and then removed after project

completion. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-10 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Overland Moves and Other Land Use Permits 

BLM issues minimum impact rights-of-way for overland moves to bring supplies to villages. 

Current management policy for the planning area allows only those activities that would have a 

negligible impact on the environment. Permafrost underlies the entire planning area, and 

floodplains/wetlands cover the majority of the planning area. The poor soil conditions in the 

planning area limit BLM’s approval of most land use proposals for summer operations. Because 

of the fragile nature of thawed tundra during the summer, permit sites are restricted to durable 

areas such as gravel bars, beaches, or existing gravel pads. Vehicles allowed for use in overland 

moves would exert low ground pressure and be permitted to travel only over snow-covered

ground frozen to a sufficient depth to minimize soil and vegetation impacts. Typically, overland

moves would originate in Prudhoe Bay or Nuiqsut, and would take place exclusively on offshore

ice, if conditions allowed. If the ice were determined to be unsound, portions of the trip would 

be made overland, following the shoreline. For safety reasons, moves farther inland could also 

occur. Overland moves would typically begin in December, when there is adequate snow cover 

and the ground is frozen, and ends in early May. On a yearly basis, 20 to 60 trains of 10 to 15 

vehicles and attached sleds could engage in overland travel. The width of overland trails is 

approximately 12 feet wide. Should oil and gas exploratory drilling and development increase 

the amount of general activity on the North Slope, the number of overland moves would likely 

be closer to the high end of this range. 

BLM may issue minimum-impact permits per 43 CFR Part 2920 for a variety of uses. For 

example, the NSB is authorized to maintain a wildlife observation cabin on the north shore of 

Teshekpuk Lake, accessed by airstrip or boat and used year-round. Similar permits could be 

authorized in the planning area. 

Recreation 

BLM issues Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) to commercial recreation operators, such as 

hunting and float-trip guides, who focus their activity along the Colville River. A typical 

hunting or float trip would consist of four people, and would take place in August or the first 

week of September. A limited number of SRPs could also be associated with other types of use. 

Float-equipped aircraft could be used to take hunters to lakes or sightseers to the Colville River. 

These flights could result in camping within the planning area at a level similar to that of fly 

camps or backpack camps. 

Floating parties along the Colville River would carry enough fuel for a small stove and their 

boat engines. They would typically camp for no more than one night in any one place, and their 

camping practices and impacts would generally be consistent with those of fly camps or 

backpack camps described earlier in this section under Ground Activities and Camps. 

4.2.1.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

I. Introduction 

This section provides an estimate of the levels of petroleum-related activities and associated

surface disturbances for each alternative. It also presents the oil and gas resource estimates in 

the planning area and identifies the assumptions used to determine the type and level of 

projected oil and gas activity. The estimates and assumptions are preceded by a general 

description of the activities typically associated with oil and gas operations on the North Slope 

4-11 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

of Alaska. The petroleum-related activities described in this section are applicable in a general 

sense because the timing and location of future commercial-sized discoveries cannot be 

accurately predicted until exploration of those reserves occurs. However, it is reasonable to 

expect that new technologies and designs developed in the future will augment exploration and 

development efforts and will enhance the safety and efficiency of operations while minimizing 

the effects of oil and gas activity on the environment. 

Current state-of-the-art technologies and project designs are used to project scenarios for future 

petroleum development in the planning area. Petroleum-related activities include conducting 

seismic operations; constructing ice roads for transporting equipment and supplies for winter 

drilling of exploration wells; drilling exploration and delineation wells; constructing gravel pads, 

roads connecting production pads to main facilities, and landing strips; drilling production and 

service wells; installing pipelines; and constructing oil and gas processing facilities. Impacts 

caused by the extraction of resources for energy purposes cannot be assessed without estimating 

future activity. A fundamental assumption of these scenarios is that the level of future 

activities is directly related to the petroleum-resource potential made available for leasing and 

development. However, industry’s interest in exploring for new reserves is influenced by profit 

motives, where opportunities for new production in northern Alaska must compete with projects 

elsewhere. Consequently, future development activities and associated impacts are controlled

by several factors, including the perceptions of economic potential of the area, the areas 

available for leasing, industry’s ability to identify prospects to drill, and the competitive interest 

in exploring for new fields. 

The scenarios include activities required to develop and produce approximately 88% of the 

conventionally recoverable oil potential (also referred to as technically recoverable). Commercial

gas production may also occur, but most of its environmental manifestations (infrastructure, 

gravel footprint) will also be part of oil development scenarios. The 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS 

considered two sets of scenarios: the “first lease sale scenario” and the “multiple lease scenario.” 

Since two lease sales have occurred since 1998 in the planning area, the scenarios presented in 

this document assume multiple lease sales and full development of the estimated resources 

within the constraints of each alternative. For the purposes of this analysis it is assumed that 

current leaseholders in the planning area will adopt the oil and gas leasing stipulations outlined 

in the ROD for this Supplement, should the ROD select an alternative other than the No Action 

Alternative. 

The projection of the potential extent of future petroleum exploration and development 

activities differ from those described in the Amended IAP/EIS for the Northeast National 

Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. Revisions to statements and projections presented in the Amended

IAP/EIS were needed to address the intervening rise in the price of oil, to provide an updated

description of exploration activity in the Northeast Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), and to 

provide greater clarity to the reader as to how the projection of reasonably foreseeable oil and

gas exploration and development activities was developed. The increase in the price of oil has 

caused us to take a hard look at how this may affect future oil exploration and development and

has resulted in a significantly higher level of projected activity. 

II. Description of Typical North Slope Oil and Gas Activities 

The following description of oil exploration and development activities reflect common industry 

practice, particularly in recent years, on Alaska’s North Slope. It should be noted, however, 

that Federal, state, and local regulations, including stipulations and ROPs that may be adopted 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-12 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

through this Supplemental planning process, may limit where, when, under what conditions, 

and even if these activities may be allowed within the planning area. 

A. Petroleum Operations in Arctic Conditions 

1. Past Experience 

Oil and gas operations have been conducted in the North American Arctic for over 80 years. 

Early exploration drilling in northern Canada resulted in an oil discovery at Norman Wells in 

1920, a field that has produced intermittently since then. The undeveloped Umiat oil field, 

located in the southeastern portion of the planning area, was discovered during exploration by 

the U.S. Navy in 1946. The U.S. Navy program also discovered the South Barrow gas field, 

which began production in 1950 to supply government facilities and the community of Barrow. 

Extensive exploration in the NPR-A by the Navy, and later by the USDOI (USGS/Husky), ended 

in the early 1980s. 

Exploration efforts in the 1960s resulted in numerous oil and gas discoveries in northern Alaska

and in Canada’s Mackenzie Delta. The largest of these, the Prudhoe Bay field discovered in 

1967, has produced 13 Bbbl of oil. After the completion of TAPS in 1977, a number of oil 

discoveries on State of Alaska lands on the North Slope fed into TAPS, reaching a peak

production rate of 2.0 million barrels per day in 1988. A leasing program in the NPR-A was 

initiated by BLM in the early 1980s and resumed in 1999 after completion of the 1998 

Northeast Final IAP/EIS. The 1994 discovery, and undoubtedly the most important factor in 

the renewed interest in the planning area, is the Alpine oil field located in the Colville River 

Delta near the eastern NPR-A boundary. Oil production from the Alpine field began in 

November 2000 and was producing 115,000 barrels of oil per day (BOPD) by late 2004. 

Combined production from the original Alpine field (CD1 and CD2) and the two satellite fields 

(CD3 and CD4) is expected to peak at 135,000 BOPD in late 2007. A “satellite” is a smaller 

hydrocarbon accumulation that cannot be reached through directional drilling and which cannot

economically support separate processing facilities. Therefore, the satellite is a drill site 

production pad that flows recovered hydrocarbons to a central facility for processing. Additional 

discoveries in the Northeast NPR-A have also influenced renewed interest in further leasing of 

NPR-A lands. 

Information from decades of experience in Arctic exploration, development, and production is 

contained in a variety of government and industry reports. No attempt is made here to cite all 

the historical literature relevant to the NPR-A, but readers are directed to the excellent 

documentation in the 105 Policy Analysis Reports generated for previous NPR-A leasing 

(USDOI BLM 1979a, b, c, d); an operational history of government-sponsored exploration in the 

NPR-A (Gryc 1988, Schindler 1988); the Draft Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) 

Resource Assessment Report for technology and operational aspects of the eastern North Slope 

(USDOI 1986); the Alpine Environmental Evaluation Document, containing detailed 

descriptions of current project designs (ARCO Alaska, Inc. 1996); and the Cumulative 

Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska’s North Slope report published by the 

NRC (2003). 

2. Technology Advancement 

The following discussion is an update of the text previously provided in the 1998 Northeast 

IAP/EIS (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998) and the Amended IAP/EIS. It is important to recognize 

that numerous technological advancements have been made during the decades of operations on

the North Slope that have allowed current development activities to proceed at a lower cost and 

4-13 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

with less environmental impact than operations associated with development at Prudhoe Bay 

and other North Slope fields developed in the 1970s and 1980s. It has become apparent that 

lower levels of impact often translate into lower overall development costs. Some of these 

advancements are listed below, and others will be discussed under subsequent headings of this 

Supplement, particularly section 4.7.4. 

• Vehicles involved with seismic operations have been modified to reduce their ground

pressure, thereby extending the season for overland travel with minimal impact to the 

tundra surface. Packed snow trails allow vehicles to move supplies into remote areas. 

• Three-dimensional (3-D) seismic surveys and interactive workstations have improved

drilling efficiencies, resulting in fewer dry exploration wells, more efficient facility 

placement, and higher recovery volumes. 

• Drilling-pad footprints have been reduced over 80% from older pad designs by using 

closer wellhead spacing and by eliminating surface mud-reserve pits (tanks have 

replaced pits). 

• Winter ice roads are used instead of permanent gravel roads to move heavy equipment 

and materials to drill sites. These seasonal roads melt in the summer, leaving minimal 

impact to the tundra. 

• Ice pads are used for winter exploration drilling and airstrips. Some pads have been 

maintained over the summer, thereby decreasing the time to mobilize rigs for 

exploration drilling the following winter season. 

• Spent drilling fluids and rock cuttings are processed and injected into subsurface 

disposal wells. Current practices allow no discharge of drilling fluids or dumping of 

drilling wastes on the land surface. 

• Extended-reach drilling can tap reservoir targets miles away from the surface pad. 

Fewer drilling pads are needed to develop subsurface reservoirs, resulting in a smaller 

overall footprint for development facilities. 

• Portions of a single well bore can be used to produce from multiple lateral legs, thus 

increasing well productivity and reducing the number of surface wellheads. Fewer 

wellheads at closer spacing reduce the pad footprint. 

A generalized timetable for a typical project in a remote area of the North Slope is presented in 

Table 4.2-B. Discoveries could be announced at any time within a 10-year period (assumed 

primary lease term) following the sale. Delineation and development activities usually take 

from 3 to 6 years after discovery. Production activities continue year-round for 10 to 50 years, 

depending on field size. Field abandonment, including well plugging and site restoration, can 

take from 2 to 5 years after production ends. This general timeframe suggests that new oil

production from leases in the planning area is not expected for a minimum of 7 to 8 years 

following a lease sale. Considering the logistics of oil and gas exploration and development, 

distances between existing operations and potential future operations in the planning area, it is 

more likely that 10 years or more would pass between a lease sale and the startup of oil 

production from a newly discovered field. Since the 1999 NPR-A leases were issued, several 

discoveries of oil have been announced but have yet to be proven commercially viable. Gas 

production from planning area lease sales would not occur until many years after a 

transportation system was constructed from the North Slope. Considering the economic and 

political aspects of future project(s), gas production from the planning area could be delayed

several decades. (For an additional discussion of gas development, see subsection II.G in 

4.2.1.2.) 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-14 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

3. Logistics 

The difficult logistics faced by operations on the North Slope typically result in long delays 

between leasing and production activities. Other than the basic materials (gravel, water, and 

fuel), nearly all personnel, equipment, and supplies must be transported to the North Slope 

from elsewhere in Alaska or outside the state. Heavy equipment, such as production modules,

is usually fabricated near ports on the West Coast or in Cook Inlet and then transported

thousands of miles to the North Slope by marine barge trains (sealifts). Although this mode of 

transportation is more economical than other means, sealifts are restricted to a short period

during the ice-free summer months. The scheduling of fabrication and delivery of modules by 

sealift is critical. 

Two jet airports and a haul road (the Dalton Highway, beginning 84 miles north of Fairbanks) 

provide service to the oil-field infrastructure surrounding Prudhoe Bay. Although the airport 

and haul road are generally open year-round, the type of carrier (aircraft or truck) restricts load 

capacity, and both road and airports are frequently closed during winter storms. 

Today, the North Slope infrastructure offers a variety of supplies and service-industry support. 

However, all of the materials and supplies needed for planning area operations must move at 

least 75 miles from the westernmost road-accessible base camp in the Kuparuk River field 

located west of the Prudhoe Bay field. Overland transportation is relatively open from late 

December to early May but winter temperatures are extremely cold (sometimes -40°F or colder) 

and “whiteout” conditions are frequent. The sun is down for 2 months (late NovemberJanuary). Low-ground-pressure vehicles (Rolligons, sleds) can travel at six to eight miles per 

hour on frozen tundra. Low-ground-pressure vehicles typically transport equipment, crew 

facilities, and seismic operations. They are also used to transport drilling rigs that are able to

be disassembled into components light enough for transport by these vehicles. (Bruce St. Pierre

interview by Jim Ducker, 12/29/06). Ice roads are constructed to move very heavy equipment 

such as intact drilling rigs and production modules. Heavy equipment typically moves slowly (2 

miles per hour) on ice roads or permanent gravel roads. 

Remote base camps, which can be established for year-round use, typically consist of facilities 

housed on gravel pads, which could include existing pads at Inigok and Camp Lonely. These 

camps contain storage tanks for fuel, warehouses for supplies, housing for personnel, and 

permanent gravel airstrips capable of handling large capacity aircraft, such as the Hercules C130. Staging areas located on the coast also are designed as receiving terminals for sealifts. 

Oliktok, to the east of the planning area, has a dock. There are currently no docks in the 

planning area. The Lonely Dew-Line station, however, provides high ground which can best be 

accessed by barge at higher tides. Barges can transport heavy equipment and supplies to coastal 

staging areas during the short summer months (mid-July to late-September), and materials are 

stockpiled for operations at remote sites during the winter. In winter months, materials and 

equipment are moved by temporary roads (ice or packed snow) or by aircraft to exploratory 

drilling sites. Remoteness is a major factor that adds time and cost to operations in the 

planning area, compared to similar activities in the Prudhoe Bay area. 

Aircraft, both fixed-wing and helicopter, would provide access for oil and gas-related activities 

throughout the life of any potential oil field. This could include air support for seismic and 

exploratory drilling activity; aerial surveys and support for ground surveys of wildlife, 

archaeological, and other resources; road and pipeline route surveys; pipeline inspections; and 

4-15 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

support for other development, operations, and abandonment activities. The location, timing,

and frequency of such flights and the type of aircraft used will be influenced by the phase of oil 

exploration, development, and operations, the location of any oil discovered, the type of 

development that might occur, as well as restrictions that BLM and other regulators might 

place on the lessee or permittee. While a reliable projection of the number of flights is not 

possible, the following examples give some indication of the number of flights at different stages 

of oil and gas exploration and development: 

• Commonly at least three summer helicopter surveys for resources (archaeological, lakes,

and fish) are required for each exploratory well prior to drilling, and additional trips 

would be necessary to identify the best access routes and stream crossings. 

• In analyzing the impacts of development of five satellite production pads for Alpine, one 

of which would not be connected by a road, the BLM in 2004 projected that: 

 “non-operational” helicopter flights for such activities as environmental studies 

and monitoring and travel for important people and government agency 

personnel may result in 5,000 summer helicopter flights annually; 

 during an approximately six-year construction phase, there would be an average 

of 45 to 70 one-way operational aircraft flights per month during winter (some

months as high as 245 such flights) and 0 to 340 one-way operational flights per 

month during the summer (some months as high as 615 such flights); 

 during the drilling phase that would occur over the same number of years, there 

would be approximately 70 to 90 one-way operational flights per month during 

both summer and winter; 

 once operations began flights would average 8 to as many as 32 flights in winter 

per month and 8 to as many as 80 flights per month in summer. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-16 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Table 4.2-B. Development Timeframe for a Typical Oil Field 

Project Phase 

Duration of Activity 

(years)1 Activities 

Exploration 1 to 10 

• conduct seismic surveys to define prospects 

• conduct well-site surveys and permitting 

• drill exploration wells 

Discovery Can occur anytime during 

or after exploration 

• drill additional wells to delineation the extent of 

the hydrocarbon reservoir 

• conduct additional seismic survey (3-D) 

• construct hydrocarbon reservoir models 

• carry out baseline environmental studies, 

monitoring and survey work. 

Design & 

Permitting 

Can occur anytime during 

or after economic discovery is 

affirmed and project is

sanctioned by lessees 

• apply for permits 

• complete conceptual engineering 

• complete preliminary engineering 

• complete detailed engineering 

• obtain financial approval for project and procure

long lead time materials 

• carry out environmental studies and monitoring 

Construction and 

Transportation to 

Site 

Can occur anytime after 

Authorization for 

Expenditures is approved 

• obtain permits to construct 

• fabricate facilities 

• install roads and marine facilities to access site 

• build gravel drilling and production facility pads 

• transport materials and facilities to site 

• install piping and facilities 

• continue to carry out environmental studies and 

monitoring 

Development Normally takes 3 to 6 years 

past the initial discovery 

• obtain drilling, and operational permits 

• drill disposal wells 

• establish construction base camp 

• begin drilling development wells 

• install pipelines and pump stations 

• install production facilities and hookup 

Production 10 to 50 years postdevelopment 

• continue development-well drilling 

• ramp-up production (2 to 5 years) 

• reach peak production plateau (3 to 8 years) 

• expect production declines 

• well workovers (every 3 to 5 years) 

• conduct infill drilling (well spacing reduced) 

• employ tertiary recovery methods 

• progressively shut in wells 

• reach an economic limit 

Abandonment 

Individual wells can take 

2 to 5 years 

• plug and abandon wells 

• remove production equipment 

• dismantle facilities 

• decommission pipeline 

• restore and re-vegetate sites 

• phase out environmental monitoring 

4-17 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

B. Exploration 

1. Seismic Surveys 

Seismic survey work is an integral part of exploration for oil and gas fields. Seismic surveys are 

authorized on BLM-managed surface by approval of Notices of Intent to Conduct Geophysical 

Operations. Seismic methods can be used to generate images of the geologic variability between 

wells. These images can help complete a picture of the subsurface and enhance the ability to 

successfully identify drilling targets. 

Although seismic data has been collected in the NPR-A for decades, collection of additional 

seismic data is undertaken for several reasons: 1) to capture enhanced subsurface detail 

through closer seismic line grid spacing (grid pattern); 2) to acquire new data using advanced 

techniques for better resolution of subtle geologic features and stratigraphy; and 3) to define the 

limits of the discovered oil pool and to help design efficient development drilling programs. In 

contrast to early seismic programs that used dynamite in shot holes as the energy source, 

seismic programs overland and some over water now use vibrator equipment (Vibroseis) to 

generate energy into the subsurface. This newer technique provides high-quality data with 

minimal disturbance to the area. In aquatic settings (summer surveys), different survey 

methods could be used. 

2. Seismic Survey Methods 

Vibroseis is the standard method for acquiring seismic data on the North Slope, and only occurs 

in the winter months. The Vibroseis sound source is designed to produce a specific bandwidth of 

frequencies in a repeatable and consistent fashion. Electronics control a hydraulic system that 

transmits vibrations through a base plate on the ground. Reflected signals from the subsurface 

are recorded by arrays of receivers, called geophones, which are installed by hand on the frozen 

surface of the tundra or frozen water bodies. Vibroseis trucks are typically run in groups of four

or five, with their output signals coordinated to generate the energy necessary to record the 

seismic records to depths of 20,000 feet or more. Returning signals are gathered from the

geophone array and processed to tune the seismic data into a coherent representation of the 

subsurface geology. The Vibroseis technique works best on a hard surface, as a spongy surface 

does not transmit the output energy very well. Intervening layers (a water layer below a frozen 

lake surface, for example) degrade both the outgoing and incoming signal for Vibroseis surveys.

For these reasons, Vibroseis is not an effective tool for summer conditions on the North Slope or 

for water bodies where the surface ice layer is not frozen to the seabed or lake bottom. 

Seismic surveys also have occurred, and could continue to occur, in deeper bodies of water 

where Vibroseis surveys are not effective. Collection of seismic reflection data in aquatic areas 

(ocean, lakes, bays, and lagoons) is commonly accomplished using vessels of varying size during 

ice-free periods. Typically, one or more airguns are used as a sound source. Airguns, which are 

deployed behind the seismic vessel, generate a seismic signal by creating a sharp air bubble 

pulse in the water at intervals on the order of once every 10 seconds. Marine receivers are 

composed of piezoelectric hydrophones that are contained in long, sealed tubes. Receiver 

systems can be deployed either as “streamers” that are towed behind a vessel or “cables” that 

are laid directly on the seabed or lake bottom. Seismic streamers can be several miles in length 

and are generally used in deeper water where maneuverability is not an issue. Seismic cables 

(On-Bottom-Cables) are used in shallower water. Both receiver systems contain numerous

hydrophones that measure faint pressure signals returning from reflections in the subsurface. 

To increase sensitivity and cancel out unwanted noise, responses from groups of hydrophones 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-18

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

are summed to produce a single seismogram, thus acting as an antenna to focus faint pressure 

signals. These seismic data acquisition techniques are generally intended for imaging 

subsurface depths of several hundred feet to 6 miles. Surveys designed for shallower subsurface 

depths and higher resolution generally employ lower sound levels and shorter hydrophone 

systems, while surveys focusing on deep subsurface features employ higher sound sources

(usually airgun arrays) and longer hydrophone streamers or On-Bottom-Cables. 

Alternatively, seismic surveys have been conducted over frozen lakes using dynamite as the 

sound source. Shot holes approximately 3 inches in diameter were drilled through the ice and 

several feet into the lake bottom. Dynamite (or other explosive) charges were installed in 

boreholes, and geophone receivers were placed on the ice surface. The dynamite charges were 

then detonated, and reflected energies were recorded by the geophones. Over-ice seismic 

surveys were conducted in this fashion on Teshekpuk Lake in 1974 and 1975. The 

approximately 120 line-miles of seismic data that were collected during these surveys are the 

only seismic data available for large portions of Teshekpuk Lake. 

3. Seismic Survey Types 

Two types of seismic surveys could be used in the planning area: two-dimensional surveys (2-D

seismic) and three-dimensional surveys (3-D seismic). 2-D Surveys involve widely spaced 

survey lines and are useful for broad reconnaissance survey work and provide a cost effective 

method for initial data collection. 3-D seismic is typically gathered to improve the quality of the 

geological and geophysical description of the subsurface hydrocarbon reservoir and trap. 3-D 

seismic requires a dense grid of seismic lines to provide a more detailed image of the subsurface 

under the survey area. Seismic data is typically collected prior to drilling an exploration well. 

Although 3-D does not remove all exploration risk, it can improve success rates, aid in placing 

productive wells at optimal locations, and increase the life of a well. Similar energy sources and 

recording equipment are used for both survey types; however, the density of survey lines, the 

amount of data collected, and the overall cost of the survey are greater in 3-D surveys. The 

techniques of setting up geophone arrays and Vibroseis shot points are similar for 2-D and 3-D 

surveys; however, 3-D surveys are more efficient because the equipment does not have to be

moved far between new survey lines. Because of the extra expense, 3-D surveys are generally 

not used for reconnaissance mapping unless they are essential to map subtle stratigraphic 

prospects. Therefore, 3-D surveys are most commonly conducted for the delineation of fields, 

while 2-D surveys are more commonly conducted for reconnaissance. 

Typically, three to four seismic crews are active on the North Slope each winter; one to two 

crews could be expected to collect seismic data in the planning area in future winter seasons. 

Overland seismic surveys on the North Slope are always collected in the winter when sufficient 

snow cover and ground frost is present to minimize any damage to the tundra surface. These 

surveys employ low ground pressure vehicles (soft tracks) to further minimize potential 

impacts. While the winter operating period can be as long as 51⁄2 months (early December to

mid-May), typical seismic operations for an individual survey would last about 100 days. 

Mobile camps called “cat trains” support seismic operations and would likely originate from the 

Kuparuk oil field. Each cat train would consist of 10 (2-D surveys) to 15 (3-D surveys) vehicles, 

one or more fuel trucks and modular camp units comprising two or three strings of trailers. 

Each string would have four to eight trailers and would be pulled by a single bulldozer or lowground-pressure vehicle. Bulldozers, equipped with wide snow tracks, and modular units 

generally exert greater ground pressure than do the vehicles that run the seismic lines. Seismic 

4-19 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

survey equipment has been stored at the Inigok airstrip within the planning area and used in 

subsequent winter seismic programs. This location is preferable to the Kuparuk oil field because 

it puts the seismic trains much closer to the area of exploration interest. 

Once in the area of operation, camps typically are moved every few days to once a week. The 

fuel truck or trucks make runs back to a fuel-supply depot, such as the Inigok airfield, through 

the course of the seismic operation. These fuel runs may occur daily or every few days, 

depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the operation and weather conditions. 

Data collection operations are conducted by all-terrain, low ground-pressure vehicles (both 

wheel and articulated-track designs). Camp supplies (food, fuel) are transported to the survey 

area by both ground vehicles and fixed-wing aircraft. Fixed-wing aircraft would support seismic 

operations. The only summer activities would be reconnaissance by aircraft to prepare for 

winter surveys. It is expected that seismic crews would be active in the planning area for the 

foreseeable future. 

Following the end of each winter seismic season, each crew would store its equipment at 

approved staging areas on existing gravel pads. During summer, a repair crew would spend 2 

to 4 weeks performing annual maintenance and installing upgrades to seismic equipment. 

These activities would require aircraft support, with one to two fixed-wing and two to three

helicopter flights per week. Upon completion of maintenance work, the crew would leave the 

equipment at the staging area, and their activity would cease until the following winter. 

Maintenance operations would be self-contained and use accommodations that were part of the

seismic camp. Upon completion of the work, all wastes would be removed and disposed of at 

approved disposal sites on the North Slope. Disposal of solid wastes would take place in 

accordance with applicable rules and regulations; none of these activities would require the 

establishment of new landfill locations. No solid waste would be of disposed on site. 

4. Roads and Drilling Pads 

Exploratory drilling typically occurs during the winter when conditions facilitate tundra travel 

and ice road and ice pad construction. Ice roads would provide seasonal routes for heavy 

equipment and supplies moved to remote staging areas or well locations and are necessary for 

moving drill rigs. These temporary, seasonal roads are constructed by spreading water pumped 

from local lakes to build up a rigid surface. Construction of ice roads begins by compacting snow 

with wheeled front-end loaders and water trucks. If prepacking is authorized, it is done with 

low-ground-pressure vehicles or various tracked rigs. Typically, ice roads are designed to be a 

minimum of 6 inches thick and 25 to 35 feet wide, and can be tens of miles long. An ice-road 

construction crew can build about one mile of road per day and use approximately one million 

gallons of water per mile of road (CPAI Plan of Exploration – Cassin exploration sites, 2006). 

Water supplies must be located along the proposed route. New ice-road construction methods,

such as using aggregate chips shaved from frozen lakes, substantially decrease both water 

demands and construction time. For example, under good (very cold) conditions, an ice-roadbuildup rate using only liquid water is 1.5 inches per day, whereas using aggregate chips could 

increase the buildup rate to 4.5 inches per day, with equivalent reduction in the volume of water 

required. Similar flooding and composite (aggregate chip) methods are employed to construct ice 

bridges over rivers and lakes. Floating ice bridges are used to cross deep rivers, such as the 

Colville River. 

Snow-packed trails are also constructed and approved for use by low-ground-pressure vehicles

and can be used for moving equipment, supplies, personnel accommodations, and drill rigs 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-20 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

capable of disassembly to components small enough for transport on such vehicles. When the 

tundra is open for early compaction, two vehicles with the least amount of ground pressure 

(between 1.2 psi and 2.0 psi) are run side by side and follow GPS coordinates along the entire 

length of the approved snow trail route. After several days of snow capture along the new trail, 

these vehicles drive the route again to complete the snow compaction process and open the trail 

for use by other low-ground pressure vehicles that exert less than 4 psi of pressure to the 

ground. The trail is required to stay within one mile of the authorized route. 

Ice pads are used as platforms for drilling winter exploration wells. Ice pads are constructed 

much like ice roads, with the tundra surface flooded with water to build up progressive layers of 

ice. As with ice roads, the use of aggregate chips speeds the process while decreasing water 

demands. A typical ice pad requires about 10 days to construct and is designed to be 1- to 2-feet 

thick (possibly more depending on topography), cover 6 acres (500 ft. by 500 ft.), and require 

approximately 5,000,000 gallons of water to construct (500,000 gallons per day) (CPAI Plan of 

Exploration – Cassin exploration sites, 2006). Depending on the well site, ice pads could range 

in size from 3 to 10 acres. Water requirements vary, depending on the pad size and availability 

of aggregate chips shaved from nearby lakes. Seasonal maintenance of ice pads and roads 

requires approximately 20% of the initial volume of water required to construct the road or pad. 

5. Exploration and Delineation Wells 

It is anticipated that a maximum of eight exploration drill rigs would be available for use in the 

planning area at any one time. Drilling would be conducted entirely during the winter months 

(January to mid-April) in most portions of the planning area. Upon completion of drilling

operations, all equipment and materials would be removed over ice roads to staging areas and 

then to other locations on the North Slope, or to recycling centers out of the country. If an 

exploratory drilling program were to lead to a new field discovery, delineation of the field could 

take place over 1 to 3 drilling seasons. 

Exploration operations require movement of heavy equipment (drilling rigs and camps) and 

large amounts of materials (steel casing, drilling mud, fuel) to remote locations, which typically 

occurs on ice roads during the winter months. Approved low-ground pressure vehicles would

also be used to transport lighter equipment and personnel to construct ice pads, roads and 

airstrips via snow-packed trails. Transportation logistics must also allow for regular crew 

changes and re-supply. An exploration well crew could consist of 30 to 60 people, working 1- to 

2-week shifts, who would be transported to the site by aircraft landing on constructed ice 

runways. Large lakes (1 mile more across) could be prepared quickly as winter landing strips. 

Oil and gas companies have used, and are testing, alternative methods to manage exploration 

and production operations in areas where traditional methods would be limited or challenging 

because of distance, water availability, or terrain. For example, Phillips Alaska, Inc. obtained 

permits and successfully left a drilling rig on an insulated ice pad west of Teshekpuk Lake 

throughout the summer of 2003. This allowed the rig to drill for a longer period of time during 

the spring of 2003 and to more quickly move to a new ice pad to drill the following winter. 

Anadarko field-tested a new drilling system, the Arctic Platform, which has potential for use in 

the NPR-A, although this is unlikely due to the “pioneering” nature of this technology. The 

Arctic Platform is like an offshore platform, but is used on land. A self-contained drilling system 

and crew quarters sit atop a deck made of interlocking modules that rest on pilings set into the 

permafrost below the tundra. The platform is elevated approximately 12 feet off the tundra, 

eliminating the need for gravel or ice pads. Surface use of this technology could allow operators 

4-21 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

to perform exploration drilling outside the winter season, since ice pads would not be required. 

This technology could also allow access to remote areas, to areas where water to build ice roads 

is scarce, and to areas where steep grades make it difficult to set a rig. The Arctic Platform 

concept may have promise for exploration drilling and as a production unit. At this time, 

however, it is still in the experimental or developmental stage and, consequently, for the 

purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that this drilling system will not be used. 

Exploration wells in the northern portion of the planning area (the area of highest oil potential) 

are likely to range from 6,000 to 12,000 feet in depth. For these depths, most exploration wells 

could be drilled, logged, and tested within a single winter season. If a discovery were made, a 

second (delineation) well could be drilled from the same ice pad in a single season, depending on 

well depth and the efficiency of drilling operations. 

Modern directional drilling techniques are now routinely used to penetrate one or more small 

reservoir targets, identified by 3-D seismic, at distances of more than four miles from the 

drilling location. Application of this extended reach drilling method allows numerous 

exploration and development wells to be drilled within a radius of nearly five miles from a 

single drill pad. During the Prudhoe Bay-Kuparuk era, new drill pads, roads and pipelines 

might have been necessary to drill and develop satellite fields and the costs might have 

precluded carrying the projects forward. The identified reserves in these fields would have 

remained in the ground. 

To define the limits of reservoirs after a discovery was made, several delineation/confirmation 

wells would likely be drilled before making a commitment to project development. Additional 

delineation wells surrounding the discovery well would likely be planned for the following 

winter or two, and would require new ice pads. Because of high development project costs, two

to four successful delineation wells would likely be drilled to establish reservoir continuity over 

an area. For example, a possible field-development project consisting of two production well

pads might require a total of seven wells (one exploration and six delineation wells). 

Delineation-well drilling would be coordinated with any existing 3-D seismic surveys. 

After a well has been drilled, it may be tested for the presence of hydrocarbons. The well can be

tested using drill-stem testing equipment, where samples are collected in the wellbore, or by 

flowing fluids to the surface and through a production separator to measure the amount of oil, 

gas, and water the well can produce. If testing indicated that hydrocarbons were not present in 

commercial quantities, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. Cement plugs would be 

placed throughout the well bore to prevent migration of fluids and gases and to protect 

subsurface resources. Successful wells (discoveries) could be re-entered for use as production

wells at a later time by drilling out the cement plugs, but most exploration wells would be 

considered expendable and would not be used for later production. If commercially producible 

hydrocarbons were found, equipment and materials could be left at the site, supported on 

pilings, to reduce mobilization time the following winter drilling season. Rock cuttings from 

delineation wells could be either backhauled to existing disposal wells or processed (ground and 

treated) for subsurface disposal in the abandoned wells. Upon completion of drilling operations, 

all equipment and materials would be moved back to staging areas on ice roads. No materials or 

drilling wastes (mud and cuttings) would remain at the site. 

6. Water Demand and Rock Cuttings 

Drilling operations require large amounts of water to create drilling fluid. Drilling fluid is 

typically a preparation of water, clay, and chemicals that is circulated into a well during 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-22 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

drilling. The drilling fluid is used to lubricate and cool the bit, transport rock cuttings to the 

surface, prevent sloughing from the sides of the drill hole, and provide a weighting medium to

prevent the migration of oil and other fluids into the well. A 10,000-foot well could require 

approximately 850,000 gallons of water for drilling, in addition to approximately 100 gallons per 

day for each person in the drilling crew (for camp use). Approximately 30 to 60 people would be 

needed to operate a drilling rig. Over a 3 to 4 month drilling season, a one-well drilling 

operation could require a total of 1,650,000 gallons of water, which would be obtained (if 

possible) from a source close to the well site. The use of melted snow could supplement this 

water requirement. Estimated water requirements are much lower for development wells, 

because 50% or more of the drilling mud would be reconditioned and reused. 

A typical 10,000-foot well could use 630 tons of drilling mud and produce 820 tons of rock 

cuttings. If an exploratory well were to be abandoned, drilling mud and cuttings could be reinjected into an appropriate formation through the borehole. If the well were to be converted to 

production, it would be temporarily shut in, and the operator would dispose of drilling mud and 

cuttings at an approved grind and inject facility. No liquid or solid waste would be disposed of 

on site. 

7. Effects of Shortened Winter Season 

An important concern pertaining to oil and gas operations on the North Slope is that the winter 

drilling season has been reduced from 208 days in 1970 to 103 days in 2003 as a result of rising 

global temperature (ACIA, 2004). Because at least 120 days are needed to effectively conduct 

projects, the shortened seasons result in the need for more drilling seasons, causing projects to

take longer to complete. As a result, projects have become more costly in an area already 

constrained by the high costs of finding and developing oil and gas resources. Because of the 

shortened season, a growing proportion of the available drilling season is used to build roads, 

and there is less time to drill wells. Seismic operations are also constrained because shorter 

seasons reduce the amount of data that can be obtained. 

Industry has sought to overcome the shortened winter season through technological innovation. 

The greater use of low-ground-pressure vehicles and of drilling rigs that can be disassembled 

into components light enough to be transported on these vehicles have played a role in

increasing industry’s capabilities despite the shorter winter season. The Arctic Platform 

described earlier also was designed in part to counter the limitations caused by the shorter 

drilling season. 

C. Discovery and Development 

Field delineation and development activities for any particular prospect could take from 4 to 10 

years prior to production startup. Production activities would last between 10 and 50 years, 

depending on the size of the field. Abandonment activities, including well sealing and site 

restoration, could last 2 to 5 years after the end of production. This representative time frame 

suggests that new oil production would not be expected for at least 5 years following the lease 

sale, and it is more likely that 8 to 12 years would elapse before production from leases sold in

the next planning area sale would begin. The discovery and development of commercial fields is 

likely to be staggered over a 10-year period, and petroleum activities could continue for decades 

after a lease sale. 

After a commercial discovery of oil and gas has been confirmed by delineation wells and seismic 

surveys, a number of construction activities are required to develop a permanent production 

4-23 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

operation. A production operation complex would, at a minimum contain a Central Production

Facility and production well pad that could potentially support dozens of wells and contain a 

large production processing facility, an airstrip, camp facilities, and storage yard. An oil-sale 

pipeline to transport the oil from the area would also be required. Depending on the size of the 

field or the presence of nearby fields, the production operation complex may also include 

outlying production pads. These smaller production pads would serve primarily as well pads. A 

gathering system to the Central Production Facility (CPF) and roads or in some cases an 

airstrip instead of a road would be needed to these satellite pads. Figure 4-1 shows a 

reasonable hypothetical layout for a CPF with five satellite fields. Table 4.2-C shows the 

estimated area of surface disturbance and amount of gravel needed for oil and gas facilities for 

Figure 4-1. While some satellites, such as two proposed by ConocoPhillips (CD-6 and CD-7), 

could connect by gravel road to the existing Alpine CPF, we anticipate that development in the 

planning area would generally not connect by road to areas outside of NPR-A. Winter ice roads 

or packed snow trails would be used to move heavy equipment and materials from other North 

Slope oil fields, rather than a permanent gravel road. Fixed-wing aircraft could transport light 

loads, such as camp supplies and crew changes. 

Development and operation of oil facilities in the planning area may require access across the 

tundra, off pads or gravel or ice roads. Such access could be necessary to respond to spills or 

other emergencies; conduct training to respond to potential spills; conduct pipeline inspection, 

maintenance, and repair; facilitate ice road construction; or transport equipment and supplies 

to oil developments not connected to the interconnected North Slope gravel road network.

Vehicles would conduct these activities from the nearest production or processing facility pads 

or gravel or ice roads (USDOI BLM, 2004b). 

1. Staging Areas 

Staging areas are used to support exploration, development, and abandonment activities. All 

materials and equipment necessary to develop a new field must be stockpiled, moved, and 

assembled in remote portions of the planning area, subject to seasonal constraints for 

transportation. Consequently, staging areas are very important components to development.

Ideally, a staging area contains buildings for warehouses and crew quarters, gravel pads for 

stockpiling materials, and a serviceable airstrip. Depending on where development occurs, it

may also be necessary to develop a staging area on the coast. This would include a causeway or 

dock for loading materials and equipment transported by barges. For purposes of this 

Supplement to the Amended IAP/EIS, it is assumed that each staging area would be

approximately 50 acres. 

Considering the expense to establish a new staging area in a remote site, it may be more costeffective to reoccupy existing sites, even if some refurbishing is necessary, as was done on 

private land on the Simpson Peninsula for the 2006 FEX, Inc. winter exploration operations in 

Northwest NPR-A. Camp Lonely, BLM-administered lands (Cook Inlet Region Incorporated

[CIRI] lease site and the DEW-Line site), Inigok, and Umiat have also been used as major

staging areas for past NPR-A operations. The DEW-Line site at Camp Lonely is a U.S. Air 

Force inactive right-of-way. The radar at the site has been removed and no future Air Force 

missions will originate from there. The site may be acquired by the NSB with the potential for 

it to be used as a logistic camp for future oil-related activities. 

Development of staging areas would occur in winter prior to the start of development activities. 

The number of barges required in each sealift to support development activities would be up to 

30 barges per year. Modules and equipment would be offloaded from barges in 3 to 5 days and 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-24 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

stored on the staging area pad until winter. They would be transported by ice road or snowpacked trail during the winter to the CPF sites. Individual modules could be 20 to 30 feet in 

height. Each CPF would likely require one or two large sealifts (1 year apart), depending on its 

size. Modules would eventually become the site’s energy generation, operations, and housing 

facilities complex. 

It is likely that the first development operations in the planning area initially would be staged 

out of existing facilities at the Greater Prudhoe Bay Unit or Kuparuk River Unit. Both of these 

base camps have all-season airports, are connected by road systems, and have marine loading 

sites (West Dock and Oliktok Point). Materials and equipment likely would be moved to staging 

areas within the planning area using marine transport in the summer months and/or by trucks

or low-pressure vehicles over ice roads/snow-packed trails in the winter months. Aircraft would 

access remote sites at all times of the year; however, air traffic would be restricted by low clouds 

and fog in the summer and by storms with whiteout conditions in the winter. 

After the tundra is sufficiently frozen and BLM has authorized tundra travel, ice roads would

be constructed to remote development sites. Equipment may, with BLM approval, be 

transported via snow-packed trails. Earth-moving equipment may then move gravel to the site 

to establish a construction camp and perhaps a year-round airstrip. Later, drilling equipment 

and supplies would be moved to the site over ice roads/snow-packed trails. Production 

equipment (modules) and pipeline-construction materials would be moved during the final 

stages of development. The overall development phase, from construction of a staging area and

remote base camp to production startup, could take 3 to 7 years, depending on the size and

location of the new field. 

2. Gravel Requirements 

Much of the initial work for a new project would involve the construction of gravel pads for 

wellheads, production and support facilities, roads, and an airstrip. The development area must 

be level, stable, and elevated above the wet tundra surface. Because the tundra surface is 

unstable and subject to flooding in summer and ice-jacking forces in winter, pad surfaces are 

designed to be at least 5 feet above the tundra surface. 

Gravel is the preferred material for pad construction. Gravel borrow pits are relatively common 

east of the Colville River, but gravel is a scarce commodity in the planning area. A variety of 

alternate strategies could be adopted, including the following: 

• Extracting gravel from existing mine sites east of the Colville River; 

• Developing new sand and gravel mine sites within the planning area; 

• Barging gravel to coastal staging areas; 

• Processing bedrock for construction materials; 

• Designing alternatives (year-round ice pads; composite all-season pads); and 

• Reusing gravel from previous drillsites. 

Project plans for new field development in the planning area would depend largely on sitespecific conditions and the site location relative to sources of gravel materials. 

For permanent production facilities, the preferred pad design is one made up entirely of gravel. 

However, composite pads are a proven alternative. An all-gravel pad rising 5 feet or more above 

a wet tundra surface requires 8,000 to 12,000 cubic yards (yd3) per acre of surface footprint 

(Table 4.2-C). Gravel roads (typically 46-82 feet wide measured at the bottom; with 2:1 slopes) 

4-25 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

cover approximately 7.75 acres per mile and require approximately 41,000 yd3 of gravel per 

mile. Airstrips (typically 100 feet wide and 5,000 feet long) cover approximately 11 acres and 

could require 110,000 yd3 of gravel. The airstrip could also have an apron and taxiway that 

could cover another 5 to 8 acres (Alpine Satellite Development Plan EIS, 2004; CPAI Alpine 

Satellite Development Plan, 2002). 

Table 4.2-C. Estimated Area of Surface Disturbance and Amount of Gravel Needed 

for Oil and Gas Facilities 

Facility/Disturbance 

Number of 

Facilities/Miles/ 

Acres 

Total Amount of 

Impact 

Basic Development Complex of 1 CPF and 5 production pads with connecting roads 

Central production facilities (1 pad, road,

airstrip1

) 1 100 acres 

Production pad (10 acres each) 5 50 acres 

Roads to satellite fields (7.5 acres per mile)2 50 miles 376 acres 

Vertical support members (VSMs;150 per mile) 3 50 miles <1 acre 

Total acres N/A 526 acres 

Gravel Consumption for Basic Development Complex 

Central production facility (10,000 cubic yards per acre) 100 acres 1 million cubic 

yards 

5 Production pads (10,000 cubic yards per acre) 50 acres 500,000 cubic yards 

Roads (41,000 cubic yards per mile) 50 miles 2.1 million cubic 

yards 

Total gravel consumption 3.6 million cubic 

yards 

Estimated gravel pits 1- several 100 acres 

Potential Additional Infrastructure/Gravel Consumption 

Staging area (50 acres) 4 1 500,000 cubic yards 

Seawater treatment plant (10 acres)5 1 100,000 cubic yards 

Ice roads (10 miles per satellite pad)6 50 miles 50,000,000 gallons 

1 An airstrip would comprise about 11 acres of a CPF’s total. 

2

Assumes that there are 10 miles between each production pad . 

3 A 3-mile in-field pipeline for Alpine has 450 VSMs. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District, Permit 

Evaluation and Decision Document, Alpine Development Project, Colville River 18 (2-960874), p. 3 (February

13, 1998). 

4 If a new development is too far from an existing gravel pad, it may be necessary to build a staging pad. This 

would add 50 acres to the gravel footprint and 10 acres to the area disturbed by gravel pits. 

5If a new development occurs in the northwestern part of the planning area, it may be necessary to develop a

seawater treatment plant on the coast, rather than depend solely on existing facilities. 

6 Assumes that 10 miles of ice roads are constructed for each production pad and that ice roads are 

constructed annually for 5 years. Sources: USDOI BLM and MMS (1998, 2003) and USDOI BLM (2004). 

Site-specific conditions would dictate the facility requirements and consequent footprint size of

new discoveries in the planning area. Small developments with a single production pad and an 

airstrip could have a footprint of approximately 50 acres. Large developments with multiple 

pads connected by service roads could have footprints of 200 acres or more. For purposes of this 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-26 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

analysis, it is assumed that a typical development complex would have a footprint of 526 acres. 

The average gravel requirement for the assumed, typical “complex” is approximately 5.4 million 

yd3, or about 10,000 yd3 per acre of footprint. 

Several types of gravel pads have been used in the planning area. Gravel requirements are

reduced substantially by composite pad designs in which the lower portions of pads are built 

using blended (geotextured) mixtures of sand and silt. This lower lift is overlain by rigid foam 

(Styrofoam) insulation boards and then covered by a layer (2 feet thick) of clean gravel. 

Surficial deposits used to form the lower section of a pad are available throughout the planning 

area, and could be extracted and blended during winter months from borrow areas near the

development site. Use of such a design could reduce the overall gravel requirement by 33 to 

50%, as compared to use of all-gravel pad designs. 

Gravel used for developments in the eastern portion of the planning area could be extracted

from existing or to-be-discovered borrow sites and then transported to the development sites by 

trucks over winter ice roads. The proposed Clover A Mine Site is located in the NPR-A,

approximately 10.8 mi southwest of the Alpine Oilfield. The mine site is still in the planning 

stages as part of the Alpine Satellite Development Project. Preliminary characterization of the 

material source has been done, but no development has yet occurred in the area. Boreholes 

drilled in 2001 and 2002 by CPAI confirmed the presence of suitable sand and gravel materials 

within the proposed mine site limits. Additional geotechnical exploration performed to the

north and east of the proposed site in the winter of 2004 indicated that the deposits of suitable 

sand and gravel material are localized and the proposed site appears to offer the greatest 

concentration of these deposits in the local vicinity (Alpine Satellite Development Plan EIS – 

Appendix O, 2004). 

For more distant sites in the central and western portion of the planning area, gravel could be 

mined from existing borrow pits, barged to coastal staging areas, and stockpiled for later 

transport by trucks over winter ice roads or snow-packed trails. Sand and gravel could also be 

extracted from new sites within the planning area. 

4-27 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

 Figure 4-1. Hypothetical Layout for a CPF with Five Satellite Fields. 

Previous investigations have identified undeveloped gravel sources in the planning area. It is 

possible that numerous gravel production sites would be needed. For each new site, overburden 

removal and sand/gravel mining could impact areas of 20 to 50 acres or more, depending on the 

thickness and extent of the deposit and amount of material extracted. Between 1988 and 2001, 

approximately 544 acres of North Slope oil field roads and pads were developed from 104 acres 

of gravel pits and 19 acres of river gravel removal (NRC, 2003). For this Supplemental IAP/EIS 

analysis, an assumption was made that approximately one acre would be disturbed for gravel 

removal to meet the gravel needs for five acres of oil and gas development (e.g., a 10-acre gravel 

satellite pad would result in two acres of borrow pit disturbance. 

Few gravel sources exist for sites in the southern part of the planning area. Surficial gravel 

sources are rare outside river corridors, so it is likely that alternative materials would be 

considered. Bedrock outcrops could be blasted and then crushed and blended with sand to make 

up suitable construction material. Unconsolidated sand and gravel deposits are available in 

river systems, but restrictions on their extraction are likely. Gravel trucked on long ice roads 

would add substantially to the cost of developments in the southern portion of the planning 

area. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-28

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

3. Development and Production Well Drilling 

The number of production wells is determined by the unique characteristics of the oil reservoir,

such as thickness, permeability, lateral continuity, oil qualities, and, most importantly, the 

reservoir recover mechanism. Well drainage areas vary, but generally do not exceed 640 acres 

for gas and 160 acres for oil. Thicker, high-quality reservoirs with high pressure tend to have 

larger well-drainage areas. Thinner or more laterally discontinuous reservoirs with viscous oil 

and/or low permeability typically require closer well spacing to achieve effective subsurface 

drainage. However, horizontal wells with long lateral sections drilled in the reservoir can 

replace several closely spaced vertical wells. 

Virtually all North Slope wells are now drilled using horizontal drilling; a method where the 

well bore penetrates thousands of feet of reservoir strata horizontally and by doing so increases

the reservoir volume exposed to the borehole and production tubing. Production is more efficient

and thus less costly. Later in the life cycle of a field, well spacing typically is reduced by infill 

drilling in the attempt to capture more oil reserves as the pressure in the reservoir is depleted. 

In addition to production wells, other wells are drilled to inject water or gas into the field to 

maximize oil recovery. These wells generally are referred to as service (or injection) wells. 

Numerous injection wells are required for waterflood programs, which are used routinely 

throughout the production cycle to maintain reservoir pressure. The proportion of producer to

service wells can vary for each field, but a typical ratio of producers to service wells is 2:1 (i.e.,

one-third of the total number of wells are non-producing service wells). 

Multiple pads producing from one reservoir are generally most efficiently spaced at distances of 

approximately twice the reservoir depth due to the limitations of directional drilling (Alaska 

DNR, Division of Oil and Gas, Nenana Basin Oil and Gas Exploration License, 2002). Therefore, 

a reservoir at 8,000 feet requiring two production pads would normally have pads located about 

3 miles apart. Assuming an 8,000-foot step-out radius, approximately 4,600 acres (7.2 square 

miles) could be drained from each pad. If each oil well had a subsurface drainage area of 160 

acres, each production pad would hold 29 producer wells and 15 service wells, for a total of 44 

wellheads. Extra pad space could be allocated for additional infill production wells. This 

scenario would be typical should multiple pads be required to maximize production from one

reservoir in the planning area. 

The time required to drill and complete a production well largely depends on the drilled (or 

measured) depth of the well. On the North Slope, it normally takes approximately 20 to 30 days 

to drill and complete a 10,000-foot well, which equates to approximately 10 to 12 wells per rig in 

a 12-month period. Safety considerations normally restrict operations to one rig drilling on each 

pad at a time. Using the above example, initial reservoir development drilling operations would 

take 3 to 4 years to complete. Seasonal restrictions on drilling operations and transportation 

capacity would increase the overall time to fully develop a field. 

Another key consideration is the pressure regime and flow dynamics of oil reservoirs. Once 

production begins, reservoir dynamics must be carefully managed to optimize oil recovery. 

Discontinuous production is not an advisable engineering (or economic) practice for oil fields. In 

addition to lost production, a well may not produce as strongly when brought back on line due to

wellbore and/or reservoir damage. A typical shut-in well would require well stimulation which 

includes the use of chemically modified acids to dissolve many types of scale build up (inorganic 

mineral deposits). There are also surface facilities concerns such as corrosion and solids 

(contaminants) buildup within process equipment, deterioration of electrical equipment and 

4-29 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

instrumentation, and added costs of facility reactivation. Therefore, ensuring adequate 

production rates is a factor in well location selection and the timing of drilling activities. 

4. Drilling Mud and Rock Cuttings 

Drilling operations for each development well require large amounts of drilling mud and 

produce large quantities of rock cuttings. The estimates provided for exploration/delineation 

wells would apply to development wells of equivalent depths. Based on the design and

experience of recent North Slope drilling operations, we anticipate zero surface discharge of 

wastes in the planning area. Generally, dedicated disposal wells (e.g., approved Class II grind 

and inject facilities) are used for injection of excess drilling wastes, although it is possible to 

inject wastes into shallow zones of production wells while allowing oil production from deeper 

zones. Up to 80% of the drilling mud may be reconditioned and reused, reducing the costs of 

both materials and disposal. 

Generally, all wastewater, spent fluids, and chemicals would be disposed of in injection wells 

approved by the USEPA or ADEC, depending upon waste characterization. Solid, non-burnable 

waste would be deposited in large dumpsters or other suitable containers located at each site. 

These containers would be back-hauled to approved offsite landfills (e.g., NSB landfill at 

Prudhoe Bay) or taken to an approved incinerator (e.g., the Kuparuk incinerator at the main 

CPF-1 camp). Normal practices do not allow onsite burial of solid wastes. 

5. Water Demand 

Water is needed for drilling and camp use. Drilling water demand is estimated to be 21,000 to 

63,000 gallons per day, or 850,000 or more gallons per well. Water demand is estimated to be 

100 gallons per day per person. Potable water demand would drop after 2 to 4 drilling seasons, 

when the major construction phase would be finished. Approximately 160 persons would be on 

site during the production and development phases for each CPF and four to six satellite fields 

(S. Rothwell, ConocoPhillips, pers. Comm.). Drilling-water demand over the 20-year production 

life of the field (largely for workover operations and infill drilling) would likely be less than the 

21,000 gallons per day estimated above. 

D. Production 

1. Production Facilities 

A CPF would serve as the operational center for long-term production activities in a North

Slope oil field. In addition to oil-production equipment, the CPF typically includes living 

quarters and offices, maintenance shops, storage tanks for fuel and water, power generators, 

waste-treatment units, a communications center, and compressors for gas and water reinjection.

For most North Slope projects, many components of the CPF are constructed as transportable 

modules in offsite locations, perhaps outside Alaska, barged to the North Slope, then moved

over gravel roads or winter ice roads to the field and assembled. All buildings are supported

above the ground on pilings to accommodate ground settling or frost heaving. An airstrip 

usually is located near the CPF to allow transport of supplies and personnel to the field site. 

The CPF typically is located on the largest and most central, or initial, development pad. 

Equipment at the CPF is used to separate the materials that are produced from the wells (oil, 

natural gas, and water) on the pad. The CPF would likely process produced oil and gas from 

smaller, outlying satellite pads as well. Produced oil is filtered (to remove sand) and processed 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-30 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

(to remove water and gas) before being piped through a sales meter and into the sales-oil 

pipeline system. Gas is processed (to remove liquids and impurities), pressurized (compressed), 

and re-injected into the reservoir through gas injection wells. Likewise, water is processed 

(chemically treated) and then re-injected into the reservoir for pressure maintenance. 

Re-injection of produced gas and water helps maintain reservoir energy, and improve 

hydrocarbon recovery efficiency by sweeping oil towards the production wells, increasing the 

ultimate oil recovery. On the North Slope, gas and water injection wells are needed at the start 

of production operations, because there is no gas sales line, so the gas must be re-injected into

the reservoir, and water disposal is not allowed at the surface, therefore it must be disposed via 

deep well injection. 

2. Production Rates 

Because development well drilling occurs over several years, the production profile for a field is 

much broader than for any individual well within a field. Initial production usually occurs when 

sufficient volumes of oil or gas are achieved to effectively operate conditioning equipment. The

production profile would typically increase to peak production volumes as additional 

development wells are drilled and completed. Production rates typically peak after several 

years, and may remain at this level for many years, depending on production handling design, 

future satellite field discoveries, reservoir and well performance, and other factors. Production 

rates would ultimately taper off from a single field as the reservoir pressure is depleted and the

recoverable oil is produced. 

3. Waterflooding 

During production, waterflooding would constitute the major water demand. Waterflooding is a

key secondary production practice that can substantially increase oil recovery. Injecting water 

into selected areas of the reservoir maintains subsurface pressure and promotes fluid flow to the 

production wells. To maintain reservoir pressure, the volume of oil withdrawn from the 

reservoir must be replaced with an equivalent or greater volume of water. Therefore, pressure

maintenance requires large quantities of water. For example, a field with a daily production 

rate of 50,000 bbl of oil would require approximately 2 million gallons per day of water (1 bbl = 

42 gallons) for balanced waterflooding, given that some volumetric allowances must be made for 

each fluid under subsurface conditions. At this example production rate, a waterflood program 

would require approximately 760 million gallons (2,352 acre-feet) of water each year. 

To meet waterflood demands, potential sources of water could include nearby deep lakes.

Normally, there are restrictions to withdrawals from surface water sources that are vital to fish 

and waterfowl. Water wells could also be drilled below the permafrost layer (up to 1,500 feet 

thick) and water pumped from subsurface aquifers, but this practice is costly. 

If local freshwater sources are inadequate to meet the demands of waterflood programs, 

seawater is used. Seawater supplies are virtually unlimited, and unlike freshwater, which 

must be treated so that it is chemically compatible with the formation into which it is injected, 

seawater is reasonably compatible (similar chemically) to the brines present in most petroleum 

reservoirs. Waterflood systems may include a seawater-intake and treatment plant located on

the coast and an insulated pipeline from the seawater plant to service wells in the field. 

Waterflood programs using seawater are initiated from the onset of production for most North

Slope oil fields. As the oil field is produced, the volumes of formation water recovered with oil 

(water cut) increases. In time (5 to 7 years), injection water demands are met by produced 

4-31 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

formation water, and the seawater-waterflood system is shut down. Seawater from the 

treatment plant can then be used for the next field’s waterflood program. 

New oil fields in the northeastern portion of the planning area might receive seawater for 

waterflooding programs from existing facilities that currently serve fields in the Prudhoe Bay 

and Kuparuk River Unit areas but it is possible that a new seawater treatment facility may be 

needed. Seawater pipelines would be installed on vertical support member (VSM) pipeline

supports that would also hold sales-oil and service pipelines. For areas farther to the west, 

seawater intake and treatment plants would likely be fabricated on barges and moved into 

temporary locations along the coast. Because the ability to incorporate waterflooding as a 

reservoir management strategy greatly improves recovery efficiency, the economics of fields

discovered near the coastline could be improved due to the proximity of available seawater. 

However, the value of increased oil recovery would be balanced against the increased costs of 

seawater-treatment facilities and temporary overland pipelines. With increasing distances 

inland, expensive heat generators and pump stations could be required to deliver treated 

seawater to remote fields in the severely cold winter temperatures of the North Slope. Small or 

very remote fields may not be able to justify the costs of startup waterflood programs and would 

rely entirely on later waterflooding using produced formation water. 

4. Miscible Injection 

In addition to waterflooding, miscible fluid injection is used to increase the recovery of oil and

maintain pressure in the reservoir. Miscible injection involves the injection of various types of 

gases (generally under high-pressure conditions) into the reservoir. The injected gases can 

include liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), methane, hydrocarbon gas mixtures, nitrogen, and CO2. 

Hydrocarbon gases are primarily used on the North Slope because they are produced along with 

conventional oil and therefore readily available. Lack of markets makes re-injection the best 

use and conservation of the commodity, since a portion of the re-injected gas would be available 

for future production and sales. Miscible injection is most commonly referred to as Enhanced 

Oil Recovery (EOR). Miscible injectant may also be injected alternating with water in a single 

injection well (water-alternating-gas injection or WAG). 

E. Abandonment 

At some time in the life cycle of a field, the revenue from production is insufficient to justify the 

expenses of operation. The end of economic life occurs before all of the recoverable oil is 

extracted from the reservoir. The factors leading to a decision to abandon a field could differ for 

each field, but declining production rates and oil price are usually the two key considerations. 

Wells are plugged and abandoned as the field matures. Abandonment operations generally 

include removing all equipment, plugging all wells, restoring the site, cutting well casing at 

least 3 feet below the surface, and conducting final environmental studies. Gravel and 

gravel/sand pads may or may not be removed, depending on such factors as the impacts of 

removal, future use values, and the need to recycle and re-use gravel for ongoing projects.

Reclaimed or abandoned pad sites may be revegetated with native species, or revegetated with 

species that would ultimately be replaced by native vegetation or allowed to bed naturally. 

Abandonment operations could take place over many years, as revegetation and environmental 

monitoring studies would continue to document the long-term effects of past operations at a 

particular site. A series of permitting and inspection activities would be associated with oil field

abandonment, and would involve visiting the site as needed until satisfactory revegetation 

occurred. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-32 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

BLM’s overall restoration goal for the NPR-A after oil production ceases is to return it to its 

previous condition and use, which largely includes fish and wildlife habitat. Abandonment and 

reclamation activities within NPR-A are governed by 43 CFR Part 3160, subpart 3162, which 

requires lessees to reclaim the land in accordance with plans approved by BLM (43 CFR §§ 

3162.3-4 and 3162.5-1). Additionally, under all alternatives lease stipulations require the lessee, 

upon conclusion of operations, to remove facilities and rehabilitate the land (Lease Stipulation 

58 under Alternative A; Lease Stipulation G-1 under Alternatives B, C and D). All costs 

associated with abandonment and reclamation are the responsibility of the lessee. BLM 

regulations require NPR-A lessees to provide financial assurance, in the form of bonds, to 

assure compliance with all lease terms, including abandonment and reclamation provisions (43 

CFR Part 3130, subpart 3134). 

F. Transportation 

1. Regional Oil Transportation 

A regional oil-transportation system for the North Slope oil fields was established in 1977 upon 

completion of the TAPS. Oil is transported some 800 miles through a 48-inch pipeline to the icefree port of Valdez, Alaska. From the storage and marine loading terminal at Valdez, oil is 

loaded onto tankers and transported to U.S. and foreign markets. 

The throughput capacity of the TAPS pipeline is a vital factor to North Slope development. The 

maximum daily throughput capacity of TAPS is slightly over 2.0 million barrels (MMbbl) per 

day (achieved in 1988). Currently, TAPS throughput is about 800,000 bbl per day (Alyeska 

Pipeline 2006). The minimum throughput for a viable TAPS operation has been widely debated 

by government and industry. The common perception is that a minimum throughput of 

between 300,000 and 500,000 bbl/day represents a realistic mechanical and economic limit to 

operation. When this minimum throughput rate would be reached is also speculative, because 

it is difficult to accurately predict the size and timing of new oil field development on the North 

Slope. However, based on the declining production trends of existing North Slope fields, and

assuming no changes to economic conditions or discovery of major new oil fields, the operational 

limits of TAPS could be reached within the next 20 years. Industry is well aware of this future 

problem, and aggressive efforts are underway by North Slope producers to reverse the

production decline trend by exploring for new fields and using innovative methods to develop

marginal fields. Renewed industry interest in the planning area is an important strategy to 

maintain the throughput of TAPS within acceptable limits. Without this vital transportation 

system, continued production from the North Slope is unlikely. All NPR-A development 

scenarios assume that TAPS would continue to operate and carry North Slope oil production. 

2. North Slope Pipelines 

The central portion of the North Slope contains numerous oil fields connected by pipeline 

gathering systems to TAPS Pump Station Number 1 (Map 3-2). Because of its location, most 

new oil development projects in the NPR-A would use the main line between the Kuparuk River

Unit and TAPS Pump Station Number 1. The 24-inch Kuparuk River Unit (KRU) pipeline has a 

capacity of approximately 350,000 bbl/day. Excess pipeline capacity could be used by newly 

developed fields as large fields feeding this pipeline such as Kuparuk and Milne Point decline in 

production. For the purposes of analysis in this Supplement to the Amended IAP/EIS, it is 

assumed that if development occurred in the planning area a new pipeline would be constructed 

from the planning area to the Alpine oil field, and would then connect to the Kuparuk River 

4-33 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Unit. This pipeline would likely follow existing pipeline or road right-of-ways and would result 

in little new surface disturbance (see Table 4.2-G). 

Oil production from satellite fields, in addition to water handling and gas re-injection 

capabilities at the Alpine oil field production facility, have the potential to affect the timing of 

development of future discoveries in the NPR-A should a new pipeline following the Alpine to 

KRU right-of-way not be built. Originally, peak oil production at the Alpine field was expected

to last for 3 to 5 years after startup (Nov. 2000), with production rates declining to about half of 

peak rate in 15 years. Recent developments and future development of current proposals at 

Alpine field satellite fields will delay the originally anticipated production decline. 

ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. has completed two of three phases to increase the handling capacity 

of the production facilities at the Alpine field to 140,000 BOPD (CPAI Annual Report, 2005), but 

has not announced a proposal to increase the pipeline carrying capacity from the Alpine field to

the Kuparuk River Unit pipeline. Consequently, the initial production from NPR-A discoveries 

may be delayed after discovery unless additional pipeline capacity is added to the existing 

Alpine oil field. 

3. Future National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska Pipelines 

The actual locations of new pipelines in the planning area would depend on the location and

sequence of commercial-sized discoveries. At present, there is no reliable way of predicting 

where or when new commercial fields would be discovered and developed. Fields developed 

early in the future development cycle could establish the first pipeline corridors connecting new

planning area fields to existing infrastructure east of the Colville River. Fields developed later 

in the cycle would be likely to use the existing pipelines, should capacity be available. If large

fields were discovered late in the exploration sequence, new sales-oil pipelines could be built. It 

is possible that commercial-sized fields discovered by different companies would be shut in (i.e.,

not produced) until an agreement was reached to share the costs of constructing a pipeline 

system through the planning area. 

The diameters and lengths of new pipelines in the planning area would depend on the 

characteristics of new fields (undiscovered at present) and the resource-development scenarios 

for each leasing alternative (Figure 4-1). Generally, infield pipelines (flowlines) carry multiphase slurries (oil, gas, water) from wellhead manifolds to CPFs. Return lines containing gas or 

water would carry these substances back to injection wells on production pads. Infield flowlines 

would be relatively small in diameter (4 to 10 inches). Somewhat larger sales-oil pipelines (12 

to 16 inches) would carry metered sales-quality oil from individual fields to a centrally located 

main line (16 to 20 inches). This main pipeline would then connect several producing fields to 

the Kuparuk River Unit pipeline (24 inches) and then on to TAPS (48 inches). 

Based solely on geologic play potential, Figure 4-2 represents speculative pipeline corridors in 

the NPR-A. No implications regarding specific hydrocarbon prospect location is intended as the 

actual location of undiscovered commercial-sized reservoirs and the timing of their discoveries is

not possible to predict. These hypothetical pipeline corridors represent only one scenario of 

future NPR-A infrastructure, and more specific discussions on the locations of future

development would be misleading. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-34 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4. Pipeline Construction 

Pipeline construction techniques have evolved over decades of experience in the Arctic

environment on the North Slope. The following assumptions about the general engineering for

pipeline design and construction would apply to future NPR-A projects. 

Pipelines crossing large rivers, such as the Colville River, could be buried using horizontal 

directional drilling techniques similar to those used to drill for oil at the Alpine oil field. 

Elevated pipelines would likely cross narrow streams to minimize impacts to stream banks and 

riparian vegetation and to avoid potential problems associated with corrosion, maintenance, and 

abandonment of buried pipelines. It has been determined that the construction of a bridge over 

the Colville River would be expensive. Nonetheless, construction of a bridge over the river was 

recently analyzed in the Alpine Satellite Development EIS (USDOI BLM 2004c). 

Figure 4-2. Speculative Future Pipeline Corridors 

• Relatively wide, shallow rivers could be crossed by trenching and burying insulated 

pipelines in the riverbed. These pipelines would be installed during winter at locations 

selected to minimize disturbance to overwintering fish habitat. 

• Narrow streams could be crossed by elevated pipelines on suspension spans, as fewer 

impacts would occur to the stream, streambanks, riparian habitat, and aquatic resources

if a properly designed elevated pipeline crossing were to be used. 

• Pipeline alignments would be routed to avoid crossing lakes. 

4-35 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

• Pump stations could be required along the new mainline route, depending on distances, 

pipeline diameters, and production rates. 

• Future pipeline routes and installation designs would depend on site-specific conditions 

evaluated by preconstruction engineering studies. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-36 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Figure 4-3. Sample Pipeline Layout 

4-37 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Typically, pipeline routes are laid out in straight-line segments (or alignments) and are 

installed aboveground on VSMs (Figure 4-3). On the North Slope, this installation method is 

preferred over buried pipelines, because aboveground pipelines take less time to construct, 

cause less disruption to the land during installation, are easier to monitor and repair, and 

provide more flexibility for later modification (e.g., adding new pipelines) than buried pipelines. 

Typically, VSMs are spaced 35 to 70 feet apart. Pipelines in recent years have generally been 

elevated at least five feet above the tundra. Pipeline clearance is generally higher (up to 20 feet) 

over topographic lows (stream valleys), because engineering requirements call for a nearly level 

pipeline route. Small, shallow lakes could be crossed by elevated VSMs, whereas large or deep

lakes would have pipeline VSMs routed around their shorelines with some setback. Powerlines 

could be placed in cable trays on VSMs or suspended from VSMs. 

5. Roads 

Both economic and environmental concerns have led oil companies to minimize gravel road

construction on the North Slope. The Alpine field, for example, includes roads linking its CPF,

most satellite production pads, and an airstrip. While not completely “roadless”—a term 

sometimes used to describe developments such as Alpine and Badami—these complexes are not

linked by gravel road to other North Slope facilities. It is assumed that future activities in the 

NPR-A would follow the example of these development projects for several reasons: 

• The smaller field sizes predicted for the NPR-A probably could not support the high cost 

of long, permanent roads; 

• The availability of road-construction material (gravel) is likely to be limited in the 

planning area; 

• Field construction activities normally are scheduled for the winter months, when

overland travel is possible and wildlife presence is lower; and

• Smaller fields in the NPR-A would not require the same level of supply/service 

operations as multibillion-barrel fields, such as Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk River Unit. 

Winter ice roads or snow-packed trails would connect most fields to allow transport of heavy 

equipment and supplies to outlying locations. These seasonal roads would be used for 4 to 5 

months each winter (December to April). In addition, remote fields would use alternate 

transportation systems, such as marine barging and/or airstrips for year-round access. Within 

individual fields, gravel roads (i.e., permanent roads) would connect production pads and 

facilities. In addition, gravel roads could connect nearby fields to one another to allow sharing of

infrastructure. 

Based on ice road utility regarding exploration efforts to date in the NPR-A, it is assumed for 

the purposes of this analysis that 50 miles of ice roads per year would be constructed in the 

planning area during the life of the plan. This incorporates the phased approach for discovery

and development of Alpine-type fields projected under each alternative (i.e., 10 years between 

each 350 MMbbl discovery associated with a CPF). For example, Alternative A assumes one 

discovery every ten years until each of the five projected CPF-associated oil accumulations is 

discovered. Using this scenario, 50 miles of ice roads would be constructed for each of the ten 

years of exploration leading up to the discovery of a field. This scenario would be repeated until 

the remaining four CPF-associated accumulations are discovered. 

Following a 350 MMbbl-sized discovery, and during the development of the main field and 

projected satellite fields, it is assumed that 50 miles of ice roads are constructed annually for 

ten years from the nearest permanent gravel road to each Central Processing Facility 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-38 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

supporting satellite development. This assumption is based on the practicality and cost 

comparisons between air transport of large/heavy equipment loads required for satellite 

development and ground transport via ice roads. Once the main field and satellite construction 

and development are completed, air transportation of maintenance equipment and personnel to

the development complex via a gravel airstrip located at the CPF will suffice, and the necessity 

of building ice roads will be limited to circumstances in which air transport is not feasible or 

cost-effective. 

Ice roads would also be used to support construction of projected sales pipelines transporting oil 

from the respective development complexes in the planning area to transmission pipelines east 

of the NPR-A border. Pipelines would be constructed in winter and it is assumed two winter 

seasons will be required to complete the project. Under Alternative A, for example, it is 

assumed that 162 miles of sales oil pipeline will be constructed over two winter seasons using 

an equal number of ice road miles. 

From a safety standpoint, permanent roads would allow direct monitoring of pipelines and more

rapid response time, should repairs be necessary. However, “roadless” development would not 

preclude access for pipeline inspection; rather, the mode of transportation would change with 

the seasons. During the winter months, visual inspections could be conducted using nearby ice 

roads, by snowmachines where ice roads were not present, and by aircraft. In summer months, 

visual inspections would be conducted primarily using aircraft and possibly low-groundpressure vehicles. It is likely that pipeline repairs would involve the same forms of 

transportation. Hovercraft might be used for emergency repair work, particularly during 

periods when the tundra was wet (as opposed to frozen). Should an emergency pipeline repair 

be necessary, an on-site coordinator would consider the tradeoffs associated with various 

remediation strategies. 

It should be noted that pipeline monitoring on the North Slope is now done largely using remote

instrumentation, and in some cases with use of smart pigs and maintenance pigs. Numerous

monitoring and safety systems are installed to provide redundancy in these electrical and 

mechanical safety systems. In addition, mechanical shutoff valves are being replaced by vertical 

expansion loops to provide a more failsafe method of controlling pipeline pressures and leaks. 

6. Summer Tundra Travel 

Although travel off of gravel pads is easiest in winter and generally environmentally preferable 

at that time, some vehicle travel off of pads does occur in North Slope oil fields during the 

summer to accomplish specific tasks. The State of Alaska has approved some low-groundpressure vehicles for summer tundra travel after July 15. Similar summer tundra travel may be 

anticipated to be part of oil production in Northeast NPR-A. 

Summer vehicle tundra travel is commonly associated with spill prevention and preparedness 

measures required in spill prevention plans. Each summer season, low-ground-pressure 

vehicles might be used to transport and place floating booms across streams downstream from 

pipelines. These booms are left in place through the summer to capture any oil that might spill 

from a pipeline and then would be retrieved, again probably using low-ground-pressure 

vehicles, before freeze-up. Pipeline inspections may also entail summer vehicle travel on the 

tundra. Finally, periodically spill response training may occur along and downstream from 

pipelines in summer. 

4-39 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

G. Gas Development 

The above description of oil and gas development has focused on producing commercial oil. To 

date sale of gas in NPR-A and elsewhere on the North Slope has been precluded by a lack of a 

transportation system to transport the gas to market. Even if a gas pipeline is built to take 

North Slope gas to market within the next decade, gas production for sale from NPR-A may still 

only occur decades hence. It is estimated that there are 35 Tcf of onshore discovered gas 

available on the North Slope, much of it associated with existing oil infrastructure. This 

discovered gas alone would be capable of keeping a gas pipeline, such as the ANGTS or one 

contemplated by the North Slope oil and gas leaseholders, operating at full capacity for 

approximately 20 years. (ADNR, 2004d; Fisk and Hinnah, 2005) The National Research 

Council in 2003 reported estimates of an additional 72 Tcf of undiscovered onshore and 97 Tcf of 

undiscovered offshore gas; much of it would also be closer to existing infrastructure than gas in 

NPR-A. While economics will dictate corporate strategies, there is good reason to believe that 

the availability of these other large gas resources would mean that commercial gas development

in NPR-A may be decades into the future. 

Oil production will continue to be the primary focus of energy extraction from NPR-A and 

northern Alaska in general. MMS/BLM's geologic analysis in 2002, however, indicates the

Northeast and Northwest NPR-A planning areas combined could contain a mean undiscovered 

technically recoverable gas endowment of 37.3 Tcf. The NPR-A generally becomes more gas 

prone toward its western and southern areas. However, the richest oil play (BeaufortianBarrow Arch) in both Northeast and Northwest NPR-A contains a large portion of the 

undiscovered gas in Petroleum Reserve and approximately 97.5% of all conventionally 

recoverable gas in the planning area is in plays that also contain oil. Consequently, it is likely 

that if gas is produced for market in NPR-A it will come from fields with a substantial oil 

component and be developed in conjunction with oil (USDOI BLM and MMS, 2003). 

Gas would arrive at a CPF from production pads in the same pipelines mounted on VSM that 

carry oil to the CPF. It would be separated from the oil and water at the CPF, compressed, and 

cooled before entering a buried pipeline to make its way to the northern terminus of a gas line 

in the Prudhoe Bay area. The buried gas pipeline would parallel the sales oil pipeline, offset by 

approximately 75 to 100 feet. The gas would be chilled at the CPF to a temperature that is 

equal to the mean annual ground temperature. This is intended not just to prevent melting of 

the permafrost along the pipeline but also to avoid any changes of the thermal regime of the in 

situ soil. This is important to prevent long-term moisture migration, ice formation, and ice 

inclusions from forming in the soil around the pipeline. (ADNR, 2006) 

The most likely design would be for gas pipelines to be buried so that the top of the pipe is about 

30 inches below grade (ADNR, 2006) in trenches approximately 5 feet deep and 4 feet wide, with 

a surface disturbed area 15 feet wide along the length of the pipeline route. Pipeline burial 

depth, however, may need to be deeper to assure that pipeline is not affected by thawing. 

Depending on the throughput and other factors of pipeline design, stations for compressing and 

cooling the gas would be built at regular intervals (60 to 100 miles) along the route of the 

underground pipeline to maintain optimum operating conditions. The footprint of the 

compressor station would consist of a 10- to 20-acre pad, depending on the design of the

facilities. It is possible that compressor stations would also be connected to pipelines from other 

CPFs or satellites. For this analysis, it is assumed that in time market gas would be 

transported from each CPF, gas pipelines would be equal in length to the sales oil pipeline for 

each alternative, and that for each alternative there would be one compressor on each CPF and

one compressor station that would not be on a CPF. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-40 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Burial of natural gas pipelines is desirable for both safety and operational reasons. Highpressure gas lines pose a risk of rupture and explosion. Burial and offset from the oil pipeline 

mitigate the potential impacts if a gas explosion were to occur. High-pressure gas lines operate 

more efficiently when chilled, and permafrost is a good material in which to install dense-phase, 

high pressure gas pipelines that entrain natural gas liquids. River crossing methods would be 

determined by characteristics of the river; where elevated spans would be used across narrow,

deep rivers, burial in trenches is likely to be used across wide, shallow rivers, and horizontallydrilled tunnels could be used across wide, deep rivers. 

The State of Alaska, however, in its study of a potential gas pipeline near the coast east of 

Prudhoe Bay, considered both a buried gas pipeline and one that would be elevated on VSMs. 

The state considered an above-ground gas pipeline more appropriate for low-volume gas 

pipelines and in cases in which burial created hydrologic challenges in crossing many drainages. 

(ADNR, 2006; Thompson, 2007) If an aboveground gas line was constructed in the planning 

area, it is assumed that it would either be placed on the same VSMs as a sales oil pipeline or on

a separate set of VSMs. To minimize caribou movement disruption, an aboveground gas 

pipeline on a separate set of VSMs would be separated from any other set of VSMs by at least 

500 feet and be elevated the same height as an oil pipeline; i.e., 5 feet under Alternative A and 7 

feet under the other alternatives. 

Construction of a gas pipeline would occur in winter. It would utilize ice roads for heavy

equipment. In addition to the ice road and the 4-foot-wide trench, approximately another 11­

feet-wide area along the length of a buried gas pipeline could receive impacts from soil 

compression, vegetative disturbance, and temporary placement and incomplete removal of 

backfill. These impacts would be greatly mitigated by winter construction. Planned 

maintenance also would likely occur in winter. 

III. Petroleum Resource Estimates 

Estimates of oil and gas resources provide the basis for identifying areas for possible future 

leasing and projecting reasonably foreseeable exploration and development scenarios analyzed 

in environmental impact studies. The NEPA process requires reasonably foreseeable

consequences of the proposed action be considered. 

Estimates of undiscovered resources are uncertain for geologic, engineering, and economic

reasons. Geologic data are in a nearly constant state of revision, as new concepts are revealed

by detailed studies, mapping, and new well information. Engineering evolves with new 

technology and experience. Economic conditions, such as oil and gas prices, are difficult to 

predict beyond the near future. 

Two resource assessments were completed for NPR-A in 2002. The first, conducted by the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS), assessed oil resources in the entire NPR-A, including the Northeast, 

Northwest, and South Planning Areas (Bird and Houseknecht, 2002a and 2002b). However, the 

USGS assessment did not provide resource estimates broken down specifically by each

individual planning area. Accordingly, MMS and BLM independently performed a joint 

assessment of the oil resource potential of the Northeast and Northwest NPR-A Planning Areas 

in support of environmental studies of the impacts of proposed leasing programs for these two 

planning areas, a discussion of which is presented in Appendix 7 of the Northwest IAP/EIS 

(USDOI BLM and MMS, 2003). Comparison of the two assessments is complicated by their 

differing geographic scopes, in that the USGS assessment addressed resources in the South 

4-41 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

NPR-A Planning Area, in addition to the Northeast and Northwest Planning Areas covered by 

the MMS and BLM assessment. However, the results and conclusions of the two assessments 

were very similar. 

The USGS assessment concluded that the Federal lands in the entire NPR-A contain between 

5.9 and 13.2 Bbbl of conventionally recoverable oil, with a risked mean of 9.3 Bbbl, and that 

about 80% of these amounts were likely to occur in northern NPR-A across the northern and 

eastern portions of the Northeast and Northwest Planning Areas. Similarly, the MMS and 

BLM assessment concluded that the Federal lands in the Northeast and Northwest Planning 

Areas of NPR-A combined contain between 6.8 and 11.8 Bbbl of conventionally recoverable oil, 

with a risked mean of 9.1 Bbbl, and also that, as with the USGS assessment, the great majority 

of this oil was likely to occur across the northern and eastern portions of the Northeast and

Northwest NPR-A Planning Areas. The similarity of the assessments is further demonstrated 

by the fact that only a very small amount of the 9.3 Bbbl of oil estimated by the USGS is 

attributable to the southern portions of NPR-A, primarily comprising the South NPR-A 

planning area. Thus, the conclusions in the two assessments regarding the mean amount of 

conventionally recoverable oil are nearly identical when one accounts for the minimal amount of 

additional oil estimated by USGS to be contained in the southern portions of NPR-A. 

Conventionally recoverable oil refers to oil resources recoverable by current technology, 

processes and knowledge and without regard to economic feasibility or environmental 

constraints. The conventionally recoverable oil resource serves as the maximum theoretical 

limit for production. Engineering, economic, and environmental factors are included in 

evaluating the commercial viability of oil and gas prospects. When economic realities are 

considered, the amount of resources expected to be leased and commercially produced is lower 

than the geologic potential. Such economic considerations are primarily driven by the price of 

oil and cost of oil and gas operations. In this sense, oil companies tend to base their leasing, 

exploration, and development decisions on their predictions of future oil prices and operational 

costs throughout the life of a potential project, with predicted higher oil prices and lower costs 

tending to result in the pursuit of prospects that would not otherwise have been pursued given 

lower oil prices and higher costs. 

Accordingly, after estimating the amount of conventionally recoverable oil, each of the two

assessments additionally evaluated the quantities of oil that were economically recoverable at 

various future prices of oil assuming a typical level of operational costs. For example, at about

$30 per barrel both assessments concluded that about 5.6 Bbbl of oil would be economically 

recoverable from their respective study areas; whereas at $40 per barrel, the USGS assessment 

concluded that about 6.9 of its 9.1 Bbbl of oil was most likely to be economically recoverable, 

compared to the finding in the MMS and BLM assessment that approximately 7.4 of its 9.3 Bbbl 

of oil was likely to be economically recoverable. While the USGS assessment did not consider oil 

prices above $40 per barrel, the MMS and BLM assessment did and demonstrated that 

approximately 8.0 Bbbl of oil would be economically recoverable at prices near $50 per barrel. 

Each of the assessments reflects the basic principle that increasing volumes of oil can be 

recovered profitably as the price of oil rises. However, such increases are not limitless. As price 

rises, oil production becomes progressively more inelastic until ultimately a point is reached 

where further price increases result in little or no additional production. It is difficult to predict 

with reasonable accuracy where this point occurs based on the USGS assessment since it did

not evaluate prices above $40 per barrel. However, the MMS and BLM assessment is helpful for 

this purpose, and demonstrates that oil prices greater than $50 per barrel would result in very

small amounts of additional oil production. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-42 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Opinions of economists about future oil prices are quite variable. In the 2005 Amended 

IAP/EIS, BLM developed different oil and gas activity scenarios based on the selected prices of

oil. The highest price of oil considered was $30 per barrel, in line with then recent historic 

trends. Since then, the price of oil has increased to over $60 per barrel. While prudent 

companies base their investment decisions on conservative price assumptions regarding longrange oil and gas exploration and development decisions, we recognize that there has been a 

recent increase in the perception of long-range oil prices in recent years. In their 2007 annual 

energy outlook, the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Agency projects the price of oil 

to be over $51 per barrel in 2010, dip to around $46 per barrel in 2020, and then rise to about 

$57 per barrel in 2030. 

In this Supplemental IAP/EIS, BLM attempts to provide a realistic projection of the oil and gas 

exploration and development activities that could occur in the planning area. Although 

industry commonly bases its investment on conservative price projections, the current period of

far higher long-term oil price projections suggests that scenarios resting on an assumption of 

development based on $30 per barrel run the risk of underestimation of development activities. 

But while the projections of long-term oil prices at substantially above $30 per barrel suggests 

that industry could profitably invest more in exploration and development than a $30 per barrel 

price would justify, assuming that all conventionally recoverable oil will be extracted is also 

unrealistic. Some conventionally recoverable oil may be located in small pockets that may 

never be discovered. Some oil may be conventionally recoverable but only at extremely high 

prices. Furthermore, given oil’s central role in the world and national economies, increases in oil 

prices inevitably lead to higher prices for the equipment and supplies needed to extract oil and

the workers required to design, maintain, and operate infrastructure. These increased costs

would make it increasingly difficult for the oil industry to produce more oil. At very high oil 

prices the economically recoverable resource curve is nearly vertical and will only move toward 

the conventionally recoverable endowment at infinitely high (and therefore unrealistic) prices. 

For this analysis, BLM is assuming that approximately 8 Bbbls of the 9.1 Bbbls risked mean 

conventionally recoverable oil in the Northeast and Northwest NPR-A could be economically 

recovered if there were no management constraints. Use of this number generates scenarios for 

analysis purposes that would represent reasonable projections for prices near or significantly 

greater than $50 per barrel. These scenarios, given the relative inelasticity of economically 

recoverable oil at high oil prices, remain adequate for impact analysis even if prices, or, more 

relevantly, industry’s assessment of long-term prices used in their investment strategies, were

assumed to rise as high as $100 per barrel. 

Assuming the 8.0 Bbbl of economically recoverable oil is distributed evenly over the plays 

identified in the MMS and BLM assessment for the combined Northeast and Northwest 

planning areas, the Northeast NPR-A Planning Area would hold 54%, or about 4.3 Bbbl. 

IV. Resource Potential and Petroleum-related Activities 

A variety of activities are associated with petroleum development, beginning with tract leasing 

and concluding decades later with abandonment of depleted fields. For the purposes of 

environmental analysis in this Supplemental IAP/EIS, BLM has developed a set of hypothetical, 

but reasonable, development scenarios. The scenarios are based on an assumption that 

approximately 88% of the modeled petroleum resources (risked mean, technically recoverable oil 

estimate of 9.1 Bbbl) would be discovered and developed by industry. Typically, larger and more 

profitable fields are discovered early in the exploration cycle. Smaller and less profitable fields 

4-43 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

may not be of interest to companies driven by profit motives. Companies may view the geologic

or economic opportunities differently, and industry perceptions of economic potential may differ 

from those represented in our scenarios. Readers should be aware that actual development may 

differ significantly from BLM’s hypothetical scenario. The general scope and nature of the

activity is, however, based on the best and most current information available and is presented 

here as a reasonable, if likely high-end, representation of possible future activities. In order to 

develop a reasonable scenario and allow the reader to understand the rationale, BLM is 

required to make several assumptions. 

A. Assumptions 

There are many uncertainties associated with projecting future oil exploration and

development. These uncertainties include the amount and location of technically recoverable 

oil; the timing of oil field discoveries and associated development; the future price of oil and,

more to the point, the many oil companies’ individual assessment of future prices and other

competitive calculations that play into corporate investment decisions; and the geologic acumen 

showed by industry to find oil and their ability to mobilize the requisite technology to exploit it. 

To address these uncertainties, the agency has made reasonable assumptions based on its 

knowledge of the largely undiscovered oil endowment of the planning area, on current industry 

practice, and on professional judgment. In making these assumptions, BLM has striven to

minimize the chance that the resultant impact analysis will understate potential impacts. A 

couple assumptions are key. First, is the assumption that approximately 88% of the risked

mean technically recoverable oil in the planning area would be developed if there were no 

management constraints. This amount of oil would be recoverable if industry determines to

invest in North Slope oil production presuming that it could be sold for $50 or more per barrel. 

This is likely a higher price per barrel than industry currently uses and represents a position on 

the price-supply curve at which higher prices are unlikely to yield much additional production

or resultant development. Second, the amount of infrastructure that would be necessary to 

develop that amount of oil is estimated conservatively. For example, it is assumed that each 

satellite production pad would require a 10-mile gravel road and pipeline of equal length, 

though the experience as ConocoPhillips develops the Alpine field would suggest that on 

average road and pipeline distances would not be so large. 

Additional assumptions, some of which also tend to support an optimistic, though reasonable, 

set of development scenarios, include: 

• Multiple lease sales would be held; 

• Industry would aggressively lease and explore the tracts offered, which could require 

large numbers of exploration wells and seismic surveys; 

• Several industry groups will independently explore and develop new fields in the NPRA; 

• For the purpose of developing a hypothetical scenario for impact analysis, a 

“Development Complex” generally will include one large CPF pad with 5 production 

pads. In fact there is likely to be a range of developments from a single CPF pad with no 

production pads, to CPF pads with 1-10 production pads, and the scenarios will reflect 

some variation. (See notes in Table 4.2-E.) 

• This hypothetical Development Complex (Figure 4-1) comprises the following ranges of 

recoverable oil accumulations: one 250 - 450 MMbbl, one 60 – 70 MMbbl, two 50 - 60 

MMbbl, and one 40 - 50 MMbbl and one 30 - 40 MMbbl. Using the mean accumulation 

values, a Development Complex will be capable of producing approximately 600 MMbbl 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-44 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

of recoverable oil (350 MMbbl produced from the main CPF pad and an average of 

approximately 50 MMbbl produced from each satellite production pad). 

• Economic conditions (particularly oil price) would remain favorable to development in 

northern Alaska; 

• New geologic information would not substantially change the present assessment of 

resource potential, future drilling would confirm what today are perceived as highpotential plays, and new high-potential plays would not be discovered; 

• Projections of well numbers, facilities, and infrastructure include potential Alpine 

satellite developments in NPR-A; and 

• Future petroleum production would use existing North Slope infrastructure, most 

importantly the TAPS pipeline. 

Time frames for the development scenario are uncertain, because a future lease-sale schedule 

has not been established and the location and geologic characteristics and complexity of oil

reserves and the future competitive opportunities for oil field investment worldwide are 

unknown. However, it is safe to assume that development activities associated with multiple 

future sales would continue for many years, as industry would require time to thoroughly 

evaluate existing leases before additional tracts would be leased. The complete inventory of 

petroleum resources in the NPR-A could take many decades. Note that two lease sales have 

occurred in Northeast NPR-A as a result of the ROD for the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS. Twenty

exploratory and delineation wells have been drilled on tracts leased in these two sales, with 

reports of discoveries of oil from five of those wells. However, more than eight years after 

publication of the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD, no construction to develop oil from these tracts 

has occurred and it is still not certain if the discoveries are commercially viable. 

For the purposes of this analysis it is assumed that about ten years of exploration, proving, 

permitting, facility construction, and development drilling precede initial production. It is also 

assumed that development of multiple CPFs will not occur simultaneously, but instead occur 

approximately ten years apart. (Figure 4-4) This assumption takes into account the remote

location of the planning area, the availability of equipment and personnel on the North Slope, 

regulatory requirements, and anticipated pipeline capacity. There is considerable economic 

benefit in bringing production online gradually to assure long-term maximum utilization of 

pipeline capacity. It is also assumed that development of each satellite would take about two 

years, allowing for a complement of satellites to be on-line before the next CPF is constructed to 

maximize sales pipeline throughput. It is possible, however, that several large finds are made 

and developed in a short period, or that no economic finds are made for a period extending 

beyond ten years, delaying the development of a new CPF. 

Finally, the following analysis assumes that very little additional infrastructure would be 

required to develop commercial gas. Approximately 97.5% of the technically recoverable gas in 

the planning area is estimated to occur in plays with technically recoverable oil. Only minor

portions of two gas-only plays occur in the Northeast NPR-A planning area. The larger of these 

two plays is estimated to hold 1.209 Tcf of gas, with .35 Tcf estimated to in the planning area. 

This is a geographically extensive play, encompassing nearly all of the planning area south of 

Teshekpuk Lake, so portions of it would be accessible from infrastructure projected under the

scenarios in this Supplemental IAP/EIS to tap the oil resources. The other play is estimated to 

only hold .304 Tcf, and only 7%, or .02 Tcf of that is estimated to occur in the planning area. 

Because of the small volumes of gas in these gas-only plays, it is not considered likely under any 

foreseeable economic conditions that gas would be developed except as part of a development 

primarily undertaken to produce oil. Because the scenarios BLM has prepared for oil 

development are designed to minimize the chance that the amount of development, and thus 

4-45 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

impacts, would be understated, BLM projects that the only significant additional infrastructure 

required by gas development in the planning area would be pipelines to transport gas from

CPFs to gas pipelines east of the planning area and compressors at the CPFs and along the 

pipeline route. 

B. Development Scenarios by Leasing Alternative 

Several leasing alternatives are considered in this Supplemental IAP/EIS, each providing a 

different level of protection for resources and uses of the planning area. Alternative A is used as 

a basis for comparison and is unchanged from the Preferred Alternative contained in the 1998 

Northeast IAP/EIS ROD for Northeastern NPR-A. Alternatives B and D under this analysis 

represent intermediate levels of surface resource and use protection between the 1998 

Northeast IAP/EIS Preferred Alternative (Alternative A) and Alternative C in this EIS, which 

would open the entire planning area to leasing and development. The projected infrastructure

needs if all 4,300 MMbbls of oil considered possible to develop if no management constraints 

were placed on development in the planning area are presented in Tables 4.2-D and 4.2-E for 

comparison purposes. 

New commercial oil fields are most likely to be discovered in the northern portion of the 

planning area that has been designated as having high potential for the occurrence of petroleum 

resources. This area encompasses approximately the northern one-third of the planning area 

(Figure 4-5). It is impossible to predict, however, what proportion of exploration and

development could occur in the medium to low occurrence potential areas. Prospective offshore

areas under NPR-A jurisdictions could be reached using directional drilling techniques from 

onshore pads or from offshore artificial islands. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-46 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Figure 4-4. Assumed annual production rate by Alternative 

4-47 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Figure 4-5. Oil Occurrence Potential Map of the Planning Area 

C. Projected Activity Levels for Each Leasing Alternative 

The scenarios used in this Supplemental IAP/EIS assume that approximately 4,300 MMbbl of 

oil could be produced in the planning area if there were no management constraints. The 

resource estimates are reduced for the alternatives because there is an unavoidable trade-off 

between the level of protection and the feasibility of future petroleum operations. A precise 

evaluation of the impacts of regulatory restrictions is not possible because the magnitude of 

these effects would vary depending on the location of as-yet undiscovered oil fields. If a prospect 

were located in an area unavailable for leasing or in an area too far from lands on which oil 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-48 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

wells are allowed, it obviously would not be developed. Table 4.2-D, therefore, presents the 

economically recoverable amount of oil estimated to be available for production using 

conventional recovery under each alternative. 

Table 4.2-D. Oil Resource Estimates for Each Alternative* 

Alternative A B C D Without Mgmt. 

Constraints 

Oil (MMbbl) 2,900 3,350 4,050 3,700 4,300 

* These figures provide realistic estimates for impact analysis purposes that make it very

unlikely that this Supplemental IAP/EIS will underestimate impacts. 

Two reductions in the 4,300 MMbbl estimate of economically recoverable oil are made for each 

alternative. The first set of reductions is related to areas unavailable for leasing. This reduction 

is objective because affected play areas are measurable from maps. Because the exact locations 

of commercial fields are unknown today, it is assumed that the petroleum endowment in each

geologic play is distributed evenly over the geographic extent of the play. Admittedly, this is a

simplistic assumption because commercial fields would occur in localized pools. However, prior 

to extensive mapping and drilling, the opportunity to discover new fields is relatively uniform 

throughout a play area. The fraction of the petroleum resource available for leasing and possible 

future development is determined as the available portion of each play in the planning area. For

instance, the estimated oil resource for the Beaufortian Barrow Arch Play in the planning area 

is 2,700 MMbbl. By scaling from play area maps, it was determined that 10% of the play area 

would not be offered for leasing under Alternative D. Multiplying this fraction by the total play 

resource indicates that 270 MMbbl would not be available and consequently would not 

contribute to future production under this alternative. The recoverable resources in each play 

are adjusted by geographic scaling from the total play endowments to determine the available 

portions within the planning area, and then all play resources are summed to an area-wide 

total. 

A second set of reductions is also objective, as it is based on areas affected by restricted surface 

occupancy (RSO) restrictions in setbacks (or buffers) that provide protection for sensitive 

localities. RSO restrictions, which prohibit oil and gas facilities other than pipelines, could 

reduce industry interest in leasing, add costs to operations, or present difficult engineering

challenges. Reductions for production estimates are valid even if the area underneath the buffer

and enclosed area is technically reachable by directional drilling. In most cases, surface 

restrictions that would require directional drilling beyond 1 mile would cause economic burdens 

that could result in bypassed resource recovery or the elimination of marginal projects. (USDOI, 

USDA, and DOE, 2006). Consequently, projections of oil recovery reflect a reduction equal to 

the estimated oil in lands with a RSO restriction more than one mile from areas without RSO 

restrictions. 

4-49 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Table 4.2-E. Estimated Petroleum-related Activities for Each Alternative* 

Alternative A B C D Without 

Mgmt. 

Exploration Wells2 86 97 120 110 128 

Delineation Wells 65 73 90 83 96 

Exploration/Delineati 

on Drilling Rigs3 5 6 8 7 8 

CPFs4 5 6 7 6 7 

Satellite Production 

Pads4 23 25 32 32 38 

Production and 

Service Wells5 971 1,082 1,353 1,306 1,545 

Production Drilling 

Rigs6 2 2 2 2 2 

Staging Bases 2 3 4 3 5 

Peak Oil Production7 74 74 74 76 76 

* * These figures provide realistic and conservative estimates for impact analysis purposes that make it very unlikely that 

this Supplemental IAP/EIS will underestimate impacts. 

1 The scenario for development without management constraints is not analyzed here and is shown for comparison purposes 

only; 

2 Based on # of wildcat wells required to produce all economically recoverable oil in central coastal and central foothills 

subareas of North Slope (180 wells @ $30/bbl + 60 wells @ $30/bbl) from Attanasi and Bird 1995). Planning Area is 60% 

(aerial extent) of the central coastal subarea and 15% of central foothills subarea (0.6 x 180 = 108 wells; 0.15 x 60 = 9 wells). 

Adjust these values by 15% to reflect the change in conventionally recoverable oil volume from 7.0 Bbbl @ $35/bbl to 8.0 Bbbl

@ near or greater than $50/bbl for Northeast and Northwest planning areas combined: Northeast planning area play volume

= 54 % of 8.0 Bbbl conventionally recoverable oil volume (54% of 15% = 8%; (108 wells x 1.8) = 118 wells + 9 wells x 1.8 = 10 

wells; 118 + 10 = 128 exploration wells). Exploration well totals include commercial discoveries and dry holes. See Table 4-6 

for explanation of Alternative calculation.; 

3 Rig totals are the maximum number operating in any single year.; 

4 For this analysis, a Development Complex contains a hypothetical 600 MMbbl of economically recoverable oil that 

comprises the following: one 350 MMbbl accumulation and five 50 MMbbl accumulations. Consequently, for every 600 

MMbbls estimated, one CPF and 5 satellites are projected. If estimated oil or a portion of the total estimated oil not 

accounted for by a full 600-MMbbl Development Complex is 

1.) less than 25 MMbbls, i.e., less than half of the estimated production of a satellite pad, no development would occur; 2.)

more than 25 MMbbls but less than 200 MMbbls, no CPF is projected, but instead this oil is projected to be produced

from additional satellites (e.g., the estimated Alternative D oil total of 3,700 MMbbl would drive development of 6 CPFs 

with an average of 5 satellite pads each [6 Development Complexes x 600 MMbbls = 3,600 MMbbls] and 2 additional 

satellites [2 satellite pads x 50 MMbbls approximately = 100 MMbbls] which could be connected either to one of the 

projected CPFs or to the Alpine CPF outside the planning area, ; 3.) between 200 MMbbls and 350 MMbbls, an 

additional CPF is projected, but no additional satellites, or 4.) greater than 350 MMbbls and less than 600 MMbbls, 

an additional CPF is projected and one satellite pad for every 50 MMbbls in excess of 350 MMbbls (e.g., the estimated 

oil volume for Alternative A of 2,900 MMbbls would drive development of 4 CPFs with an average of 5 satellite pads 

each [4 Development Complexes x 600 MMbbls = 2,400 MMbbls] with a remaining 500 MMbbls driving an additional 

CPF and 3 more satellite pads. Total = 5 CPFs and 23 satellite pads.) 5 Production to service well ratio is 2:1 (Attanasi, 2003); (note that the Alpine oil field ratio is 1:1). 6 Number of drilling rigs per year for: Alternative A (48 years), Alternative B (52 years), Alternative C (66 years), 

Alternative D (62 years) 

7 Assume CPF peak production = 100,000 BOPD and Satellite peak production = 15,000 BOPD. Peak oil production in 

MMbbl per year. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-50 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Constraints other than RSO restrictions contained in the stipulations and ROPs as well as 

permitting requirements that would be imposed on oil development by other Federal agencies as 

well as state and local governments also could reduce the amount of oil that would be recovered 

from the planning area. BLM has assessed that the technical impediments and economic costs 

of these less-than-RSO restrictions presented in this Supplemental IAP/EIS would be roughly 

the same for each alternative. At lower oil prices these impediments and costs may dissuade 

industry from pursuing some oil prospects or cause industry to develop the prospects more 

cautiously and slowly than at higher prices. For this impact analysis, however, we are 

assuming that prices for oil will be high enough that approximately 88% of the conventionally 

recoverable oil would be developed. Under these circumstances the economic return industry 

would receive on oil development would justify overcoming the technical impediments and 

economic costs inherent in Federal, state, and local government regulations other than those 

imposed by large RSO areas and areas not available for leasing. 

The petroleum resource assessment indicates that a few plays could hold a large majority of the 

total resource endowment. Restrictions affecting these “rich plays” would have a 

disproportionate affect on the future development potential of the area. For example, the 

Beaufortian-Barrow Arch play (with analogs to the Alpine oil field) could contain approximately 

60% of the economic oil resources. The geographic extent of this play overlaps many of the 

biologically and culturally sensitive areas in the northern portion of the planning area, though 

it by and large lies south of Teshekpuk Lake. Restrictions affecting this play could have a large 

impact on future oil and gas production from the NPR-A. 

Using these general concepts and reduction factors, resource estimates are defined for each of 

the alternatives. The specific reduction factors are identified by abbreviations: areas 

unavailable for leasing (UL) and restricted surface occupancy buffers (RSO). 

No Action Alternative (Alternative A). The No Action Alternative would continue to 

withhold approximately 600,000 acres from leasing and development (Map 2-1). Approximately 

87% of the planning area would be available for leasing. Specific reductions for this alternative 

are estimated at UL (25%) and RSO (10%). Under this alternative, oil production is estimated at 

2,900 MMbbl (Table 4.2-D). 

Alternative B. Under Alternative B, over 95% of the area would be offered for leasing, but 

213,000 acres in the northern (high potential) part of the planning area would not be available 

for leasing (Map 2-2). The specific reductions are UL (17%) and RSO (7%). Under this 

alternative, oil production is estimated at 3,350 MMbbl (Table 4.2-D). 

Alternative C. Under Alternative C, the entire planning area would be available to leasing 

(Map 2-3). The specific reductions are listed as UL (0%), RSO (7%). Under this alternative, oil 

production is estimated at 4,050 MMbbl (Table 4.2-D). 

Alternative D. Under Alternative D, over 95% of the area would be offered for leasing; the

211,000-acre Teshekpuk Lake would be deferred from oil and gas leasing (Map 2-4). In addition, 

permanent oil and gas facilities (except pipelines and publicly-funded community roads) would 

not be allowed on approximately 347,400 acres and no permanent oil and gas facilities, 

pipelines, or publicly-funded community roads would be allowed on 16,950 acres. The specific 

reductions are UL (8%) and RSO (7%). Under this alternative, oil production is estimated at 

3,700 MMbbl (Table 4.2-D). 

4-51 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

D. Projected Seismic Activity by Leasing Alternative 

Individual 2-D survey lines would be several miles apart and the surveys would likely be used 

to tie between existing wells or as infill to existing surveys. The 2-D surveys would occasionally 

be used to connect areas of 3-D coverage. About 10 vehicles, including Vibroseis (sound source) 

vehicles and receiving vehicles (geophone support and recording equipment), would run each

line of 2-D seismic. Approximately 40 to 60 personnel would be required for each survey group

including all support personnel associated with the winter camp. The vehicles would run 

parallel to each other through an area about 200 feet wide and the survey party would collect 5 

to 10 line-miles of seismic data per day. The camp train would travel an equal distance per day. 

The maximum area covered by seismic vehicles would be approximately 6,060 acres (250 miles x 

200 feet wide), although not all of the area within the 200-foot-wide path would be traversed by 

vehicles. 

A typical 3-D seismic operation can survey an area of about 600 mi2 in a single winter season. 

An operation like this typically would involve about 15 vehicles. Each line-mile would consist of 

a pair of linear areas, each about 100-feet wide, through which the vehicles would drive. The 

grid patterns for 3-D seismic surveys would be considerably closer spaced than those of 2-D 

surveys. The receiver lines would be spaced 1,100 feet apart, while the source line upon which 

the survey units and vibrator travel would be spaced 1,320 feet apart and cross diagonally to 

the receiver lines. Vehicle travel would be restricted within the grid area. In general, all 

vehicles would travel within 50 feet of receiver lines. For any given receiver line, a path of about 

100 feet could be impacted by vehicle use (50 feet on either side of the line). The area impacted 

along the source line would be less than 50 feet wide. For each square mile surveyed, 24.2 acres

would be impacted along the source lines, and 58.2 acres would be impacted along the receiver

lines, or 82.4 acres total per square mile surveyed (13% of the survey area). This estimate is 

considered high, since some areas impacted would be common to both the source and receiver

lines. 

The techniques of setting up geophone arrays and shot points are similar for 2-D and 3-D 

surveys. However, 3-D surveys are more efficient because the equipment does not have to move

far between lines, and 3-D surveys generally provide better coverage of subsurface features. The

exterior dimensions of 3-D survey blocks could range to tens of miles on a side. The number of 

line-miles crossed in a 3-D survey area would be much greater than for 2-D surveys because the 

survey lines would be closer together. Impacts to soil and vegetation from 3-D surveys are 

usually less than for 2-D surveys as rubber-tracked vehicles are used and camp moves generally 

move down the center of the survey line. They are more expensive than 2-D surveys, and are not 

used for initial reconnaissance mapping unless it is essential to map subtle stratigraphic 

prospects. 

Almost the entire planning area has been covered by 2-D surveys. The U.S. Navy, and later the 

USGS/Husky, conducted an extensive exploration program during the 1970s to early 1980s. 

Figure 4-6 shows areas surveyed by the USGS during this period. Additional 2-D surveys have

been conducted since the late 1970s in the planning area, but information from these surveys is 

proprietary and therefore not included in Figure 4-6. Almost the entire area of high oil and gas 

occurrence potential in the planning area has been covered by 3-D seismic surveys. These 3-D 

surveys have been instrumental in identifying stratigraphic prospects in the planning area 

similar to the Alpine, Tarn, and Meltwater fields. Since 1998, about a dozen 3-D seismic surveys 

have covered approximately 2 million acres (3,200 mi2), or 44% of the planning area. A basic 

assumption for this analysis is that seismic surveys would not be repeated in areas for which 

survey data are already available. It would be much less expensive to purchase data from the 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-52 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

original contractor (or client) rather than conduct a new survey. Therefore, it is assumed that 

future seismic surveys with today’s technology would be conducted only in unsurveyed areas 

and would total three 2-D surveys and two 3-D surveys. If in the future new technology makes 

resurvey attractive, additional seismic surveys may occur. The amount and type of such 

surveys will depend upon the then-current state of technology and geologic knowledge relevant 

to potential prospects in the planning area. 

The foothills located south of the existing 3-D seismic coverage might require additional seismic 

surveys. Current 2-D seismic data on a reconnaissance grid has been used to identify numerous

structural (anticlinal) features. Although 2-D seismic data is less expensive to acquire than 3-D 

seismic data, and can adequately image subsurface structure enough to proceed with 

exploration drilling, it is likely that local 3-D seismic surveys in the foothills, south of existing 3­

D surveys (see Figure 4-6), will be collected for field delineation. 

The following discussion recognizes the tradeoff of 3-D (better resolution at higher cost) versus 

2-D seismic surveys. General assumptions on the type and location of probable activities are 

used for the purpose of impact analysis. As seismic survey techniques improve, more seismic 

data may be gathered in less time than is described here. 

At this time, the Teshekpuk Lake area, which is currently largely excluded from leasing, is 

recognized as an area of high oil and gas potential. Existing seismic survey lines over the lake 

area are relatively sparse, so it is assumed that additional seismic survey work would be 

necessary prior to exploration drilling if substantial parts of the lake were made available for 

leasing. Winter over-ice surveys were conducted on Teshekpuk Lake in 1974 and 1975 using 

dynamite as a sound source. Approximately 120 miles of 2-D seismic data were collected. 

Although Teshekpuk Lake is a high priority area for 3-D seismic data acquisition, there may be 

attendant logistical problems for more preferable Vibroseis surveys in this area. Furthermore, 

the use of explosives to collect seismic survey information may not be appropriate if there are

substantial impacts to fish and wildlife. A lake survey could be done during the summer using 

boats and airguns, as is done offshore. 

Under all of the alternatives, it is projected that three 2-D and two 3-D surveys would be done 

to fill in gaps in existing surveys. Under Alternatives A and D it is unlikely that seismic 

surveys would occur on Teshekpuk Lake. Two-D surveys are most likely in the foothills area. 

The length of 2-D surveys would be much shorter than normal, however, and the total length for 

all surveys would be approximately 250 miles. These surveys could be accomplished in as little 

as a season or two. The maximum area impacted by 250 miles of seismic lines would be 6,060 

acres (250 miles by 200 feet wide). This figure is presented as a maximum, because not all of 

the area within a 200-foot-wide line actually would be overrun by a vehicle. Trails also are 

made by camp-move vehicles, which traverse about the same distance as line miles of 2-D 

survey as well as traveling to and from the survey area. For analysis purposes, it is estimated

that a round trip into the planning area to the site of seismic surveying and return would be 106 

miles. A camp-move trail is about 12 feet wide, and it is assume the camp train would involve 

two to three strings of trailers. These strings could use the same trail, but this would cause 

greater damage than to use separate trails. For this analysis, it is assumed that on average, 2.5 

camp-train strings would use different trails to decrease overall damage and, therefore, campmove trails effectively would impact a path 30 feet wide. Assuming that there would be three 2­

D surveys that on average would require a roundtrip camp move of 106 miles, camp moves to 

and from seismic survey areas would potentially impact 1,156 acres. This would be in addition 

to 910 acres potentially disturbed by camp train moves along the total 250 miles of anticipated 

2-D seismic. 

4-53 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Three-D seismic surveying would, as noted above, potentially impact 82.4 acres per square mile. 

Thus, two 5,280-mile 3-D surveys would potentially impact 98,880 acres. In addition, it is 

assumed that camp trains would move approximately 30 miles within the surveyed areas and

106 roundtrip to reach the area, thus potentially impacting 990 acres. 

Table 4.2-F. Mileage and Acreage of Seismic Surveying for All Alternatives 

Surveying 

miles 

Surveying 

acres 

Camp Train 

miles 

Camp Train 

acres 

2-D 250 6,060 568 2066 

3-D 10,560 98,880 272 990 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-54 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

 Figure 4-6. Seismic Surveys Conducted in the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska. 

4-55 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

V. Estimated Surface Disturbance Due to Petroleum-related Activity 

Table 4.2-G provides estimates of the long-term and short-term acres impacted by oil 

exploration and development actions for each alternative. Short-term activities are commonly 

associated with the footprint during winter exploration or construction, while the long-term 

acreage figures reflect the gravel footprint of the development. These figures are most reflective

of potential impacts to physical resources such as soil and vegetation; for many other resources, 

impacts are not as directly or proportionately tied to a footprint. 

Table 4.2-G. Estimated Surface Disturbance for Oil-related Activities under each 

Alternative* 

Type of Action 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

No. 

Short 

Term 

Disturbance 

(acres) 

Long 

Term 

Disturbance 

(acres) 

No. 

Short 

Term 

Disturbance 

(acres) 

Long 

Term 

Disturbance 

(acres) 

No. 

Short 

Term 

Disturbance 

(acres) 

Long 

Term 

Disturbance 

(acres) 

No. 

Short 

Term 

Disturbance 

(acres) 

Long 

Term 

Disturbance 

(acres) 

Oil Exploration 

Wells1 

(6 acres each) 

86 516 _ 97 582 _ 120 720 _ 110 660 _ 

Oil Delineation 

Wells2 

(6 acres each) 

65 390 _ 73 438 _ 90 540 _ 83 540 _ 

Central Processing 

Facility3 

(90 acres each) 

5 450 450 6 540 540 7 630 630 6 540 540 

Gravel Production 

Pads3 

(10 acres each) 

23 230 230 25 250 250 32 320 320 32 320 320 

Gravel Runway4 

(11 acres each) 

5 55 55 6 66 66 7 77 77 6 66 66 

Ice Runway5 

(11 acres each) 

20 220 _ 30 330 _ 40 440 _ 30 330 _ 

Ice Roads6 

(miles) 5162 15642 _ 6162 18672 _ 7182 21763 _ 6162 18672 _ 

In-field Gravel 

Roads7 

(miles)

 7.75 acres/mile 

230 1783 1783 250 1938 1938 320 2480 2480 320 2,480 2,480 

Three-phase

Produced Fluids (oil, 

gas, water) 

Gathering Lines8 

(miles) 

230 700 1 250 760 1 320 972 1 320 972 1 

Sales Oil 

Pipelines9 

(miles) 

162 491 1 162 491 1 182 551 1 162 491 1 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-56 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Type of Action 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

No. 

Short 

Term 

Disturbance 

(acres) 

Long 

Term 

Disturbance 

(acres) 

No. 

Short 

Term 

Disturbance 

(acres) 

Long 

Term 

Disturbance 

(acres) 

No. 

Short 

Term 

Disturbance 

(acres) 

Long 

Term 

Disturbance 

(acres) 

No. 

Short 

Term 

Disturbance 

(acres) 

Long 

Term 

Disturbance 

(acres) 

Pump Stations10 

(20 acres each) 5 100 100 6 120 120 7 140 140 6 120 120 

Staging bases11 

(50 acres each) 2 100 100 3 150 150 4 200 200 3 150 150 

Gravel pits

 (50 acres each) 12 11 550 550 13 650 650 16 800 800 14 700 700 

Total Acres of 

Disturbance 21,227 3,270 24,987 3,716 29,634 4,649 26,000 4,378 

* These figures provide realistic estimates for impact analysis purposes that make it very unlikely that this Supplemental 

IAP/EIS will underestimate impacts. For seismic survey potential disturbance area, see Table 4.2-F. 

1 Ratio between the oil resource estimates from Table 4-4 and the conventionally recoverable oil resource estimate (4,300 

MMbbl) 

 x conventionally recoverable exploration well count (128 wells; Table 4.2-E). Using Alternative D as an example: 3,700 

 MMbbl/4,300 MMbbl x 128 exploration wells = 110 exploration wells (high end). Long-term acreage disturbance not calculated 

but assumed to be negligible 

2 Assume delineation well count (by Alternative) is 75% of exploration well count. Alternative D = (0.75 x 110 exploration wells)

 = 83 delineation wells (high end). Long-term acreage disturbance not calculated but assumed to be negligible 

3 Number of CPFs estimate based on volumes from Resource Estimates by Alternative (Table 4.2-D). As assumed in this 

analysis, one CPF represents 350 MMbbl of recoverable oil. See Table 4.2-E for assumptions and calculations regarding the 

number of CPFs. Acreage does not include gravel runway. 

4 Assume each CPF has one gravel runway 100 ft wide x 5,000 ft long = 11 acres. 

5 Assume the number of ice runways ranges from 1 to 4 (Alternative dependent) per year during the 10-year exploration phase 

(Table 4.2-B). Ice runway = 100 ft wide x 5,000 ft long = 11 acres. Long-term acreage disturbance not calculated but assumed 

to be negligible 

6 Assume: (50 miles of ice road x 10 yrs of exploration x #CPFs) + (50 miles of ice road x 10 yrs of main field and satellite 

development x #CPFs) + (# of pipeline miles per alternative). For example: Alternative A = (50 miles x 10 yrs exploration x 5 

CPFs) + (50 miles x 10 yrs development x 5 CPFs) + (162 miles of pipeline) = 5,162 miles total. Long-term acreage disturbance

not calculated but assumed to be negligible. 7 Assume 10 miles of gravel roads per satellite production pad. Typical Alpine field gravel road = 64 feet wide (measured from 

 the base) x 1 mile x 5,280 ft/mi = 7.75 acres/mile of road. 

8 Assume 10 miles of in-field gathering lines per satellite production pad. VSM diameter of 12 in (area = πr2 = 3.14 x 36 sq in =

 113 sq in = 0.785 sq ft). Short-term disturbance per satellite production pad = (25 ft-wide ice road x 5,280 ft/mi x 10 mi) + 

 (0.785 sq ft x 150 VSMs/mi x 10 mi) = 30.4 acres/satellite production pad. Long-term disturbance per satellite production pad 

= 

 (0.785 sq ft x 150 VSMs/mile x 10 miles) = 0.028 acres/satellite production pad. 

9 Assume 72 to 182 miles of transmission pipeline based solely on geologic play potential, Figure 4-2 represents speculative 

 pipeline corridors in the NPR-A. No implications regarding specific hydrocarbon prospect location is intended. VSM diameter 

of 12 in (area = πr2 = 3.14 x 36 sq in = 113 sq in = 0.785 sq ft). Short-term disturbance per 72 miles of pipeline = (25 ft-wide 

ice road x 5,280 ft/mi x 72 mi) + (0.785 sq ft x 81VSMs/mi x 72 mi) = 218 acres. Long-term disturbance per 72 miles = (0.785 sq

ft x 81 VSMs/mile x 72 miles) = 0.11 acres. 

10 Assume each CPF has one 20-acre pump station. 

11 Assume 1 to 4 staging bases of 50 acres each to be used during 10 year exploratory phase (Table 4.2-B). 12 A 50-acre borrow pit 20 feet deep = 1.6 million cu. yds. Alternative A requires 18 million cu. yds. of gravel (10,000 cu. yds. x 

90 acres x 5 CPFs = 4.5 million cu yds.; 10,000 cu. yds. x 10 acres x 23 pads = 2.3 million cu yds.; 10,000 cu. yds. x 11 acres x 5

airstrips = 0.55 million cu yds.; 10,000 cu. yds. x 50 acres x 2 staging area = 1million cu yds.; 41,000 cu. yds. x 10 acres x 28 infield roads = 9.4 million cu yds.); 18 million cu. yds/1.6 million cu. yds. = 11 gravel pits. 

4-57 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.2.2 Oil Spills 

This section summarizes the probability, behavior, and potential impacts that might result from 

a variety of oil spill scenarios. The spill scenarios used in this amendment, especially for larger 

volume spills, are likely to overestimate, in some cases substantially, the probability of a spill 

and/or the potential impacts. The probability of and impacts from oil spills on the North Slope 

have received extensive analysis and review in several recent EISs, EAs, and other reports.

Though the details differ among several of the documents, the basic data and conclusions are

generally similar. We incorporate these documents by reference and summarize the key points 

in this amendment. Referenced documents include the following: 

• Northeast National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska Final Amended IAP/EIS (USDOI BLM 

2005) 

• Northwest National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska Final IAP/EIS (USDOI BLM and MMS 

2003) 

• Northeast National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska Final IAP/EIS (USDOI BLM and MMS 

1998) 

• Alpine Satellite Development Plan EIS (USDOI BLM 2004c) 

• Liberty Development and Production Plan Final EIS (USDOI MMS 2002a) 

• Beaufort Sea Oil and Gas Development/Northstar Project Final EIS (USACE 1999) 

• Renewal of the Federal Grant for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System Right-of-Way Final 

EIS (USDOI BLM 2002) 

• Environmental Report for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System Right-of-Way Renewal 

(TAPSO 2001) 

• Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska’s North Slope 

(NRC 2003) 

• A Review of Oil Spill Risk Estimates Based on Current Offshore Development 

Technologies (NSB 2003a) 

• Situation Report #22, GC-2 Oil Transit Line Release, (Alaska Department of

Environmental Conservation, 2006)

In the NPR-A Planning Area, spills occur from pipelines, storage tanks, production and 

exploration pads, drilling rigs (well blowouts), airstrips, roads, vessels and bridges. Spills that

leave the pads and roadbeds, or enter water sources directly, could reach one or more of several 

habitat types, including wet and dry tundra, tundra ponds, lakes, flowing creeks and rivers, and 

potentially the adjacent nearshore Beaufort Sea. Spills could occur anytime during the year. 

In addition to hydrocarbon spills, spills of other types of materials are reported and tracked as 

well. For instance, seawater spills can be quite large and have the potential to effect large 

areas. Seawater spills to fresh water can have significant impact. Other types of spills that are 

reported and tracked include spills of sewage and hazardous materials. This analysis focuses

on the probability and potential impacts of hydrocarbon spills. 

4.2.2.1 History of North Slope Oil Spills 

The 30-year North Slope history shows that the vast majority of the oil, produced fluids, 

seawater, and other material spills that have occurred have been very small (less than 10 

gallons; 1⁄4 bbl) and very few have been greater than 100,000 gallons, including a 2,380 bbl spill 

in 2003 (NRC 2003) and a 4800 bbl spill in 2006 (ADEC 2006). The probability of a very large

spill greater than one million gallons is extremely low (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998). 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-58 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

An NRC (2003) report entitled Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on 

Alaska’s North Slope summarized the history of North Slope oil spills at that time: “Major oil

spills have not occurred on the North Slope or adjacent areas as a result of operations [of the oil 

fields]... Many small terrestrial spills have occurred in the oil fields, but they have not been 

frequent or large enough for their effects to have accumulated. They have contaminated gravel,

which has been difficult to clean up and has made the gravel unavailable for rehabilitation.” 

Appendices F and G of the same NRC report provide the most recent detailed analysis of risk, 

size, type, and general impacts of North Slope oil spills. These analyses are the basis for the 

above-quoted conclusion. More recently, in 2006, a large spill occurred from a 34 inch diameter 

crude oil transit pipeline known as the GC-2 spill. It was estimated at 201,000 gallons +/- 33%,

or 4,800 bbls. The spill volume was large because it was a small leak from a low pressure line 

that went undetected for some time. Yet the same conditions that allowed it to continue 

undetected (snow cover and low temperatures) limited the spread of oil and environmental 

impact to approximately two acres. The estimated spill sizes computed in this report for large 

spills take the GC-2 spill into account and increase the projections notably. 

Most Alaskan North Slope spills have been contained on gravel pads and roadbeds (NRC 2003), 

and most of those that have reached the tundra have covered fewer than five acres (USDOI 

BLM and MMS 1998). Also, as noted above, snow cover and low temperatures through much of

the year also reduces risk of extensive spread of leaked oil. Upon detection, spills have been 

promptly contained and cleaned up as required by state, Federal, and NSB regulations (NRC 

2003). 

When a spill occurs, significant analysis takes place on the causal factors that contributed to the 

event. Lessons learned from the GC-2 spill have contributed to The Pipeline Inspection, 

Protection, Enforcement and Safety Act of 2006, signed by President Bush on December 29, 

2006. The Act extends the oversight jurisdiction of the USDOT to oil and gas pipelines 

operating at low pressure, like the GC-2 transit pipeline. 

4.2.2.2 Northeast NPR-A Oil Spill Analysis 

The information, models, and assumptions used to analyze the potential for oil spills are 

described in Appendix K. Predicting an oil spill is an exercise in probability, based on historic 

data. There is uncertainty in the location, number, and size of any spills, the chemistry of 

spilled oil, and the environmental conditions at the time of a spill. This analysis considers the 

entire life of the planning area and much of the information in this section is reflected in the 

1998 Northeast IAP/EIS (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998) and the Northeast National Petroleum 

Reserve – Alaska Final Amended IAP/EIS (USDOI BLM 2005). Recent oil spill history has been

incorporated into this updated analysis. 

The oil-spill analyses in this amendment are based on three spill-size categories: 1) small spills 

(< 500 bbl); 2) large spills (≥500 to < 120,000 bbl); and 3) very large spills (≥120,000 bbl). Over 

the lifetime of exploration and development of the planning area, the probability of small spills 

occurring is high, and small spills are expected to occur. The numbers project that several large 

spills will also occur. The probability of a very large spill occurring is very low. 

The responses to a spill and amount of oil removed are variable and dependent upon the 

weather conditions, time of year, location, the size of the spill, and other factors. The amount of 

oil removed can range from none to effectively all of the oil. By assuming no cleanup, the 

4-59 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

estimated effects to the resources would tend to be overestimated, or greater than what would 

actually occur. 

Large Oil Spills 

Of concern to stakeholders are the potential effects of oil spills on the environment. This section 

summarizes the key variables used for oil-spill analysis. For further details on any of these 

points, please refer to Appendix K. 

Information on large oil spills is based on historical data from the North Slope. This 

introduction summarizes the assumptions used to analyze large oil spills, which are a mixture 

of project-specific information, modeling results, statistical analysis, and professional judgment. 

Spills from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) are included in the analysis, including the 

spill that occurred in 2001 when a bullet punctured the 48-inch TAPS mainline, 

notwithstanding that the spill did not occur on the North Slope. Approximately 6,800 bbl of

crude oil were released from this intentional sabotage. 

Assuming the amount of oil produced provided in section 4.2.1.2, and based on historic spill 

events, 2 to 3 large spills may occur during the life of oil development that might proceed from 

leasing in the Northeast NPR-A. Specifically, the estimated number of large spills occurring 

under alternatives A, B, C, and D is 2.475, 2.775, 3.45 and 3.15, respectively. 

Table 4.2-H. Assumed Large (≥ 500 barrels) Crude Oil Spills for Life of the Northeast

National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska 

Alternative 

Estimated Number 

of Large Spills 

Estimated Total 

Large Spill Volume 

(bbl) 

Crude Oil 

A 2.175 10,440 

B 2.513 12,062 

C 3.038 14,582 

D 2.775 13,320 

The estimated number of oil spills is based on the estimated volume of resources 

multiplied by the historic Alaska North Slope spill rate. See Appendix K for a 

detailed explanation. 

Large spill scenarios use the volume based on the largest spill to have historically occurred on 

the North Slope for that type of facility, e.g., a 4,800-bbl crude spill from a pipeline event or a 

900-bbl crude or diesel oil spill from a gravel pad facility. For analysis purposes, it is assumed 

that two pipeline spills will occur under Alternative A and that three such spills could occur 

under the other alternatives. A large spill from a planning area facility or pipeline could happen 

at any time during the year. Scenarios were created in which a spill could reach any of the 

following environments: 

• Gravel pad and then the tundra, snow, or ice (gravel pad not assumed to retain any oil); 

• Open water (lagoon, lake, or river); 

• Broken ice (lagoon, lake, or river); 

• On top of or under solid ice (lagoon, lake, or river); 

• Shoreline (lagoon, lake, or river); or 

• Tundra or snow and ice. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-60 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Based on modeling, the large spill scenario (4,800 bbl) assumes that after 30 days in open water 

or broken ice, 23-40% of the oil evaporates, 0-22% disperses, and 38-77% of the oil remains. 

After 30 days under ice in a lagoon or lake, nearly 100% of the oil remains in place and 

unweathered. 

The analysis of the effects of large oil spills is based on the following assumptions: 

• The spill size is 4,800 bbls. per spill; 

• All the oil reaches the environment and the gravel pad absorbs no oil; 

• The spill starts at the gravel pad or along a pipeline or from a well blowout or tank 

rupture; 

• There is no cleanup or containment; 

• The oil chemistry is similar to that of Alpine field oil; 

• The spill could occur at any time of the year; 

• A spill under a lagoon or lake ice from planning area facilities or pipelines does not move 

substantially until the ice breaks up; and 

• Spill locations and dates used in the analyses are those that would result in the greatest 

impact. 

Small Oil Spills 

The consequences of small spills of crude and refined oil are analyzed to address concerns about 

the chronic effects from numerous small spills. The small spills assumed for this analysis are

shown in Table 4.2-I. For this analysis, it is assumed that: 

• Small crude spills can begin anywhere on the gravel pad facilities or along the pipeline; 

• Small spills on gravel pads occur in contained areas or are cleaned up and do not reach 

the environment; and 

• Small spills from pipelines are likely to reach the environment. 

Onshore or offshore refined-oil spills could occur along ice roads, or from barges, helicopters, 

airplanes, gravel pad facilities, or trucks along the road system. Typical refined products spilled 

on the North Slope are aviation fuel, diesel fuel, engine lube oil, fuel oil, gasoline, grease, 

hydraulic oil, transformer oil, and transmission oil. On the North Slope, diesel spills account for 

61% of refined oil spills by frequency and 75% by volume. 

Based on the total oil production projected in section 4.2.1.2 and historical North Slope spill

data, the estimated number of small crude oil/refined oil spills for alternatives A, B, C, and D, 

are 516/1,276, 596/1,474, 721/1,782 and 659/1,628, respectively. (See Appendix K, Tables K-3 

and K-4, for an accounting of how the number of spills and spill size are projected using 

historical spill rates and projected production rates). 

4-61 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Table 4.2-I. Assumed Small (<500 barrels) Crude/Refined Oil Spills for Life of 

Northeast National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska 

Alternative Estimated Number 

of Small Spills1 

Estimated Total 

Small Spill Volume 

(bbl) 1 

Percent Chance of 

One or More Small 

Spills 

A 516/1,276 1,548/1,016 >99.9 

B 596/1,474 1,788/1,140 >99.9 

C 721/1,782 2,163/1,417 >99.9 

D 659/1,628 1,977/1,293 >99.9 

1 The first number is for crude oil spills, while the second number is for refined oil spills. 

The estimated number of oil spills is based on the estimated volume of resources multiplied by the Alaska North 

Slope spill rate. See Appendix K for a detailed explanation. 

4.2.2.3 Fate and Behavior of Spilled Oil 

This section describes the properties and behaviors of spilled oil that must be considered when 

evaluating the potential effects of an oil spill in the various environments of the planning area. 

Fate and Behavior 

The primary processes that affect the fate of spilled oil are spreading, evaporation, dispersion, 

dissolution, and emulsification (Boehm 1987; Payne et al. 1987; Lehr 2001). These processes,

collectively called weathering, dominate during the first few days to weeks of a spill, and, with 

the exception of dissolution, can dramatically change the nature of the oil. A number of longerterm processes also occur, including photo and biodegradation, auto-oxidation, and

sedimentation. However, these longer-term processes are more important in the later stages of 

weathering and usually determine the ultimate fate of the spilled oil. 

The chemical and physical composition of oil changes with weathering. Some oils weather 

rapidly and undergo extensive changes in physical and chemical composition, whereas others 

remain relatively unchanged over long periods of time. As a result of evaporation, the effects of

weathering are generally rapid (i.e., occurring in 1 to 2 days) for hydrocarbons with lower 

molecular weights. Degradation of the higher weight fractions is slower and occurs primarily 

through microbial degradation and chemical oxidation. 

The spreading of oil on water reduces the bulk quantity of oil present in the vicinity of the spill, 

but increases the spatial area over which effects from oil may occur. Thus, oil in flowing 

systems (as opposed to contained systems) would be less concentrated in any given location, but 

may cause impacts over a much larger area. Spreading and thinning of spilled oil also increase 

the surface area of the slick, enhancing surface-dependent fate processes such as evaporation, 

degradation, and dissolution. 

Evaporation is the primary mechanism for loss of low molecular weight constituents and light 

oil products. As lighter components evaporate, the remaining petroleum product becomes 

denser and more viscous. Evaporation tends to reduce oil toxicity but enhance persistence. 

Hydrocarbons that volatilize into the atmosphere are broken down by sunlight into smaller 

compounds. This process, referred to as photodegradation, occurs rapidly in air, and the rate of 

photodegradation increases as the molecular weight increases. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-62 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Dispersion of oil increases with increasing surface turbulence. The dispersion of oil into water

may serve to increase the surface area of oil susceptible to dissolution and degradation 

processes, and thereby limit the potential for physical impacts. 

Dissolution of oil in water is not a major process controlling the oil’s fate in the environment. 

However, it is one of the primary processes affecting the toxic effects of a spill, especially in 

confined water bodies. Dissolution increases with 1) decreasing molecular weight, 2) increasing 

temperature, 3) decreasing salinity, and 4) increasing concentration of dissolved organic matter. 

Emulsification, the incorporation of water into oil, is the opposite of dispersion. During 

emulsification, external energy from wave action causes small drops of water to become 

surrounded by oil. In general, heavier oils emulsify more rapidly than lighter oils. The 

emulsified oil may remain in a slick, which can contain as much as 70% water by weight and 

can have a viscosity a hundred to a thousand times greater than the original oil. Water-in-oil 

emulsions often are referred to as “mousse.” 

Photodegradation of oil increases with greater solar intensity. It can be an important factor in 

causing the disappearance of a slick, especially one composed of lighter products and

constituents; however, it is less important during cloudy days and can be nonexistent during the

winter months on the North Slope. Photodegraded constituents of petroleum products tend to 

be more soluble and more toxic than their parent compounds. Therefore, extensive 

photodegradation, like dissolution, may increase the biological impacts of a spill event. 

In the immediate aftermath of a spill, natural biodegradation of oil is not typically an important 

process controlling the fate of oil in water bodies previously unexposed to oil. Microbial 

populations must become established before biodegradation can proceed at any appreciable rate. 

Overall, because the environmental fate of released oil is controlled by many factors, its 

persistence is difficult to predict with great accuracy. Besides the primary processes discussed 

in the preceding paragraphs, major factors affecting the environmental fate include the type of 

product, spill volume, spill rate, temperature of the oil, terrain, receiving environment, time of 

year, and weather. For example, because of their properties, both diesel and refined oil 

evaporate at a substantially faster rate than crude oil. 

The characteristics of the receiving environment, such as type of land; the surface gradient; and

whether it is marine or freshwater, surface or subsurface, spring ice overflow, summer open 

water, winter under ice, or winter broken ice, would affect how the spill behaves. In ice-covered 

waters, many open water weathering processes occur; however, the ice changes the rates and 

relative importance of these processes (Payne et al. 1991). 

The time of year in which a spill occurs also has a major effect on the fate of the crude oil, as it 

is linked to climatic factors such as temperature of the air, water, or soil; depth of snow cover;

whether there is ice or open water; and the depth of the active layer. During winter, the air 

temperature can be so cold that it modifies the viscosity of the oil, limiting its spreading, and 

sometimes even causing it to gel. The lower the ambient temperature, the less crude oil 

evaporates, as demonstrated experimentally by both Prudhoe Bay and Endicott crudes (Fingas 

1996). Frozen ground limits the depth of penetration of any spill, and ice acts as a barrier to 

penetration until it melts. 

4-63 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Spills on Tundra 

Oil movement over the ground surface follows the topography of the land (i.e., oil flows 

downhill). In general, oil flows until it reaches a surface water body or a depression, or until 

absorption prevents further movement. Oil flowing over land can infiltrate vegetative cover, 

soil, and snow. If released onto tundra, oil can penetrate the soil as a result of the effects of 

gravity and capillary action, with the rate of penetration depending on the season, the nature of

the soil, and the type of petroleum product. In summer, spills can penetrate the active layer 

(the layer of soil and rock that thaws each summer and freezes each winter, which overlies the 

permafrost layer of permanently frozen soil and rock) and then spread laterally on the frozen

subsurface, accumulating in local downturns. From there, the oil can penetrate into the 

permafrost (Collins et al. 1993). Precipitation may increase penetration into thawed soils/active 

layer (Solntseva 1998 in Chuvilin et al. 2001). 

In winter, when the ground and water surfaces are frozen, spreading is controlled by the snow 

cover or frozen soil. Snow cover can act as an absorbent, slowing the spread of oil or preventing 

the spill from reaching the tundra surface. Therefore, oil tends to spread on the surface of the 

frozen soil, and penetration of oil into the soil is limited. However, any soil pore space that is 

not filled with ice may allow spilled oil to move into the frozen soil (Yershov et al. 1997; 

Chuvilin et al. 2001). 

Tundra relief on much of the Coastal Plain of the North Slope is low enough to severely limit 

the spread of spills. During summer, flat coastal tundra develops a dead-storage capacity 

averaging a depth of 0.5 to 2.3 inches (Miller et al. 1980), which would retain 300 to 1,500 bbl of 

oil per acre. Even at high-water levels, the tundra vegetation tends to limit the spread of oil,

with both vegetation and peat functioning as sorbents that allow water to filter through, 

trapping the more viscous oil (Barsdate et al. 1980), but making recovery of the oil more 

difficult. On the other hand, even small spills can be spread over large areas if the spill event 

includes aerial, pressurized discharge. With the high-velocity, bi-directional winds on the North 

Slope, oil can be misted miles downwind of a leak. For example, in December 1993, an ARCO 

drill site line failed, and 1 to 4 bbl of crude oil misted over an estimated 100 to 145 acres (Ott 

1997). Additionally, in late May or early June, the ice in the northern Alaska rivers breaks up, 

causing a rapid flood event termed “breakup,” that, combined with ice and snow damming, can 

inundate large areas in a matter of days. A spill during breakup could be spread over a 

significantly larger area by the flooding water. 

Spills into Water 

Oil spreading on the water surface (but not necessarily the transport of oil by moving water) 

would be restricted in most planning area waters. Because of the increased viscosity (a 

property that reduces spreading) of oil in cold water, oil spills in planning area lake, river, and 

marine waters would spread less than those in temperate fresh or marine waters. The 

exception to this rule would be a spill in shallow, marshy, or ponded tundra or flooded lake 

margins during summer, which could spread similarly to a temperate spill. These shallower 

waters can reach temperatures up to 64°F, which is generally warmer than other tundra waters 

(Miller et al. 1980), and warm enough to lower oil slick viscosity. 

Oil spilled onto the ice surface is prevented from spreading rapidly by the presence of snow and 

natural small-scale ice roughness (Dickins et al. 2000). An oil spill in broken ice would not 

spread as far as one in open water, particularly in the initial stages of a spill. Oil would spread

between ice floes into any gaps greater than about 3 to 6 inches (Free et al. 1982). 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-64 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Environmental conditions can be highly variable during fall freeze-up and spring break-up. The 

environmental conditions encountered during freeze-up are different than those encountered

during break-up, and the behavior of ice during break-up and freeze-up is complex, varying 

greatly from year to year and from site to site. Additionally, at freeze-up and break-up, the 

timing and duration of ice break-up, and ice formation/decay processes differ greatly between

shallow nearshore locations and deeper water sites (Dickins et al. 2000). 

An oil spill under ice typically behaves in the general manner described below: 

• The oil rises to the under-ice surface and spreads laterally, accumulating in the underice cavities. Because of under-ice storage capacity and low under-ice currents, oil spilled 

under stable landfast ice does not spread more than a few hundred feet from the spill 

site. 

• For spills occurring when the ice sheet is still growing (typically from freeze-up until 

April), the pooled oil is encapsulated in the growing ice sheet. The presence of any 

substantial coverage of developing ice limits the spreading of spilled oil, as compared to 

a similar spill in open water. 

• During break-up, as the ice begins to deteriorate, the encapsulated oil rises to the 

surface through brine channels in the ice (Glaeser and Vance 1971; Keevil and Ramseier 

1975; NORCOR Engineering and Research 1975; Purves 1978; Martin 1979; Dickins and 

Buist 1981; Kisil 1981; Buist and Dickins 1983; Comfort et al. 1983; Dickins et al. 2000). 

The spread of oil under ice can be affected by the presence of currents, if the magnitude of those

currents is large enough. Laboratory tests have shown that currents in excess of 6 to 10 inches 

per second are required to strip oil from under-ice depressions (Cammaert 1980; Cox et al. 

1980). Current speeds in the nearshore Beaufort generally are less than 4 inches per second 

during the winter (Weingartner and Okkonen 2001), speeds that were shown to be insufficient 

to strip oil from under an ice sheet after the oil had ceased to spread in field study near Cape 

Parry in the Northwest Territories (NORCOR Engineering and Research 1975). The area of 

contamination under ice could increase if the ice were to move. However, because the nearshore 

Beaufort Sea is in the landfast ice area, the spread of oil due to ice movement would not be 

anticipated until spring breakup. 

With knowledge of the time of year and the expected ice conditions, one can predict the likely 

configuration of oil spilled under, in, on, or among ice with a fair degree of confidence, which can 

be used to plan appropriate strategies for monitoring and responding to spills (Dickins et al. 

2000). 

Weathering processes generally would be similar in freshwater and coastal marine regimes,

with seasonal ice cover capable of greatly slowing weathering in both regimes. During winter,

weathering of oil depends primarily on whether the oil is exposed to the atmosphere. 

Evaporation of oil generally correlates to temperature, with lower temperatures linked to slower

evaporation rates of crude oil (Fingas 1996). Oil between, or on, ice is subject to normal 

evaporation; oil that is frozen into the underside of ice, however, is unlikely to undergo any 

evaporation until the spring, when the deterioration of multi-year ice causes the encapsulated

oil to rise to the surface through brine channels in the ice. For oil spilled during freeze-up, with 

the likely absence of wave action, evaporation is the only major weathering process (Dickins et

al. 2000). Evaporation occurs as oil is released to the surface. Because freshwater and first 

year ice do not have enough salts to form brine channels, oil is released only as the ice surface 

melts to the level of the encapsulated oil. For freshwater ice, evaporation occurs when the ice 

4-65 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

becomes porous within about 2 weeks of meltout (from May to July, depending on weather, ice 

thickness, and location of the oil in the ice). In multi-year ice, oil typically does not surface until

August, with some oil not released until the following summer. 

Dispersion of oil spills in water occurs from wind, waves, currents, or ice. Any waves within the 

ice pack tend to pump oil onto the ice. Some additional oil dispersion occurs in dense, broken ice 

through floe-grinding action. More viscous and/or weathered crude oil may adhere to porous ice 

floes, essentially concentrating oil within the floe field and limiting the oil dispersion. North 

Slope crude oil readily emulsifies to form stable emulsions, a process that is sometimes 

increased in the presence of ice. With floe grinding, Prudhoe Bay crude forms a mousse within 

a few hours and much more rapidly than in open water. 

In most cases, the weathering processes acting on oil in and along streams or rivers are similar 

to those described above for freshwater or marine spills. The dynamics of a river or stream 

environment, however, have additional effects on the fate and behavior of spilled oil. Oil 

entering rivers and streams begins to spread as in freshwater or marine spills, but the 

spreading motion is rapidly overcome by the surface current, at which point an elongated slick 

forms. The oil flows downstream at the speed of the current in the absence of wind effects. In 

general, oil tends to accumulate in areas of quiet water or eddies at the inside of river bends on 

a meandering river or stream, or in other pools where velocities are slower. Pools of oil may 

also accumulate behind log or debris jams. Water near the center of a stream channel flows 

faster than water near the banks or bottom of the channel where the retarding forces of friction 

with the channel are greater. This difference in current speed and the resulting shearing forces 

between water layers is typically the major mixing mechanism that spreads a slick out as it 

moves downstream. The resulting shearing of the oil distribution along the axis of flow controls

the plume shape and size, and the distance over which the oil concentration remains above a 

particular level of concern. The leading edge of the slick may move as a relatively sharp front 

(at the mid-channel current speed); however, mixing continuously exchanges water and oil 

between the slower, near-bank regions and the faster-flowing, center regions of the river. From 

a practical point of view, this means that although it might be possible to predict the initial 

arrival of oil at a point along the river, it is considerably more difficult to estimate when the 

threat is past, since the areas of slower currents may continue to supply oil to the main stream

channel, even after the leading edge is past (Overstreet and Galt 1995). 

Shear-dominated flows cause another effect that characterizes river spills. Shear in currents 

along the banks and river bottom is typically the major source of turbulence in rivers, in 

contrast to surface-wave activity in oceans. Mixing and dispersion caused by the interaction of 

the shear and the turbulence can move large amounts of oil below the surface (particularly if it 

is relatively dense, such as a heavy No. 6 oil, or if it is finely distributed as droplets). The sheardominated river regimes tend to produce spill distributions having higher subsurface oil

concentrations than would be expected in marine spills (Overstreet and Galt 1995). This 

turbulence increases with increased velocity of flow and bed roughness. 

The National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska Oil-Spill Experiment 

In July 1970, 5 bbl of Prudhoe Bay crude was experimentally spilled in a 0.07-acre tundra pond 

in the NPR-A near Barrow (Miller et al. 1978; Barsdate et al. 1980; Hobbie 1982). The general

behavior of this experimental spill is instructive about what would be expected from a small 

spill in the planning area during the summer, or from a winter spill that melts out during thaw. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-66 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

In this experimental spill, the oil spread over the water surface within a few hours to a 0.06­

inch thickness. Within 24 hours, the slick thickened as lighter hydrocarbons evaporated, and 

shrank into a 10- to 16-foot band on the downwind side of the pond. For about a month, the oil 

moved back and forth across the pond, shifting sides with changes in wind direction. Gradually, 

the oil worked partway into the pond’s vegetated margins. By the end of summer, all of the oil 

was trapped along the pond margins either on the water’s surface or on the bottom. No oil left 

the pond during the next spring runoff, despite substantial water throughflow. Half of the oil 

was estimated to have evaporated or degraded within a year, but the rest of the oil remained

with little change for at least 5 years. 

4.2.2.4 Spill Prevention and Response 

Each permittee operating on the NPR-A is required to develop and operate in compliance with 

an approved Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan (C-Plan), as defined in Lease 

Stipulation 9 and ROP A-3. The plan must describe the spill prevention measures as well as 

spill response procedures. Each permittee is required to have sufficient trained personnel and 

clean-up equipment and supplies available to meet Federal, state, and NSB regulations. 

Sufficient equipment and trained personnel must be available at the site of the activity to 

provide immediate spill response. Additional equipment and personnel from other locations can 

be used, such as equipment and personnel made available through Mutual Aid Agreements 

from other spill response contractors, other North Slope oil fields, North Slope communities, or 

other sources. Each permittee is also required to have proof of financial responsibility from the 

State of Alaska (18 AAC § 75.240). 

In the context of spill prevention, an activity site is an exploration site, drilling site, or 

production site, each with its ancillary facilities. Federal regulations that must be met include 

BLM oil and gas operating regulations (43 CFR Part 3160, Onshore Order Numbers 1, 2, and 6). 

These regulations address the prevention and control of oil spills and releases. Regulations 40 

CFR Parts 110 and 300 address responses to spills or releases of oil and gas. Spill response 

requirements would be thoroughly addressed at the site-specific permit level. For example, an 

Application for Permit to Drill would be evaluated for spill response regarding storage of

chemicals and hydrocarbons on site and oil spill prevention equipment, such as blowout 

prevention equipment and leak detection systems. These requirements are addressed in 

Onshore Order No. 2. The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) is 

responsible for hydrogen sulfide (H2S) planning for drilling operations, and Onshore Order No. 

6 addresses anticipated H2S releases. These conditions are all very site-specific. U.S. Coast 

Guard regulations may also apply to the transportation and transfer of oil to or from barges or

vessels. Alaska Statutes Title 46, chapters 3 and 4 provide the ADEC with the authority to 

prevent and respond to oil discharges. In addition, AS 46.03 and 46.04 provide ADEC with civil, 

criminal, and administrative enforcement authorities. The ADEC regulations that apply to oil 

spill prevention, contingency planning, and response are found in the Alaska Administrative 

Code (18 AAC Chapter 75). 

A spill response plan includes an action plan and a list of contacts in local, state, and Federal 

agencies with direct responsibilities in the event of a spill, as well as private companies that can 

be called on for further information or assistance. The environmental obligations of operators on

a Federal onshore lease are described in BLM regulations in 43 CFR Part 3160, Oil and Gas 

Operating Rules. In addition, parts or all of several Onshore Oil and Gas Orders may apply, as 

necessary. 

4-67 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Regulations administered by the BLM and the AOGCC require an operator to maintain well 

control at all times during drilling and production. The BLM has been delegated the authority 

to ensure that all exploration or production wells are operated under control. In the unlikely 

event that control of the well is lost (e.g., a blowout), the BLM would oversee all actions needed

to bring the well under control. 

BLM has the authority to cite the operator and bring civil and/or criminal charges for specific 

violations. If there is a spill or release of petroleum fluids or chemicals used in the petroleum 

industry on the lease, unit, or a participating area, the BLM has the authority to cite the 

operator and direct cleanup of the spill. However, cleanup would be completed in cooperation 

with other Federal or state agencies. 

For spills on most lands within the state, ADEC is responsible as the State On-Scene 

Coordinator (SOSC). The USEPA serves as the Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) for spills 

that reach inland waters, and the U.S. Coast Guard is FOSC in tidewater areas and on the seas. 

The FOSC and the SOSC must ensure compliance with all Federal and state laws pertaining to 

oil spill response and clean-up. The intent of applicable laws and regulations is to prevent, as 

much as possible, hazardous materials from entering water, and to ensure the rapid removal of 

these substances from areas where there is a danger of contaminating water. The FOSC and the 

SOSC, in coordination with the surface-land manager, monitors and documents the operator’s 

actions and determines when the cleanup is satisfactory. 

An exploration or production facility operator is required to include plans for the control and 

containment of spills, including blowouts, in the ADEC-approved contingency plan. The ADEC 

requires that all oil-spill prevention and contingency plans rely on control, containment, and 

cleanup of spills as the primary response tools. In situ burning is a spill response technique that

can be considered and may be used, upon approval, in appropriate circumstances. The 1999 U.S. 

Coast Guard Caps Review recognizes in situ burning as “the only effective countermeasure for 

broken ice conditions.” 

Alaska statutes and ADEC regulations require that an operator of an oil exploration or

production facility, a terminal facility (storing 5,000 bbl of crude oil or 10,000 bbl of non-crude 

oil), an oil tank vessel or oil barge, a non-tank vessel of more than 400 gross tons, or a crude oil 

pipeline have an Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan approved by ADEC before 

beginning operations (AS 46.06.030 and 18 AAC § 75.400). 

Facilities that must have an ADEC-approved contingency plan must meet oil discharge 

prevention requirements found in 18 AAC § 75.005 - 75.090. Required prevention measures 

include training programs, operating procedures, monitoring, inspections, and

equipment/facility specifications. All crude oil transmission pipelines must meet the leak 

detection, monitoring, and operating requirements of 18 AAC § 75.055. 

Under these state requirements, operators must plan to contain or control an oil spill within 72 

hours and to clean up a spill in the shortest possible time, consistent with minimizing damage 

to the environment. Environmental conditions can sometimes limit response work. Severe 

weather conditions in the Arctic, such as broken ice and extreme wind, can pose challenges to

spill cleanup and containment. Realistic maximum response operating limitations must be 

taken into account in spill planning (18 AAC § 75.425(3)(D)). 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-68 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Operators of facilities that must have an approved contingency plan and operators who drill for 

shallow natural gas (3,000 feet below ground surface or less) are also required by ADEC to 

provide acceptable proof of financial responsibility for the cleanup of oil spills (18 AAC § 75.240). 

4-69 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Basic Assumptions 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.3 ALTERNATIVE A 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4.3.1.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

It is anticipated that air quality impacts would continue to occur from diesel-fired generators in 

small villages, residential heating, snow machines, all-terrain vehicles, occasional small 

aircraft, limited local vehicle traffic, and occasional open burning. Given its high latitude, the 

planning area will continue to be subject to occasional air quality impacts from emission sources 

in northern Europe and Asia (and to a lesser extent, northern Alaska.). In addition, helicopter

and fixed-wing aircraft activity are likely to occur each summer. Additional flights would

originate out of Deadhorse, Prudhoe Bay, Barrow, and other airfields on the North Slope. These 

activities would have a transitory effect on local air quality. 

4.3.1.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Air Pollutant Emission Sources 

The following air pollutants would be produced during activities associated with oil and gas 

exploration and development under all Alternatives: nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2),

particulate matter (PM, including both PM2.5 and PM10), and volatile organic compounds (VOC). 

Combustion emissions may be assumed to be primarily PM2.5, while fugitive dust emissions may

be assumed to be primarily PM10. The types and amounts of air pollutants generated vary 

according to the phase of activity. 

Regardless of development phase, it is anticipated that helicopter use would occur throughout 

the planning area, however CO is the primary air pollutant which would be emitted. 

During the exploration/delineation phase, emissions would be produced by: 1) drilling 

equipment required for exploratory and delineation wells; 2) trucks and other vehicles used to

support exploration; and 3) intermittent activities such as mud degassing and well testing. 

Pollutant emissions would consist primarily of CO, NOx, and SO2, and are assumed to be 

minimal under Alternative A. 

During the construction phase, the principle emission sources include: 1) drilling 

engines/turbines; 2) heavy construction equipment used to install well modules and pipelines; 

and 3) ground-based support vehicles and aircraft. The primary development-phase emissions 

would be CO and NOx, with lesser amounts of PM and SO2. 

During the production phase, the primary source of emissions would be power generation for

heating, oil pumping, and water injection. The emissions would consist primarily of CO and 

NOx, with smaller amounts of PM. There would also be minimal evaporative losses of VOC

from oil/water separators, pump and compressor seals, valves, and storage tanks. Venting and

flaring could be an intermittent source of NOx, VOC and possibly SO2. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-70 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Air Quality and Climate 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

In addition to these criteria pollutants, certain hazardous air pollutants (HAP) may also be 

emitted. Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes are common HAP associated with 

volatilization of oil and gas resources, as is formaldehyde from compressor engines. Depending

on conditions, hydrogen sulfide may also be found in oil, however an accurate determination of 

specific HAP quantities and potential impacts is not feasible at this stage, given that particular 

site-specific development activities and pollution controls are not yet able to be predicted 

Effects of Air Pollution 

As presented in Table 3.2-B of Chapter 3, section 3.2.2, ambient air quality standards have

been established for seven air pollutants in order to prevent significant air quality impacts from 

occurring and thus protect human health and welfare. In addition, the U.S. Congress 

established Prevention of Significant Deterioration increments, which limit the increase of NO2, 

PM and SO2 values above legally established baseline concentrations. 

Under the State Implementation Plan, the ADEC has jurisdiction for regulating and permitting 

air quality emissions within the planning area. Operators would be required to meet ADEC’s 

requirements for air emissions, including obtaining construction and operating permits. All 

BLM activities (whether directly or through use authorizations), must comply with all 

applicable air quality laws, regulations, standards, increments, and implementation plans. 

In general, air quality effects could be short term (hours, days, or weeks), long term (seasons or

years), local, or regional (North Slope). Significant impacts from directly emitted air pollutants 

are not likely to occur. Ozone forms photochemically from the interaction of NOx and VOC in 

the presence of sunlight and heat. Although sunshine is prevalent in the planning area during 

the summer, temperatures are relatively low, and individual field development activities would

be separated from each other, increasing atmospheric dispersion of pollutants and inhibiting the 

formation of ozone. However, without project specific proposals, along with representative 

meteorology, air quality, and terrain data, it is not possible to quantitatively predict potential 

localized air quality impacts. 

Once site-specific projects are submitted for authorization, potential air quality impacts could be 

reduced by limiting the emission sources (fuel characteristics, engine specifications, etc.), 

spacing (such as separating concurrent drilling operations to reduce combined impacts), limiting 

the season and timing of operations (to enhance favorable dispersion conditions), and requiring 

specific control measures (road watering, low NOx flares, etc.) 

Native Views on Air Emissions 

Leonard Lampe, former Nuiqsut mayor, has reported air pollution problems and habitat 

concerns, asserting that Nuiqsut has been experiencing air pollutant effects for some time: “A 

lot of air pollution, asthma, bronchitis, a lot with young children. We see smog pollution that 

goes from Prudhoe Bay out to the ocean and sometimes to Barrow when the wind is blowing 

that way” (Lavrakas 1996). Because of the distances from the most likely developments to 

Nuiqsut and the relatively small sizes of these projects in comparison with the Prudhoe Bay 

complex, air pollutant emissions associated with Alternative development is expected to have a 

moderate effect with respect to these observations. 

4-71 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Air Quality and Climate 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Air Pollutant Emissions 

Air pollutant emission estimates for Alternative A (No Action) were based on the following 

information sources: 

1. Helicopter emissions were based on the Federal Aviation Administration’s Emissions and 

Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS version 4.1) for a Bell 206 (Edwards, 2007); 

2. Emission estimates developed for the Alpine Satellite Development Plan (USDOI BLM, 

2004c) for satellite well pad/access road construction, fixed wing aircraft flights, drilling 

rigs, and specific production equipment (satellite heaters, field generator, and a CPF 

turbine); and

3. Actual 2006 air pollutant emissions from the ConocoPhillips Alpine Production Facility 

(Poteet, 2007). 

These emission factors were adjusted for the following assumed activities under Alternative A: 

1. Helicopters: 5,000 one-hour flights per year; 

2. Exploration/Delineation: up to 144 fixed wing flights per year, 86 exploration wells and 65 

delineation wells, 5 drill rigs; 

3. Construction: 3,395 fixed wing flights per year, 2 drill rigs, 3,270 acres of land 

disturbance; and 

4. Production: 672 fixed wing flights per year, 23 satellite well pads, 5 Central Production 

Facilities, and 74 MMbbl peak annual oil production. 

Based on these emission factors and anticipated activity, the maximum annual emissions (in 

tons per year) by activity phase are presented in Table 4.3-A. 

Development and production activities can also produce fugitive dust emissions (primarily as 

PM10). Fugitive dust occurs primarily during the summer months due to driving on unpaved 

roads. Vehicles can also track out fine material from gravel mining operations in the winter and

summer months. Potential control measures include limiting vehicle speeds, and treating 

problematic road sections with surfactants or water. 

Well closure, abandonment and rehabilitation activities would emit air pollutants similarly to 

those during development (construction), since similar vehicles and other emission sources

would be used. Because closure activity would not occur at a single location for any substantial 

length of time, the impact of air emissions at any single location would be minor and short term. 

Impacts could be minimized by leaving gravel on-site, limiting the amount of transport. Once 

reclamation is complete, production facilities would no longer impact North Slope air quality. 

In comparison, a site-specific air quality impact analysis was conducted for the off-shore Liberty 

Project (USDOI MMS, 2002), which would be somewhat smaller than a typical field that could 

be developed in the planning area, which demonstrated ambient air quality levels would be 

close to, but within applicable PSD Class II increments. The combined facility concentrations 

plus background were predicted to remain well within the ambient air-quality standards 

(between 2 and 30% of the standards). Because Alternative A (No Action) facilities would have 

similar air emissions as those predicted for the Liberty Project, it is likely potential satellite 

well pads and central production facilities would have similar air quality impacts. However, the 

accuracy of determinations of specific air pollutant emissions and potential impacts is 

necessarily limited at this stage, given that particular site-specific development activities are 

not yet able to be predicted. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-72 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Air Quality and Climate 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Since CO2 has not been regulated as an regulated air pollutant, potential CO2 emissions were 

not specifically calculated for Alternative A. However, assuming an average 98% combustion

efficiency, the CO emissions reported in Table 4.3-A may be multiplied by 80 to estimate 

equivalent CO2 emissions (a maximum of 19 x 104 tons per year.) However, when compared to 

estimated worldwide emissions of CO2 (nearly 28 x 109 tons per year), Alternative A (No Action) 

would contribute minuscule amounts of CO2 emissions to global levels. 

4.3.1.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations 

No air quality lease stipulations were included for Alternative A. Potential air quality impacts 

from site-specific development activities would be limited based on air quality permits issued by 

the ADEC and EPA, including applicable control technologies. 

4.3.1.4 Conclusion 

Air quality impacts from Alternative A are likely to remain below applicable ambient air quality 

standards and increments, therefore no significant impact to air quality is expected. Air 

pollutant emissions associated with Alternatives A are less than any other Alternative. Each 

new exploration or development activity, or production area, would result in an additional air 

pollutant emissions. However, a determination of specific air pollutant emissions and potential 

impacts can not be made until site-specific development activities are proposed. As exploration 

and development activities cease, or production sites are shut-in, there would be a 

corresponding decrease in air emissions. 

Table 4.3-A. Alternative A Air Pollutant Emissions from Surface Activities 

(tons per year) 

Activity 

Phase 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

Nitrogen 

Oxides 

Particulate 

Matter 1 

Sulfur 

Dioxide 

Volatile 

Organic 

Compounds 

Helicopters 10 1 1 <1 <1 

Exploration/ 

Delineation 

30 133 7 15 <1 

Construction 81 295 20 24 26 

Production 2,316 12,027 281 381 271 

Total 2,437 12,456 309 420 298 

Source: Archer, 2007 

1

 Combustion sources primarily emit PM2.5 while land disturbance primarily emits PM10. 

4-73 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Air Quality and Climate 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.3.2 Paleontological Resources 

Paleontological resources (plant and animal fossils) are nonrenewable. Once they are impacted

or displaced from their natural context, the damage is irreparable. While much of the planning 

area is underlain by paleontological resources, most of these resources are of the marine plant 

and invertebrate variety and are so numerous that the potential impacts addressed here do not 

present a substantial threat. Vertebrate fossils are much less common and are more likely to be

impacted by the activities associated with oil and gas exploration and development. 

4.3.2.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative A, some paleontological research and excavation could be conducted annually 

by permit within the planning area. Excavation is a destructive activity; however, it is

necessary for the recovery of scientific data. Excavation and collection normally occur during 

the summer, and are typically the result of paleontological and geological research; however, on 

occasion paleontological material has been inadvertently discovered as a result of archaeological 

research. Most paleontological material is buried considerably deeper than archaeological 

material and is therefore not regularly encountered by chance. Some Pleistocene-age animal 

remains could be recovered in archaeological deposits if the deposit were old enough. In such 

situations, the remains would represent subsistence use of the animal(s) by humans. The faunal 

material would be considered part of both the archaeological record and the regional 

paleontological record. 

Aircraft and watercraft traffic, summer camps, hazardous and solid waste material removal and 

remediation, overland moves, and recreation associated with non-oil and gas activities would all 

have effects on paleontological resources. While aircraft use would not directly affect

paleontological resources; it could have an indirect effect by making paleontological resources 

more accessible to recreation and other users, which can lead to unauthorized collecting and 

inadvertent damage. 

The temporary summer field camps commonly associated with scientific or resource assessment 

work, hunting, or river float trips generally impact relatively small areas. Therefore, such 

camps and the activities associated with them, such as aircraft use, on-the-ground survey and 

reconnaissance, hazardous and solid-waste material removal, site remediation, and recreation, 

would have only a minor effect on paleontological resources. 

4.3.2.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbance 

The drilling of exploration wells and delineation wells would typically occur during winter. It is 

expected that no more than five wells would be drilled at any one time. Drill pads, camp pads, 

roads, and airstrips made of ice and snow would be used, but no permanent pads, roads, or

airstrips would be constructed; therefore, no major ground disturbance would occur and buried 

paleontological material would not be impacted. The only substantial subsurface disturbance 

that would occur as a result of the actual drilling would be the making of the borehole itself. 

Were scientifically important paleontological material present at the site of the borehole, these 

resources could be impacted by the drilling process. However, the likelihood of such an 

occurrence is extremely small. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-74 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Paleontological Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Surface disturbance from construction of CPFs and associated satellite pads, roads, airstrips, 

pump station, and gravel pits could impact as much as 3,270 acres. The primary impact to 

paleontological resources would result from the excavation of mineral material (gravel) for 

construction of the permanent facilities. Extraction of gravel could impact paleontological 

resources. Pleistocene vertebrate fossils are commonly recovered during gravel-mining 

operations on the North Slope. It is anticipated that the pipeline would not have associated allweather roads or pads and would be constructed during the winter months from ice roads and 

pads. Therefore, the only substantial impact resulting from aboveground pipeline construction

would be associated with the placement of VSMs. Depending on the depth at which the VSMs 

were set it is possible, though highly unlikely, that paleontological resources would be impacted. 

If a pipeline was placed underground, an additional 1.5 acres per pipeline mile would be

disturbed. Overall, disturbance from development would have a very low probability of 

impacting paleontological resources. 

It is unlikely that paleontological resources would be impacted by abandonment activities, as 

these areas would have been previously disturbed by construction and development activities. 

Effects of Spills 

An estimated 65–80% of all spills are confined to a pad, with the remainder generally confined 

to an area adjacent to the pad. During exploration, it is assumed that most spills would occur on 

an ice pad or ice road during winter conditions, resulting in cleanup that is less invasive than 

the cleanup required by a spill on land during summer. Paleontological resources typically are 

so deeply buried that they would not be affected by either a spill or subsequent spill cleanup. 

The effects of spills and spill cleanup associated with development would be similar to those 

associated with exploration activities except that they would occur during the snow-free 

months. Although cleanup from the spills could be more invasive because the ground surface 

would not be frozen, there is little chance that subsurface paleontological resources would be 

impacted. If present, surface paleontological material could be impacted as well. However, since 

the occurrence of important paleontological remains is rare, the probability of an impact is 

minor. 

Commercial Gas Development 

The types of impacts on paleontological resources that natural gas development and production 

would cause would be the same as those caused by oil development described above, except that 

there would be no crude-oil spills and if a gas pipeline is buried—the likely method—there 

would be additional acreage disturbed with increased potential for disturbance or destruction of 

paleontological resources. The highest potential for harm to paleontological resources would 

occur from digging a 4-foot-wide trench. For the 162 miles of pipeline anticipated under this 

alternative, that would impact approximately 80 acres. Indirect impacts could also occur on 

approximately 210 acres in areas adjacent to the trench from potential disturbance from 

machinery or placement of backfill. However, burial of the pipeline during winter will offer 

substantial protection to paleontological resources. 

The risk to paleontological resources would be reduced dramatically if gas pipelines are put on

VSMs rather than buried. In such a situation, paleontological resource impacts would be

extremely low—limited to approximately 1.5 acres impacted by the VSMs themselves (assuming 

a separate set of VSMs are needed rather than using the VSMs associated with oil 

transportation) and disturbance associated with building a 10- to 20-acre compressor pad. 

4-75 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Paleontological Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.3.2.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations 

The lease stipulations associated with waste prevention, handling and disposal, spills, overland 

moves, and seismic work generally reflect the standard lease stipulations BLM commonly 

attaches to permits for seismic survey activities in the planning area. The agency would

generally continue to impose these restrictions under Alternative A. 

Lease Stipulations 24, 67, and 70 would provide protection from seismic and overland move

activities that could potentially impact paleontological resources near the ground surface. 

Within the planning area, paleontological resources are most diverse and abundant along the 

Colville and Ikpikpuk rivers. Lease Stipulation 39 would prohibit the construction of 

permanent oil and gas facilities within and adjacent to waterbodies, which would protect

exposed paleontological resources along the banks of the Colville and Ikpikpuk rivers. Lease 

Stipulation 74 would protect previously unknown paleontological resources by requiring a 

paleontological survey prior to any ground-disturbing activity. If paleontological material were 

discovered, all operations would be suspended until written authorization to proceed was issued 

by the appropriate authority. These lease stipulations would be highly effective in protecting 

known and previously unknown paleontological resources and preserving their research 

potential, and ensuring that impacts to paleontological resources would be minor. 

4.3.2.4 Conclusion 

Most paleontological material is deeply buried and is therefore not regularly encountered by 

chance. The drilling of exploration wells and delineation wells would occur during winter and 

these activities would have a minor impact on paleontological resources. The primary impact to 

paleontological resources would result from the excavation of gravel for construction of the 

permanent facilities, but surveys for paleontological resources would be conducted before 

excavation and similar ground-disturbing activities could take place. Overall, both non-oil and 

oil-related activities within the planning area have a very low probability of impacting 

paleontological resources. 

Impacts to paleontological resources from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas 

activities would likely be additive, except in those areas where the two activities overlapped. In 

areas where two or more activities occurred, overall impacts would reflect those impacts 

associated with the first activity and any new impacts associated with later activities. Because 

of the size of the disturbance area, the potential for impacts to paleontological resources from oil

and gas development under this alternative would be about the same as Alternative B and 

three-quarters as much as Alternatives C and D, although the potential for impacts would be 

greater if exploration and development activities occurred in an area with an abundance of 

paleontological resources. 

4.3.3 Soil Resources 

4.3.3.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Ground-impacting management actions within the planning area that could affect soils under 

Alternative A include aircraft use (landing and take off), use of off-highway vehicles (OHVs) 

such as snow machines and four-wheelers, and other ground-disturbing activities. Where 

activities did not alter vegetative cover, there would generally be only a small impact on soils. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-76 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Paleontological Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

However, where these activities concentrated surface disturbance (e.g., foot traffic around a 

landing site or repeated snowmachine crossing of a drainage channel at the same site), there 

could be damage to the soils. If the vegetative cover or surface organic mat was removed or 

disturbed, soil erosion and thawing of the permafrost could occur. 

Soils naturally thaw during the warm months, resulting in an “active layer” that ranges in 

depth from 8 inches in poorly drained sites to 80 inches in well-drained inland gravel sites (NRC 

2003). Variation is based on location, aspect, vegetation type, soil makeup, and amount of 

contained water. Depth of the active layer would also be affected by changes in the climate. 

Generally, the loss of vegetation cover would cause the greatest change in the thermal balance. 

However, compaction of the organic layer could also change the thermal balance to a lesser 

degree by reducing its insulating capacity. Soils containing ice could lose volume when 

thawing, resulting in subsidence, thermokarsting, and gullying. 

Upon removal of the organic mat, soils could be transported by wind and water, which could

deposit sediment into sensitive areas. Impacts from soil excavation and removal activities would

be localized and probably not widely distributed. For soils containing large amounts of ice, 

however, the impacts would be greater. When warmed, ice-rich permafrost soils could slump 

and release melted water, creating ponds. Ponded water absorbs more radiant energy and 

increases the area of warming soils. This form of disturbance would continue well beyond the 

initial disturbance and take several years to decades to stabilize. However, the landscape can

be altered permanently. 

Off-runway landings by private or commercial wheeled aircraft could cause short-term damage 

to soils on the landing sites. However, most wheeled aircraft landings would occur on sand or 

gravel bars, or possibly on dry gravelly ridges. Impacts from such landings should be minor and 

sporadic in occurrence. 

The use of OHVs, such as four-wheel vehicles and snowmachines, could cause localized impacts 

to tundra. Use of snowmachines during the winter, when the ground is frozen and there is 

adequate snow cover, would have little or no impact to the soils. The use of snowmachines 

during fall or spring, or in areas without adequate snow cover, especially when crossing 

streambanks, could result in damage to soils, leading to thermokarsting. Similarly, use of fourwheel vehicles on tundra could churn soil in the upper portion of the profile, leading to braided

trails and thermokarst in wet tundra. 

4.3.3.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

The following analysis is based on section 4.2.1.2, Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development Activities. See that section for a discussion of estimates and assumptions for 

development as well as a description of how estimated areas of disturbance were calculated for 

each alternative. 

During oil and gas exploration and development, various activities could cause impacts to soil in 

the planning area. These activities include seismic activities; construction and use of gravel 

pads, gravel roads, gravel airstrips, and pipelines; excavation of material sites; and construction 

of ice roads and ice pads. Impacts could also occur from oil spills and from removal of gravel 

pads and gravel roads during rehabilitation. These activities would impact soil productivity and 

could alter the moisture regime of tundra near the structure by changing natural drainage 

patterns and areas where snow accumulates. In most cases the location, magnitude, and total 

4-77 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

area of affected soils vary by alternative. However, types of impacts to soils from oil and gas 

activities under all alternatives are similar. 

Embankments, such as work and camp pads, roads, and pump stations made from sand, gravel, 

or rock fragments, completely cover the natural soils and can cause their compaction. 

Landscape scarring resulting from working material sites, conventional pipeline construction, 

digging, excavation and placement of fill is particularly damaging in the Arctic because of the 

slow rate of pedogenesis (soil formation). Soils in the planning area are subjected to cold and 

anoxic conditions that retard pedogenesis, allowing exposed mineral soil layers to persist for 

decades. In addition, any disturbance that removes the insulating surface organic layer may 

result in differential thawing of the permafrost and cause thermokarst, subsidence, gullying 

and increased potential for soil erosion and sedimentation. 

Effects of Disturbance 

 Seismic Surveys 

Seismic surveys to collect geological data would occur during the winter months. Frozen ground

and sufficient snow cover, along with the requirement for low pressure ground vehicles, would

serve to prevent most disturbances to vegetation or compaction of the soils (Lease Stipulation 

24). A majority of seismic surveys create minor, short-term disturbance to soils and vegetation 

(Jorgenson et al. 2003). However, even with protective stipulations in place, some small areas 

of disturbance to soils and vegetation would be expected to occur from seismic surveys and 

overland moves. In some instances past overland moves and seismic surveys have disturbed 

vegetation, altered the thermal balance, and increased the risk of thermokarsting (Jorgenson et 

al. 1996). Areas of disturbance could be caused at streambank crossings from damage to the 

vegetative mat which could be scraped away, leaving exposed soil. Disturbance could also be 

caused to vegetation on the tops of tussocks in dryer areas. Water saturated areas show less 

damage to vegetation and soils from large tired vehicles (USDOI 2005). The potential for soil 

erosion would increase with an increase in disturbance to soil and vegetation; therefore, the 

most effective mitigation would be to keep areas and severity of disturbance as small as 

possible. 

The following analysis quantifies the potential impact of three anticipated 2-D surveys and two

anticipated 3-D surveys. If advances in seismic survey technology make resurveying of already 

surveyed lands attractive, additional surveying could occur and add an undetermined amount of 

impacts. Under Alternatives A and D it is unlikely that seismic surveys would occur on 

Teshekpuk Lake. Two-D surveys are most likely in the foothills area. The length of 2-D 

surveys would be much shorter than normal, however, and the total length for all surveys would 

be approximately 250 miles. These surveys could be accomplished in as little as a season or two. 

The maximum area impacted by 250 miles of seismic lines would be 6,060 acres (Table 4.2-F). 

This figure is presented as a maximum, because not all of the area within a 200-foot-wide line 

actually would be overrun by a vehicle. 

Trails are also made by camp-move vehicles, which traverse about the same distance as line 

miles of 2-D survey as well as traveling to and from the survey area. For analysis purposes, it is 

estimated that a round trip into the planning area to the site of seismic surveying and return

would be 106 miles. A camp-move trail is about 12 feet wide, and it is assumed the camp train 

would involve two to three strings of trailers. These strings could use the same trail, but this 

would cause greater damage than to use separate trails, especially over dryer soils (USDOI 

2005). For this analysis, it is assumed that on average, 2.5 camp-train strings would use 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-78 

Alternative A (No Action): Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

different trails to decrease overall damage and, therefore, camp-move trails effectively would

impact a path 30 feet wide. Assuming that there would be three 2-D surveys that on average 

would require a roundtrip camp move of 106 miles, camp moves to and from seismic survey 

areas would potentially impact 1,156 acres. This would be in addition to 910 acres potentially 

disturbed by camp train moves along the total 250 miles of anticipated 2-D seismic. Therefore, 

the total number of acres affected by 2D seismic operations is estimated at approximately 8,100 

acres (6,060 + 1,156 + 910) or 0.18 % of the planning area. 

Three-D seismic surveying would have the potential to cause greater impacts to soil than 2-D 

seismic surveys since tighter turns by heavy equipment are required and have greater potential 

to disturb soils and vegetation. Approximately 98,880 acres would be covered by 3D surveys 

(Table 4.2-F). In addition, it is assumed that camp trains would move approximately 30 miles 

within the surveyed areas and 106 miles roundtrip to reach the sites amounting to an 

additional area covered of 990 acres. Therefore, the total number of acres affected by 3D seismic 

operations is estimated at approximately 100,000 acres (98,880 + 990) or 2.2 % of the planning 

area. 

A majority of seismic surveys create minor, short-term disturbance to soils and vegetation. 

However, some studies on the effects of past seismic activities have shown a small percentage 

results in moderate to high, long-term impacts (Jorgenson et al. 1996, Jorgenson et al. 2003). 

The later study suggests that improvements in the equipment and procedures used for seismic

surveys have reduced the amount of impact to tundra, resulting in a higher percentage of 

tundra in categories of minor or little to no impacts and few if any highly-impacted sites. 

Calculations of area impacted by seismic operations in this analysis use a maximum estimated 

area of disturbance, but it should be noted that the projected impacts are probably greater than 

actual impacts would be. See section 4.3.5.2 under the vegetation section for a more thorough 

analysis of potential impacts to vegetation (and therefore potentially, soils) from seismic 

surveys. 

Exploration 

Under all alternatives, permanent or gravel oil and gas facilities including roads would not be 

constructed during the exploration phase of oil and gas development (Lease Stipulation 27). 

Limiting exploration activities to the winter season when the ground is frozen would prevent

most damage to soils. However, the construction of ice pads for drilling exploratory or 

delineation wells and ice roads for accessing the pads could impact soils in the planning area. 

Soil compaction resulting from on-road vehicle traffic could increase localized ponding and 

permafrost degradation. Degradation of permafrost beneath heated infrastructure would 

initiate or exacerbate any impacts to the structural integrity of the overlying improvements. 

In general, ice road and ice pad construction would have only localized impacts on soils, which 

would usually be limited to compression of the tundra under the ice roads and ice pads. In 

addition, a recent study of ice road impacts by BLM found that the wetter the area (evaluated 

during summer), the less damage to vegetation and soils from large tired vehicles (USDOI 

2005). It is estimated that, on average, there would be 50 miles of ice roads through the 

planning area on an annual basis, impacting approximately 212 acres. For Alternative A, it is 

estimated that a total of about 5,200 miles of ice roads would be constructed during the life of 

the plan impacting approximately 16,000 acres (Table 4.2-G). Under Alternative A, the location 

of winter ice roads could be offset from year to year to minimize vegetative impacts. The offset

would be greater than or equal to the width of the road (Lease Stipulation 18). In addition, 

approximately 20 miles of ice runway would be constructed impacting approximately 220 acres. 

4-79 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Multi-year ice pads could be used in a second winter, but would require insulation to prevent 

melting during the spring and summer. Some melting would likely occur around the perimeter 

of the pad, causing vegetation in this area to break dormancy. If plants breaking dormancy were 

covered by an insulating layer or by timbers or other material used to hold the ice pads

insulating cover in place, they would die from the lack of sunlight (Noel and Pollard 1996, 

Hazen 1997, McKendrick 2000). 

Under Alternative A, it is assumed that 86 exploration wells and 65 delineation wells, for a total 

of 151 wells, would be drilled from ice pads in the planning area. The total area of soil impacted 

by a typical ice pad (500 feet by 500 feet) would be approximately six acres. Therefore, a total of 

approximately 900 acres (151 wells at 6 acres per well) could be impacted by ice pads. The 

majority of these would be single-year ice pads and have only minor, short-term impacts to soils. 

Longer-term impacts would occur to soils under multi-year ice pads due to increased damage to

vegetation. See the vegetation section for a more thorough discussion of impacts to vegetation 

from ice roads and ice pads. Furthermore, the construction of well cellars during exploration 

would require a hole to be dug, destroying vegetation on approximately 16 square feet (0.0004 

acres) of ground. Construction of well cellars could create long-term impacts to a total of 

approximately 0.06 acres (151 wells x 0.0004 acres per well). As a result, soil loss and

thermokarsting would likely occur in these small areas. 

Placement of Gravel Fill 

Under all alternatives, construction of CPFs and associated satellite pads, roads, pump station, 

staging bases, and airstrips would result in the loss of soil productivity in areas where gravel

was placed. Placement of gravel fill directly on the tundra surface would decrease the porosity 

and permeability of the underlying soil. Development of this infrastructure for 5 CPFs under 

Alternative A would result in a total of approximately 2,700 acres of soil productivity lost by 

gravel placement. 

Construction of gravel pads, roads, and airstrips could also result in indirect effects to soils by 

altering the moisture regime of tundra near the structure due to changing natural drainage 

patterns and areas where snow accumulates. Snowdrifts caused by gravel structures would 

increase the wintertime soil surface temperature and increase thaw depth in the soil near the 

structures. These impacts would be exacerbated by dust deposition and by the formation of 

impoundments. These factors could combine to warm the soil, deepen thaw, and cause 

thermokarst adjacent to roads and other gravel structures (NRC 2003, p 95). In flat, thaw-lake 

plains on the North Slope, gravel construction can be anticipated to result in upslope water 

impoundment and thermokarst erosion equivalent to the area directly covered by gravel 

(Walker et. al. 1987). In this analysis, approximately 2,700 acres could be covered by gravel 

under Alternative A. Therefore, the total area of soils impacted by gravel fill under Alternative 

A is estimated at approximately 5,400 (2 x 2,700) acres. 

Material Sites 

Under all alternatives, gravel required for development in the planning area could be mined 

from existing sites east of the NPR-A, or could be extracted from new sites developed within the 

planning area. Investigations to identify gravel sources in the NPR-A have been limited

primarily to the sources near the Alpine field, including the ASRC Mine Site and Clover 

Potential Gravel Source (see section 3.2.8.2, Gravel Mine Sites), but additional investigations 

would be initiated if discoveries of recoverable oil and gas were made. Under Alternative A, it is 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-80 

Alternative A (No Action): Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

possible that 11 gravel mine sites could be necessary, impacting a total of 550 acres (Table 4.2­

G). Excavation of the gravel mine and stockpiling of overburden would require removal of 

overlying soils and create long-term impacts to soil productivity at gravel extraction sites. 

Pipelines 

Pipelines on the North Slope are typically built on vertical support members (VSMs) with a 

diameter of 12 inches and a spacing of 150 VSMs/mile. Under Alternative A, 392 miles of 

pipeline would be required, resulting in short term disturbance to soils of approximately 1,191 

acres and a long term impact at VSM sites to a total of approximately 2 acres (Table 4.2-G). 

In areas where pipelines were buried, construction of a trench would impact soil and temporary 

storage of overburden in adjacent areas would alter soil where temporary storage of the 

overburden occurred. The zone of impact would be approximately 12 feet wide for the length of 

the buried segment, and the total area of impact would be 1.5 acres per pipeline mile. Because 

pipeline burial under tundra has been the exception on the North Slope rather than the norm, it 

is expected that this activity would disturb only a small amount of area in the planning area. 

Effects of Oil and Gas Development on Permafrost 

Under all alternatives, oil and gas activities can have adverse effects to permafrost. Except for

the active layer, which lies between the top of the permafrost and the ground surface and thaws 

each summer, the ground is permanently frozen to about 660 to 2,130 feet on the North Slope 

(NRC 2003). The permafrost contains varying fractions of ice, and it is this ice that supports 

buildings, roads, or pipelines placed on it. The amount of potential subsidence from thawing 

permafrost is proportional to the volume of ice contained in the soil. Ice content can vary widely 

in the planning area and is dependent on ice structure, soil texture, and type of terrain

(Jorgenson et. al. 2003). Thus, in the planning area, structures must be designed to avoid 

thawing their own foundations. Roadways and buildings must be elevated on thick gravel berms 

or pads, or on pilings. Gravel berms for roads can be as high as six feet above the tundra surface 

to ensure that the subgrade remains frozen. These roads have visual impacts on the landscape, 

and can intercept natural drainage and create ponds that thicken the active layer and initiate 

thermokarst (Walker 1996). 

Pipelines generally must be built on VSMs to ensure that the heat from the transmission of 

warm fluids does not thaw the surrounding permafrost, causing differential settlement. Heated 

buildings can also thaw the permafrost, leading to thaw settlement, if they are not elevated on 

pilings or their foundations insulated and refrigerated. On pads with closely spaced wells, 

extensive refrigeration with passive heat pipes and insulation is required to ensure that the 

heat from fluids does not melt the permafrost. It is standard industry practice to incorporate 

designs that minimize or prevent thawing of the permafrost. Under alternative A, less surface 

disturbance is expected from oil and gas activities as compared to the other alternatives (Table 

4.2-G). Therefore, there would be less area of permafrost potentially affected. 

Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Removal of aboveground facilities, pipelines, bridges, and power poles during the winter would 

have a minor impact on soils and permafrost under all alternatives. Soils and permafrost would 

remain unaffected for as long as pads and roads were maintained. Once maintenance of the 

roads and pads ceased, thaw subsidence in ice-rich areas would result in settling of the gravel 

structures into thermokarst troughs. Removal of the roads and pads would accelerate thaw 

4-81 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

subsidence since the vegetation under pads would have been destroyed during construction. 

However, removal of the gravel would allow the reclamation process to begin. Under 

Alternative A, it is expected that fewer structures would be constructed for oil and gas activities 

as compared to the other alternatives (Table 4.2-G). Therefore, the amount of rehabilitation 

required, and impacts to soils from abandonment and rehabilitation, would be less than under 

the other alternatives. 

Effects of Spills 

Under all alternatives, spills could adversely affect soils in the planning area. Spills can create 

direct toxic effects to soil productivity, and depending on the season, soils can also be impacted 

by compaction and thermokarst during cleanup activities. A fairly large spill (4,800 bbls) 

occurred on the North Slope in 2006 and impacted approximately 2 acres of tundra (see section 

4.2.2, Oil Spills). Most Alaskan North Slope spills have been contained on gravel pads and 

roadbeds (NRC 2003), and most of those that have reached the tundra have covered fewer than

5 acres (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998). 

The primary processes that affect the fate of spilled oil are spreading, evaporation, dispersion, 

dissolution, and emulsification (Boehm 1987; Payne et al. 1987; Lehr 2001). Oil movement over 

the ground surface follows the topography of the land (i.e., oil flows downhill). In general, oil 

flows until it reaches a depression where it may be retained, or until absorption prevents 

further movement. Oil flowing over land can infiltrate vegetative cover, soil, and snow. 

If released onto tundra, oil can penetrate the soil as a result of the effects of gravity and 

capillary action, with the rate of penetration depending on the season, the nature of the soil, 

and the type of petroleum product. In summer, spills can penetrate the active layer (the layer of 

soil and rock that thaws each summer and freezes each winter, which overlies the permafrost 

layer of permanently frozen soil and rock) and then spread laterally on the frozen subsurface, 

accumulating in local downturns. From there, the oil can penetrate into the permafrost (Collins 

et al. 1993). Precipitation may increase penetration into thawed soils/active layer (Solntseva 

1998 in Chuvilin et al. 2001). 

In winter, when the ground and water surfaces are frozen, spreading is affected by the snow 

cover or frozen soil. Snow cover can act as an absorbent, slowing the spread of oil or preventing 

the spill from reaching the tundra surface. Therefore, oil tends to spread on the surface of the 

frozen soil, and penetration of oil into the soil is limited. However, any soil pore space that is not 

filled with ice may allow spilled oil to move into the frozen soil (Yershov et al. 1997; Chuvilin et 

al. 2001). 

Tundra relief on much of the Coastal Plain of the North Slope is low enough to severely limit 

the spread of spills. During summer, flat coastal tundra develops a dead-storage capacity 

averaging a depth of 0.5 to 2.3 inches (Miller et al. 1980), which would retain 300 to 1,500 bbl of 

oil per acre. Even at high-water levels, the tundra vegetation tends to limit the spread of oil,

with both vegetation and peat functioning as sorbents that allow water to filter through, 

trapping the more viscous oil (Barsdate et al. 1980), but making recovery of the oil more 

difficult. On the other hand, even small spills can be spread over large areas if the spill event 

includes aerial, pressurized discharge. With the high-velocity, bi-directional winds on the North 

Slope, oil can be misted miles downwind of a leak. For example, in December 1993, an ARCO 

drill site line failed, and 1 to 4 bbl of crude oil misted over an estimated 100 to 145 acres (Ott 

1997). Additionally, in late May or early June, the ice in the northern Alaska rivers breaks up, 

causing a rapid flood event termed “breakup,” that, combined with ice and snow damming, can 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-82 

Alternative A (No Action): Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

inundate large areas in a matter of days. A spill during breakup could be spread over a 

significantly larger area by the flooding water. 

Upon detection, spills have been promptly contained and cleaned up as required by state, 

Federal, and NSB regulations (NRC 2003). Impacts that have occurred were judged to be minor, 

and natural and/or anthropogenic-assisted restoration has generally occurred within a few 

months to years. See section 4.2.2, Oil Spills for a more extensive discussion of the fate and 

behavior of spills, and for an estimate of potential future oil spills by alternative. 

If seawater were used for enhancement of oil production, a saltwater spill could occur within the 

planning area. According to McKendrick (2000), brine spills kill plants on contact and increase 

soil salinity to the point that many species cannot survive. Unlike oil, salts are not 

biodegradable, and natural recovery occurs only after salts have leached from the soil. A

saltwater spill would degrade soil productivity and have effects on salt-intolerant vegetation 

near the seawater pipeline. However, the amount of tundra habitat affected would likely be 

limited to a few acres or less. In the case of a saltwater spill on tundra, the water would likely 

be adsorbed into the vegetative mat or, in wet habitats, diluted with fresh water. 

Under all alternatives, large spills may occur during the life of oil development that might 

proceed from leasing in the Northeast NPR-A. Large spill scenarios involve a 4,800-bbl crude 

spill from a pipeline or a 900-bbl crude or diesel oil spill from a gravel pad facility (see section 

4.2.2, Oil Spills). For analysis purposes, it is assumed that two pipeline spills will occur under 

Alternative A and that three such spills could occur under the other alternatives. A large spill 

from a planning area facility or pipeline could happen at any time during the year. Under 

Alternative A, it is expected that the risk of spills in the planning area would be less than in the 

other alternatives since less oil and gas activity is expected to occur (see 4.2.1.2). Therefore, 

potential impacts to soils from spills would also be less under Alternative A. 

Summer Tundra Travel 

As a rule, summer tundra travel would not be permitted under Alternative A. Therefore, no 

impacts to soils in the planning area would be expected as a result of summer tundra travel. 

Commercial Gas Development 

The types of impacts on soils that natural gas development and production would cause would 

be the same as those caused by oil development described above, except that there would be no 

crude-oil spills. If a gas pipeline is buried, there would be additional acreage of soils disrupted 

with reduced soil productivity. Direct impacts to soils would occur from digging a 4-foot-wide 

trench. Indirect impacts could occur in areas adjacent to the trench from potential soil

compaction, thermokarst, and disturbance of vegetation. The total width of direct plus indirect 

impacts would be approximately 15 feet. This equates to approximately 1.8 acres of soil 

disturbance for each mile of buried pipeline. 

The estimated 162-mile long gas pipeline would impact about 80 acres of soils directly through 

excavation of a 4-foot-wide trench and, potentially, 210 acres through compaction, thermokarst, 

and other indirect effects. In addition, ice roads that may be associated with placement of the 

gas pipeline would have localized, short-term impacts on soils, which would usually be limited 

to compression of the tundra under the ice roads and damage to the tops of tussocks in dryer

soils. 

4-83 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Soils thus disturbed in the ice-rich northern part of the planning area are more likely to 

experience thermal degradation and subsidence as a result. In this case, the soils would not be 

lost completely, but soil horizons as well as the thermal regime would be altered. Melting of ice 

in the soils would result and the filled area, normally mounded immediately after fill, would 

level over time as melt water migrates. Ponding, and potentially soil erosion, could occur if the 

trench surface subsides below the grade of the surrounding terrain over time. These impacts 

would be dramatically reduced if gas pipelines were put on VSMs. 

4.3.3.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations 

To protect soils in the planning area, the approval of most proposals for summer operations are 

limited. Because of the fragile nature of thawed tundra during the summer, permit sites are

restricted to durable areas such as gravel bars, beaches, or existing gravel pads. Vehicles 

allowed for use in overland moves would exert low ground pressure and be permitted to travel

only over snow-covered ground frozen to a sufficient depth to minimize soil and vegetation 

impacts. Many of the lease stipulations under Alternative A directly or indirectly limit potential 

impacts to soils in the planning area. Lease Stipulations 1, 4, 5 through 16, and 24(m,n) relate 

to waste prevention, handling, disposal, spills, and public safety. These lease stipulations would 

ensure that waste materials associated with exploration and development activities were

properly disposed of, and help prevent impacts to soil from spills and mishandling of materials. 

They would also provide for rapid cleanup of spills, which would decrease the likelihood of 

impacts to soils. Lease Stipulations 18, 22, and 24(c, f, g, h, i, j, l) would limit impacts to soils 

associated with overland moves and seismic work. 

Lease Stipulation 27 would minimize surface impacts from exploratory drilling by limiting 

activities to temporary structures such as ice pads, ice roads, ice airstrips and temporary 

platforms, unless permanent structures were absolutely required. Lease Stipulations 30, 31, 32, 

40, and 48 would protect soils in the planning area by providing facility design and construction 

regulations that would limit the footprint of developments, provide protection from oil spills, 

place restrictions on the development of gravel pits and permanent roads, and ensure resource 

issues were considered in the placement of facilities. Lease Stipulation 58 would provide for 

removal of all oil and gas facilities at the time of field abandonment. Lease Stipulation 63 would 

help to minimize resource conflicts by providing appropriate orientation programs and training 

for facilities workers. Lease Stipulation 67 would minimize impacts to vegetation and soil 

resources. 

4.3.3.4 Conclusion 

Numerous technological advancements have been made during the decades of operations on the

North Slope that have allowed current development activities to proceed with less 

environmental impact than previous operations (NRC 2003). However, some short-term 

disturbance and permanent long-term impacts to soils are inevitable. Soil stability depends on 

vegetative cover; where vegetation is disturbed, impacts on soil follow. Impacts to soil from 

management actions under Alternative A would involve short-term disturbance over fairly large 

areas and long-term disturbance of relatively small areas. However, all areas of soil disturbance 

would be small as a percentage of the entire planning area (see below). The duration of these 

impacts could range from one year or less for minor disturbance of soil and vegetation to

decades if the soil was destroyed or permafrost thawing was extensive. 

Impacts to soils in the planning area from non oil and gas activities would be minor and the 

same for all alternatives. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-84 

Alternative A (No Action): Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Impacts from seismic activities would be the same for all alternatives. Short-term impacts 

could occur on approximately 8,100 acres (0.18 % of the planning area) of soil from 2-D seismic 

surveys and 100,000 acres (2.2 % of the planning area) of soil from 3-D surveys during a 25-year 

period (Table 4.2-F). 

Approximately 1,200 acres could be impacted short-term by pipeline construction. Short-term 

impacts would also occur from temporary ice roads, ice pads, and ice runways. A total of about 

5,200 miles of ice roads could be constructed during the life of the plan impacting approximately 

16,000 acres (Table 4.2-G). In addition, approximately 900 acres could be impacted by ice pads 

for exploration and delineation wells and 20 miles of ice runway would be constructed impacting 

approximately 220 acres. In total, potential short-term impacts to soils under Alternative A 

from exploration (excluding seismic activities) and development would be approximately 18,000

acres (0.39% of the planning area). This is less than the other alternatives due to less surface 

disturbance expected from oil and gas activity. 

Oil and gas development and operation would affect soils by compacting and damaging soils 

under gravel pads, gravel roads, and gravel airstrips; excavating material sites; and 

constructing VSMs. These impacts would be long-term. 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 long-term impacts to 

approximately 6,000 (5,400 + 550) acres or 0.13% of the planning area. In terms of scale, the 

overall impact to soils in the planning area would be minor. Although all soil map units 

identified on Map 3-5 could be impacted during oil and gas exploration and development, soils 

associated with map unit IQ6 (see section 3.2.7, Soil Resources) would likely be most affected 

since they are located in the area having high oil potential. Potential long-term impacts to soils 

under Alternative A would be less than the other alternatives due to less surface disturbance 

from oil and gas activity. 

Impacts associated with oil spills, the majority of which would be cleaned up immediately, could 

aversely affect soil resources for a few years to several decades depending on the quantity, 

location, and season of the spill. Under Alternative A, it is expected that the risk of spills would 

be less since less oil and gas activity would occur in the planning area compared with the other 

alternatives (see section 4.2.1.2). Therefore, potential impacts to soils from spills would also be 

less under this alternative. 

As a rule, summer tundra travel would not be permitted under Alternative A. Therefore, only 

minor impacts to soils in the planning area would be expected as a result of summer tundra 

travel. 

Impacts to soil resources from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas activities, would 

likely be additive in most cases, except in those areas where the two types of activities 

overlapped. In these areas the total actual impact could be less than the sum of both impacts 

because some of the activity would occur on areas already impacted. Impacts to soil resources

from exploration and development activities would also be additive, except where development 

activities occurred in areas previously disturbed during exploration. In areas where two or more

activities occurred, overall impacts would reflect those impacts associated with the first activity 

and any new impacts associated with later activities. Impacts to soil resources from Alternative 

A could potentially be somewhat less than the other alternatives as some high-potential oil and 

gas areas would remain unavailable for leasing. See Table 4.2-G for a comparison of estimated 

total surface area disturbed by alternative. 

4-85 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.3.4 Water Resources 

4.3.4-a Surface Water and Groundwater Resources 

4.3.4-a.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Activities not related to oil and gas exploration have the potential to impact water resources. 

However, all of these activities have been ongoing for many years with minimal impact to water 

resources. 

Temporary tent camps would be located on existing pads or on well-drained soils along river 

terraces or uplands, set back from the stream or lakeshore with minimal surface disturbance. 

Excavation and collection activities would be done by hand shovel over several square feet, with 

replacement of the vegetative layer once completed. Recreational activities permitted by BLM 

would follow the National Outdoor Leadership School’s “Leave No Trace, Alaskan Tundra” 

program to minimize impacts to vegetation and to reduce wastewater, human waste, and solid 

waste disposal. Thus, permitted recreational activities would have minimal impacts on water 

resources in the planning area. 

Winter occupation or travel would use low-ground-pressure vehicles and trailers (Rolligons) at 

temporary locations with adequate snow cover. All fuel, waste, and hazardous materials would 

be stored on site in accordance with ADEC guidelines, and removed seasonally. Gray water and 

human wastes would be handled in accordance with ADEC regulations, thus minimizing 

impacts to water resources. 

Aircraft use could take place any time of the year in the planning area, but would be most 

common in the summer months because of better weather and the ability to use lakes for 

landing. Aircraft could be used to support recreation, surveying, scientific research, and 

transportation of personnel and supplies. The main impact expected from aircraft would be local 

fuel oil spills. 

Under Alternative A, permanent landing facilities would not be permitted on lakes or streams, 

and watercraft use would be limited to the summer months for transportation, recreation, and

supply purposes. As with aircraft, no permanent facilities to support watercraft refueling or 

repair would be permitted on lakes or rivers. Watercraft would have the same potential for local 

fuel oil spills or leaks as aircraft landing on lakes and rivers. Therefore, local impacts to water 

bodies from aircraft (float planes) and watercraft are possible, and would be expected to consist 

of local fuel oil spills. Aircraft and watercraft would be required to carry spill containment and 

clean-up materials, so these spills should be contained and removed relatively quickly. 

Overall, non-oil and gas activities would have minor impacts to water resources under 

Alternative A. In addition, fuel oil spills would be contained and cleaned up quickly, in

accordance with BLM and ADEC guidelines for use of aircraft and recreational vehicles in the 

planning area. 

4.3.4-a.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

The main water resource issues for the planning area are discussed below. These issues have

been raised and discussed in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998), the 

Northwest IAP/EIS (USDOI BLM and MMS 2003), and the Alpine Satellite Development Plan 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-86 

Alternative A (No Action): Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

EIS (USDOI BLM 2004C). The following analysis is based on section 4.2.1.2, Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities. See that section for a description of how estimated

areas of disturbance were calculated for each alternative. 

Effects of Exploration and Development 

Seismic activities and overland travel. Seismic surveys have the potential for thermokarst 

(subsidence of the ground surface due to thawing permafrost) because vehicles that cross the 

tundra during the winter months may damage the vegetation and soil surface. Some studies 

have shown that a small percentage of these surveys have caused long-term damage to the 

organic mat. No long-term damage was noted from seismic trails, but approximately 5% of the 

camp-move trails resulted in moderate to high long-term impacts (Jorgenson et al. 1996, 

Jorgenson et al. 2003). Upon removing the organic mat, soils are exposed to erosion by wind and 

water. These forces could deposit sediment into water bodies. Seismic equipment and vehicles

used today employ low-ground-pressure equipment and designs and have much less impact to 

the tundra than older equipment, but camp moves can still impact the tundra and cause 

thermokarst (WesternGeco 2003). Thus, modern-day seismic equipment has minimal impact to 

the tundra and a limited role in causing thermokarst. 

Lease stipulations for Alternative A restrict winter overland travel (including seismic activities) 

to times when the frost depth is at least 12 inches and snow cover is at least 6 inches. This 

restriction would greatly reduce the potential for thermokarst and long-term impacts to the 

tundra. Other important lease stipulations to prevent thermokarst would be the restriction on 

bulldozing of trails and repeated use of trails, to avoid formation of ruts. These lease

stipulations, along with the minor impact of modern seismic equipment, should be highly 

effective in minimizing thermokarst erosion of the tundra and transport of sediment to water 

bodies. 

Ice Road and Pad Construction. Ice roads and ice pads are used extensively during the 

winter exploration season for access and for exploration drilling and testing. An average ice 

road is about 30 to 35 feet in width, and must be at least 6 inches thick to support heavy traffic. 

Ice roads require about 1 to 1.5 million gallons of water per linear mile and generally can be 

built at a rate of about 1.5 inches of thickness per day (USDOI BLM 1998b). Ice pads range in 

size from 3 to 10 acres and are usually about 1 foot thick to support the heavy drill rigs. An ice 

pad can require up to 2 million gallons of water to build. Water for ice roads and ice pads comes 

from lakes that are not completely frozen. An alternative to using water from lakes is to use 

aggregate ice chips from lakes. It takes less time to build an ice road or pad using the aggregate 

chips, but these chips require time to collect and transport. 

Under the Alternative A, approximately a total of 5,162 miles of ice roads (15,642 acres), 151 

exploration and delineation well ice pads (906 acres), and 20 ice airstrips (220 acres) would be 

constructed during the estimated exploration and development scenario resulting in a total of 

16,768 acres of short-term surface disturbance (See section 4.2.1.2, Table 4.2-G). 

Approximately 50 miles of ice road would be needed each year under all alternatives resulting 

in the use of approximately 75 million gallons (MG) of water per year (50 miles x 1.5 MG/mile). 

Ice roads would be offset from year to year by at least the width of the road to minimize damage 

to the tundra. Ice road use would be limited to the winter season, with the months during which 

ice roads are allowed set each year by the Authorized Officer (AO). Similarly, ice pads would be

limited seasonally and subject to approval by the AO. Impacts to the tundra under this 

alternative should be minimal and limited mainly to the spring when the ice roads and pads 

4-87 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

would melt and add somewhat saline water to the shallow tundra pools. This impact would be 

temporary in nature since these ponds will be recharged by local snowmelt and runoff. 

The only source of water for ice road/pad construction during the winter months in the planning 

area is unfrozen water that lies beneath the ice caps of both shallow and deep lakes. This water 

is somewhat saline because of the exclusion of ions during the freezing of the upper part of the

lake. Water withdrawals from lakes have the potential to lower water levels if the removed 

water is not recharged by snowmelt, rainfall, or inundation by rivers following the removal. 

Previous studies have shown lakes to have fully recharged the following breakup after water 

removals in the winter (Baker, 2002; Hinzman, 2006). The possibility still remains that pumped 

lakes may not fully recharge the following summer, but is unlikely since most have sufficient 

recharge areas or connections to other streams or lakes. Withdrawal of water from streams and 

riverine pools is not allowed by the AO in the planning area under any of the alternatives 

during the winter months. 

Ice Road/Pad Water Use. Water from lakes may be used for ice roads and pads and for 

drilling water and potable water at drilling facilities, but the volume of water taken from an 

individual lake depends on the depth of the lake and the presence of fish in the lake. Under all 

the alternatives, for fish-bearing lakes, water withdrawal would be limited to a maximum of 

15% of the under-ice volume of the water (assuming 7 feet ice thickness) for lakes 7 feet deep or

deeper. No water would be taken from lakes less than 7 feet in depth if known to be fish-bearing 

or connected to a fish-bearing stream. The AO could authorize water withdrawal from lakes less

than 7 feet deep that are not connected to a fish-bearing stream, or are not subject to seasonal 

flooding by a fish-bearing stream. 

Drilling & Camp Water Use. Drilling requires water for making drill mud slurries which 

provide general lubrication, cool the bit, transport rock cuttings to the surface, prevent 

sloughing from the sides of the drill hole, and provide a weighting medium to prevent the 

migration of oil and other fluids into the well. Potable water is also used for drinking and other 

domestic uses in the camp that accompany drill rigs. For example, a 10,000-foot drill test would 

require about 850,000 gallons of water for drilling and about 100 gallons/day per person (50 to 

60 persons per camp) for the drill camp (USDOI BLM 1998b). During a 4 month drilling season, 

one well could require up to 1.65 million gallons of water. Drilling in the Alpine field used 

21,000 to 63,000 gallons of water per day and 8.4 million to 14.7 million gallons of water over 

the 4 month drilling season (ARCO Alaska 1996). 

Under Alternative A, water withdrawal from lakes for drilling water and potable water for 

camp use would be governed by the same lease stipulations as those for ice roads and pads, 

discussed above. Therefore, it is expected that impacts to water resources would be minor 

because of lease stipulations governing the amount of drawdown allowed in the lakes, and

which lakes could be used as water sources. 

Snow Compaction. Removal or compaction of snow can increase the depth of freezing on 

lakes, often by a foot or more. As a result, the water quantity available in a lake during the 

winter months is greatly reduced, and the salinity of the water beneath the ice can be increased. 

Under Alternative A, snow compaction would be prohibited on fish-bearing lakes, except at ice

road crossings. Therefore, this alternative is protective of lakes and streams. No impacts to ice 

thickness on fish-bearing lakes are expected as a result of oil and gas exploration and

development activities. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-88 

Alternative A (No Action): Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Drainage Disruption. Natural drainage patterns can be disrupted when activities or 

structures divert, impede, or block flow in stream channels, lake currents, or shallow-water 

tracks. Blockages in areas with low flow capacity, especially culverts blocked by snow and ice, 

can result in seasonal and sometimes permanent impoundments (NRC 2003). The resulting 

inundation can affect tundra vegetation and possibly lead to thermokarst (Walker et al. 1987 a, 

b). Diverting stream or lake flow can also lead to increased bank or shoreline erosion and

sedimentation. Proper siting and adequate capacity design of culverts, bridges, pipelines, and 

other surface structure are needed to minimize drainage problems during the spring snow melt. 

Under Alternative A, drainages would be protected by the lease stipulations listed in Appendix 

D. These lease stipulations require setbacks from specified rivers (Lease Stipulation 39 and 41), 

require bridges rather than culverts for crossing major rivers (Lease Stipulation 42), and 

require that culverts used for small drainages have ample capacity to handle the flow of the 

drainage during spring breakup to avoid ice jams (Lease Stipulation 43). Thus, this alternative 

would minimize impacts to drainages from construction of permanent and temporary facilities 

related to crossing the drainage. Overall, impacts to drainages should be kept to a minimum

under this alternative as a result of these lease stipulations. 

Channel Erosion and Sedimentation. Any surface activities that disturb streambeds and

stream banks or remove protective shoreline vegetation can lead to channel erosion, formation 

of meltwater gullies, and formation of alluvial fans in streams and lakes (Lawson 1986). 

Inadequate design or placement of structures, culverts, or bridges can alter natural 

sedimentation patterns, creating scour channels and channel bars in streams. Improper 

placement of gravel pads or fill can result in erosion from the pads or roads and transport of 

gravel to streams and lakes. Blockages or diversions caused by insufficient flow capacity of 

structures over streams can lead to washouts during spring breakup flooding. Activities that 

minimize erosion and sedimentation include limiting construction and transport activities to 

winter or periods of low-water and keeping culverts free of snow and ice (Walker et al. 1987 a, 

b). 

Under Alternative A, channel erosion and sedimentation would be minimized by lease 

stipulations listed in Appendix D. These lease stipulations require setbacks from specified 

rivers (Lease Stipulation 39 and 41), require bridges rather than culverts for crossing major 

rivers (Lease Stipulation 42), and require that culverts used for small drainages have ample 

capacity to handle the flow of the drainage during spring breakup to avoid ice jams (Lease 

Stipulation 43). 

Gravel Removal. Removal of gravel from areas near streams and lakes can result in changes 

to stream or lake configurations, stream-flow hydraulics, and lake shoreline flow patterns, 

erosion and sedimentation, and ice damming (NRC 2003). Locating gravel pits at a safe distance 

from streams and lakes would minimize these impacts. 

Under the Alternative A, gravel removal would not be permitted in the active floodplain of a 

river, stream, or lake unless authorized by the AO (Lease Stipulation 40). It is possible that 11 

gravel mine sites could be necessary, impacting a total of 550 acres (Table 4.2-G). The number 

and size of gravel mining sites would be kept to a minimum in the planning area, and, where 

possible, be designed so that wildlife could use them after mining was completed. These lease 

stipulations are protective of streams, rivers, and lakes and should keep impacts to floodplains 

to a minimum. 

4-89 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Pipelines. Pipelines have their greatest impact on water resources during the construction

phase, primarily through the use of temporary impoundments and diversions that can cause 

sedimentation of streams. Since pipelines are expected to be constructed in the winter, however, 

little or no impacts to water resources are expected. Roads are necessary for access to 

construction equipment, and construction activities associated with installing and testing 

pipelines can have considerable impact on surface water resources during the summer months. 

After the construction phase, elevated pipelines are expected to have a minimal impact on water 

resources. Leaks from elevated pipelines have been relatively minor in the North Slope. Tundra 

relief on much of the Coastal Plain of the North Slope is low enough to severely limit the spread

of spills (see section 4.2.2, Oil Spills). Buried pipelines, which are less commonly used on the 

North Slope, could have potential thermokarst, subsidence, and erosion problems beyond the 

construction phase. 

Pipelines on the North Slope are typically built on VSMs with a diameter of 12 inches and a 

spacing of 150 VSMs/mile. Under Alternative A, 392 miles of pipeline would be required 

resulting in short-term disturbance to soils of approximately 1,200 acres. Lease Stipulations 7,

9, 10, and 13 require that pipelines be designed to minimize leaks and that operators have spill 

prevention and clean-up plans and equipment in place. These lease stipulations are designed to

minimize impacts to water resources from pipeline leaks. Therefore, impacts to water resources

from pipeline leaks should be minimal under the Alternative A, unless a large oil spill or blowout occurs. Then the impacts to water resources would likely be substantial. 

Commercial Gas Development 

If commercial gas is developed on the North Slope, impacts would be similar to those from oil 

development. The most notable additional impacts likely to occur to water resources from gas 

development would be associated with burying a gas pipeline. Potential impacts during burial 

of a gas pipeline could include temporary impoundments, diversions, and sedimentation. Buried

gas lines also have potential thermokarst, subsidence, and erosion problems that could persist 

beyond the construction phase. If all work on the pipelines is done during winter, these impacts 

would be greatly reduced. Placement of the gas pipeline on VSMs would also obviate these

impacts associated with pipeline burial, though there could continue to be impacts associated 

with ice roads, which would be utilized to build either an aboveground or buried pipeline. 

4.3.4-b Surface Water and Groundwater Quality 

4.3.4-b.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

It is expected that fuel spills would be the main source of potential water quality impacts from 

activities not associated with oil and gas exploration and development. Float planes and 

watercraft have the potential for small fuel oil spills. These spills should be relatively easy to 

contain and remove, except under adverse weather conditions. Human activities such as 

scientific excavations, hunting, camping, and fishing of lakes and rivers could result in 

contamination by human waste and wastewater. This contamination should be very localized 

and disperse quickly in the water body. Fecal contamination by wildlife would be a more 

common and serious impact to water quality than occasional local human waste contamination. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-90 

Alternative A (No Action): Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.3.4-b.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Potential surface water quality impacts for oil and gas exploration and development fall into

three general source categories: accidental release of fuels and other substances (including oil 

spills), which could occur during both the construction and operation periods; reductions in 

dissolved oxygen and changes in ion concentrations in lakes used for water supply, which would 

occur mainly during construction but could also happen during operations; and 

increases in terrestrial erosion and sedimentation causing higher turbidity and suspended 

solids concentrations, which could occur during both the construction and operational periods. 

The following analysis is based on section 4.2.1.2, Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development Activities. See that section for a description of how estimated areas of

disturbance were calculated for each alternative. 

Effects of Exploration 

Exploration activities that could affect water quality within the planning area under all 

alternatives would be seismic surveys; ice-road and ice-pad construction; and drilling-fluid 

storage and disposal. Oil spills would predominantly be attributable to development activities; 

therefore, spills will be discussed under the analysis of development impacts. 

Seismic activities and overland travel. Under Alternative A, the ground must be frozen 

and average snow depth must be 6 or more inches prior to starting seismic operations (Note:

Alternatives B-D do not require specific snow depth). This depth, which is the current operating 

requirement on the North Slope (except for BLM’s new performance-based stipulations), would

be sufficient to protect waterbodies and water quality, as well as the tundra mat. However, it is 

expected that the tundra mat would experience some long-term impacts from seismic surveys. 

While extensive thermokarst erosion along recent winter seismic trails is seldom observed, 

impacts to vegetation and surficial compaction (precursors to thermokarst erosion) are still in 

evidence (Jorgenson et al. 2003). Where surface disturbance does occur, recovery of damaged 

seismic tracks takes many years (Walker et al. 1987a, b). Thermokarst erosion and associated 

effects on water quality could occur in high impact areas if damage to the vegetative mat was 

persistent. Recovery of a vegetative mat damaged during seismic activities, which would be 

necessary to improve water quality impacts, could take from a few years to decades. 

Thermokarst erosion can result in water features with high turbidity and concentrations of 

suspended sediment. To cause high turbidity, the peat mat must be sufficiently eroded to expose

underlying mineral soils, and the mineral soils must be fine grained. These conditions would 

rarely occur, even where tracked vehicles were used in multiple summer passes. 

Impacts from seismic activities are expected to be the same for all alternatives (Table 4.2-F.). A 

total of approximately 108,000 acres could be subject to seismic activity and camp moves (Table 

4.2-F). Of this amount, approximately 26,000 acres would experience short-term impacts, while 

153 acres would likely suffer long-term impacts from seismic surveys conducted during a 25­

year period. (see section 4.3.5, Vegetation, for detailed computations of affected acreage.) 

Ice Road/Pad Water Use. The use of water for ice-road construction could affect water quality 

in several ways. First, the winter extraction of water or ice from lakes in the planning area 

could change lake water chemistry. While impacts to water quality from withdrawal of water 

from lakes for ice roads and pads in the planning area have been found to be minimal (Baker 

2002; Hinzman 2006), additional studies may be needed in specific cases to protect water 

quality. 

4-91 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

In coastal tundra waters, alkalinity is associated with the salt content, with increases and

decreases in alkalinity paralleling those of salinity. Pumping water from a freezing lake would 

remove the more saline and more alkaline water from under the lake ice. During snowmelt, the 

removed waters would be replaced by less saline, less alkaline runoff water. 

A second way that ice-road construction could affect water quality would be from the 

construction of roads over lakes that do not to freeze to the bottom. Many of these lakes are only 

a foot to a few feet deeper than the minimum 6-foot depth necessary to maintain some unfrozen 

bottom water in winter. An ice road across such an intermediate-depth lake would be designed 

to freeze the entire water column below the road, isolating portions of the lake basin and 

restricting circulation. With mixing thus reduced, isolated water pools with low oxygen could 

result. Dissolved oxygen concentrations could be reduced to below the 5-ppm dissolved oxygen 

standard needed to protect resident fish (ADEC 1997). 

A third way that ice-road construction could affect water quality would be through changes in 

water chemistry along the roadbed during and after meltout. The water withdrawn from lakes 

to construct the roadway would be more saline than typical snowmelt waters. In addition, the 

salts frozen into the ice road would leach out of the ice prior to its melting during snowmelt, 

increasing the initial salt content of the meltwater. This effect could be measurable during 

initial snowmelt, but the effect on water quality should be minimal and localized, most likely 

expressed as a slight increase in salinity during initial snowmelt. Lease Stipulation 18 requires 

offsetting of winter ice roads to minimize vegetative impacts. 

Drilling Water Use. The use of water for construction, drilling, and domestic (crew) needs 

could affect water quality, as discussed for ice-road construction. Impacts to surface water 

quality from exploration activities, including drilling, are expected to be minimal and both local 

and temporary in nature. Withdrawal of water from lakes should not affect water quality in the 

lakes, except for potentially affecting the salinity. Drilling fluids and wastes would be stored 

and disposed of following guidelines established by the ADEC, and effects to surface and

groundwater quality would be negligible. 

Drilling Fluids. A typical 10,000 ft well might use 630 tons of drilling mud and produce 820 

tons of rock cuttings. There would be a minor impact from drilling fluids used in exploration, as 

mud pits and discharge of drilling fluids and produced waters would be prohibited. Muds and 

cuttings would be either disposed downhole or removed from public lands to ADEC-approved

waste-disposal facilities. Produced waters would be reinjected into the well. Some washed 

cuttings could be used in gravel-road or pad construction. These cuttings could contribute to

localized water contamination in the form of runoff from roads or pads if the cuttings were not 

adequately washed. Crude oil and waterflood pipelines would be aboveground, and their 

construction and physical presence would have a minor effect on water quality, unless a spill 

occurred (see below). 

Effects of Development 

Development activities that could affect water quality in the planning area include spills; 

excavation of material sites; stream crossings; summer tundra travel: and construction of gravel 

roads, pads, and airstrips. 

Spills. The greatest risk to water quality from oil and gas activity in the planning area is the 

potential for spills. Spills could occur on and/or from pipelines, production pads, airstrips, 

roads, and bridges. Spills that leave the gravel pads and gravel roadbed could reach one or 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-92 

Alternative A (No Action): Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

more of several habitat types including wet and/or dry tundra, tundra ponds and lakes, flowing

creeks and rivers, and potentially estuaries and the marine environment. Oil spills onto the 

tundra surface or into water bodies are the result of accidents and leaks within and around 

drilling and production facilities, or along pipeline routes. 

The history of oil spills from Arctic drilling activities along the North Slope is available from the 

ADEC database and has been summarized in the section 4.2.2, Oil Spills and in Appendix K.

Oil spills result from leaks, faulty connections, blow-outs, and small spills around active drilling 

operations. Numerous spills of less than 25 bbl have been reported, with 99% of all oil spills 

being less than 25 bbl. It is likely that oil spills in the planning area would generally be less 

than 25 bbl in quantity and average around 3 to 5 bbls, and that blowouts would be rare. Most 

oil spills, in the past have occured during production operations, rather than during exploration 

drilling (NRC 2003). Under Alternative A, the estimated number and volume of large and small 

spills would be less than the other alternatives since fewer high oil potential areas would be 

available for development (see section 4.2.2.2 for estimated number and volume of oil spills by 

alternative). 

The impact of a spill would depend on the type of spilled material and the quantity, location, 

and season of the spill. High water events will occur in spring and may occur in fall, depending 

upon weather conditions, which could also influence the environmental impact of a spill. In 

addition, high wind events could affect the aerial extent of impact from a high pressure release 

from a pipeline that sprays into the air. For example, in December 1993, an ARCO drill site line 

failed, and 1 to 4 bbl of crude oil misted over an estimated 100 to 145 acres (Ott 1997). 

Applicable ambient-water-quality standards for surface water and groundwater of the State of 

Alaska are: 1) total aqueous hydrocarbons in the water column may not exceed 15 μg/l (0.015 

ppm); 2) total aromatic hydrocarbons in the water column may not exceed 10 μg/l (0.010 ppm); 

and 3) surface waters and adjoining shorelines must be virtually free from floating oil, film, 

sheen, or discoloration. The State of Alaska criterion of a maximum of 0.015 ppm of total 

aqueous hydrocarbons in surface waters, about 15-fold greater than background concentrations, 

provides the easiest comparison and is used in this discussion of water quality. This analysis 

considers 0.015 ppm to be a chronic criterion, and 1.5 ppm, a 100-fold higher level, to be an 

acute criterion. 

Major crude oil spills generally result in peak dissolved hydrocarbon concentrations that are 

locally and marginally at toxic levels. Effects of spills less than 1,000 bbl can be considered 

minor. A spill greater than or equal to 1,000 bbl could temporarily (for about a month) 

contaminate water above the chronic criterion of 0.015 ppm in an area 100,000 acres or larger. 

Concentrations above the 1.5-ppm acute criterion could occur over 10,000 acres or more during 

the first several days of such a spill. 

Surface Oil Spills. The behavior of oil spills would likely be similar in fresh and marine 

waters. Because marine waters can have strong currents, the dispersal of the oil spill by 

currents would be rapid. Given the cold temperatures in the Arctic, oil spills in fresh water 

should not spread rapidly, unless they are driven by strong winds. Shallow, marshy, ponded, or

flooded tundra during the summer months can reach temperatures of about 64°F (Miller et al. 

1980), which would allow for a lower viscosity of the oil and a spreading of the oil spill. Spills 

into water bodies with broken ice would spread between the ice floes into any gaps greater than 

3 to 6 inches (Free et al. 1982). Oil spilled into streams would be driven and dispersed by 

stream currents. The oil would be driven downstream, likely accumulating in quiet pools and 

along natural and man-made structures that impede or redirect flow in the stream. The oil slick 

4-93 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

would move fastest along the centerline of the stream channel, where currents are the highest, 

leading to a dispersed oil slick elongated downstream. In near-bank areas, the oil slick would 

tend to accumulate, bind with sediments and vegetation, and become difficult to remediate 

(Overstreet and Galt 1995). This oil along the banks could be released at a later date and reenter the main flow of the stream. 

Shear-dominated flows can create a special type of oil slick in rivers and along shorelines. Shear 

in currents along river banks, river bottoms, and shorelines causes turbulence that results in 

mixing and dispersion of the oil and can drive large quantities of the oil below the surface 

(Overstreet and Galt 1995). This can lead to oil accumulation in sediments and along river 

bottoms and large quantities of oil moving below the surface and out of view of the clean-up 

crew. 

The primary effect of a small spill on water quality in tundra ponds would be direct toxicity, 

rather than oxygen depletion or other secondary effects. However, dissolved-oxygen 

concentrations in tundra waters could be affected by spilled oil in summer. Long-term toxicity

could result from a small spill. Small waterbodies, such as tundra ponds and small lakes, are 

more susceptible to oil spills than larger lakes. Long-term toxicity could result from a small 

spill, as shown in an NPR-A experimental pond spill. That spill killed the zooplankton, and the 

pond water remained toxic to more sensitive zooplankton species for 7 years (Miller et al. 1978; 

Barsdate et al. 1980; Hobbie 1982). 

Lease stipulations listed in Appendix D limit hydrocarbon storage, major fueling activities, and 

facilities sitings within at least 500 feet from active floodplains of rivers, streams, and lakes. 

Because of these lease stipulations, refined-product spills of hydrocarbons would be limited and 

would be less likely to contaminate freshwaters. 

Under Alternative A, there is little potential for a spill from oil and gas activities to affect water 

quality in Teshekpuk Lake as the area around the lake is not open to surface activity or is not

available for oil and gas leasing. 

Under-Ice Oil Spills. Oil spills under an ice cap have the added problem of the oil binding to 

the ice. Studies by Glaeser and Vance (1971), NORCOR Engineering and Research (1975), and 

Comfort et al. (1983) have shown that the oil rises to the under-ice surface and spreads 

laterally, accumulating in under-ice cavities. Spills that occur when the ice sheet is growing 

become encapsulated in the ice. In the spring, as the ice melts, the oil rises to the surface in 

brine channels within the ice. The spread of an under-ice oil spill may be dispersed by currents 

in excess of 6 to 10 inches per second (Cammaert 1980; Cox et al. 1980). If the ice is marine ice 

and moves during spring breakup, the oil contained with the ice moves with the ice. Thus, 

under-ice oil spills can be quite difficult to detect and especially difficult to remediate. Lease 

Stipulation 28 prohibits exploratory drilling in river, stream or lake beds. 

Gravel Structures. Under all alternatives, construction of CPFs and associated satellite pads, 

roads, pump station, staging bases, and airstrips, would result in the loss of wetland 

productivity in areas where gravel was placed. Development of this infrastructure for 5 CPFs

under Alternative A would result in a total of approximately 2,700 acres of wetland productivity 

lost by gravel placement. 

Construction of gravel pads, roads, and airstrips has altered the moisture regime of tundra near 

the structure by changing natural drainage patterns and areas where snow accumulates. 

Snowdrifts caused by gravel structures have increased the wintertime soil surface temperature 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-94 

Alternative A (No Action): Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

and increased thaw depth in soils near the structures. These impacts have been exacerbated by 

dust deposition and by the formation of impoundments. These factors combine to warm the soil, 

deepen thaw, and cause thermokarst adjacent to roads and other gravel structures (NRC 2003). 

In flat, thaw-lake plains on the North Slope, one study in the 1980’s found that past gravel 

construction resulted in upslope water impoundment and thermokarst erosion equivalent to 

twice the area directly covered by gravel (Walker et. al. 1987). However, cumulative impacts 

recently reported by the National Research Council found that the ratio of direct to indirect 

impacts from gravel structures such as roads was about one to one (NRC 2003, p 95). In this 

analysis, approximately 2,700 acres could be covered by gravel under Alternative A. Therefore, 

the total area impacted by gravel fill under Alternative A is estimated at approximately 5,400 

(2,700 + 2,700) acres. Lease Stipulation 43 requires natural drainage patterns to be identified 

and maintained during and after construction to prevent impoundments or alteration of the 

hydrologic regime. 

Summer tundra travel. Summer tundra travel would not be permitted under Alternative A. 

Therefore, no impacts to water quality in the planning area would be expected. 

Stream Crossings. Rivers and creeks could be affected from construction and operation of 

roads, pads, and pipelines. These structures can block, divert, impede, or constrict flows. 

Blockage or diversions to areas with insufficient flow capacity can result in seasonal or 

permanent impoundments. Constricting flows can result in increased stream velocities and a 

higher potential for ice jams, ice impacts, scour, and streambank erosion. Impeding flows can 

result in a higher potential for bank overflows and floodplain inundation. Lease Stipulations 42, 

43, and 44 provide guidance on the use of bridges and culverts and best management practices 

to ensure that the natural drainage pattern would be maintained. 

Pipelines. Pipelines have their greatest impact on water resources during the construction

phase, primarily through the use of temporary impoundments and diversions that can cause 

sedimentation of streams. Since pipelines are expected to be constructed in the winter, however, 

little or no impacts to water resources are expected. Roads are necessary for access to 

construction equipment, and construction activities associated with installing and testing 

pipelines can have considerable impact on surface water resources during the summer months. 

After the construction phase, elevated pipelines are expected to have a minimal impact on water 

resources. Pipelines on the North Slope are typically built on VSMs with a diameter of 12 inches

and a spacing of 150 VSMs/mile. Under Alternative A, 392 miles of pipeline would be required, 

resulting in short-term disturbance to soils of approximately 1,200 acres. Buried pipelines,

which are less commonly used on the North Slope, could have potential thermokarst, 

subsidence, and erosion problems beyond the construction phase. Because pipeline burial under 

tundra has been the exception on the North Slope rather than the norm, it is expected that this 

activity would disturb only a small amount of area in the planning area. 

Gravel Removal. Gravel required for development in the planning area could be mined from 

existing sites east of the NPR-A, or could be extracted from new sites developed within the 

planning area. Investigations to identify gravel sources in the NPR-A have been limited

primarily to the sources near the Alpine field, including the ASRC Mine Site and Clover 

Potential Gravel Source (see section 3.2.8.2, Gravel Mine Sites), but additional investigations 

would be initiated if discoveries of recoverable oil and gas were made. It is possible that 11 

gravel mine sites could be necessary, impacting a total of 550 acres (Table 4.2-G). Excavation of 

the gravel mine and stockpiling of overburden could impact water quality locally by an increase 

in thermokarst and erosion at gravel extraction sites. 

4-95 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

In recent decades, suction dredges have been used in the NSB to mine sand and gravel from the 

Colville River Delta at Nuiqsut; the Meade and Kokolik rivers; lakes at Atqasuk and Barrow; 

and lagoons at Barrow, Wainwright, and Kaktovik (Walker 1994). Dredging increased upriver 

bottom erosion by increasing the steepness of river slopes in the Colville River, but the primary 

environmental effect attributed to NSB dredging has been expansion of fish overwintering 

areas. Water quality, as evidenced by the healthy fish populations, does not appear to be

affected by this dredging activity (Walker 1994). Because gravel is a scarce commodity, 

construction technology could be refined to lessen gravel use and associated impacts, although 

such alternatives are not assumed in this analysis. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Removal of facilities, particularly roads, bridges, and culverts, would likely cause increased 

sedimentation and erosion immediately after removal. Leaving pads, airstrips, roads, bridges, 

and culverts in place, particularly without future maintenance, however, would result in longerterm, higher levels of erosion, sedimentation, and upslope impoundment. Leaving the roads in 

place, but removing bridges and culverts and breaching the roads where culverts had been

placed, would reduce upslope impoundment. Ponds would be formed from melting of ice wedges 

or other ice underlying the gravel facilities. Adverse effects from abandonment and 

rehabilitation would be less for Alternative A than for the other alternatives because areas of 

high oil and gas potential would remain closed to leasing, and therefore, less development would 

likely occur. 

Commercial Gas Development 

If commercial gas is developed on the North Slope, impacts to water quality would be similar to 

those from oil development, though there would be no oil spill impacts. The most notable 

additional impacts likely to occur to water quality from gas development would be associated 

with burying a gas pipeline. Potential impacts during burial of a gas pipeline could include 

temporary impoundments, diversions, and sedimentation. Buried gas lines also have potential 

thermokarst, subsidence, and erosion problems that could persist beyond the construction 

phase. If all work on the pipelines is done during winter, these impacts would be greatly 

reduced. Placement of the gas pipeline on VSMs would also obviate these impacts associated

with pipeline burial. 

4.3.4-b.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations 

Numerous lease stipulations were developed for the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD to reduce or 

avoid impacts to water resources and water quality. Lease Stipulations 1-4 require solid waste 

reduction plans, prohibit burial of garbage and require proper disposal of pumpable waste. 

Lease Stipulation 5 regulates the proper disposal of domestic wastewater, drilling wastes, and 

produced waters. Lease Stipulations 7-14, prescribe oil spill prevention and response 

requirements. Lease Stipulations 15 and 24m prohibit fuel storage within the floodplain and

require appropriate containment. Lease Stipulations 16 and 24n require fuel handling and 

refueling restrictions. Lease Stipulations 20 and 21 prohibit the removal of water from rivers 

and streams during winter, and restrict the amount of water that could be removed from lakes 

during winter for ice road construction to protect aquatic, fish, and waterfowl resources. Lease 

Stipulation 22 protects riparian habitat along waterways. Lease Stipulation 24 provides further 

protection to waterways from overland moves and seismic work. In most cases, exploratory 

drilling would be prohibited in rivers, streams, and lakebeds (Lease Stipulation 28), and 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-96 

Alternative A (No Action): Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

permanent oil and gas facilities would also be prohibited in the Teshekpuk Lake Surface 

Protection Area (Lease Stipulation 31). Lease Stipulation 32 requires the development footprint 

and associated gravel to be minimized by proper design of facility structures and roads. Lease 

Stipulation 40 restricts gravel mining sites to the minimum necessary to develop the field

efficiently and are prohibited from siting within the active floodplain. Permanent oil and gas 

facilities are also prohibited near other important water bodies in the planning area to protect 

fish and other resources (Lease Stipulation 39), and within 500 feet of all other water bodies 

(Lease Stipulation 41). Lease Stipulations 42, 43, and 44 provide guidance on the use of bridges 

and culverts and best management practices to ensure that the natural drainage pattern would 

be maintained. Lease Stipulation 46 will minimize development within key wetlands to protect 

aquatic, floodplain, and riparian areas. Lease Stipulation 58 requires removal and reclamation 

of the developed site upon field abandonment. 

4.3.4.4 Conclusion 

Under all alternatives, this analysis shows that impacts to water resources from non-oil and gas 

activities would be minor. Most impacts from and oil and gas exploration would also be minor 

and short-term. Short-term impacts include water withdrawals from lakes for ice roads and ice 

pads. Seismic activities could result in thermokarst and erosion on approximately 153 acres 

during a 25-year period under all alternatives. 

Impacts from development would include some long-term disturbance of streambanks and 

shorelines and subsequent melting of the permafrost that could result in erosion and

sedimentation. These impacts could occur when gravel roads, gravel pads, underground

pipelines, or other permanent facilities are constructed near these areas. Long-term impacts

from development of CPFs, gravel roads, pads, runways, pump stations, and staging bases could 

have both direct and indirect long-term impacts of up to approximately 5,400 acres under 

Alternative A (Table 4.2-G). Both aboveground oil pipelines and buried pipelines could result in 

short-term impacts. Under Alternative A, 392 miles of pipeline would be required. After 

construction was complete, impacts from elevated pipelines should be minor. Buried pipelines 

would have potential thermokarst, subsidence, and erosion problems that could persist beyond

the construction phase, and result in about 1.5 acres of long-term impacts per buried pipeline 

mile. Since most work is done during the winter when the tundra is frozen, construction impacts

would be reduced. 

Rivers and creeks could be affected from construction and operation of roads, pads, airstrips, 

and pipelines. These structures can block, divert, impede, or constrict flows. Blockage or 

diversions to areas with insufficient flow capacity can result in seasonal or permanent 

impoundments. Constricting flows can result in increased stream velocities and a higher 

potential for ice jams, ice impacts, scour, and streambank erosion. Impeding flows can result in

a higher potential for bank overflows and floodplain inundation. In this analysis, less 

infrastructure would be required since less area of high oil and gas potential would be available 

for development. Therefore, the potential for blockages and diversion of flow would be less 

under Alternative A compared to the other alternatives. 

Under Alternative A, 11 gravel mine sites could be necessary, impacting a total of 550 acres 

long-term (Table 4.2-G). This compares with 13,16, and 14 mine sites with Alternatives B,C and 

D, respectively. Excavation of the gravel mine and stockpiling of overburden could impact water 

quality locally by an increase in thermokarst and erosion at gravel extraction sites. 

4-97 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

The greatest risk to water quality from oil and gas activity in the planning area is the potential 

for spills. Under Alternative A, the estimated number and volume of large and small spills 

would be less than the other alternatives since fewer high oil potential areas would be available 

for development. Spills could occur on and/or from pipelines, production pads, airstrips, roads, 

and bridges. The impact of a spill would depend on the type of spilled material and the quantity, 

location, and season of the spill. Oil spills could result in the impacted waters being toxic to

sensitive species. The primary effect of a small spill on water quality in tundra ponds would be 

direct toxicity Oxygen depletion or other secondary effects could also occur. Long-term toxicity

could result from a small spill. Small waterbodies, such as tundra ponds and small lakes, are 

more susceptible to oil spills than larger lakes. Under Alternative A, there is less potential than 

the other alternatives for a spill from oil and gas activities to affect water quality in Teshekpuk 

Lake as the area around the lake is not open to surface activity or is not available for oil and gas 

leasing. 

Impacts to water resources from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas activities, 

would likely be additive, except in those areas where the two types of activities overlapped.

Impacts to water sources from exploration and development activities would also be additive, 

except where development activities occurred in areas previously disturbed during exploration. 

In areas where two or more activities occurred, overall impacts would reflect those impacts 

associated with the first activity and any new impacts associated with later activities. 

Numerous lease stipulations were developed for the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD, and these 

should be effective in reducing or avoiding impacts to water resources. 

4.3.5 Vegetation 

This section discusses the potential effects to vegetation that could result from management 

action in the planning area under the Alternative A. The following sections summarize the

information previously presented in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998), 

which has been amended with additional data from studies conducted since 1998, particularly 

for the Northwest IAP/EIS (USDOI BLM and MMS 2003). It has also been updated with a new 

scenario for “reasonably foreseeable development” of oil and gas resources. 

4.3.5.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Various types of activities not related to oil and gas leasing and development could affect 

vegetation in the planning area. Off-runway landings by private or commercial wheeled aircraft

could cause short-term damage to vegetation present on the landing sites. Most wheeled aircraft 

landings would occur on sand or gravel bars or possibly on dry gravelly ridges. Therefore,

impacts from such landings would likely be minor and sporadic in occurrence. 

Archaeological and paleontological digs could impact vegetation but would probably be limited 

to relatively small areas. Depending on the location of the dig, it could be possible to remove sod

such that it could be replaced once activities at the site were concluded, resulting in a

temporary disturbance. However, many digs would result in the destruction of vegetation at the 

site. Overall, the extent of these activities would likely impact only a few acres in the planning 

area, spread out over several locations. 

Camps associated with scientific studies, recreational use and other activities could result in 

trampling of vegetation from foot traffic and tent placement, and in small spills of stove or 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-98 

Alternative A (No Action): Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

generator fuel. These impacts would typically be temporary, lasting from less than one to

several growing seasons. Recreational camps are often located on river bars where vegetation 

cover is low. It is likely that larger camps would be located on existing gravel pads, which 

mostly lack vegetation. The total land surface impacted by camps is expected to be small (less 

than 10 acres) and the sites would be scattered. 

Overland moves occurring in the planning area typically involve traffic between Deadhorse and 

Barrow. Moves would occur during winter when the ground was frozen and covered with snow. 

Impacts to vegetation associated with transport vehicles depend on the type of vehicle, the 

vegetation type, and the snow conditions. In general, low ground-pressure wheeled vehicles

have less impact than do tracked vehicles or sleds on skids. In wetter tundra areas, impacts are 

usually limited to “green” trails caused by compression of snow and dead plant material, where 

standing dead vegetation has been laid down leaving only newer, greener vegetation standing in 

the following summer. Such trails are often visible for one to several growing seasons. In 

general, wet areas may be less affected than dry areas (Walker 1996), and snow acts as a buffer 

against these impacts. Overall, vehicle tracks may affect vegetation, soil chemistry, soil 

invertebrates, soil thaw characteristics, and cause small-scale hydrologic changes (Kevan et al.

1995). Avoidance of areas with low snow cover, use of low ground pressure vehicles, dispersed 

traffic patterns, and minimizing sharp turns could help to minimize damage. However, tracked 

vehicles can disrupt the vegetation surface when making tight turns or by dropping the vehicle’s

blade too deeply into the snow. In wet tundra this disruption can result in water accumulation 

and thermokarst. In drier tundra, travel over low shrubs can cause breakage and tussocks may 

be broken or crushed. If a trail across the planning area was about 100 miles in length, and 12 

feet wide, it would impact about 150 acres of tundra. Severity of impacts would depend upon 

the actual location and type of habitat, but impacts could range from temporary to longer-term. 

The use of OHVs such as four-wheel vehicles and snowmachines could cause localized impacts 

to tundra. Snowmachines used during the winter when the ground is frozen with adequate snow 

cover would have little or no impact to the vegetation. However, heavy use of a trail could cause

compaction of vegetation. In addition, heavy use of snowmachines during fall and late spring or 

in areas without adequate snow cover could result in damage to the vegetative mat which may 

lead to thermokarst. Similarly, use of four-wheel vehicles and Argos (six to eight-wheeled 

vehicles) on tundra disrupts the vegetation and soils in the upper portion of the profile, leading 

to thermokarst in wet tundra and damage or death of plants in drier areas. The use of airboats 

in shallow marsh areas could also impact aquatic vegetation and soils, although if confined to 

the river channel, airboats would have no impact on aquatic vegetation. 

4.3.5.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbances 

Various activities associated with oil and gas exploration, development and production could

impact vegetation in the planning area. These activities include seismic operations, exploration 

drilling, construction of ice roads and ice pads, gravel road, pad, and airstrip construction, and 

pipeline construction. 

4-99 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Exploration 

The following analysis quantifies the potential impact of three anticipated 2-D surveys and two

anticipated 3-D surveys. If advances in seismic survey technology make resurveying of already 

surveyed lands attractive, additional surveying could occur and add an undetermined amount of 

impacts. 

Seismic surveys to collect geological data and exploration drilling activities would occur during 

the winter months. Seismic exploration would cause impacts to vegetation similar to those 

described previously for overland moves. 2-D survey lines vary in length, but for this analysis it 

is assumed a total of 250 miles of 2-D seismic data will be acquired in three separate operations 

with current technology. The maximum area impacted by seismic lines would be approximately 

6,060 acres (250 miles by 200 feet wide). This acreage is presented as a maximum because not 

all of the area within the 200-foot-wide path would be overrun by a vehicle. Trails would also be 

made by camp move vehicles, which would traverse about the same distance as line miles 

surveyed (Emers and Jorgenson 1997). Additional trails would be made while traveling to or 

from the survey area. A camp move trail is about 12 feet wide, and typically involves a camp 

train with two or three strings of trailers. All trailer strings could use the same trail, but the 

resulting damage to vegetation would be more severe and longer lasting than if separate trails 

were used by each trailer string. For this analysis it was assumed that 21⁄2 individual camp 

string trains would use different trails to minimize disturbance, thus impacting a total path 30 

feet wide. Assuming the anticipated three 2-D surveys that on average would require a 

roundtrip camp move of 106 miles, camp moves to and from seismic survey areas would 

potentially impact 1,156 acres (3 times 106 miles by 30 feet wide). This would be in addition to 

910 acres (250 miles by 30 feet wide) potentially disturbed by camp train moves along the total 

of 250 miles of acquired 2-D seismic lines. Thus the maximum total area impacted by the 

anticipated three 2-D seismic surveys would be approximately 8,126 acres. Although this 

amount of survey work could be accomplished over just one to two winters, it may not all occur 

in the first 1-2 winters of plan implementation. 

It is assumed that each 3-D seismic operation would cover a total area of 600 mi2 (384,000

acres) involving a grid pattern of source and receiver lines, with source lines being less than 50 

feet wide and receiver lines being about 100 feet wide. Source lines would be spaced about 

1,320 feet apart and receiver lines about 1,100 feet apart. For each square mile surveyed, a 

maximum of 24.2 acres would be impacted along the source lines, and 58.2 acres along the 

receiver lines, for a total of 82.4 acres per square mile (13% of the survey area). The maximum 

area affected would be 49,440 acres per each of two anticipated 600 mi2 surveys. For 3-D 

surveys, the length of camp move trails would be less than those covered by 2-D surveys since a 

single move would occur down the center of the surveyed area. Camp move trails would impact 

about 109 acres (30 miles times 30 feet wide) of tundra within each survey area. If a camp train 

traveled a 106 mile roundtrip to reach and leave the survey area, this would affect another 386 

acres per survey. It is anticipated that two 3-D surveys would occur in the planning area during 

the life of the plan, impacting a maximum of 990 acres by camp move vehicles and 98,880 acres 

by seismic lines for a total of 99,870 acres of disturbance (2.2% of the 4.6 million acres planning 

area). This figure is presented as a maximum because not all of the area within a path would 

be overrun by a vehicle and because source and receiver lines would overlap in some areas. 

A study of tundra disturbance associated with seismic surveys on the eastern portion of the 

North Slope reported little to no disturbance of tundra on 11% of the study plots 1 to 2 years 

following seismic surveys that occurred in 1984-1985 (Jorgenson et al. 1996). Disturbance was 

considered low on 64%, moderate on 23%, and high on 2% of the plots used in this study. Eight 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-100 

Alternative A (No Action): Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

to nine years following a survey, little to no disturbance was reported on 97% of the study plots, 

and no areas of moderate or high disturbance remained. Tundra under camp move trails 

showed little or no disturbance on 22%, low disturbance on 52%, moderate disturbance on 24%, 

and high disturbance on 2% of study plots. Eight to 9 years of recovery reduced the disturbance 

level to little or none on 85%, low disturbance on 10%, moderate disturbance on 4%, and high 

disturbance on 1% of plots. Using these approximations of disturbance and recovery,

approximately 1,515 acres of vegetation would experience moderate to high impacts from the 

three anticipated 2-D seismic surveys immediately following surveys, and 24,720 acres of 

vegetation from the two anticipated 3-D surveys. In addition, moderate to high impacts for 

activity due to camp move trails could be found on approximately 537 acres for 2-D and 

approximately 257 acres for 3-D surveys in the first summer following the surveys. Eight to 

nine years following surveys, moderate to high impacts could be reduced to zero for seismic 

lines, 103 acres for 2-D camp moves, and 50 acres for 3-D camp moves. 

In a similarly designed but more recent study in the NPR-A, during the summer immediately 

following a 1999 seismic survey, the disturbance level to the affected tundra under seismic lines 

was little to none on 68% of study plots, low on 32%, moderate on 0% and high on 0% (Yokel,

unpubl. data). After six years, recovery had reduced the disturbance level to little or none on 

96% of study plots and low on 4%. On camp-move trails the disturbance level to the affected

tundra was little to none for 17% of study plots, low for 17%, moderate for 43% and high for 

23%. After six years, recovery had reduced the disturbance level to little or none on 37%, with 

low on 43%, medium on 13% and high disturbance on 7% of study plots. 

A study conducted in 2001 in the summer following seismic work found little to no impacts to 

tundra under seismic lines on 30% of the plots studied (Jorgenson et al. 2003). Low impacts 

were found on 66% and moderate impacts were found on 4% of the plots; no plots were highly 

impacted. Camp move trails in this study had little or no impacts on 18%, low impacts on 54%, 

moderate impacts on 29%, and high impacts on none of the plots. 

The 1999 and 2001 studies suggest that improvements in the equipment and procedures used 

for seismic surveys may have reduced the amount of impact to tundra, resulting in a higher 

percentage of tundra in categories of low or little to no impacts and few if any highly-impacted 

sites. However, this conclusion is confounded with potential differences among studies in 

terrain types, snow cover, or observers’ visual estimates of impacts. Calculations of area 

impacted by seismic operations in this document use environmentally conservative numbers;

the projected, long-term impacts are probably greater than actual impacts would be. 

During exploration, the construction of ice pads for drilling exploratory or delineation wells and 

ice roads used to access the pads would impact vegetation in the planning area. In general,

construction of ice roads and ice pads would have only localized impacts on vegetation, usually 

limited in wetter areas to compression of the tundra vegetation under the roads and pads and a 

shortened growing season for the plants in the following summer due to delayed melting of the 

ice in the spring. However, ice roads and pads could also cause breakage of shrubs and scuffing 

and crushing of tussocks in moist or drier habitats, and localized areas of plant death 

(Jorgenson 1999; Pullman et al. 2005; Yokel et al. in press). Recovery from most impacts to 

vegetation would be expected within a few years. Under Alternative A it is assumed there would 

be a total of 151 ice pads built for exploration and delineation wells. At six acres per pad, these 

would impact 906 acres of tundra, spread out over 50 years. It is also assumed that there would 

be 50 miles of ice road constructed through the planning area for exploratory drilling on an 

annual basis until all presumed large fields are discovered (50 years), and another 50 miles per 

year for ten years for development of each of five large discoveries. In addition, it is assumed 

4-101 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

that ice roads will be used for the construction of sales-oil pipelines. Under Alternative A, it is 

assumed 162 miles of such pipeline would be built over two seasons, requiring 162 miles of ice 

road in each of those two years. Therefore, during two of the 50 years, 262 miles of ice roads 

would be built each winter under Alternative A. During the other 48 winters, only 100 miles 

would be built. The total acreage of short term disturbance from ice roads over 50 years would

be 15,642. Since vegetation recovery from ice road impacts is expected within a few years 

(Yokel et al., in press), long-term disturbance from ice roads would be negligible. Although

some evidence of crushed tussocks may still be apparent, new growth would preclude any 

exposed soils. 

Ice airstrips are also used during exploratory drilling, and under Alternative A it is assumed 

that 20 ice airstrips would be constructed covering 11 acres each for a total of 220 acres. These 

airstrips are commonly built on the grounded ice of large lakes, but if they were built over 

tundra they would result in impacts similar to ice roads. 

Multi-year ice pads allow use of the pad in a second winter, but require insulation of the ice pad 

to prevent melting during the spring and summer. Studies of vegetation recovery at an 

extended year ice pad found the vascular plant cover was still 34% lower than pre-pad cover two 

years after the pad melted (Noel and Pollard 1996). Additionally, some melting often occurs 

around the perimeter of the pad, causing vegetation at the perimeter to break dormancy. If 

plants breaking dormancy are covered by the insulating layer or by timbers or other material 

used to hold the cover in place, they die from the lack of sunlight (Hazen 1997, McKendrick 

2000). In the past eight years of exploratory drilling in the NPR-A, 25 wells have been drilled 

and one over-summer ice pad has been used for rig storage. If future work follows the same 

percent, then 151 wells could result in the use of six over-summer pads, affecting 36 acres of 

tundra. 

The construction of well cellars during exploration requires the digging of a hole that destroys 

vegetation on approximately 16 square feet (0.0004 acres) of ground, which replaces that 

vegetation with bare soils. Thermokarst associated with the disruption of the thermal regime in

the surrounding soil may also change the vegetation type around the well collar to a wetter 

vegetation type. These impacts could result in 0.06 acres of vegetation being destroyed under 

Alternative A, assuming construction of 151 well cellars. 

Development and Production 

During oil development and production, various activities could cause impacts to vegetation in 

the planning area. These activities include construction of gravel pads, roads, airstrips, and 

pipelines, excavation of material sites, and construction of ice roads. Impacts of ice roads were

discussed previously under the “Exploration” subheading. 

Placement of Gravel Fill. Construction of CPFs and associated satellite pads, roads, and 

airstrips would result in the destruction of vegetation in areas where gravel was placed. The 

development scenario under Alternative A assumes that five CPFs and associated satellite pads

and roads would be developed. In addition to these, it is assumed under Alternative A that five 

pump stations would be built on 20 acres gravel pads and 2 staging bases would be built 

covering 50 acres each. All gravel placement taken together would total 2,718 acres with all 

vegetation under it destroyed. 

The passage of vehicle traffic over gravel pads and roads would result in dust and gravel being 

sprayed over vegetation within about 30 feet of the pad or road, and a noticeable dust shadow 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-102 

Alternative A (No Action): Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

out to 150 feet or more. Within 30 feet of gravel structures, the dust and gravel could smother 

vegetation. The effects of dust on vegetation include early snowmelt, reduced soil nutrient 

concentrations, lower moisture, an altered soil organic horizon, and higher bulk density and 

depth of thaw (Everett 1980; Walker and Everett 1987; Auerbach et al. 1997). These studies 

found that plant species richness was reduced near gravel structures, particularly in naturally 

acidic soils. A decrease in acidophilus mosses, some lichen species, and certain heath taxa 

altered species composition (Walker and Everett 1987). In areas that experience heavy dust 

fallout, native plant communities could be killed and replaced by early-successional colonizers 

and species more tolerant of the altered site conditions (including possibly non-native, invasive 

species). The magnitude of these effects would depend on the duration of dust exposure (i.e.,

traffic intensity) and the distance from the source. Traffic volume and speed would generally be 

minor on in-field roads in the planning area, which would limit dust impacts to vegetation. 

Alternative A assumes a total of 230 miles of in-field gravel roads and 5 miles of airstrips with a 

potential for a total perimeter of 470 miles. Within 30 feet of gravel fill, up to 1,709 acres of 

vegetation could be subject to smothering by dust and gravel, and another 6,836 acres could be 

affected by a dust shadow. 

The material used for gravel fill could also impact vegetation near gravel structures. Saline 

material used as fill increases the salinity of water draining off of or leaching through the 

structure. Increased salinity at a site could alter the species composition of the plant community 

in the immediate vicinity of the gravel structure, shifting the community toward one comprised 

of species that are more tolerant of saline conditions (McKendrick 2000). 

Construction of gravel pads, roads, and airstrips could alter the moisture regime of tundra near 

the structure by changing natural drainage patterns and areas where snow accumulates. 

Snowdrifts caused by gravel structures increase the wintertime soil surface temperature and

increase thaw depth in soils near the structures. These impacts are exacerbated by dust 

deposition (described above) and by the formation of impoundments (described below). These 

factors could combine to warm the soil, deepen thaw, and produce thermokarst adjacent to

roads and other gravel structures (NRC 2003). Additionally, these changes could alter the 

species composition of the plant community near gravel structures. In general, most changes in

the plant community around gravel structures would occur within 164 feet of the structure 

(Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1983). If all effects were to occur within this zone, approximately 

9,343 acres would be impacted under Alternative A. Note that this area includes the 8,545 

acres affected by dust above, and is not in addition to it. 

Blockage of natural drainage patterns can lead to the formation of impoundments. In the 

Prudhoe Bay oil field, impoundments covered 22% of a highly developed portion of the oil field 

and 3% of a broader portion of the oil field (Walker et al. 1987a). Impoundments, which would 

generally be confined to areas of wet and aquatic vegetation, could alter both the hydrology and 

species composition of wetlands. Plant productivity could increase biomass of a few species; or

productivity may decrease, as a result of loss of plant communities to the development of deep,

open water areas. In most cases, impoundments would lead to a decrease in plant species 

richness (Klinger et al. 1983; Walker et al. 1987a,b). The use of adequate cross drainage 

structures in gravel roads and attention to the natural drainage patterns during design of

developments could help reduce impacts to vegetation from impoundments. 

Material Sites. Gravel required for development in the planning area could be mined from

existing sites east of the NPR-A, or could be extracted from new sites developed within the 

planning area. Investigations to identify gravel sources in the NPR-A have not been conducted, 

but presumably would be initiated if discoveries of recoverable oil and gas were made. Under 

4-103 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Alternative A it is assumed that 11 material sites, each affecting 50 acres, would be needed. 

This would cover a total area of 550 acres. Excavation of the gravel mine and stockpiling of 

overburden would destroy vegetation at gravel extraction sites. 

Pipelines. Pipelines on the North Slope are typically built on VSMs with a diameter of 12 

inches and a spacing of 55 to 70 feet. In addition to the vegetation displaced by the VSM, 

installation of VSMs disturbs a zone around the VSM that is approximately 20 inches wide. 

This zone of disturbance results from spoil material deposited around the VSMs and from

thermokarst, which may result in a change in species composition around the VSMs. 

Approximately 0.03 acres of vegetation would be disturbed per pipeline mile. Under Alternative

A, 230 miles of gathering lines and 162 miles of sales-oil pipelines would disturb 12 acres of 

vegetation through VSM placement. 

Pipelines could also impact vegetation indirectly by altering snow accumulation patterns and by 

shading vegetation. Pullman and Lawhead (2002) found that most sites under the Alpine field 

and Tarn pipelines did not differ substantially from nearby background areas located upwind. 

At about 25% of the sites sampled, substantially more snow accumulated under the pipeline, 

and at about 18% of the sites substantially less snow accumulated under the pipeline. In 

general, the snow pack was most likely to be deeper under pipelines with an east-west 

orientation, and when pipeline clearance was reduced to below five feet. 

Vegetation under a pipeline receives less direct sunlight during the growing season than does 

vegetation that is not under a pipeline. Therefore, there could potentially be a decrease of 

photosynthesis in plants growing under pipelines, and a reduction in heat absorption by the 

ground cover, leading to a shallower active layer. However, there are no data that specifically 

address these questions. In general, Arctic plants are limited by nutrient availability rather 

than photosynthesis, and it is unlikely that pipeline shading substantially impacts vegetation 

physiologically (Tieszen 1978, Billings 1987, Bliss 2000). 

In areas where pipelines were buried, impacts to vegetation would be different. Pipeline burial 

would destroy vegetation where the trench was constructed and would alter vegetation in 

adjacent areas where temporary storage of the overburden occurred. “Hot oil” pipeline burial 

under tundra has been the exception on the North Slope rather than the norm, and this 

document does not assume any burial. 

Air Pollution. Various activities associated with oil development and production emit air 

pollutants, including NOx, NO2, NO, O3, and SO2. Numerous studies have addressed the 

impacts of these pollutants on both vascular and non-vascular plants, but there are few studies 

of air pollutant impacts on tundra vegetation. Kohut et al. (1994) measured air pollutant 

concentrations and their effects on vegetation adjacent to the Central Compressor Plant (CCP), 

where gas powered turbine pumps compress natural gas prior to injection, in the Prudhoe Bay 

oil field. The CCP is the largest source of nitrogen oxides in the Prudhoe Bay oil field, producing 

NOx, NO2, and NO, as well as O3 and SO2. Emissions from the CCP did not have effects on the 

local vegetation. Results did show an increase in foliar nitrogen near the CCP, but no visible 

injury to plants was found. Physiological changes (photosynthesis and respiration) in plants 

were not apparent in either field or growth chamber experiments for any of the pollutant gases, 

even at concentrations greater than those measured near the CCP. It is unlikely that pollutant 

emissions associated with development in the planning area would exceed those of the CCP; 

therefore, detrimental effects on vegetation around these facilities would not be expected. 

Primary productivity in Arctic tundra, however, is often limited by nutrient supply, particularly 

nitrogen and phosphorus (Chapin 1978; McKendrick and Mitchell 1978; Chapin et al. 1980; 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-104 

Alternative A (No Action): Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Chapin and Shaver 1985). Fertilization leads to higher productivity and changes in the 

structure of Arctic plant communities (Chapin and Shaver 1985, McKendrick 1997) and may 

alter carbon balance at the ecosystem level (Billings et al. 1984). 

Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

During abandonment activities, vegetation and wetlands would be impacted by dust fallout 

along roads, by ice roads and other off-road tundra travel associated with dismantling of 

pipelines and power lines, and by disturbance to vegetation adjacent to VSMs and power line 

poles during their removal. The level of impact from these activities would be roughly the same

as that during construction if gravel fill was removed; impacts would be less if the gravel were 

to be left in place. If roads and pads were left in place, and especially if cross drainage across 

roads was not maintained, water impoundment would occur, and could alter plant communities

as described for the construction period. It is also likely that the non-maintained roads would 

have occasional washouts, where tundra vegetation would be covered with washed-out gravel. 

Roads and pads, if left in place, would likely need to be revegetated with plants native to gravel 

bars and ridges in the Arctic (i.e., different from the plant communities surrounding the 

facilities). Revegetation activities could take several years, as initial attempts are not always 

successful. Removal of gravel from pads, roads, and airstrips could be mandated. Partial or 

complete removal of gravel can result in faster reestablishment of native plant growth, although

establishment can take many years (more than a decade). In addition, thaw subsidence is 

difficult to predict, and complete restoration to preexisting conditions is not likely. 

Effects of Spills 

Spills of refined oil could occur during overland moves and seismic surveys. These spills would 

likely be small, averaging 3 to 5 gallons or less, and would affect small areas (less than 50 

square feet). Contaminated snow would be cleaned up immediately upon discovery. A spill from 

a large storage tank, which would be much less likely, could impact up to 500 square feet. 

Overall, past spills of this size and type on Alaska’s North Slope have caused minor ecological 

damage and ecosystems have generally recovered, with wetter areas recovering more quickly 

than drier areas (Jorgenson 1997, McKendrick 2000). 

Typical refined products that are spilled on the Alaska North Slope include aviation fuel, diesel 

fuel, engine lube oil, fuel oil, gasoline, grease, hydraulic oil, transformer oil, and transmission 

oil. The extent of environmental impacts of a spill would depend upon the type and amount of 

materials spilled, the location of the spill, and effectiveness of the response. The majority of 

small spills would be contained on the gravel pad and would have no impact on vegetation. 

Approximately 20-35% of past crude oil spills have reached areas beyond pads. For this 

analysis, it was assumed that 27% of all spills would occur or reach beyond gravel pads. Most 

spills would happen during the winter and could be cleaned with minimal impacts to vegetation. 

If it is assumed that 60% of all spills would occur during the winter, approximately 11% of all oil 

spills would reach vegetation and have more than a negligible effect. Under Alternative A this 

would mean 197 of the 1,792 crude and refined oil spills assumed to occur over the life of the 

plan. 

Most oil spills would cover less than 500 square feet (<0.01 acres). However, a spill event that 

includes an aerial pressured discharge can cover substantially more area as occurred at an 

ARCO drill site in 1993 when crude oil misted over an estimated 100 to 145 acres (Ott 1997). 

(Such a spill is a very low probability event, occurring less than once out of the total spills 

expected throughout the life of this plan. Thus its magnitude is not apparent in the following 

4-105 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

acreages). Assuming the average spill would cover 0.1 acre, under Alternative A approximately 

20 acres would be impacted substantially during the lifetime of development in the planning 

area. 

Oil spills on wet tundra kill the moss layers and aboveground parts of vascular plants, and 

sometimes kill all macroflora at the site (McKendrick and Mitchell 1978). Damage to oilsensitive mosses could persist for several years if the site were not rehabilitated. The length of 

time a spill would persist would be dependent upon soil moisture and the concentration of the 

product spilled. McKendrick (2000) reported that complete vegetation recovery occurred within 

20 years on a wet sedge meadow without any cleanup. A dry habitat exposed to the same 

application supported less than 5% vegetative cover after 24 years. Overall, past spills on

Alaska’s North Slope have resulted in minor ecological damage and ecosystems have shown 

good potential for recovery because most of the habitat is wet (Jorgenson 1997). 

If seawater were used for enhancement of oil production, a saltwater spill could occur within the 

planning area. According to McKendrick (2000), brine spills kill plants on contact and increase 

soil salinity to the point that many species cannot survive. Unlike oil, salts are not 

biodegradable, and natural recovery occurs only after salts have leached from the soil. A

saltwater spill would have effects on salt-intolerant vegetation near the seawater pipeline, but 

the amount of tundra habitat affected would be limited to a few acres or less. In the case of a 

saltwater spill on tundra, the water would likely be adsorbed into the vegetative mat or, in wet

habitats, diluted with fresh water. 

Oil spill response training and cleanup may also impact vegetation. Trampling of vegetation 

and stockpiling of materials for use during the response may impact vegetation. The amount of 

impact would depend on the size and location of the spill, but in most cases would be temporary 

and plants would recover in one to several years. 

Commercial Gas Development 

The types of impacts on vegetation that natural gas development and production would cause

would be the same as those caused by oil development described above, except that there would 

be no crude-oil spills and burial of a gas pipeline would destroy or alter additional vegetation. 

The 162-mile-long buried gas pipeline projected for this alternative would destroy about 80 

acres of vegetation directly through excavation of a 4-foot-wide trench and, potentially, alter 210 

acres along an approximately 11-foot-wide strip where compaction and other indirect effects 

from use of machinery and temporary storage of overburden would occur. Because of the width 

of this disturbed area, colonizing species would not be able to quickly reinvade the disturbed 

soil, suggesting a recovery time of several years or longer, though wetter areas would generally 

revegetate before drier areas (McKendrick, 2000). In addition, vegetation would be lost to a 10- 

to 20-acre compressor station pad. Placement of gas pipelines on VSMs would reduce the 

amount of destroyed vegetation to that at the base of the VSMs, assuming that a new set of 

VSMs are necessary rather than place the gas pipeline on an existing oil pipeline system of 

VSMs. Impacts to vegetation from VSM-mounted pipelines would be limited to shading and any 

impacts from maintenance (primarily, if not exclusively, in winter) or repair. In addition, ice 

roads that may be associated with placement of an aboveground or buried gas pipeline would 

have localized, short-term impacts on vegetation, which would usually be limited to damage to 

the tops of tussocks in dryer soils. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-106 

Alternative A (No Action): Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.3.5.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations 

Lease stipulations described in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD should effectively reduce the 

impacts of development on vegetation under Alternative A. Specific lease stipulations 1-17 on 

solid and liquid-waste disposal, fuel handling, and spill cleanup would be expected to reduce the 

potential effects of oils and other waste on vegetation. Lease stipulations 23 and 24a-n on 

overland moves and seismic work would also effectively minimize impacts to vegetation. 

Lease stipulations on activities associated with oil and gas exploration (27 and 28) and 

development (32, 40, 42, 43, 45 and 46), such as facility design and construction of pipelines, 

roads, drill pads, airstrips, and other facilities, are expected to effectively minimize the amount 

of habitat that would be altered by gravel pads and other surface disturbances. The setbacks 

outlined in lease stipulations (30, 39a-i, 41 and 46) associated with development near rivers and 

lakes would be effective at minimizing impacts in high value wetlands, such as areas dominated 

by pendant grass and riparian and floodplain habitats. 

4.3.5.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative A, impacts to vegetation from activities other than oil development would 

include minor impacts to vegetation from aircraft landings, archaeological or paleontological 

excavations, camps, and overland moves and would affect approximately 165 acres of

vegetation. The duration of these impacts would be short term, ranging up to five months, and 

recovery would vary from one to several years. 

Impacts to vegetation from oil and gas exploration would occur from seismic work and

construction of well cellars during exploratory drilling and the construction of ice roads and ice 

pads. The duration and recovery time for impacts associated with seismic work would be similar 

to those for overland moves. Based on earlier studies, there should be no substantial, long-term 

impacts to vegetation from seismic lines, but camp move trails could substantially impact 

approximately 153 acres after 8-9 years. Effects of well cellar construction would also be 

permanent, but would impact less than 1 acre of vegetation. 

The effects of oil and gas development and operation would include destruction of vegetation 

during construction of gravel pads (CPFs, satellite drill pads, pump stations, and staging bases), 

roads, and airstrips, from excavation of material sites and burial of gas pipelines, and 

construction of VSMs. These impacts would be long-term and would impact about 3,270 acres, 

or 0.07% of the 4.6 million acre planning area. (An additional 80 acres would be destroyed 

through burial of gas pipelines). Plant communities could also be altered by dust deposition, 

salinity of gravel fill used in construction, snow drifts, and blockage of or change to natural 

drainage patterns. These impacts would be also be long-term and would impact about 9,343 

acres, or 0.2% of the planning area. 

Spills of oil, other chemicals, and saltwater could occur and would have long-term impacts, 

except for those associated with small-size spills, which would be cleaned up immediately, 

allowing recovery within a few years to two decades. 

Under Alternative A, development would be unlikely to affect plant species or communities. 

However, if development facilities were constructed in an area containing a population of a rare 

plant species, the impacts to that species could be severe. Three rare North Slope plant species 

are known to occur in the planning area, and four other rare species are known to occur on the 

North Slope but have not been documented in the Northeast NPR-A. Sabine grass is an aquatic 

4-107 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

grass that rarely occurs between the pendent grass and sedge zones in lakes and ponds. This 

species is known from a few locations north and northeast of Teshekpuk Lake, which would be 

protected from development under Alternative A. Stipulated cinquefoil has been found at 

Umiat. This Asian species is found in sandy substrates, such as sandy meadows, and riverbank 

silts and sands other than dunes. This species would be protected by setbacks along rivers in 

the planning area and by the designation of the Colville River Special Area. Muir’s fleabane, 

Drummond’s bluebell, and Hartz’s bluegrass all occur in dry habitats associated with bluffs, 

floodplains, river terraces, sand dunes, rocky outcrops and fellfields. These habitats are the 

primary sources of gravel fill used during construction and development (NRC 2003) and could 

be impacted by development in these areas. 

Impacts to vegetation from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas activities, would 

likely be additive, except in those areas where the two types of activities overlapped. Impacts to 

vegetation from exploration and development activities would also be additive, except where 

development activities occurred in areas previously disturbed during exploration. In areas 

where two or more activities occurred, overall impacts would reflect those impacts associated 

with the first activity and any new impacts associated with later activities. Because of the

smaller disturbance area, the potential for impacts to vegetation resources under this

alternative would be about 16-28% less for exploration activities, and 9% (Alternative B), 28% 

(Alternative C) and 25% (Alternative D), less for oil production and development activities, as 

compared to the action alternatives. 

4.3.6 Wetlands and Floodplains 

This section discusses the potential effects to wetlands and floodplains that could result from

management action in the planning area under Alternative A. The following sections 

summarize the information previously presented in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS (USDOI BLM 

and MMS 1998), which has been amended with additional data from studies conducted since 

1998, particularly for the Northwest IAP/EIS (USDOI BLM and MMS 2003). It has also been 

updated with a new scenario for “reasonably foreseeable development” of oil and gas resources. 

In compliance with Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands and Executive Order 11988, 

Floodplain Management, the BLM has prepared an impact analysis on those areas within the 

planning area that are considered to be wetlands or floodplains, as described in section 3.3.3, 

Wetlands and Floodplains. Approximately 95% of the planning area would be considered

wetlands, according to established criteria for determining wetland status. It is likely and 

therefore assumed that all ground-disturbing actions will be impacting wetlands for the 

purposes of calculating short and long-term impacts. 

Executive Orders 

Portions of both executive orders are described below and do not specifically apply to approval of 

this planning effort. Future development will require NEPA reviews and further evaluation of 

wetlands and floodplains impacts during the approval and permitting process from BLM and 

other agencies. 

 Protection of Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) 

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

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

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-108 

Alternative A (No Action): Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

considered include the following: (1) Public health, safety, and welfare; including water supply, 

quality, recharge and discharge, pollution; flood and storm hazards; and sediment and erosion; 

(2) Maintenance of natural systems; including conservation and long-term productivity of 

existing flora and fauna, species and habitat diversity and stability, hydrologic utility, fish, 

wildlife, timber, and food and fiber resources; and, (3) Other uses of wetlands in the public 

interest, including recreation, scientific, and cultural uses. 

In furtherance of the NEPA of 1969 (42 U.S.C. § 4331(b)(3)) to improve and coordinate Federal 

plans, functions, programs and resources so that the nation may attain the widest range of 

beneficial uses of the environment without degradation and risk to health or safety, the agency, 

to the extent permitted by law, shall avoid undertaking or providing assistance for new 

construction located in wetland unless the head of the agency finds: 

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

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

may result from such use. In making this finding the head of the agency may take into account 

economic, environmental and other pertinent factors. 

Floodplain management (Executive Order 11988) 

Executive Order 11988 concerning Floodplain Management requires an agency to provide 

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

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

carrying out its responsibilities. As required by Executive Order 11988, the agency has a 

responsibility to: 

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

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

and floodplain management; and 

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

Additional requirements are as follows: 

1. Before taking an action, each agency shall determine whether the proposed action will occur 

in a floodplain and the evaluation required will be included in any statement prepared under 

Section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA (42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)). 

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

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

incompatible development in the floodplains. If the head of the agency finds that the only 

practicable alternative consistent with the law and with the policy presented in this Order 

requires siting in a floodplain, the agency shall, prior to taking action: (1) design or modify its 

action in order to minimize potential harm to or within the floodplain, consistent 

with regulations, and (2) prepare documentation explaining why the action is proposed to be

located in the floodplain. 

4.3.6.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Various types of activities not related to oil and gas leasing and development could affect 

floodplains and wetlands in the planning area. Off-runway landings by private or commercial 

wheeled aircraft could cause short-term damage to vegetation present on the landing sites. Most 

4-109 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

wheeled aircraft landings would occur on sand or gravel bars on floodplains or possibly on dry 

gravelly ridges. Therefore, impacts from such landings would likely be minor and sporadic in 

occurrence. 

Archaeological and paleontological digs could impact wetlands and floodplains but would 

probably be limited to relatively small areas. Depending on the location of the dig, it could be 

possible to remove sod such that it could be replaced once activities at the site were concluded,

resulting in a temporary disturbance. However, many digs would result in the destruction of 

vegetation at the site. Overall, the extent of these activities would likely impact only a few acres 

in the planning area, spread out over several locations. 

Camps associated with scientific studies, recreational use and other activities could result in 

trampling of vegetation from foot traffic and tent placement, and in small spills of stove, boat, or 

generator fuel. These impacts would typically be temporary, lasting from less than one to

several growing seasons. Recreational and scientific camps are often located within floodplains 

on river bars where vegetation cover is low. It is likely that larger camps would be located on 

existing gravel pads, which mostly lack vegetation. The total land surface impacted by camps is 

expected to be small (less than 10 acres) and the sites would be scattered. Most traces of 

summer camps will be removed by floodwaters during breakup the following Spring, 

particularly within the Arctic Coastal Plain. 

The use of OHVs such as four-wheel vehicles and snowmachines could cause localized impacts 

to wetlands. Snowmachines used during the winter when the ground is frozen with adequate 

snow cover would have little or no impact to the vegetation. However, heavy use of a trail could 

cause compaction of vegetation. In addition, heavy use of snowmachines during fall or late 

spring or in areas without adequate snow cover could result in damage to the vegetative mat 

which may lead to thermokarst. Similarly, use of four-wheel vehicles and Argos (6-8 wheeled

vehicles) on tundra can disrupt the vegetation and churn soil in the upper portion of the profile, 

leading to thermokarst in wet tundra and damage or death of plants in drier areas. The use of

airboats in shallow marsh areas could also impact wetlands, although if confined to the river 

channel, airboats would have no impact on aquatic vegetation. 

Overland moves occurring in the planning area typically involve traffic between Deadhorse and 

Barrow to resupply villages. These moves may also involve resupply of remote field camps in the 

NPR-A. Moves would occur during winter when the ground was sufficiently frozen and covered

with snow to prevent damage to the underlying tundra. Impacts to wetlands associated with 

transport vehicles depend on the type of vehicle, the vegetation type, and the snow conditions. 

In general, low ground-pressure wheeled vehicles have less impact than do tracked vehicles or

sleds on skids. In wetter tundra areas, impacts are usually limited to “green” trails caused by 

compression of snow and dead plant material, where standing dead vegetation has been laid

down leaving only newer, greener vegetation standing in the following summer. Such trails are 

often visible for one to several growing seasons. In general, wet areas may be less affected than 

dry areas (Walker 1996), and snow acts as a buffer against these impacts. Overall, vehicle 

tracks may affect vegetation, soil chemistry, soil invertebrates, soil thaw characteristics, and 

cause small-scale hydrologic changes (Kevan et al. 1995). Avoidance of areas with low snow 

cover, use of low ground pressure vehicles, dispersed traffic patterns, and minimizing sharp 

turns could help to minimize damage. However, tracked vehicles can disrupt the vegetation 

surface when making tight turns or by dropping the vehicle’s blade too deeply into the snow. In 

wet tundra this disruption can result in water accumulation and thermokarst. In drier tundra,

travel over low shrubs can cause breakage and tussocks may be broken or crushed. Severity of 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-110 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

impacts would depend upon the actual location and type of habitat, but impacts could range 

from temporary to long-term. 

4.3.6.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

The following analysis is based on section 4.2.1.2, Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development Activities. See that section for a description of how estimated areas of

disturbance were calculated for each alternative. 

Effects of Disturbances 

Various activities associated with oil and gas exploration, development and production could

impact wetlands and floodplains in the planning area. These activities include seismic 

operations, exploration drilling, construction of ice roads and ice pads, gravel roads, gravel pads 

for pump stations, CPFs, and staging bases, airstrip and pipeline construction, remediation 

efforts, legacy well-plugging activities and gravel mine sites. 

Exploration 

During oil exploration, various activities could cause impacts to wetlands and floodplains in the 

planning area. These activities include seismic operations, exploration drilling, and 

construction of ice roads, pads and airstrips. 

Seismic surveys. Seismic surveys to collect geological data would occur during the winter 

months. Frozen ground and sufficient snow cover (required by Stipulation 24i) would serve to 

prevent most disturbances to wetland vegetation and floodplains. A majority of seismic surveys 

create minor, short-term disturbance to wetlands and floodplains. Areas of disturbance could be 

caused at streambank crossings from damage to the vegetative mat which could be scraped 

away, leaving exposed soil. Disturbance could also be caused to vegetation on the tops of 

tussocks in dryer areas. Water saturated areas show less damage to vegetation and soils from 

large tired vehicles (USDOI 2005). In some instances past overland moves and seismic surveys 

have disturbed wetlands, altered the thermal balance, and increased the risk of thermokarsting 

(Jorgenson et al. 1996). Improvements in the equipment and procedures used for seismic 

surveys have reduced the amount of impact to tundra, resulting in a higher percentage of 

tundra in categories of minor or little to no impacts and few if any highly-impacted sites. 

Calculations of areas impacted by seismic operations in this analysis use environmentally 

conservative numbers, but it should be noted that the projected impacts are probably greater 

than actual impacts would be. 

The following analysis quantifies the potential impact of three anticipated 2-D surveys and two

anticipated 3-D surveys. If advances in seismic survey technology make resurveying of already 

surveyed lands attractive, additional surveying could occur and add an undetermined amount of 

impacts. Under Alternatives A and D it is unlikely that seismic surveys would occur on 

Teshekpuk Lake. 2-D surveys are most likely in the foothills area. The length of 2-D surveys

would be much shorter than normal, however, and the total length for all surveys would be 

approximately 250 miles. These surveys could be accomplished in as little as a season or two. 

The maximum area impacted by 250 miles of seismic lines would be 6,060 acres (Table 4.2-F). 

Trails also are made by camp-move vehicles, which traverse about the same distance as line 

miles of 2-D survey as well as traveling to and from the survey area. Assuming that there 

would be three 2-D surveys that on average would require a roundtrip camp move of 106 miles, 

camp moves to and from seismic survey areas would potentially impact 1,156 acres. This would 

4-111 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

be in addition to 910 acres potentially disturbed by camp train moves along the total 250 miles 

of anticipated 2-D seismic. Therefore, the total number of acres affected by 2D seismic 

operations is estimated at 8,126 acres (6,060 + 1,156 + 910). This estimate does not take into 

account areas affected by receiver lines perpendicular to the main lines or to stray vehicle trails. 

3-D seismic surveying would have the potential to cause greater impacts to wetlands than 2-D 

seismic surveys since tighter turns by heavy equipment are required. It is assumed that each 3­

D seismic operation would cover a total area of 600 mi2 (384,000 acres) involving a grid pattern

of source and receiver lines, with source lines being less than 50 feet wide and receiver lines 

being about 100 feet wide. Approximately 98,880 acres total would be covered by 3D surveys 

(Table 4.2-F). In addition, it is assumed that camp trains would move approximately 30 miles 

within the surveyed areas and 106 miles roundtrip to reach the sites amounting to an 

additional area covered of 990 acres. Therefore, the total number of acres affected by 3D seismic 

operations is estimated at 99,870 acres (98,880 + 990), (2.2% of the 4.6 million acre planning 

area). Impacts from overland moves and seismic work are mitigated by Lease Stipulation 22 

which prohibits alteration of river banks and clearing of willows and Lease Stipulations 24 

(c,d,f,g,h,i,j,l,n) which reduce impacts to wetlands from overland moves and seismic work. See 

section 4.3.5.2 under the vegetation section for a more thorough analysis of potential impacts 

to vegetation and wetlands from seismic surveys. 

Ice Pads and Roads. During exploration, the construction of ice pads for drilling exploratory 

or delineation wells and ice roads used to access the pads would impact wetlands and 

floodplains in the planning area. In general, construction of ice roads and ice pads would have 

only localized impacts on vegetation, usually limited in wetter areas to compression of the 

tundra vegetation under the roads and pads and a shortened growing season for the plants in 

the following summer due to delayed melting of the ice in the spring. However, ice roads and 

pads could also cause breakage of shrubs and scuffing and crushing of tussocks in moist or drier 

habitats, and localized areas of plant death (Jorgenson 1999; Pullman et al. 2005; Yokel et al. in 

press). Recovery from most impacts to vegetation would be expected within a few years. Under 

Alternative A it is assumed there would be a total of 151 ice pads built for exploration and 

delineation wells, impacting 906 acres on a short-term basis. 

Ice-road construction could induce changes in water chemistry of water along the roadbed

during and after meltout. The water withdrawn from lakes to construct the roadway would be

more saline than typical snowmelt waters. In addition, the salts frozen into the ice road would

leach out of the ice prior to its melting during snowmelt, increasing the initial salt content of the 

meltwater. This effect could be measurable during initial snowmelt, but the effect on water 

quality and local vegetation should be minimal and localized. For Alternative A, it is estimated 

that a total of about 5,200 miles of ice road would be constructed during the life of the plan 

impacting approximately 15,642 acres on a short-term basis, assuming a 25 foot width (Table 

4.2-G). This also represents the total short-term disturbance from ice roads. It is assumed that 

long-term disturbance from ice roads would be negligible. 

Multi-year ice pads allow use of the pad in a second winter, but require insulation of the ice pad 

to prevent melting during the spring and summer. Studies of vegetation recovery at an 

extended year ice pad found the vascular plant cover was still 34% lower than pre-pad cover two 

years after the pad melted (Noel and Pollard 1996). Additionally, some melting often occurs 

around the perimeter of the pad, causing vegetation at the perimeter to break dormancy. If 

plants breaking dormancy are covered by the insulating layer or by timbers or other material 

used to hold the cover in place, they die from the lack of sunlight (Hazen 1997, McKendrick 

2000). In the past eight years of exploratory drilling in the NPR-A, 25 wells have been drilled 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-112 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

and one over-summer ice pad has been used for rig storage. If future work follows the same 

percent, then 151 wells could result in the use of 6 over summer pads, affecting 36 acres of 

tundra. 

Ice airstrips are also used during exploratory drilling, and under Alternative A, it is assumed 

that up to 20 ice airstrips would be constructed covering 11 acres each for a total of 220 acres. 

These airstrips are commonly built on the grounded ice of large lakes, but if they were built over 

tundra they would result in impacts similar to ice roads. 

Ice and snow bridges cross streams and must be designed with a gradual slope and sufficient 

thickness to allow rig moves and other heavy machinery to cross drainages without damaging 

shrubs and streambanks. These ice and snow bridges have the potential to impound flowing 

water during breakup and to cause localized scour and downstream deposition if these bridges 

are not breached. Lease Stipulations 22, 24c, and 24d prescribe protection of streambanks, 

crossing at low angles, and breaching of snow bridges to maintain natural conditions of the 

floodplain and stream channel while prohibiting high-angle crossings. 

The construction of well cellars during exploration requires the digging of a hole that destroys 

vegetation on approximately 16 square feet (0.00037 acres) of ground, replacing that vegetation 

with bare soils. Thermokarst associated with the disruption of the thermal regime in the 

surrounding soil may also change the vegetation type around the well cellar to a wetter 

vegetation type. These impacts could result in 0.06 acres of vegetation being destroyed under 

Alternative A, assuming construction of 151 well cellars. 

Development and Production 

During oil development and production, various activities could cause impacts to wetlands in 

the planning area. These activities include construction of gravel pads for pump stations, 

staging bases and CPFs, roads, airstrips, pipelines, excavation of material sites, and

construction of ice roads. Impacts of ice roads were discussed previously under the “Exploration” 

subheading. 

Placement of Gravel Fill. Construction of CPFs and associated satellite pads, roads, pump 

station, staging bases, and airstrips would result in the loss of wetlands in areas where gravel 

was placed. Development of this infrastructure under this alternative would result in a total of 

2,718 acres of wetlands lost by gravel placement. 

Construction of gravel pads, roads, and airstrips could alter the moisture regime of tundra near 

the structure by changing natural drainage patterns and areas where snow accumulates. 

Snowdrifts caused by gravel structures increase the wintertime soil surface temperature and

increase thaw depth in soils near the structures. These impacts are exacerbated by dust 

deposition and by the formation of impoundments. These factors could combine to warm the 

soil, deepen thaw, and produce thermokarst adjacent to roads and other gravel structures (NRC 

2003). Additionally, these changes could alter the species composition of the plant community 

near gravel structures. In general, most changes in the plant community around gravel 

structures would occur within 164 feet of the structure (Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1983). 

The passage of vehicle traffic over gravel pads and roads would result in dust and gravel being 

sprayed over vegetation within about 30 feet of the pad or road, and a noticeable dust shadow 

out to 150 feet or more. Within 30 feet of gravel structures, the dust and gravel could smother 

vegetation. The effects of dust on vegetation include early snowmelt, reduced soil nutrient 

4-113 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

concentrations, lower moisture, an altered soil organic horizon, and higher bulk density and 

depth of thaw (Everett 1980; Walker and Everett 1987; Auerbach et al. 1997). These studies 

found that plant species richness was reduced near gravel structures, particularly in naturally 

acidic soils. A decrease in acidophilus mosses, some lichen species, and certain heath taxa 

altered species composition (Walker and Everett 1987). In areas that experience heavy dust 

fallout, native plant communities could be killed and replaced by early-successional colonizers 

and species more tolerant of the altered site conditions, including possibly non-native, invasive 

species. The magnitude of these effects would depend on the duration of dust exposure (i.e.,

traffic intensity) and the distance from the source. Traffic volume and speed would generally be 

minor on in-field roads in the planning area, which would limit dust impacts to vegetation. 

Alternative A assumes a total of 230 miles of in-field gravel roads and 5 miles of airstrips with a 

potential for a total perimeter of 470 miles. Within 30 feet of gravel fill, up to 1,709 acres of 

vegetation could be subject to smothering by dust and gravel, and between 30 and 150 feet, 

another 6,836 acres, for a total of 8,545 acres affected by a dust shadow of 150 feet. If all effects 

were considered to occur within a 164 foot zone, a total of 9,343 acres would be affected. 

The material used for gravel fill could also impact vegetation near gravel structures. Saline 

material used as fill increases the salinity of water draining off of or leaching through the 

structure. Increased salinity at a site could alter the species composition of the plant community 

in the immediate vicinity of the gravel structure, shifting the community toward one comprised 

of species that are more tolerant of saline conditions (McKendrick 2000). 

Blockage of natural drainage patterns can lead to the formation of impoundments. 

Impoundments, which would generally be confined to areas of wet and aquatic vegetation, could 

alter both the hydrology and species composition of wetlands. Plant productivity could increase 

biomass of a few species; or productivity may decrease, as a result of loss of plant communities 

to the development of deep, open water areas. In most cases, impoundments would lead to a 

decrease in plant species richness (Klinger et al. 1983; Walker et al. 1987a, b). The use of 

adequate cross drainage structures in gravel roads and attention to the natural drainage 

patterns during design of developments could help reduce impacts to vegetation from 

impoundments. Lease Stipulation 42 prescribes proper drainage structures such as bridges 

instead of culverts over major river crossings to prevent erosion and ice-jam flooding, Lease

Stipulation 43 requires road and pipeline crossings to be designed to limit erosion from flooding 

and wave action and cross-drainage structures maintained to prevent impoundments. 

Stream Crossings. Rivers and creeks could be affected from construction of bridges, culverts,

and pipelines crossing drainages. These structures can block, divert, impede, or constrict flows. 

Blockage or diversions to areas with insufficient flow capacity can result in seasonal or 

permanent impoundments. Constricting flows can result in increased stream velocities and a 

higher potential for ice jams, ice impacts, scour, and streambank erosion. Impeding flows can 

result in a higher potential for bank overflows and floodplain inundation. Lease Stipulations 42, 

43, and 44 provide guidance on the use of bridges and culverts and best management practices 

to ensure that the natural drainage pattern would be maintained. 

Material Sites. Much of the gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips on the 

North Slope in the past has been obtained from deposits in river floodplains. Impacts from these

activities include habitat modifications, caused by increased braiding and spreading of flows 

(Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1980, NRC 2003). Established guidelines have largely restricted 

gravel mining to deep mining in upland pits, which can be flooded on abandonment to create 

aquatic habitat, including fish overwintering areas (NRC 2003). Gravel required for 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-114 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

development in the planning area could be mined from existing sites east of the NPR-A, or could

be extracted from new sites developed within the planning area. Investigations to identify 

gravel sources in the NPR-A have not been conducted, but presumably would be initiated if 

discoveries of recoverable oil and gas were made. Under Alternative A it is assumed that 11 

material sites, each affecting 50 acres, would be needed. This would cover a total area of 550 

acres. Excavation of the gravel mine and stockpiling of overburden would destroy wetlands at 

gravel extraction sites. 

Pipelines. Pipelines on the North Slope are typically built on VSMs with a diameter of 12 

inches and a spacing of 150 VSMs/mile for in-field gathering lines and 81 VSMs/mile for sales 

pipelines. In addition to the vegetation displaced by the VSM, installation of VSMs disturbs a 

zone around the VSM that is approximately 20 inches wide. This zone of disturbance results 

from spoil material deposited around the VSMs and from thermokarst, which may result in a 

change in species composition around the VSMs. Approximately 0.03 acres of vegetation would

be disturbed per pipeline mile. Under Alternative A, 230 miles of gathering lines and 162 miles 

of sales-oil pipelines would disturb 12 acres of vegetation through VSM placement. 

Pipelines could also impact wetlands indirectly by altering snow accumulation patterns and by 

shading vegetation. In general, the snow pack was most likely to be deeper under pipelines with 

an east-west orientation, and when pipeline clearance was reduced to below 5 feet. Vegetation 

under a pipeline receives less direct sunlight during the growing season than does vegetation 

that is not under a pipeline. Therefore, there could potentially be a decrease of photosynthesis 

in plants growing under pipelines, and a reduction in heat absorption by the ground cover, 

leading to a shallower active layer. 

In areas where pipelines were buried, impacts to wetlands would be different. Pipeline burial 

would destroy vegetation where the trench was constructed and would alter vegetation in 

adjacent areas where temporary storage of the overburden occurred. The zone of impact would

be approximately 12 feet wide for the length of the buried segment, and would impact 1.5 acres 

per pipeline mile. “Hot oil” pipeline burial under tundra has been the exception on the North 

Slope rather than the norm, and this document does not assume any burial. Gas pipelines can 

be buried, but this scenario does not assume development of gas within the life of this plan. 

Thus pipeline burial is unlikely, but if required to mitigate other surface impacts vegetation 

would be affected as described here. 

Effects of Spills. Spills could impact wetlands and floodplains in the planning area. Spills 

may consist of refined or crude oil as well as saltwater. See section 4.2.2, Oil Spills for a more 

extensive discussion of the fate and behavior of spills, and for an estimate of potential future oil 

spills by alternative. 

Spills of refined oil could occur during overland moves, seismic surveys, from a large storage 

tank, pipelines, or from oil spill response training and cleanup. Typical refined products that 

are spilled on the Alaska North Slope include aviation fuel, diesel fuel, engine lube oil, fuel oil, 

gasoline, grease, hydraulic oil, transformer oil, and transmission oil. These spills would likely be 

small, averaging 3 to 5 gallons or less, and would affect small areas (less than 50 square feet). 

Contaminated snow would be cleaned up immediately upon discovery. A spill from a large 

storage tank, which would be much less likely, could impact up to 500 square feet. Overall, past 

spills of this size and type on Alaska’s North Slope have caused minor ecological damage and 

ecosystems have generally recovered, with wetter areas recovering more quickly than drier 

areas (Jorgenson 1997, McKendrick 2000). 

4-115 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

The extent of environmental impacts of a spill would depend upon the type and amount of 

materials spilled, the location of the spill, and effectiveness of the response. The majority of 

small spills would be contained on the gravel pad and would have no impact on vegetation. 

Approximately 20 to 35% of past crude oil spills have reached areas beyond pads. For this 

analysis, it was assumed that 27% of all spills would occur or reach beyond gravel pads. Most 

spills would happen during the winter and could be cleaned with minimal impacts to wetlands. 

If it is assumed that 40% of all spills would occur during the summer, approximately 11% of all 

oil spills would reach vegetation and have more than a negligible effect. Under Alternative A 

this would mean 197 of the 1,792 crude and refined oil spills assumed to occur over the life of 

the plan would reach vegetation. 

Most oil spills would cover less than 500 square feet (<0.01 acres). However, a spill event that 

includes an aerial pressured discharge can cover substantially more area as documented at an 

ARCO drill site in 1993 when 1-4 bbl of crude oil misted over an estimated 145 acres (Ott 1997). 

(Such a spill is a very low probability event, occurring less than once out of the total spills 

expected throughout the life of this Plan. Thus its magnitude is not apparent in the following 

acreages.) Assuming the average spill would cover 0.1 acre, under Alternative A, approximately 

20 acres would be impacted substantially during the lifetime of development in the planning 

area. 

Oil spills on wet tundra kill the moss layers and aboveground parts of vascular plants, and 

sometimes kill all macroflora at the site (McKendrick and Mitchell 1978). Damage to oilsensitive mosses could persist for several years if the site were not rehabilitated. The length of 

time a spill would persist would be dependent upon soil moisture and the concentration of the 

product spilled. McKendrick (2000) reported that complete vegetation recovery occurred within 

20 years on a wet sedge meadow without any cleanup. A dry habitat exposed to the same 

application supported less than 5% vegetative cover after 24 years. Overall, past spills on 

Alaska’s North Slope have resulted in minor ecological damage and ecosystems have shown 

good potential for recovery because most of the habitat is wet (Jorgenson 1997). 

If seawater were used for enhancement of oil production, a saltwater spill could occur within the 

planning area. According to McKendrick (2000), brine spills kill plants on contact and increase 

soil salinity to the point that many species cannot survive. Unlike oil, salts are not 

biodegradable, and natural recovery occurs only after salts have leached from the soil. A

saltwater spill would have effects on salt-intolerant vegetation near the seawater pipeline, but 

the amount of tundra habitat affected would be limited to a few acres or less. In the case of a 

saltwater spill on tundra, the water would likely be adsorbed into the vegetative mat or, in wet

habitats, diluted with fresh water. 

Oil spill response training and cleanup may also impact wetlands and floodplains. Trampling of 

vegetation and stockpiling of materials for use during the response may impact wetlands. The 

amount of impact would depend on the size and location of the spill, but in most cases would be 

temporary and plants would recover in one to several years. Lease Stipulations 7- 16 address 

spill notification, cleanup requirements, plans, materials, training and spill response, storage, 

and refueling. 

Summer Tundra Travel. Summer tundra travel would not be permitted under Alternative A. 

Therefore, no impacts to wetlands or floodplains in the planning area would be expected. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-116 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

During abandonment activities, wetlands and floodplains would be impacted by dust fallout 

along roads, by ice roads and other off-road tundra travel associated with dismantling of 

pipelines and power lines, and by disturbance to vegetation adjacent to VSMs and power line 

poles during their removal. The level of impact from these activities would be roughly the same

as that during construction if gravel fill was removed; impacts would be less if the gravel were 

to be left in place. If roads and pads were left in place, and especially if cross drainage across 

roads was not maintained, water impoundment would occur, and could alter plant communities

as described for the construction period. It is also likely that the non-maintained roads would

have occasional washouts, where tundra vegetation would be covered with washed-out gravel. 

Roads and pads, if left in place, would likely need to be revegetated with plants native to gravel 

bars and ridges in the Arctic (i.e., different from the plant communities surrounding the 

facilities). Revegetation activities could take several years, as initial attempts are not always 

successful. Removal of gravel from pads, roads, and airstrips could be mandated. Partial or 

complete removal of gravel can result in faster reestablishment of native plant growth, although

establishment can take many years (more than a decade). In addition, thaw subsidence is 

difficult to predict, and complete restoration to preexisting conditions is not likely. Lease 

Stipulation 58 would provide for removal of all oil and gas facilities at the time of field 

abandonment to the satisfaction of the AO. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Development of commercial gas in the planning area would reflect the impacts described for 

soils, water, and vegetation. The types of impacts from natural gas development would be the 

same as those caused by oil development, except that there would be no crude-oil spills, 10 to 20 

acres would be covered with a gravel pad for a compressor station, and, if a gas pipeline is 

buried, additional acreage would disturbed with increased potential impacts on wetlands and 

floodplains. The 162-mile-long buried gas pipeline projected for this alternative would disrupt 

about 80 acres of wetlands directly through excavation of a 4-foot-wide trench and, potentially, 

alter 210 acres along an approximately 11-foot-wide strip where compaction and other indirect 

effects from use of machinery and temporary storage of overburden would occur. Because of the 

width of this disturbed area, colonizing vegetation would not be able to quickly reinvade the 

disturbed soil, suggesting a recovery time of several years or longer, though wetter areas would

generally revegetate before drier areas (McKendrick, 2000). Placement of gas pipelines on 

VSMs, would reduce the amount of destroyed soils and vegetation to that at the base of the 

VSMs, assuming that a new set of VSMs are necessary rather than place the gas pipeline on an 

existing oil pipeline system of VSMs and would lessen the impacts on natural waterflow. 

Impacts to vegetation from VSM-mounted pipelines would be limited to shading and any 

impacts from maintenance (primarily, if not exclusively, in winter) or repair. In addition, ice 

roads that may be associated with placement of the gas pipeline would have localized, shortterm impacts on vegetation, which would usually be limited to damage to the tops of tussocks in 

dryer soils, and in the spring when the ice roads melted may add somewhat saline water to a

shallow tundra pools. 

4.3.6.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations 

Lease stipulations described in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD should effectively reduce the 

impacts of development on wetlands and floodplains under Alternative A. Many of the lease

stipulations under Alternative A directly or indirectly limit potential impacts to wetlands and 

floodplains in the planning area. Applicable stipulations are listed in the following paragraphs. 

4-117 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Lease Stipulations 1 through 16, and 24(m, n) relate to waste prevention, handling, disposal, 

spills, and public safety. These lease stipulations would ensure that waste materials associated 

with exploration and development activities were properly disposed of, and help prevent 

impacts to wetlands and floodplains from spills and mishandling of materials. They would also

provide for rapid cleanup of spills, which would decrease the likelihood of impacts to vegetation. 

Lease Stipulations 18 and 22 relate to ice roads and water use; Lease Stipulation 18 requires 

the offsetting of ice roads, and Lease Stipulation 22 prohibits alteration of river banks and 

clearing of willows. 

Lease Stipulation 24 relates to overland moves and seismic work; Lease Stipulation 24c 

requires low-angle crossings at waterways, Lease Stipulation 24d requires snow bridges to be 

clean of soil and to be removed before breakup, Lease Stipulation 24f requires use of lowground-pressure vehicles, Lease Stipulation 24g prohibits bulldozing of trails, Lease Stipulation 

24h prohibits using the same trails for multiple winter trips, Lease Stipulation 24i requires 12 

inches of freezedown and 6 inches of snow cover before ground operations commence, Lease

Stipulation 24j requires cessation of ground operations when spring melt begins, Lease 

Stipulation 24L prohibits tracked vehicles from turning by locking one track, and Lease 

Stipulation 24n prohibits refueling of equipment within the active floodplain. 

Lease Stipulations 27 and 28 apply to oil and gas exploratory drilling; Lease Stipulation 27 

would minimize surface impacts from exploratory drilling by limiting activities to temporary 

structures such as ice pads, ice roads, ice airstrips and temporary platforms, unless permanent 

structures were absolutely required, and Lease Stipulation 28 prohibits exploratory drilling in 

river, stream or lake beds. 

Lease Stipulations 30-32,38-43,46 apply to facility design and construction; Lease Stipulation 

30 prohibits causeways and docks within river mouths or deltas. Lease Stipulation 31 prohibits 

oil and gas facilities within the Teshekpuk Lake Surface Protection Area. Lease Stipulation 32 

provides facility design and construction regulations that would limit the footprint of 

developments, Lease Stipulation 38 requires all pipelines to use the best available technology 

for detecting corrosion during inspections, Lease Stipulation 39 requires setbacks from major 

rivers of 1⁄2 mile to 3 miles for oil and gas facilities. Lease Stipulation 40 places restrictions on 

the development of gravel mining sites. Lease Stipulation 41 prohibits permanent oil and gas 

structures from within 500 feet of waterbodies, Lease Stipulation 42 prescribes bridges instead

of culverts over major river crossings to prevent erosion and ice-jam flooding, Lease Stipulation 

43 requires road and pipeline crossings to be designed to limit erosion from flooding and wave 

action and cross-drainage structures maintained to prevent impoundments, and Lease 

Stipulation 46 minimizes development within key wetlands important to fish, waterfowl, and 

shorebirds. 

Lease Stipulations 58,63,67,70 and 78 apply to oil field abandonment, orientation programs, 

and other activities; Lease Stipulation 58 would provide for removal of all oil and gas facilities 

at the time of field abandonment. Lease Stipulation 63 would help to minimize resource 

conflicts by providing appropriate orientation programs and training for facilities workers on 

environmental, social, and cultural concerns. Lease Stipulation 67 would minimize impacts to 

vegetation and soil resources. Lease Stipulation 70 prohibits construction camps from siting on

lakes and rivers, and prohibits bulldozing while leveling trailers on river and gravel bars, and 

Lease Stipulation 78 prohibits permanent structures from within 100 feet of the nearest body of 

water. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-118 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.3.6.4 Conclusion 

Approximately 95% of the planning area would be considered wetlands, according to established 

criteria for determining wetland status. In general, the northern portion of the planning area 

surrounding and north of Teshekpuk Lake has the greatest percentage of wetlands and is 

thought to be the area with the greatest oil and gas potential. This area would be closed to 

leasing under Alternative A. Numerous technological advancements have been made during the

decades of operations on the North Slope that have allowed current development activities to 

proceed with less environmental impact than previous operations (NRC 2003). However, some 

short-term disturbance and permanent long-term impacts to soils are inevitable. Soil stability 

depends on vegetative cover; where vegetation is disturbed, impacts on soil follow. 

Under Alternative A, impacts from activities other than oil development would include minor 

impacts to wetlands and floodplains from aircraft landings, archaeological or paleontological 

excavations, camps, overland moves, OHV, snowmachine, four-wheel vehicles, and Argos-type 

vehicles. Duration of these impacts would be short term, ranging up to five months, and 

recovery would vary from one to several years. 

Impacts to wetlands and floodplains from oil and gas exploration would occur from seismic 

work, construction of well cellars during exploratory drilling, and the construction of ice roads, 

pads and airstrips. The duration and recovery time for impacts associated with seismic work 

would be similar to those for overland moves. Based on earlier studies Jorgenson, there should

be no substantial, long-term impacts to wetlands from seismic lines, but camp move trails could

substantially impact approximately 153 acres after 8-9 years. Effects of well cellar construction 

would also be permanent, but would impact less than 1 acre of wetlands. 

Short-term impacts could occur on approximately 8,100 acres of wetlands and floodplains from 

2-D seismic surveys and 100,000 acres of wetlands and floodplains from 3-D surveys during a 

25-year period (Table 4.2-F). Approximately 1,200 acres could be impacted short-term by 

pipeline construction. Short-term impacts would also occur from temporary ice road, pads, and

airstrips. A total of about 5,200 miles of ice road would be constructed during the life of the plan 

impacting 15,642 acres (Table 4.2-G). A total of 86 exploration wells could be drilled from 6 acre 

ice pads, totaling 516 acres. Approximately 20 miles of ice runway would be constructed 

impacting approximately 220 acres. 

The effects of oil development and operation would include destruction of wetlands during 

construction of gravel pads, roads, and airstrips, from excavation of material sites, and

construction of VSMs. These impacts would be long-term and would impact about (2,718 + 550 + 

12) or 3280 acres of the planning area. Plant communities could also be altered by dust 

deposition, salinity of gravel fill used in construction, snow drifts, and blockage of or change to

natural drainage patterns. These impacts would be also be long-term and would impact about 

9,343 acres, or 0.2% of the planning area. In terms of scale, the overall impact to wetlands in 

the planning area would be minor. 

Spills of oil, other chemicals, and saltwater could occur and would have long-term impacts, 

except for those associated with small-size spills, which would be cleaned up immediately, 

allowing recovery within a few years to two decades. Under Alternative A, impacts to wetlands 

and floodplains would be less than impacts estimated for the other alternatives 

4-119 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Impacts to wetlands from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas activities, would likely

be additive, except in those areas where the two types of activities overlapped. Impacts to 

wetlands from exploration and development activities would also be additive, except where 

development activities occurred in areas previously disturbed during exploration. In areas 

where two or more activities occurred, overall impacts would reflect those impacts associated 

with the first activity and any new impacts associated with later activities. 

4.3.7 Fish 

4.3.7-a Freshwater and Anadromous/Amphidromous Fish 

4.3.7-a.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Ground camps associated with non-oil and gas activities include small groups of people involved

in scientific research or recreation. These camps range in size from small mobile parties that 

remain at a site for a few days to larger camps that are set up for long portions of the summer 

field season. Small mobile camps, which could be located throughout the planning area, would 

likely have only small quantities of stove fuel or gas for boat motors. Larger camps or camps 

located at established sites like the Inigok and Ivotuk airstrips or the Lonely DEW-Line site

could store fuel in drums or in large bladders of up to 5,000 gallons. Large camps with caches of 

jet fuel in excess of 50 gallons would be required to store the fuel in containment dikes equipped

with clean-up materials. 

Recreational hunting and fishing activities occur primarily along the Colville River under a 

BLM permit. Float trips from the headwaters down to Umiat are permitted in August and 

September. A limited number of permits would allow float planes access to lakes within the 

planning area. Most camp or travel spills should be small (less than five gallons), and would 

most likely occur during fuel transfers. For the reasons described in the “Effects of Spills” 

section below, impacts of fuel spills under Alternative A are expected to be minor and have a 

minor effect on fish populations within the planning area. 

Overfishing in commercial or subsistence activities is frequently a concern in Alaska. No data or 

observations suggest that this is occurring to any degree in the planning area. The small 

commercial fishery in the Colville River Delta typically operates at relatively nominal harvest 

levels. Despite the long history of the Arctic cisco subsistence fishery conducted by Nuiqsut 

residents in the fall, harvest rates from 2004 to 2006 were some of the highest observed during 

the twenty years of monitoring (MJM Research 2005f, 2006a; personal communication with 

Larry Moulton, 2007). Similarly, broad whitefish continue to be harvested at substantial levels 

year after year in the Teshekpuk Lake region. Extensive annual movements and dispersion into

multiple habitat types likely contributes to this species’ capacity to endure high harvest levels 

(Morris et al. 2006). Future commercial and subsistence fishing efforts are not projected to 

increase significantly under Alternative A and are not expected to affect fish populations. 

4.3.7-a.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

The following discussion addresses the potential impacts of oil and gas activities on freshwater, 

anadromous, and amphidromous fish and fish habitat found within and adjacent to the 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-120 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

planning area under Alternative A. These habitat areas include streams, rivers, lakes, and the 

coastal zone. 

Effects of Disturbances 

Effects from Seismic Surveys. Seismic surveys use acoustical energy pulses to locate 

subsurface geological formations that might contain oil or gas. The energy pulses are generated

by vibrator equipment mounted on trailers and towed on sleds. Surveys would be conducted 

during the winter (early December through mid-May) when the frozen snow-covered tundra 

would allow for extensive vehicle access to different locations within the planning area. Seismic 

crews would operate from mobile camps that form multi-vehicle “cat trains” of trailer sleds 

pulled by tractors. Individual surveys would typically last about 100 days and cover survey 

areas of up to 600 mi2. Because seismic surveys would be conducted in winter, concerns for 

overwintering fish in the planning area would include 1) physical damage or acute mortality 

from acoustic energy pulses; 2) stress associated with acoustic energy pulses; and 3) physical 

damage to overwintering habitat caused by seismic vehicles. 

Research has demonstrated that high-intensity noise can lead to damaged auditory sensory hair 

cells in fish, effectively reducing the ability to hear (McCauley et al. 2003; Popper 2003; Smith 

et al. 2004; Popper et al. 2005). The extent of damage and the ability to regenerate these cells is 

related to the intensity and duration of noise and the species of fish. Underwater shock waves 

can also cause injury to the swim bladder and other organs and tissue (Wright 1982). However, 

much of the research related to the impacts of noise on fish has been conducted using airgun 

arrays, explosives, or long-term background noise (Popper et al. 2004). Very little information 

exists regarding the impacts of Vibroseis on fish. Due to the lack of available data regarding 

Vibroseis noise and fish, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Office of Habitat 

Management and Permitting (OHMP), in consultation with the Bureau of Land Management, 

North Slope Borough, community members from Barrow and Nuiqsut, and WesternGeco,

conducted a study to address these concerns (Morris and Winters 2005). This study found no 

indication of damage to swim bladders, muscle tissue, or blood vessels, and observed eye 

injuries were likely from running into the side of the holding cage during a flight response. 

Hearing organs were not examined and will require further investigation. No mortalities were 

observed. Acute mortality from acoustic energy may be a problem primarily associated with 

explosive-based sources (Wright 1982; Cott et al. 2003), a method that has not been used in 

recent years in the Alaskan Arctic. 

Fish demonstrated a fleeing behavior in response to vibroseis during the ADNR/BLM 2003 

study (Morris and Winters 2005). This is a well-documented response by fish to anthropogenic 

sounds (Popper et al. 2004; Popper 2003). Because exploration using vibroseis occurs in the 

winter when physiological stress is the greatest for most fish species, a flight response to 

underwater sound could be potentially detrimental. Nevertheless, fish wintering in a river or 

small lake would probably only be exposed to vibroseis noise once as the seismic train traveled 

overhead. In this scenario, it is not likely that the response to a single sound event would cause 

eventual mortality. However, the magnitude and intensity of the response observed in the 2003 

study (Morris and Winters 2005) indicates that multiple exposures to vibroseis noise during a 

winter season merits concern. This could possibly occur over larger bodies of water where

multiple shots may be required. Given that overwintering habitat represents only about 5% of 

the planning area, it is unlikely that seismic transmissions would occur directly over

overwintering sites with any degree of regularity. Overall, any affects to overwintering fish 

caused by winter seismic surveys would be localized and would not be likely to have any 

measurable effect on fish populations within the planning area. 

4-121 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

With surveys commencing no earlier than December, ice and snow cover should be sufficient, in

most cases, to prevent physical damage and disruption to overwintering pools from vehicle

traffic. Lease Stipulation 24(i) states that operations may begin only after the seasonal frost in 

the tundra and underlying soil reaches a depth of 12 inches and average snow cover is 6 inches. 

The exact start date would be determined by the AO. Lease Stipulation 24(j) requires that 

operations cease with the beginning of the spring melt, the exact date of which would be 

determined by the AO. Lease Stipulation 24(f) requires that all activities be conducted with lowground-pressure vehicles. While these lease stipulations were designed to protect the 

underlying tundra and vegetation, they would also offer some protection to fish overwintering 

pools. 

Other restrictions that are specifically designed to protect fish habitat during winter operations 

include Lease Stipulation 24(e), which mandates that waterways be crossed at shallow riffles 

when possible to avoid additional freeze-down of deep water pools harboring overwintering fish.

Lease Stipulation 24(c) encourages that operators crossing waterways travel a minimum of 100 

feet from overwintering streams and lakes. 

Overall, it is not expected that seismic activity disturbances occurring during winter under 

Alternative A would have a measurable effect on freshwater, anadromous, or amphidromous 

fish populations within and adjacent to the planning area. 

Effects from Seismic Surveys in Teshekpuk Lake. Seismic surveys utilizing vibrator 

equipment (Vibroseis) would be conducted in winter, and potential threats to overwintering fish 

in Teshekpuk Lake would stem primarily from stress associated with the acoustic energy pulses 

transmitted into the water column directly over schools of fish. As described above, the multiple 

shots required to conduct exploration using vibroseis over a large waterbody such as Teshekpuk 

Lake could be detrimental to fish. If individual fish are exposed to vibroseis noise multiple 

times, the flight response in fish could possibly deplete energy reserves enough to contribute to

eventual mortality. Overall, any affects to overwintering fish caused by seismic surveys on the 

lake during winter would be localized and likely have no measurable effect on fish populations 

in Teshekpuk Lake or within the planning area. 

Under Alternative A, seismic surveys utilizing airgun arrays would also be allowed on 

Teshekpuk Lake during the open water period in the summer. Typically, an airgun array is 

towed behind a boat at a depth of about 12 feet. Shots are typically fired every 50 to 150 feet, or 

about once every 10 seconds. Because the array is configured to focus sound toward the bottom, 

effective source levels for sound propagation in the horizontal direction are lower than those 

below the array. In water, injury and death of organisms exposed to seismic energy depends on 

two features of the sound source: 1) an extremely high, received peak pressure, and 2) a 

relatively short time for the pressure to rise and decay (Wardle et al. 2000). Considering the 

peak pressure and rise/decay time characteristics of seismic airgun arrays used today, the zone

in which fish and invertebrates would be harmed should be within a few feet of the seismic 

source. 

As described above, the potential impacts of airgun arrays on fish include stress from fleeing 

behavior and physical damage or death. Although energy reserves are greater for fish in 

summer than in winter and eventual mortality from energy expenditure is less likely, numerous 

exposures to a sound disturbance could divert time away from other important behaviors such 

as feeding or predator avoidance. However, in cases where habituation has been studied,

normal behavior is resumed soon after passage of the array (Chapman and Hawkins 1969). 

Airgun-caused damage to auditory sensory cells in fish is documented (McCauley et al. 2003) 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-122 

Alternative A (No Action): Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

and may be the greatest concern regarding the use of this technology. A few studies have looked 

at mortality from seismic pulses on various life stages of fish (reviewed by Turnpenny and

Nedwell 1994). In general, the studies indicate that fish eggs and larvae would suffer mortality 

at zero-peak noise levels of 220 dB. These levels occur only at distances of up to 4 to 10 feet from 

airguns used during seismic exploration, and some mortality of eggs, larvae, or juveniles could 

occur up to about 18 feet below large sub-arrays. Adult fish only suffer mortality at received 

levels of 240 dB, which occur at distances of less than three feet from an airgun. Since it is 

likely that fish move to avoid the passage of the seismic boat, it is probable that few fish would 

occur close enough to an airgun to be killed (Davis and Thomson 1999), although eggs would 

still be vulnerable. 

There is evidence that the use of seismic airguns can lead to lower catch rates of fish in a 

localized area, at least for several days (Engas et al. 1996; Engas and Lokkeborg 2002). Noise 

from boats conducting seismic surveys could also potentially push fish to different locations 

within Teshekpuk Lake. There could be a short-term impact on the ability to catch fish that 

would negatively affect subsistence fishing in Teshekpuk Lake. 

Effects from Water Demand. Construction-related activities with the potential to affect

Arctic fish include water withdrawal for construction of drill pads, roads, and airstrips, and 

exploratory drilling. Water is required for drilling operations, camp use, and the construction of 

ice roads and pads. Up to 1.5 million gallons of water are required to construct a single mile of 

ice road, and construction of an average 6-acre ice pad requires approximately 500,000 gallons 

of water. A 10,000-foot exploratory well might require 850,000 gallons of water for drilling. The 

high water demand associated with these activities would require the tapping of lakes within 

the planning area. Substantial water demand during winter could affect the overwintering 

habitats of freshwater and amphidromous fishes. 

Most freshwater bodies less than six feet in depth typically freeze to the bottom. It has been 

estimated that by late winter ice cover can decrease available freshwater habitat in North Slope 

rivers and streams by approximately 97% (Craig 1989a). Overwintering areas are therefore 

limited to deep-water pools and channels in rivers and streams, and to lakes deep enough to

provide sufficient under-ice free water during winter. In standing waters, 7 feet is considered

the minimum depth for supporting overwintering fish (PAI 2002). Moving waters may deter the 

thickening of ice, thereby providing overwintering habitat at shallower depths; areas within the 

Colville Delta may adequately overwinter fish at depths of 5 feet. The amount of overwintering 

habitat also varies with the severity of winter conditions. Colder temperatures and a lack of

snow cause increased ice formation, which further reduces the amount of under-ice-free water. 

Overcrowding can increase stress, deplete oxygen supplies, and increase the concentration of 

metabolic byproducts to a point that may be fatal to the fish (Schmidt et al. 1989). The limited 

amount of available overwintering habitat may be the single most important factor affecting 

fish population size and cyclical fluctuations in abundance (Craig 1989a, Reynolds 1997). 

Competition for limited overwintering space has been suggested as a major cause of population 

fluctuations in North Slope broad whitefish stocks (Gallaway et al. 1997). Because of the 

importance of limited overwintering area to Arctic fish, lease stipulations for Alternative A 

specifically regulate the winter withdrawal of water from lakes, rivers, and streams. 

Lease Stipulation 20 prohibits the withdrawal of water from rivers and streams during winter.

Withdrawal would also be prohibited in lakes less than 7 feet deep if those water bodies were 

connected to, or seasonally flooded by, fish-bearing streams or rivers. Winter water withdrawal 

from lakes greater or equal to 7 feet deep would be limited to 15% of the estimated under-ice 

free water. Unlimited winter water withdrawal would be permitted for any lake, at the 

4-123 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

discretion of the AO, if it could be demonstrated that the lake contained no fish. State of Alaska 

fish habitat permits for water withdrawals require approved screens on intake structures in

fish-bearing waters. Further protection of fish overwintering sites would be provided by Lease 

Stipulation 19, which prohibits the compaction or removal of snow from fish-bearing water 

bodies except at approved areas. Such actions could alter ice thickness in fish-bearing water 

bodies. 

Because little science existed several years ago to guide decisions regarding the appropriate 

quantities of water to allow for winter water withdrawal from lakes, a number of investigations 

in Arctic Alaska and Canada were initiated to examine water levels and water chemistry in 

relation to pumping activities. Lake water level is relevant to fish because it can affect total 

winter habitat space, summer accessibility, and habitat characteristics (such as littoral zone 

size), resulting in reduced survival (Heman et al. 1969; Gaboury and Patalas 1984). In the 

existing area of oil exploration and development in the vicinity of the Northeast Planning Area, 

pumped lakes have recharged in the spring at levels similar to unpumped lakes (Streever et al. 

2001; URS 2001; Baker 2002). These observations are likely transferable to other areas that 

have a high concentration of lakes; however, areas with sparse lakes will have different 

watershed dynamics that will require additional study. 

The most critical water chemistry parameter for fish in winter is dissolved oxygen. There is 

some indication that winter water withdrawal can reduce the amount of dissolved oxygen 

available for fish (Cott et al. 2006), although changes are not apparent at current levels of 

withdrawal on the North Slope (Hinzman et al. 2006). Natural lake properties in the Arctic 

have been the best predictors of oxygen depletion during the winter, rather than pumping 

(Chambers et al. 2006). There is some progress in modeling under-ice dissolved oxygen levels 

that may be beneficial for future decisions regarding withdrawal quantities (White et al. 2006). 

The provisions under Alternative A regarding lakewater withdrawals are set conservatively in 

an attempt to adequately protect fish overwintering habitat. Regulated lake water withdrawal 

could kill small numbers of fish but would not be expected to have a measurable effect on 

freshwater, anadromous, and amphidromous fish populations in general. 

Effects from Exploratory Drilling 

Drilling operations require large amounts of water for blending into drilling muds, and also 

produce large amounts of rocks and cuttings. If an exploratory well were to be abandoned, 

drilling muds and cuttings would be re-injected into the bore hole. If the well were to go into

production, muds and cuttings would be removed to an approved disposal site at Prudhoe Bay. 

Any chemical leaching into surrounding waters by cuttings temporarily being stored at the drill 

site could affect nearby fish habitat. This potential threat would be reduced by Lease 

Stipulation 28, which prohibits exploratory drilling in rivers, streams, and lake beds, as 

determined by the highest high water mark. Exceptions could be authorized by the AO in cases

of shallow lakes that freeze to the bottom, do not support large fish populations, and are

hydrologically isolated. Regulations would also require the proper handling of all well-waste 

products. 

In general, exploratory drilling under Alternative A is not expected to have a measurable effect 

on freshwater, anadromous, and amphidromous fish populations in and adjacent to the

planning area. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-124 

Alternative A (No Action): Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects from Gravel Extraction. Oil field development requires the construction of stable, 

elevated gravel pads to hold well heads, pipelines, production facilities, support buildings, and 

roadways. Gravel has historically been the preferred material for pad and road construction.

Construction of a typical gravel pad requires from 8,000 to 12,000 cubic yards of gravel per acre 

of footprint while the typical roadway requires 30,000 to 50,000 cubic yards of gravel per mile. 

Unlike in development areas east of the Colville River, gravel deposits are scarce in the 

planning area (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998); they are most commonly found in riverbeds and 

floodplains. Potential gravel sources for future development might include importing gravel 

from borrow sites east of the Colville River, extracting gravel from existing sites, processing 

bedrock, or using sand/silt/foam composites. Gravel sites within the planning area would be 

most commonly found in riverbeds and floodplains. 

In general, gravel extraction within the planning area would not be likely to have an effect on

overwintering and spawning grounds. However, if mining activities were conducted in these 

sensitive areas, the localized impacts could be substantial, possibly resulting in spawning 

failure and high mortalities of overwintering fish. Other detrimental affects that could occur 

during the open-water summer season include the blocking and rerouting of stream channels 

and increased silt concentrations resulting in reduced primary production, loss of invertebrate 

prey species, and disruption of feeding patterns for sight-dependent feeders (USDOI BLM 

1989). Because gravel spawning areas are limited within the planning area, there may be an 

association between these sites and optimal gravel extraction sites, increasing the probability 

that spawning grounds could be impacted. 

One of the beneficial aspects of mining in or near riverbeds and floodplains is that it creates 

deepwater pools. Extensive studies by the ADFG have shown that these pools may be used by 

fish to overwinter and spawn once the active site is abandoned (Hemming 1988, 1990, 1991, 

1993, 1994, 1995; Hemming et al. 1989). Site reclamation could include constructing or 

enhancing access channels from surrounding streams and rivers. Therefore, properly planned 

and placed gravel extraction sites could provide fish with substantial and sustainable 

overwintering habitat in the future. 

With the aforementioned considerations in mind, Lease Stipulation 40 prohibits gravel mine 

sites within the active floodplain of any river, stream, or lake unless the AO determines that 

there is no other alternative or that the site would ultimately enhance fish habitat. Mine site 

development and rehabilitation would follow the procedures outlined in North Slope Gravel Pit 

Performance Guidelines (McLean 1993). 

Given the scarcity of gravel sites within the planning area, and the well-defined procedures in

place for assessing the potential impact of site development on existing overwintering habitat 

and migratory corridors, any negative effect of mining on fish stocks would likely be minimal 

and very localized. Gravel extraction and use associated with Alternative A would not be 

expected to have a measurable effect on Arctic fish populations in general, and could even have

a positive effect by creating new overwintering areas. 

Effects from Pad, Road, and Pipeline Construction. Improper placement and construction 

of drill pads, roadways, pipelines, bridges, and culverts could affect fish and fish habitat by 

eliminating, diverting, or otherwise impeding flow from small tributaries that connect rivers, 

streams, and lakes. Altering water flow characteristics could interfere with fish migrations to 

and from overwintering, spawning, and feeding grounds. Obstructions to fish movement are 

most common when culverts or low water crossings are not properly sized to allow for the 

passage of fish during these critical migration periods (Elliott 1982). Movement can be 

4-125 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

obstructed during periods of either high or low stream flow. Impacts from culverts can be longlived (beyond the construction phase) if design and placement are not adequate. Recent 

investigations into stream crossing structures in the North Slope oilfields found a number of 

crossings had problems that likely impair or impede fish passage beyond the structures (Morris

and Winters 2004, 2007). Obstruction to stream and river flow and fish migrations may also 

occur if ice bridges are still in place once spring breakup begins. 

Lease Stipulation 42 states that bridges, rather than culverts, be used for road crossings on all 

major rivers, and that any culverts that are necessary on smaller streams be large enough to

avoid restricting fish passage or affecting natural stream flow. Lease Stipulation 24(d) requires 

that snow bridges be removed or breached immediately after use or before spring breakup. 

Lease Stipulation 41 prohibits the construction of all permanent oil and gas facilities, roadways, 

airstrips, and pipelines within 500 feet of any active floodplain, unless otherwise permitted by 

the AO (special habitat zones identified in Lease Stipulation 39 have their own designated

restrictions). Lease Stipulation 43 mandates that should the AO approve construction within a 

floodplain (road and pipeline crossings), natural drainage patterns would be identified prior to

and maintained during and after construction. 

Other threats to fish and fish habitat associated with gravel-based structures are erosion and

subsequent in-stream sedimentation. Heavy sediment loads could silt out spawning areas and 

smother eggs, or interfere with respiration of newly emergent fry (Cairns 1968). Heavy 

sedimentation could also affect invertebrate communities that serve as food sources for fish. 

Whether the sediment loads attributable to pad and roadway erosion would be sufficient to 

affect invertebrate and fish communities is presently unclear. Denbeste and McCart (1984a, b) 

found that the excessive introduction of sediments from pipeline-related activities in Atigun 

Pass did not appear to have any detrimental effect on Atigun River benthic invertebrate 

communities or local fish communities. With the exception of a seasonal shift in the density in 

the stonefly Podmosta, the invertebrate benthic communities in the North Fork Chandler River 

were unaffected by heavy sediment loads associated with pipeline activities (Denbeste and

McCart 1984a,b). In fact, chironomid larvae, which are the dominant food item for fish in the

North Fork Chandler River, were actually more abundant in turbid waters than 

correspondingly clear tributaries. Given that high sediment loads characterize many North 

Slope rivers and streams during breakup and flooding, it is likely that fish and benthic 

invertebrate communities inhabiting them are somewhat adapted to frequent exposure to heavy 

sedimentation. 

Erosion and sedimentation would also be controlled through the use of road surfacing 

techniques, adequate drainage configurations, adequate cross-drainage, and vegetation. 

Furthermore, Lease Stipulation 41 provides for a buffer zone by prohibiting the construction of 

all permanent oil and gas facilities, roadways, airstrips, and pipelines within 500 feet of any 

active floodplain, unless otherwise permitted by the AO (special habitat zones identified in 

Lease Stipulation 39 have their own designated restrictions). Any impacts from erosion should 

be short term, and proper placement of these structures, in combination with adequate and

properly sited drainage systems, should minimize effects to fish. 

Pipeline construction within the planning area would depend on the location and sequence of

commercial-sized discoveries. Narrow streams could be crossed using elevated pipelines on

suspension spans. Wider, shallow rivers could be crossed by trenching and burying insulated 

pipelines in the riverbed. All entrenched crossings would be constructed in the winter at 

locations selected to minimize disturbances to overwintering fish habitat. Once installed, 

suspended and entrenched pipelines would have no effect on stream and water flow 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-126 

Alternative A (No Action): Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

characteristics within the planning area unless maintenance or integrity issues occurred. All 

pipelines would be routed to avoid lakes, where feasible. The effects of pipeline leaks are 

discussed below under the “Effects of Spills” subheading. 

Collectively, the lease stipulations and design requirements described above should provide 

adequate protection to the integrity of natural flow characteristics and water quality within the 

planning area. The construction and placement of drill pads, roadways, pipelines, bridges, and 

culverts under Alternative A is not expected to have a measurable effect on freshwater,

anadromous, and amphidromous fish populations in and adjacent to the planning area. 

Effects from Summer Tundra Travel. Alternative A allows summer tundra travel in 

Northeast NPR-A only through use of the stipulation exception process (see stipulation 24i in 

the 1998 Northeast NPR-A ROD). Travel off of gravel pads is easiest in winter and generally 

environmentally preferable at that time, but some vehicle travel off of pads does occur in North

Slope oil fields during summer to accomplish specific tasks. The State of Alaska has approved

some low-ground-pressure vehicles for summer tundra travel and similar summer tundra travel 

may be anticipated to be part of oil development in northeast NPR-A. 

The potential impacts on fish related to summer tundra travel include sedimentation and 

degraded water quality. If vehicles cross streams, increased sedimentation could occur from 

streambank damage and disturbance of the streambed, and small leaks from equipment (e.g.

fuel or mechanical fluids) could degrade water quality. However, stream crossings would likely 

be rare and only approved in the exception process if adequate protection was granted to fish 

habitat. If a stream crossing was allowed, a short-lived sediment pulse from disturbing the 

streambed would have a very short-lived effect on the stream. Any accidental small leak from a

vehicle would not have a discernible impact on fish. Under Alternative A, limited summer

tundra travel would not have a measurable effect on freshwater, anadromous, or amphidromous 

fish populations within and adjacent to the planning area. 

Effects from Causeways. The construction of solid gravel causeways along the coast has long 

been a sensitive fisheries issue (USACE 1980, 1984). These structures, which can extend 

several miles out to sea, are used for offshore drilling, year-round seawater extraction, and as 

docking facilities for sea-born supply. Their solid construction enables them to withstand the 

immense pressures of shifting coastal ice in late winter and spring. They also have the potential 

to physically block fish moving along the shore and/or alter coastal circulation and mixing 

patterns such that hydrographic conditions becomes inhospitable for anadromous and 

amphidromous fishes. The nearshore coastal zone is a prime summer feeding ground for these 

species. Studies conducted at Prudhoe Bay have documented some instances in which 

causeways have indeed altered, impeded, and even completely blocked anadromous and 

amphidromous fish from migrating along the coast (Fechhelm 1999; Fechhelm et al. 1989, 

1999). 

BLM discourages the use of solid-fill causeways, preferring instead alternatives such as onshore

directional drilling, elevated structures, or buried pipelines. Lease Stipulation 30 prohibits the 

construction of causeways, docks, artificial gravel islands, and bottom-founded structures in

river mouths and deltas, and the construction of artificial gravel islands and bottom-founded 

structures in active stream channels, unless otherwise approved by the AO on a site-specific 

basis. If any such structures were approved, they would be designed, sited, and constructed in a

way that would prevent large changes in nearshore hydrography and maintain free passage of 

marine, anadromous, and amphidromous fishes. Prohibiting causeways and docks in river 

mouths and deltas would offer further protection to migratory and marine fish species feeding 

4-127 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

in nearshore waters. Any future construction of a causeway or dock would be approached with 

great caution. Overall, the construction of causeways under Alternative A is not expected to

have a measurable effect on anadromous and amphidromous fish populations in and adjacent to

the planning area. 

Effects from Waterflooding. Waterflooding is a process that can increase oil recovery from

production wells. Water is injected into selected areas of the reservoir to maintain subsurface 

pressure and promote fluid flow up to the surface. The process requires such vast amounts of

water that the high demand usually overwhelms local freshwater sources. Therefore, seawater 

is used instead. Waterflooding systems consist of seawater intake and treatment plants located 

on the coast and an insulated pipeline that carries the seawater from the plant to production 

wells in the field. Oil fields in the northern portion of the planning area would likely receive 

seawater from facilities already serving fields in the Prudhoe Bay/Kuparuk area. The Prudhoe 

Bay Waterflood facility, constructed in 1981, can supply 92.4 million gallons of seawater per 

day. There are also seawater intakes at Endicott (11.6 million gallons per day), and Kuparuk 

(25.2 million gallons per day). 

One of the initial issues surrounding the construction of these seawater intake facilities was the 

number of anadromous, amphidromous, and marine fish that might be entrained by the 

seawater intake. Seawater intakes are constructed with ports fronted by a concrete wall that 

descends from the surface of the water to a depth of 23 feet. These ports are designed to exclude 

ice from being entrained, but their presence also means that fish must pass under the 23-footdeep barrier to reach the intake ports. Intakes are fitted with filter and diversion screens to

prevent fish from entering them (Dames and Moore 1985-1988). The filter and diversion screens 

also contribute to very low velocity intake currents (Moulton 2004). Monitoring of the intakes 

and marine bypass systems was conducted for the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk waterflood 

facilities from 1984 to 1987 to assess entrainment and impingement effects on fish (Dames and 

Moore 1985-1988). Fish were rarely observed during the monitoring studies, and most of those 

that entered the system passed successfully. The results indicated that the intakes were 

performing as designed, and monitoring was discontinued after 1987. 

The seawater intake facilities that would serve much of the planning area have been 

operational for years, and have apparently had no serious effects on fish migrating or foraging 

in the intake area. If seawater intake facilities were constructed in the future to enhance supply 

to oil fields in the planning area, it is assumed that the same design safeguards would be 

incorporated to prevent the entrainment and impingement of fish. It is not expected that 

seawater intake systems would have a measurable effect on anadromous and amphidromous 

fish populations under Alternative A. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Water withdrawal and removal of bridges, culverts, bridge approaches, pads, and roads could 

have impacts on fish similar to those described for construction activities. Additional fish 

habitat could be created by allowing gravel pits to be colonized by fish from nearby streams. 

Effects of Spills 

The effects of oil spills on fish have been discussed in previous Beaufort Sea EISs (e.g., Sale 144 

Final EIS; USDOI MMS 1996c), 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998), and 

Northwest IAP/EIS (USDOI BLM and MMS 2003), and these are summarized here. Oil spills 

have been observed to have a range of effects on fish (Malins 1977; Hamilton et al. 1979; Starr 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-128 

Alternative A (No Action): Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

et al. 1981). The specific effect depends on the concentration of petroleum present, the length of 

exposure, and the stage of fish development involved (eggs, larva, and juveniles are most 

sensitive). If lethal concentrations are encountered (or sub-lethal concentrations over a long 

enough period), fish mortality is likely to occur. However, mortality caused by a petroleumrelated spill is seldom observed outside the laboratory environment. Most acute-toxicity values 

(96-hour lethal concentration for 50% of test organisms [LC50]) for fish generally are on the 

order of 1 to 10 ppm. Concentrations measured under the slicks of oil spills at sea have been 

less than the acute values for fish and plankton. For example, concentrations of oil 1.51⁄2 to 3.3 

feet beneath a slick from the Tsesis spill ranged from 50 to 60 parts per billion (ppb; Kineman et 

al. 1980). Extensive sampling following the Exxon Valdez oil spill (about 260,000 bbl in size) 

also found hydrocarbon levels that were well below those known to be toxic or to cause sublethal effects in plankton (Neff 1991). The low concentration of hydrocarbons in the water 

column following even a large oil spill at sea appears to be the primary reason for the lack of 

lethal effects on fish and plankton. 

If a fuel spill of sufficient size were to occur in a small, fish-containing body of water with 

restricted water exchange, lethal and sub-lethal effects would be expected on most of the fish 

and food resources in that waterbody. Mortality would be higher for larval fish because they are 

relatively immobile and are often found at the water’s surface where oil concentrations would be

high. Substrate contamination in spawning areas could result in high egg morality. Sublethal 

effects would include changes in growth, feeding, spawning, and reduced fitness. Adults might 

be able to avoid contact with oiled waters during a spill in the open-water season, but survival 

would be expected to decrease if oil were to reach an isolated overwintering pool. Even lightly 

contaminated water, which might otherwise be insufficient to elicit lethal or sub-lethal effects in 

fish in an open-water environment, could have more detrimental impacts in confined 

overwintering areas. If sub-avoidance levels of contamination allowed fish to converge on an 

overwintering site, those fish would be forced to endure low-level conditions continuously over 

the entire winter. The time frame of contamination could also be highly variable. Stream flow 

begins in late May to early June as a rapid flood event that, in conjunction with ice and snow 

damming, can inundate extremely large areas in a matter of days. The flushing effect of the 

spring runoff could purge contaminants from rivers and streams, and possibly low-lying or open

access lakes. 

It is estimated that from 65 to 80% of crude oil spills associated with oil production would occur 

on a drilling pad (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998). Drilling pad oil spills are typically small and 

easily cleaned up. Lease Stipulation 41 prohibits the construction of all permanent oil and gas 

facilities within 500 feet of any active floodplain unless otherwise permitted by the AO. This 

buffer zone is designed to provide protection to surrounding water bodies. Crude-oil spills 

occurring on production pads are likely to have little or no effect on the surrounding 

environment and fish communities. The approximately 20 to 35% of crude-oil spills that occur 

off pads are typically associated with pipeline leaks. These spills generally remain restricted to 

an area of the tundra where they are more easily contained and cleaned up. Many off-pad spills 

make contact with snow, which can then be cleaned up before the oil reaches the tundra or 

waterways. Some spills could reach nearby streams, rivers, or lakes, but the volume of these 

spills would typically be small. Some fish in the immediate area of a spill could be affected, but 

the impact would largely remain localized. If the flow characteristics of surrounding 

waterbodies were sufficient to disperse the spill over a wider area, it would also have a diluting 

effect on what is already likely to be a small volume spill. Further, oil spill contingency plans 

and rapid response mechanisms are an integral part of the leasing process. These include 

required contingency plans that established procedures to insure prompt response, notification, 

and cleanup of any spill (Lease Stipulations 7, 8, 9, and 13), annual spill response-training 

4-129 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

(Lease Stipulation 11), and spill-response field drills (Lease Stipulation 12) for all spill-response 

personnel. Lease Stipulation 38 requires that all pipelines be constructed with the best

technology for detecting corrosion and leaks. 

Because of the small volumes involved, management practices, and the substantial emphasis 

that is placed on oil-spill response plans and procedures, small crude-oil spills associated with 

Alternative A would not likely have a measurable effect on freshwater, anadromous, or 

amphidromous fish populations in or adjacent to the planning area. Besides the effectiveness of 

the response, many independent factors will determine the probability that fish will be 

negatively impacted by an oil spill, including the quantity spilled, season, weather patterns, 

location (e.g. upland versus river channel), and proximity to sensitive habitat (see section 

4.2.2.3, Fate and Behavior of Spilled Oil). If a large spill of crude oil occurred during the 

summer open-water period and within a major stream or river channel, this could potentially 

have an effect on freshwater, anadromous, or amphidromous fish populations in or adjacent to 

the planning area; in particular, impacting subpopulations at the drainage level. A very large 

oil spill within a major stream or river channel during the summer would have an even more 

likely impact on freshwater, anadromous, or amphidromous fish populations in or adjacent to

the planning area. Impacts to fish from all projected oil spills under Alternative A would have 

the least impact as compared to Alternative B, C, and D.Typical refined-oil spills consist of 

aviation fuel, diesel fuel, engine lube, fuel oil, gasoline, grease, hydraulic oil, transformer oil, 

and transmission oil. Diesel spills constitute 61% of refined-oil spills by frequency, and 75% by 

volume. Refined-oil spills occur in conjunction with oil exploration, and production and spill 

rates correlate directly with the volume of crude oil produced. Based upon oil-spill estimates, 

the average refined-oil spill is 29 gallons (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998). As described above for 

crude-oil spills, the small volume involved would, at worst, have a very localized effect on the 

surrounding environment and fish communities. There are also a number of lease stipulations 

that would further guard against refined-oil discharges. In addition to Lease Stipulations 7, 8, 

9, 11, 12, and 13 described above for crude-oil spills, Lease Stipulation 10 requires that oilclean-up material be stored at all fueling points and vehicle maintenance areas, and be carried 

by all vehicles moving overland. Lease Stipulation 14 requires that, except during overland 

moves and seismic operation, fuels and liquid chemical in excess of 600 gallons (single tank) and 

1,320 gallons (multiple tanks) be stored within impermeable liners capable of containing 110% 

of stored volume. Fuel stations would have impermeable protection against overfills and spills. 

Excluding small caches of up to 210 gallons for boats and float planes, fuel storage areas would 

not be located within 500 feet of any waterway. Lease Stipulation 15 prohibits fuels from being 

stored on an active floodplain or on lake or river ice. Lease Stipulation 17 requires that all fuel 

containers be properly marked and contents identified. Lease Stipulation 16 prohibits refueling 

within 500 feet of any water body or in any active flood plain, but with exceptions for boats, float 

planes, and ski planes. Lease Stipulation 24(n) prohibits fueling equipment from entering the 

active floodplain of any waterbody. Given the small quantities of fuel involved and the safety 

requirements for operations on the oil field, it is not expected that refined-oil spills associated 

with Alternative A would have a measurable effect on freshwater, anadromous, or 

amphidromous fish populations in or adjacent to the planning area. 

Lease Stipulation 5 protects fish and their habitats by regulating the intentional discharge and 

disposal of wastewater. Unless authorized by a NPDES permit, disposal of domestic wastewater 

into freshwater bodies would be prohibited. Surface disposal of reserve-pit fluids would also be

prohibited unless otherwise authorized by the AO. Only subsurface disposal of produced fluids

would be allowed in upland areas and wetlands unless otherwise authorized by the AO. 

Therefore, it is not expected that intentional discharges would have a measurable effect on 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-130 

Alternative A (No Action): Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

freshwater, anadromous, or amphidromous fish populations in or adjacent to the planning area 

under Alternative A. 

Commercial Gas Development 

The winter construction of a buried gas pipeline by trenching through fish inhabited streams or 

portions of streams not frozen to the bottom would impact fish to some degree. The extent of the 

impact would depend on the volume of the overwintering habitat and the density of fish 

utilizing this habitat. Because water freezes to a depth of about 6 feet during a typical winter,

much of the overwintering habitat available to fish consists of isolated pools. Where this habitat 

is sufficiently large or fish density is relatively low, impacts would likely be limited to

temporary displacement of fish during the construction phase, with only a minor loss of energy

reserves by individual fish. In smaller pools where lateral movements would be restricted or

where fish density is relatively high, the impacts would be the greatest. In this case, numerous 

flight responses and heightened stress due to persistent disturbance from construction activities

would likely lead to some mortality and, otherwise, reduced fitness during spring breakup 

which could hinder the ability to make the seasonal migration to summer feeding habitat. Also, 

in overwintering pools that are relatively small, turbidity caused by trenching would have a 

greater magnitude of impact. Potential impacts to fish associated with maintenance of gas 

pipelines would be similar to those described for construction. Required maintenance due to

problems with structural integrity could be expected, which could include portions buried under

streams. For instance, a gas pipeline to Nuiqsut from existing oil infrastructure to the east that 

is buried under the Colville River Nigliq Channel is requiring excavation for repairs in 2007. It 

was only installed a few years earlier and has not yet been used to transport gas. While these 

construction and maintenance activities could lead to localized fish mortality, impacts to fish 

could be largely avoided by burying pipeline in shallow portions of streams or rivers that freeze 

to the bottom. 

Additionally, water withdrawals and changes to hydrology caused by ice roads could affect fish. 

Potential issues include losing access to suitable habitat, barriers to movement, or habitat 

degradation. These ice roads would be necessary during both natural gas exploration and 

construction phases. For example, ice roads would be used to reach exploration drilling sites 

and also used in trenching the pipeline route or construction of a compressor station (ADNR,

2006b). 

If a buried gas pipeline ruptured and gas escaped to a fish-bearing waterbody, some fish in the 

immediate vicinity might be killed. Natural gas and condensates would be hazardous to any 

organisms exposed to high concentrations. In general, very few fish are likely to be affected by 

a pipeline rupture. 

While natural gas exploration and development may have notable localized impacts, it is not

likely to have a measurable effect on freshwater fish populations. 

4.3.7-a.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations 

Numerous lease stipulations were identified in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD to effectively 

protect water quality and fish. Lease Stipulation 5 minimizes impacts to fish and their habitats 

by regulating the intentional discharge/disposal of wastewater. Lease Stipulations 7 through 17 

and 24(n) would provide increased protection to fish and fish habitat from oil spills and during 

use, handling, and storage of refined oil products. Lease Stipulations 19 and 24 provide 

4-131 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

guidelines for, and limit the extent of, winter activities that could harm fish overwintering 

habitat. Lease Stipulation 20 helps mitigate impacts to overwintering fish and their habitat by 

limiting the withdrawal of water from rivers and streams during winter. Lease Stipulation 28 

prohibits exploratory drilling in rivers, streams, and lakebeds. These steps would provide 

increased protection to fish habitat from unexpected drilling discharges, spills, and well waste. 

Lease Stipulation 30 limits the construction of causeways, docks, artificial gravel islands, and 

bottom-founded structures in river mouths and deltas; and the construction of artificial gravel 

islands and bottom-founded structures in active stream channels. Lease Stipulation 40 

minimizes damage to fish habitat by restricting the mining of gravel within the active floodplain 

of any river, stream, or lake. However, mining could be approved if it could be demonstrated

that the site would ultimately enhance fish habitat. Lease Stipulations 41, 42, and 43 require 

that natural drainage patterns within the planning area be identified and maintained during 

and after construction of all permanent oil and gas facilities, roadways, airstrips, pipelines, 

bridges, and culverts. Lease Stipulation 41, which prohibits the construction of all permanent 

oil and gas facilities, roadways, airstrips, and pipelines within 500 feet of any active floodplain 

unless otherwise permitted by the AO, also establishes a buffer zone to protect fish habitat from 

unplanned spills or discharges and sedimentation from gravel-based structures. Lease 

Stipulation 38 requires that all pipelines be constructed with the best technology for detecting 

corrosion and leaks. 

4.3.7-a.4 Conclusion 

The potential impacts to freshwater, anadromous, and amphidromous fish from oil exploration 

and development activities within the planning area under Alternative A include winter seismic 

activities near sensitive overwintering habitats; loss of overwintering habitat from water 

withdrawals; degradation or blockage of water bodies used as fish migratory corridors or feeding 

grounds resulting from the construction and placement of pipelines, pads, ice and gravel 

roadways, airstrips, and causeways; loss or degradation of habitat from gravel extraction; crude 

and refined-oil spills; and loss or degradation of habitat from gravel structure erosion. Rigorous 

management and safety practices, planning requirements, and adherence to Federal and state

operational guidelines, procedures, and lease stipulations, including those specifically targeted

for the planning area, are sufficient to minimize impacts from these sources (USDOI BLM and 

MMS 1998). While impacts from any of the above activities could affect small numbers of fish in 

a localized area, in the absence of a catastrophic spill oil exploration and development activities 

that would occur under Alternative A are not expected to have a measurable effect on 

freshwater, anadromous, and amphidromous fish populations in and adjacent to the planning 

area. 

The threat of localized oil and gas activities affecting local fish populations would increase if 

these activities occurred in particularly sensitive habitats, such as Teshekpuk Lake (least cisco 

and broad whitefish), the Tingmiaksiqvik River (broad whitefish and Arctic grayling), the 

Ikpikpuk and Miguakik rivers (broad whitefish, burbot, and Arctic grayling), Fish and Judy 

creeks (least cisco, broad whitefish, and Arctic grayling), and the deep water lakes. Although 

adjacent to, but not directly in, the planning area, the lower reaches of the Colville River Delta, 

including the Nigliq Channel, serve as the primary overwintering area for Arctic cisco and 

should be considered an especially sensitive area for planning purposes. Channels in the 

Colville River also serve as the primary migratory pathways for Dolly Varden. 

In general, impacts to fish from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas activities, would 

likely be additive, except in those areas where the two types of activities overlapped. Impacts to 

fish from exploration and development activities would also be additive, except where 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-132 

Alternative A (No Action): Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

development activities occurred in areas previously disturbed during exploration. However, once 

exploration and development/production cease in an area, fish populations and habitat could 

recover, reducing overall effects in the planning area. 

4.3.7-b Marine Fish 

Nearly all of the 49 species of marine fish reported to inhabit the Beaufort Sea have a 

predominantly offshore, marine distribution year round. Eight principal species move into 

coastal waters adjacent to the planning area during summer (Table 3.3-B and Appendix H). The

most abundant of these are Arctic cod, fourhorn sculpin, and Arctic flounder; with the latter two 

species known to travel considerable distances upriver. 

As a preface to the following, it should be noted that marine fish species that inhabit nearshore 

coastal water during summer have extensive and widespread distributions along the coast.

Fourhorn sculpin and Arctic flounder are typically among the most abundant species collected 

along the Beaufort Sea throughout Alaska and Canada (Kendel et al. 1975; Woodward-Clyde 

Consultants 1984; Bond and Erickson 1985, 1987; Moulton et al. 1986a; Philo et al. 1993a; 

Underwood et al. 1995; Griffiths et al. 1996; Fechhelm et al. 2000). Arctic cod are so abundant 

in marine waters of Arctic Canada and Alaska that Frost and Lowry (1983) believe that they 

are the most important consumer of secondary production in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Given 

their widespread distribution and abundance throughout the Beaufort Sea, it is highly unlikely 

that any point impact associated with oil and gas development could affect these marine species 

at the population level. The exception might be a catastrophic oil spill that was non-lethal to 

marine species in general, but which could cause sublethal genetic or physiological 

abnormalities that might be propagated through the broader population. 

4.3.7-b.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

As described above for freshwater, anadromous, and amphidromous fishes, non-oil and gas 

activities would be quite limited in scope and duration. In addition, recreational and commercial 

fishermen do not target marine fish in the Beaufort Sea. Therefore, it is not expected that nonoil and gas activities occurring under Alternative A would have a measurable effect on marine

fish in the vicinity of the planning area. 

4.3.7-b.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

The following discussion of impacts from oil and gas activities includes impacts to marine fish 

and habitat within and adjacent to the planning area. This area is largely limited to the coastal 

zone and the lower reaches and deltas of some of the larger rivers during the open-water 

summer season. 

On June 19, 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in U.S. v Alaska No. 84 that the NPR-A 

included tidally influenced waters and the submerged lands underlying them. Given the 

relatively small tidal fluctuations characteristic of the Beaufort Sea, most of the coastal tidal 

area of the NPR-A is shallow and lies within the landfast ice scour zone in winter. For some of 

the following discussions, it is assumed that the marine habitat and the fish occupying it are 

outside the NPR-A proper during winter. 

4-133 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects of Disturbances 

Effects from Seismic Surveys. Seismic surveys would be conducted within the planning area 

during the winter months from early December to mid-May. Because marine fish and their 

habitat lie outside the planning area in winter, seismic activities associated with Alternative A 

are not expected to have a measurable effect on marine fish populations. 

Effects from Water Demand. The source of water for building drill pads, roads, and airstrips 

would likely be freshwater bodies near the site of construction. Therefore, water withdrawal 

activities would have no effect on marine fish and their environment. Water withdrawal for the 

purposes of waterflooding does have implications for the marine system and is discussed 

separately below under the “Effects from Waterflooding” subheading. 

Effects from Exploratory Drilling. Exploratory drilling would be conducted within the 

planning area during the winter months, from early December to mid-April. Because marine 

fish and their habitat lie outside the planning area in winter, it is not expected that exploratory

drilling activities associated with Alternative A would have a measurable effect on marine fish 

populations. 

Effects from Gravel Extraction. If gravel extraction for pad and roadway construction were 

required in the planning area, it would likely occur in or near riverbeds and freshwater

floodplains. Under Lease Stipulation 48, lessees are required to minimize the impact of 

development on wetlands, which includes basin-complex wetlands and coastal wetlands. It is 

doubtful that gravel extraction would be permitted along the coastal tidal zone. Small numbers 

of fourhorn sculpin and Arctic flounder could migrate upriver in summer, but any encounter 

with a gravel site would be a chance occurrence, and would involve only a minuscule segment of 

any population. Fourhorn sculpin and Arctic flounder regularly inhabit and forage in highly 

turbid coastal waters near river outfalls and plumes. Under Alternative A, it is unlikely that 

gravel extraction within the planning area would have a measurable effect on marine fish. In 

addition, gravel extraction would not potentially create overwintering habitat as it might for 

freshwater fish, since all marine fish overwinter at sea. 

Effects from Pad, Road, and Pipeline Construction. Pad, road, and pipeline construction

would largely be limited to freshwater habitat regions of the planning area, and would not 

establish a footprint in marine or coastal habitats. Lease Stipulation 48 requires that lessees 

minimize the impact of development on wetlands, which includes basin-complex wetlands and

coastal wetlands. Future exceptions could be the construction of docking facilities along the 

coast of the planning area, although it seems likely that sea borne re-supply would involve the 

already operational docking facilities at West Dock. BLM’s position on causeway construction 

along the coast is described below. Pad, road, and pipeline construction under Alternative A 

would not be expected to have a measurable effect on marine fish populations. 

Effects from Causeways. The construction of solid gravel causeways along the coast is less of

an issue for marine fish than it is for anadromous and amphidromous fish. The major migration

for two of the most dominant species, fourhorn sculpin and Arctic flounder, is inland soon after 

breakup. Once in coastal waters, these sedentary species do not undergo the extensive

alongshore migrations up and down the coast that are characteristic of Arctic cisco and the 

amphidromous species. Potential blockage to alongshore movement is less critical. Arctic cod 

are so abundant throughout Arctic waters that any localized disruption to their movement 

would not have a lasting impact on the species. Considering the BLM’s regulations on the use,

design, and monitoring of causeways that might be constructed along the coast in the future 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-134 

Alternative A (No Action): Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

(see “Freshwater and Anadromous/Amphidromous Fish” above), it is not expected that the 

construction of causeways under Alternative A would have a measurable effect on anadromous 

or amphidromous fish populations in and adjacent to the planning area. 

Effects from Waterflooding. It is not expected that waterflooding would have a measurable 

effect on marine fish, for the same reasons that were given above for anadromous and 

amphidromous fish. 

Effects of Spills 

Hydrocarbon spills can impact marine fishes of any life history stage. Such impacts may include 

sublethal and/or lethal effects. The intensity of the effects upon a marine fish population or

assemblage of species is dependent on a suite of dynamic factors. The size of the spill does not 

necessarily directly relate to the number of individuals that could be impacted. Hydrocarbons 

may be introduced into the coastal/marine environment as a result of marine vessel overboard

discharges or facility spills. A detailed and extensive discussion of the potential lethal and 

sublethal effects of oil toxicity on finfish and other marine organisms is provided in the 

Northwest IAP/EIS (USDOI BLM and MMS 2003). 

The threat to marine fish from an oil spill is contingent upon the spill reaching coastal waters at 

volumes capable of affecting large nearshore areas. Because oil spills in the planning area are 

expected to be small, and given the stringent oil-spill-response safety requirements for 

operations on the oil field (see “Freshwater and Anadromous/Amphidromous Fish” above), there 

is a very low likelihood that an inland spill would reach coastal/marine waters of the planning 

area at volumes capable of causing a biologically important or measurable impact to marine 

fishes. Therefore, Lease Stipulations 7 through 17 and 24(n), which provide increased

protection to freshwater, anadromous, and amphidromous fish and fish habitat from oil spills 

and during fueling use, handling, and storage of refined oil products, would also serve to protect 

marine fish and their habitat. Lease Stipulation 5 prohibits the discharge of produced waters 

into open or ice-covered marine waters less than 33 feet in depth. However, discharge in deeper

water could be approved by the AO. 

4.3.7-b.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations 

In general, most of the lease stipulations associated with Alternative A are designed to 

minimize impacts to the freshwater, anadromous, and amphidromous fish within and adjacent 

to the planning area. Lease Stipulation 48 provides some protection to the marine environment 

by requiring that lessees minimize the impact of development on wetlands, which includes 

basin-complex wetlands and coastal wetlands. Lease Stipulations 7 through 17 and 24(n), which 

provide increased protection to waterbodies within and adjacent to the planning area from oil 

spills and during fueling use, handling, and storage of refined oil products, would also protect 

marine fish and their habitat. Lease Stipulation 5 minimizes damage to marine habitats by 

regulating the discharge of produced waters into open or ice-covered marine waters. 

4.3.7-b.4 Conclusion 

In general, marine fishes of the Beaufort Sea are insulated from many potential environmental 

impacts associated with oil development in the planning area. Most of the coastal tidal area of 

the planning area is shallow and lies within the winter landfast ice scour zone. Thus, the 

marine habitat and the fish occupying it are outside the planning area during winter and would

not be subject to disturbances associated with seismic surveys, exploration drilling, and water 

4-135 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

withdrawal. Although species like fourhorn sculpin and Arctic flounder may move upriver 

during summer, most members of these marine species remain in shallow coastal waters. The 

bulk of the population would not be directly subject to the effects of river gravel extraction, pad,

road, and pipeline construction, sedimentation from gravel erosion, and the potential blockage 

of migratory corridors. Rigorous management and safety practices, planning requirements, and 

adherence to Federal and state operational guidelines, procedures, and lease stipulations, 

including those specifically targeted for the Northeast NPR-A, would further minimize the 

potential for impacts to marine fish from these sources. 

Because marine species are abundant and widely distributed throughout the Beaufort Sea, it is

also highly unlikely that any point impact associated with oil development in the planning area 

(the occurrence of which is unlikely) could affect these species at the population level. One 

exception might be a catastrophic oil spill that could cause sublethal genetic or physiological 

abnormalities that might be propagated through the broader population. However, given that 

oil spills in the planning area are expected to be small, and stringent oil-spill-response safety 

requirements for operations on the oil field would be in place, such an event is unlikely. 

Overall, it is not expected that oil exploration and development activities under Alternative A

would have a measurable effect on marine fish populations in or adjacent to the planning area. 

Since nearly all exploration and development activity would occur onshore under all 

alternatives, impacts to marine fish resources under Alternative A would be minor and similar 

to, or slightly less than, those that could occur under Alternatives B, C, and D. 

4.3.8 Birds 

This section discusses the potential effects to non-threatened and non-endangered bird species 

that could result from management actions in the planning area under Alternative A; a 

discussion of effects to threatened bird species is given in section 4.3.10, Threatened and 

Endangered Species. Approximately 80 species of birds commonly or regularly occur in the 

planning area. Most of these species, including loons, waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, passerines, 

seabirds, and ptarmigan, are migratory and occur in the planning area only during the summer

breeding season. Most of the activities that could potentially affect birds in the planning area 

would result from oil and gas exploration and development. Other activities that could 

potentially affect birds in the planning area include subsistence activities (including hunting, 

fishing, berry picking etc.), recreational use, activities associated with scientific surveys and 

research camps, clean up of old oil and gas exploration sites, and activities associated with 

government actions (e.g. clean up of abandoned well sites). These activities could affect tundra 

nesting birds by causing: 1) temporary or permanent habitat loss; 2) various types of 

disturbance related to equipment and facility noise, vehicular and air traffic, and pedestrian 

activities, which could result in displacement from preferred foraging, staging, nesting and/or 

brood-rearing habitats or decreasing productivity and survival; 3) increased predation from 

predators attracted to areas of human activity; and 4) mortality resulting from collisions with 

vehicles or structures, or exposure to contaminants, including oil spills. Under Alternative A, 

Teshekpuk Lake and virtually all of the Goose Molting Area north and east of the lake would be

unavailable for oil and gas leasing, and no surface activity would be allowed in a 5 to 6 mile 

band around the southern portion of the Goose Molting Area (Maps 2-1, 3-14). In addition, lease 

stipulations have been designated under this alternative that would help to mitigate potential 

negative impacts that could result from the various activities. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-136 

Alternative A (No Action): Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.3.8.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Effects of Disturbance 

Seasonal Camps. Ground camps associated with non-oil and gas activities include small 

groups of people involved in scientific research or recreation. These camps range in size from

small mobile parties that remain at a site for a few days to larger camps that are set up for 

longer time periods. The majority of these camps would occur during the summer. Winter camps 

would have little impact to birds given that few birds occur in the planning area during winter.

Various types of disturbances could affect tundra nesting or brood-rearing birds near summer 

camps. Noise and ground activities could disturb feeding, nesting, or brood-rearing birds, 

causing temporary or permanent displacement from feeding or nesting areas and potentially 

affecting energy budgets and productivity. Displacement from brood-rearing areas could lead to 

higher predation rates. Although pedestrian traffic has been shown to be particularly disruptive 

to some waterfowl and raptors (Roseneau et al. 1981; Ritchie 1987; Johnson et al. 2003b), some 

birds may also acclimate to predictable daily activities of camp personnel. Aircraft activity to 

mobilize and re-supply summer camps could disturb birds along continually-used flight 

corridors and near airstrips during take-offs and landings. Effects of this type of visual and 

noise disturbance could range from temporary displacement from preferred habitats to nest

abandonment. Fixed-wing and helicopter flights for mobilization and re-supply of summer 

camps would be intermittent, and could occur several days or weeks apart. It may be easier for 

birds to acclimate to flights that occur on a regular daily basis than to flights that occur on a 

more random basis. Birds could also suffer mortality due to collisions with aircraft. Disturbance 

to birds from aircraft traffic and camp activities would likely have the greatest effect within 

approximately 695 meters (2,280 feet) of the camps and little or no effect beyond 1,981 meters 

(6,500 feet; Johnson et al. 2003b). Ward et al. (1999) studied brant response to fixed-wing and 

rotary-wing aircraft and reported that 75% of brant flocks responded to overflights with more 

flocks responding to rotary-wing (51%) than to fixed-wing (33%). Responses to overflights 

occurred up to 1,219 meters in altitude and a lateral distance to 4.8 km (3 miles), although the 

majority of birds responded to aircraft that were within a lateral distance of 0.8 km (1⁄2 mile) or 

less (Ward et al. 1999). The greatest response to aircraft altitude occurred between 305 and 762 

meters (1,000 and 2,500 feet). Tundra-nesting birds near summer camps could suffer mortality 

or egg loss due to predation by predators attracted to anthropogenic sources of food at camps. 

Nest abandonment could occur if nests are located in areas with high levels of activity. If 

possible, summer camps should be located in areas away from habitats used by species of 

special agency concern, such as brant, yellow-billed loon and buff-breasted sandpiper, and 

species with declining population trends on the ACP to minimize potential effects of 

disturbance. Impacts would likely be localized and restricted to within about a mile of activities 

based at the camp. 

River Transport. Summer boat traffic could occur on the Colville, Kogosukruk, Kikiakrorak, 

and Ikpikpuk rivers for recreational or subsistence activities, or to re-supply camps along these 

rivers. Numerous studies have reported on the effects of boat disturbance to birds (e.g., 

McGarigal et al. 1991; Steidl and Anthony 1996); this activity could potentially affect nesting 

gyrfalcons, peregrine falcons, and rough-legged hawks in the Colville River Raptor, Passerine, 

and Moose LUEA and the Ikpikpuk River area. The current levels of boat activities on these

rivers have apparently not impacted raptors negatively, as some populations, particularly the 

peregrine falcon population; have been increasing on the ACP in recent years (Ritchie et al. 

2003). Fuel spills due to summer boat traffic are expected to be small (less than five gallons), 

and would most likely occur during fuel transfers. Fuel spills have the potential to negatively 

4-137 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

impact birds if they occur in areas where the birds are feeding (contamination of prey items) or

if fuel comes into contact with and adheres to the birds feathers, often causing death. Unless a 

fuel spill occurred in an area where large numbers of birds were very congregated any such 

losses would likely be minor to the bird populations on the North Slope, but would contribute to

cumulative effects. 

Wildlife Surveys. Aerial surveys for wildlife in the planning area could include fixed-wing 

aircraft and helicopter surveys for waterfowl. Low-level fixed-wing aerial surveys would 

probably have little effect on birds due to the short amount of time during which aircraft would 

be in a particular area. Ward et al. (1999) reported a decreasing level of response to aircraft 

overflights by brant with increasing lateral distance of aircraft. The majority of birds responded 

at lateral distances of 0.8 km (1⁄2 mile) or less. Wildlife telemetry studies involving the use of 

helicopters could cause greater disturbance to birds due to the take-offs and landings required 

for deploying ground personnel for attachment of transmitters. Additionally, pedestrian traffic, 

necessary for transmitter attachment, has been shown to be more disruptive to some waterfowl 

species than other types of disturbance (Johnson et al. 2003b). The effects to birds from these 

activities could range from temporary displacement from preferred feeding habitats to nest 

abandonment and loss of production for the breeding season. Impacts would likely be localized. 

Impacts have potential to have greater negative effect if the activity occurs in an area of high 

bird density (such as near lakes containing large numbers of molting geese) or in areas 

containing populations of species listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act or on

the agency sensitive species list. 

Waste Removal. Clean-up activities at abandoned sites in the planning area could involve the 

use of fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters to access remote areas. The effects of this traffic would 

be similar to those described above for conducting aerial surveys or for mobilizing and resupplying summer camps. Ground activity by workers on foot could be more disruptive to some 

bird species than other types of disturbance (Johnson et al. 2003b). Impacts would likely be 

localized. Impacts have potential to have greater negative effect if the activity occurs in an area 

of high bird density (such as near lakes containing large numbers of molting geese) or in areas 

containing populations of species listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act or on

the agency sensitive species list. 

4.3.8.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbances 

Exploration 

Most seismic surveys and exploration drilling activities would occur during the winter months 

when most birds are not present in the planning area. Therefore, these activities would likely 

have no direct impacts on most species. A few species, including snowy owl, gyrfalcon, 

ptarmigan, and common raven, which could be present in the planning area during winter, 

could be temporarily displaced from preferred feeding areas by oil and gas exploration activities. 

There is also a potential that ravens could be attracted to seismic camps. 

Although unlikely to occur as Teshekpuk Lake is unavailable for leasing in this alternative, the 

use of airguns for boat-based seismic work in Teshekpuk Lake during the summer could

temporarily displace loons and waterfowl from preferred feeding habitats while surveys were 

being conducted. Disturbance may result not only from airgun use but also from boat activity 

(Rodgers and Smith 1995). Because setbacks around the perimeter of the lake presumably 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-138 

Alternative A (No Action): Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

would eliminate the potential for disturbance to birds nesting near the lakeshore, only birds 

using habitats in the open water of the lake would potentially be disturbed. Birds displaced by 

seismic activities would likely return to preferred habitats after the airgun arrays passed 

through the area. Effects of use of airguns on forage fish may include stress from fleeing 

behavior and physical damage or death (section 4.1.1 this document) potentially resulting in a 

reduction in the amount of prey available to foraging loons. Disturbance to birds near and 

nesting on the shoreline could result from support activities, such as use of helicopters to 

transport personnel and supplies. Disturbance related to support activities could result in 

permanent or temporary displacement from nesting, feeding, or brood-rearing habitats. 

Conducting surveys after the completion of the nesting and brood-rearing period would

eliminate the potential for nest abandonment and loss of productivity. 

Winter exploration activities could indirectly affect tundra-nesting birds during the summer 

breeding season. Ice-roads, snow trails and ice-pads are used for transportation and storage of 

drilling and exploration equipment and for exploratory drilling. Construction of these ice-roads, 

snow trails and ice-pads could temporarily alter tundra habitats by compressing standing-dead 

vegetation or delaying the growth and development of vegetation, due to protracted ice melt. 

The altered vegetation could reduce the amount of suitable habitat for nesting birds, but these 

impacts would be small and would likely persist for 1 or 2 years (Walker et al. 1987a, b). In 

areas where winter ice-roads and ice-pads were constructed annually, varying the location of 

the roads and pads as directed under the lease stipulations could help reduce potential impacts 

to tundra vegetation and bird nesting habitat. Further reduction of impacts would occur if ice 

road routes followed the wetter habitats to the greatest extent possible without significantly 

increasing their length (Yokel et al. 2005). 

In some cases, equipment could be stored on ice-pads specially designed and constructed to last 

through the summer and into the following winter. The tundra under the footprint of these icepads would be lost as feeding, nesting, or brood-rearing habitat during the course of that season. 

Locating these summer ice pads in drier areas would help to reduce potential impacts to loons, 

waterfowl, and some shorebird species associated with wetter habitat types, but could increase 

the potential impacts to species that use upland habitats such as plovers and buff-breasted

sandpiper. 

Water used in the construction of ice roads and pads would be withdrawn from deep lakes (>7 

feet in average depth) in areas adjacent to the road and pad locations. Winter water withdrawal 

could alter lakewater levels and adjacent habitats, although flooding and recharge during 

spring break-up would likely minimize the potential for long-term effects (Rovansek et al. 1996). 

In the existing area of oil exploration and development in the vicinity of the Northeast Planning 

Area, pumped lakes have recharged in the spring at levels similar to unpumped lakes (Streever 

et al. 2001; URS 2001; Baker 2002). These observations are likely transferable to other areas 

that have a high concentration of lakes; however, areas with sparse lakes will have different 

watershed dynamics that will require additional study. Lake recharge during spring would 

probably limit affects on invertebrate populations used for food by birds in the spring though 

this has not been studied directly. Bergman et al. (1977) and Derksen et al. (1981) reported that 

lakes with pendent grass had high levels of use by birds and seemed to be important to loons 

and waterfowl. Avoiding water withdrawal from lakes with pendent grass may reduce potential 

effects on waterfowl. 

Rolligons and track vehicles used during seismic exploration could leave tracks on tundra 

habitats that would be observable for several years (Kevan et al 1995). These tracks could affect 

vegetation, soil chemistry, soil invertebrates, and soil thaw characteristics, key components of 

4-139 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

bird habitat. The most noticeably affected areas would include terrain with considerable 

microtopographic relief caused by mounds, tussocks, hummocks, and high-centered polygons. 

Wet areas are less likely to be affected than dry areas (Walker 1996). Snow acts as a buffer 

against these impacts; therefore avoiding areas with low snow cover, in addition to using 

lightweight vehicles, dispersing traffic patterns, and minimizing sharp turns, could help to 

minimize damage to vegetation and landforms used by birds (Walker 1996). 

Predators, such as glaucous gulls, ravens and Arctic foxes, could be attracted to anthropogenic 

food sources associated with summer maintenance of exploratory drilling and seismic 

equipment. Garbage and shelter associated with winter exploration activities could also attract 

predators such as Arctic foxes and ravens, which may cause increased predation pressure on 

tundra-nesting birds due to increased over winter survival of predators. However, lease 

stipulations would require proper handling of non-hazardous waste to avoid human-caused 

changes in predator populations. This policy has apparently been successful at the Alpine field,

where Johnson et al. (2003b) reported no increase in the numbers of most predator species after 

development. The one exception was common raven, which became more common and nested at 

the Alpine field after development. 

 Development and Production 

Activities on Roads and Pads. Activities related to oil development and production in the 

planning area, such as vehicle, aircraft, pedestrian, and boat traffic, routine maintenance 

activities, heavy equipment use, and oil-spill clean-up activities could cause disturbances that 

would affect tundra-nesting birds. These disturbances could result in temporary or permanent 

displacement from preferred foraging, nesting, and brood-rearing, molting and staging habitats, 

decreased nest attendance, nest abandonment, nest predation and increased energy 

expenditures that could affect the physiological condition of birds and their survival or

reproduction. The likelihood for impacts to tundra-nesting birds would vary depending on the 

type and location of the disturbance, the species and number of individuals in the area, and the 

time of year. Impacts would be most likely to occur if facilities were located in habitats with 

high bird concentrations, in areas containing species that are vulnerable to small losses of nests 

and habitats that may be limiting for a particular species or if species with low population 

numbers or declining populations were disturbed. Species of particular concern include yellowbilled loon, red-throated loon, Sabine’s gull, long-tailed duck, and buff-breasted sandpiper 

(Lanctot and Laredo 1994; Brown et al. 2000; Donaldson et al. 2001; Larned et al. 2006; Mallek 

et al. 2006). The Goose Molting Area is an area with high wildlife values that would be 

unavailable for oil and gas leasing and development under Alternative A. 

Most construction activities, including pipeline installation, and gravel mining and placement 

for oil field infrastructure (i.e., roads, airstrips, and pads, camps, staging areas, and processing 

facilities), would be conducted during the winter. Industry will be encouraged to use the existing 

facility/pad at Lonely to unload and stage materials for development instead of constructing 

new coastal staging sites. With the exception of a few resident species, most birds are not 

present in the planning area during winter; therefore, there would be little direct disturbance to

most birds. Indirect impacts include loss of potential nesting, brood-rearing, molting, staging or 

foraging habits due to gravel mining and gravel placement on the tundra. 

During the summer, birds could be subjected to disturbances caused by vehicular and 

pedestrian traffic, and by noise from equipment on roads or at facilities, including large trucks 

hauling equipment and supplies and road maintenance equipment on access roads and pads. In 

the North Slope oil fields, these types of disturbances have been documented for waterfowl, and 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-140 

Alternative A (No Action): Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

have been shown to have greater effects on greater-white fronted geese, Canada geese and brant 

feeding close to roads than on geese feeding further away from them (Murphy et al. 1988; 

Murphy and Anderson 1993). Disturbances would be most prevalent during the pre-nesting 

period when birds gather to feed in open areas near roads, and during brood-rearing and fall 

staging when some geese exhibit higher rates of alertness in areas near roads than do birds in 

undisturbed areas (Murphy and Anderson 1993). Disturbance would occur most often within 

160 feet of roads. However, Murphy and Anderson (1993) reported disturbances to birds as far 

as 500 to 685 feet from roads. Johnson et al. (2003) reported on a study conducted during 

construction and post-construction periods at the Alpine Development in which they concluded 

that there was “individual variation in the responses of geese and swans to potential 

disturbance, and a reduction in response with increasing distance to the source, consistent with 

a gradient of exposure”. Johnson et al. (2003) reported that for a sample of nesting geese at the 

Alpine Development during the same study the highest rates of response to potential 

disturbance was caused by airplanes and pedestrians and the lowest rates of response was 

elicited by vehicles. This same study determined that the highest rate of response to potential 

disturbance by nesting swans was to pedestrian disturbance (Johnson et al. 2003). Troy (1988) 

reported that most common shorebird species occurred in lower densities near roads in the 

Prudhoe Bay oil field than in areas away from roads. This apparent avoidance of roads, 

however, may have been related to an avoidance of heavily dusted areas on tundra adjacent to 

roads with high traffic levels rather than an avoidance of vehicular activity itself. Disturbance 

from vehicular traffic could affect activity and energy budgets and have negative impacts on 

nest density and success for some birds. Higher shorebird densities may occur in areas near the 

coast compared to inland areas and disturbance that occurred in coastal areas may have a 

greater impact on shorebirds than inland disturbances (see Map 3-18). 

Some evidence suggests that pedestrian traffic may have a greater impact on some birds than 

vehicular traffic. During a study of the effects of disturbance related to the Lisburne

Development in the Prudhoe Bay oil field, Murphy and Anderson (1993) reported that of the 

more common sources of disturbance, humans on foot elicited the strongest reactions from geese

and swans. Ritchie (1987) reported that pedestrians caused greater disturbance to nesting 

raptors than other sources of disturbance. Johnson et al. (2003b) reported that aircraft and 

pedestrians elicited higher responses by nesting geese at the Alpine field than other sources of 

disturbance. Restricting or reducing the level of foot traffic on gravel roads and pads could help 

to reduce the potential for disturbance to foraging, nesting, or brood-rearing birds. Waterfowl in 

general, seem particularly sensitive to disturbance during the flightless wing molt. There 

appears to be species specific responses to disturbance stimuli; with some species responding at 

lower stimulus levels and showing greater behavioral responses (Mosbech and Glahder 1991). 

As a species, brant have been shown to be highly sensitive to various disturbance stimuli 

throughout the annual cycle including the wing molt period (Owens 1977, Miller 1994, Miller et

al. 1994, Ward et al. 1994, Jensen 1990). For molting geese, several studies have documented 

substantial shifts in behavior, including spatial displacement, resulting from aircraft overflights 

(Mosbech and Glahder 1991, Jensen 1990). Little is known about response to other forms of 

disturbance stimuli during the molt period. 

Summer Tundra Travel. Alternative A allows summer tundra travel in Northeast NPR-A 

only through use of the stipulation exception process (see stipulation 24i in the 1998 Northeast 

NPR-A ROD). Travel off of gravel pads is easiest in winter and generally environmentally 

preferable at that time, some vehicle travel off of pads does occur in North Slope oil fields

during summer to accomplish specific tasks. The State of Alaska has approved some lowground-pressure vehicles for summer tundra travel and similar summer tundra travel may be 

anticipated to be part of oil development in northeast NPR-A. 

4-141 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Activities related to summer tundra travel in the planning area could cause disturbances that 

would affect tundra-nesting birds. This disturbance could result in temporary or permanent 

displacement from preferred foraging, nesting, molting and brood-rearing habitats, decreased 

nest attendance, nest abandonment, nest destruction, nest predation and increased energy 

expenditures that could affect the physiological condition of birds and their survival or

reproduction. The likelihood for impacts to tundra-nesting birds would vary depending on the 

location of the summer tundra travel, the species and number of individuals in the area, and the 

time of year. Impacts would be most likely to occur if summer tundra travel occurred in habitats 

with high bird concentrations, in areas containing species that are vulnerable to small losses of 

nests and habitats that may be limiting for a particular species, during the molt period in areas 

where large numbers of birds congregate to molt, or if species with low population numbers, or 

declining populations were disturbed. 

Air Traffic. Aircraft, both fixed-wing and helicopter, would provide access for oil and gasrelated activities throughout the life of any potential oil field. This could include air support for 

seismic and exploratory drilling activity; aerial surveys and support for ground surveys of

wildlife, archaeological, hydrological, and other resources; road and pipeline route surveys; 

pipeline inspections; and support for other development, operations, and abandonment 

activities. The location, timing, and frequency of such flights and the type of aircraft used will 

be influenced by the phase of oil exploration, development, and operations, the location of any

oil discovered, the type of development that might occur, as well as restrictions that BLM and 

other regulators might place on the lessee or permittee (see section 4.2.1.2 for a discussion of 

potential number of flights associated with various activities). The potential for disturbance to

waterfowl from aircraft is well documented (e.g., Schweinsburg 1974; Ward and Stehn 1989; 

Derksen et al. 1992; McKechnie and Gladwin 1993; Ward et al 1999). Johnson et al. (2003b) 

conducted the most thorough study of aircraft disturbance to waterfowl in the Arctic at the 

Alpine field. Responses of birds to aircraft included alert postures, interruption of foraging 

behavior, and flight. Aircraft disturbances could displace birds from feeding habitats and 

negatively impact energy budgets. Gollop et al. (1974b) and Ward et al. (1999) suggested that 

helicopters may be more disturbing to wildlife than low-flying fixed-wing aircraft, although 

Balogh (1997) indicated that fixed-wing aircraft flown at 150 feet AGL often caused spectacled 

eiders to flush, while helicopters flown at similar altitudes in the vicinity of Prudhoe Bay did 

not. In a simulation study, Miller (1994) suggested that altering helicopter routes through the 

Goose Molting Area would likely reduce the impacts of potential weight loss on molting brant 

substantially. The greatest disturbance to brant would result from flights parallel to the coast 

and 1 mile inland. Other studies have reported little response by molting waterfowl to aircraft 

over-flights (Gollop et al. 1974a). Under Alternative A, permanent oil and gas facilities would be 

prohibited in high value waterfowl habitat surrounding Teshekpuk Lake and most aircraft 

overflights in this area would likely be at altitudes sufficiently high to avoid disturbance to 

waterfowl. Aircraft disturbance would be likely to affect waterfowl and other bird groups in 

portions of the planning area open to development, although under Alternative A, the effects of

aircraft disturbance would likely be lower than that of the other alternatives. 

The potential effects of routine aircraft flights into airstrips would range from bird avoidance of

certain areas to abandonment of nesting attempts or lowered survival of young. The likelihood 

that noise associated with aircraft would have a negative impact on birds would probably be 

greatest during the nesting period when the movements of incubating birds are restricted and 

the molting period when birds may be energetically stress and are know to be sensitive to

disturbance. The highest levels of aircraft noise would occur during takeoffs as engines reach 

maximum power levels. During landings, aircraft noise levels would be reduced as engine power

decreased. In the planning area, aircraft activity would likely be greatest during the 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-142 

Alternative A (No Action): Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

construction period, when more personnel and equipment would be transported to areas being 

developed than during the production period, when activity levels would be reduced (Johnson et

al. 2003b). 

The Alpine field avian monitoring program was a multi-year project designed to identify the 

potential effects of noise and disturbance from aircraft on birds nesting near the airstrip and on 

large waterbirds during brood-rearing (Johnson et al. 2003b). Other sources of disturbance 

included vehicle and pedestrian traffic, and predators. When compared to pre-construction

numbers, waterfowl nests near the airstrip declined in the area within 3,250 feet of the airstrip 

after construction began (Johnson et al. 2003b). However, the number of post-development nests 

increased in the area between 3,250 and 5,000 feet from the airstrip. The decline could not be 

directly linked to disturbance, as other factors, such as lower temperatures and more severe

flooding later into the breeding season during construction years, may also have influenced nest 

densities. During years of heavy construction, white-fronted goose nest sites were apparently 

displaced to habitats similar to those used prior to construction, but located further from the 

airstrip. Johnson et al. (2003b) suggested that preferred white-fronted goose nesting habitats in 

the Alpine field area had not been saturated with nests prior to development, and that suitable

nesting habitat was available in areas away from the airstrip. 

White-fronted geese showed some changes in distribution in relation to sources of disturbance 

at the Alpine field, including increased noise levels, aircraft, vehicles, and pedestrians. 

However, when comparing the nest densities of shorebirds and passerines on intensively 

studied plots near and away from the airstrip, nest densities of both groups were higher on 

study plots near the airstrip than on plots greater than 5,000 feet from the airstrip (Johnson et 

al. 2003b). 

At the Alpine field, white-fronted geese at failed nests were more likely to take incubation 

recesses than geese at successful nests. A higher frequency and duration of recesses may allow 

for increased predation by jaegers, gulls, ravens and foxes at unattended nests. The probability 

of taking a recess increased as noise level increased, when aircraft were present, when the 

number of vehicles decreased, and when pedestrians were present. Geese nesting less than 

6,500 feet from the airstrip were more likely to take a recess than birds greater than 6,500 feet 

from the airstrip. Of the various disturbance types, helicopters were the least predictable 

because they did not have a restricted flight pattern. Incubating white-fronted geese and tundra 

swans showed similar response to helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft, although monitored nests 

were closer to the airstrip than to the helipad. Airplanes and pedestrians elicited the highest 

rates of response from incubating geese, and vehicles elicited the lowest. Nevertheless, 

successful white-fronted goose nests were generally closer to the Alpine field airstrip, the flight 

path, and the nearest gravel source than unsuccessful nests, although most comparisons were 

not substantially different (Johnson et al. 2003b). 

Johnson et al. (2003b) also reported on tundra swans and yellow-billed loons nesting in 

proximity to the Alpine field airstrip. There was no difference among years in the mean distance 

of tundra swan nests relative to the airstrip, closest gravel source, or aircraft flight path. In 

1998, a tundra swan nested successfully 520 feet northeast of the airstrip, despite daily 

helicopter activity near the end of the airstrip during late June and early July. Another pair of 

tundra swans nested successfully from at least 1997 through 2002 at a site approximately 1,470 

feet southwest of the airstrip and 470 feet from the infield road. These nests were successful 

despite their proximity to the airstrip and their locations under the takeoff and approach 

patterns of aircraft. Disturbance effects of the various components of the Alpine field apparently 

were not severe enough to cause major changes in tundra swan nest-site selection. Similarly, no 

4-143 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

evidence was found that the development affected the distribution and abundance of yellowbilled loon nests located near the airstrip, although the sample size was small. Johnson (1984) 

reported that at least three successful common eider nests were located within 975 feet of a 

helicopter pad on Thetis Island that averaged approximately 12 trips per day. Although the 

potential exists for displacement of some nesting birds near routinely used aircraft landing sites 

as a result of numerous overflights, landings, and takeoffs, some birds may habituate to routine 

air traffic. 

During post-breeding studies in southwest Alaska, Ward et al. (1999) found that brant 

responded to fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft at a lateral distance to 3 miles, although the 

majority of birds responded to aircraft that were within a lateral distance of 1⁄2 mile or less. The 

greatest response to aircraft altitude occurred between 1,000 and 2,500 feet. Derksen et al 

(1992) also reported that molting brant in the Teshekpuk Lake Goose Molting Area were

disturbed by helicopter overflights and that brant did not habituate to the overflights. Low-level 

helicopter survey flights to monitor pipelines for potential oil spills or leaks could also disturb 

tundra-nesting or post-breeding birds. Routine flights would be of short duration and occur in a 

particular area, and would likely cause minimal disturbance to birds. However, temporary 

displacement from preferred feeding, brood-rearing, or molting habitats could affect energy

budgets of some birds, and incubating birds could be temporarily displaced from nests. 

Watercraft. Several types of watercraft could be used during the summer and fall for 

transportation of equipment and supplies and for oil spill response training drills. Summer and 

fall barge traffic, which would transport equipment and supplies to staging areas along the 

coast and could temporarily displace molting and staging waterfowl, would likely occur in near 

shore and offshore waters of the planning area from mid-July through October. Displaced

waterfowl would probably move to adjacent habitats or return to their original habitats after 

the barges passed through the area. It is well known (Avery et al 1980, Springer and Dailey 

1980, Day et al. 2003) that birds may be attracted to sources of light with the potential for the 

bird to strike a structure (building, barge, tower etc.) resulting in the possibility of mortality. 

There are documented accounts of waterfowl and seabirds being attracted to and colliding with 

ships in various light conditions (Dick and Donaldson 1978). Eiders in particular are thought to 

be susceptible to collision with human-made structures because they fly low over the water 

while migrating, fly rapidly when migrating, and are attracted to lights (Day at al. 2003 and 

references contained within). However, there is a short window of time during the fall when the 

planning area is dark and birds are present, thus the potential for collisions between staging 

waterfowl and barges working in the planning area is low. Effects of barge traffic would vary in 

intensity depending on the timing, location and duration of the traffic in areas of high bird

concentrations. Overall barge traffic in the Arctic Ocean is projected to increase due to the

observed longer open water season and retreat of sea-ice in the arctic. Most of the area adjacent 

to the coastline would not be available to oil and gas leasing, and the potential for barge traffic 

to displace waterfowl under Alternative A would likely be lower than under alternatives B, C 

and D. 

Oil spill response training activities using watercraft could be conducted on rivers and lakes 

several times during the summer open-water season. The vessels used would likely be small, 

maneuverable crafts, suitable for work in shallow waters and may include airboats and 

hovercrafts which are types of watercraft for which the impacts on north slope nesting, broodrearing and molting birds is unknown. Spill response training activities would have the 

potential to disturb foraging, nesting, or brood-rearing waterfowl and other birds. Boat activity 

could cause alert postures, disruption of feeding behavior, and flight in waterfowl, shorebirds, 

and raptors (Burger 1986, Belanger and Bedard 1989, Steidl and Anthony 2000). Rodgers and 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-144 

Alternative A (No Action): Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Smith (1995) and Rodgers and Schwikert (2001) determined the required set-back distances for 

minimizing the potential for boat disturbance to various bird groups. Suggested buffer zones 

around areas of activity ranged from 325 feet for shorebirds to 600 feet for wading birds. 

Establishing buffer zones around known areas of waterfowl and shorebird activity, during oil 

spill response training activities, or conducting these activities in areas not frequented by these 

birds or timed to not occur during critical nesting, brood-rearing and molt times, could help to 

reduce negative impacts to birds. 

 Habitat Losses and Alteration 

Permanent Habitat Loss. Gravel mining and placement for the construction of oil field

infrastructure would cause the loss of tundra-nesting bird habitat. During construction of oil 

field roads and pads, tundra covered by gravel, as well as tundra associated with gravel mine 

sites, would be lost as nesting, brood-rearing, and foraging habitat. This loss of habitat would 

continue through the duration of the operation of the proposed development, and would be 

permanent unless habitat restoration measures were successfully implemented after 

abandonment of the oil/gas field. Development scenarios indicate that at abandonment of the 

field, gravel may or may not be removed and that reclaimed or abandoned pads may be 

revegetated with native species or species that ultimately would be replaced by native 

vegetation or would be allowed to bed naturally. The potential long-term impacts associated 

with habitat loss could be minimized by locating gravel roads, pads, airstrips, and mine sites 

away from areas with high concentrations of tundra-nesting birds and areas that may be critical 

to species of special concern or species with declining populations. Under Alternative A, Lease

Stipulation 39 would provide for setbacks from lakes in the Deep Water Lakes Area south of

Teshekpuk Lake; permanent oil and gas facilities could be prohibited within these setbacks, to 

be determined on a case by case basis. Although this lease stipulation was designed primarily to 

protect fish habitat, it could also help to mitigate potential impacts to bird habitats. 

Under Alternative A, it is estimated that there will be a need for five central processing 

facilities (90 acres each) in the planning area. In conjunction with these facilities there are other 

support structures, such as gravel production pads, gravel runways in-field gravel roads, 

several types of pipelines, and other associated structures, that will also cause surface 

disturbances. It is estimated that under Alternative A, there will be: 23 gravel production pads 

(10 acres each); 5 gravel runways (11 acres each); 230 miles of in-field gravel roads (7.75 

acres/mile); 230 miles of three-phase produced fluids (oil, gas, water) gathering lines; 162 miles 

of sales oil pipelines; 5 pump stations (20 acres each); 2 staging bases (50 acres each); and 11 

gravel pits (50 acres each). It is estimated that during the construction phase of these facilities 

that the total short term disturbance would be 4,679 acres. During the production phase it is 

estimated that the total long term disturbance would be 3,270 acres (Table 4.2-G). 

Some birds that nest at sites covered by gravel would be displaced and may not be able to find 

suitable habitat for breeding. Others would likely move to adjacent areas to nest. Troy and 

Carpenter (1990) reported that at least some shorebirds displaced by winter gravel placement 

may nest in adjacent habitats in subsequent years, and Johnson et al. (2003b) reported that 

waterbirds nesting near the Alpine field that were displaced from nesting sites by gravel 

placement probably moved their nests to nearby adjacent habitats. In addition, there may be a 

functional loss of habitat in areas near roads and pads if development-related disturbances

preclude birds from utilizing these habitats. Impacts related to habitat loss may be more severe 

for species that have specific habitat requirements or are species of special concern due to low 

population numbers, such as buff-breasted sandpipers that use dry, upland sites, should these 

sites be lost due to gravel placement. Under Alternative A, no permanent oil and gas facilities 

would be located in areas considered to be of high value to birds in the entire area surrounding 

4-145 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Teshekpuk Lake, including the Teshekpuk Lake Goose Molting Area (Lease Stipulations 21 and 

24[k]). Therefore, the number of birds displaced from feeding, nesting, or molting/brood-rearing 

habitats due to gravel placement and mining activities under Alternative A could be lower than 

under Alternatives B, C and D. However, the potential effects of habitat loss under any 

alternative would depend on the location of the development, the types of habitat lost, and the 

level of bird use in the areas to be developed. Lease Stipulation 39 provides for setbacks for 

permanent oil and gas facilities along specified rivers and creeks to protect nesting raptors. 

Temporary Habitat Loss. In addition to permanent habitat loss, temporary loss of habitat 

associated with gravel placement could occur on tundra adjacent to gravel structures, where 

accumulated snow from snow plowing activities or snowdrifts would become compacted and lead

to a delayed snowmelt. Delayed snowmelt persisting into the nesting season could preclude 

tundra-nesting birds from nesting in those areas. Delayed snowmelt resulting from the 

construction and use of ice roads during winter activities could also cause temporary habitat 

loss. Ice-roads could also cause compaction of vegetation, thereby reducing the availability of 

cover for nesting birds in the ice-road footprint. Potential impacts to tundra nesting birds from 

ice-roads may be reduced by alternating ice-road routes annually and by avoiding routes near

known areas of high bird concentration. Lease Stipulation 18 would require that ice roads be 

offset from year to year to minimize impacts to vegetation. 

Water withdrawal from lakes during ice-road construction could lower the level of lakes and 

affect waterfowl and shorebirds that use adjacent habitats, particularly small islands and 

shoreline areas that are used for nesting by loons and waterfowl. Changes in the surface levels 

of lakes due to water withdrawal would be dependent on the amount of water withdrawn, the

volume of the lake, and the recharge rate. Lease Stipulation 20 places restrictions on the 

amount of water that could be withdrawn from individual lakes. In the existing area of oil 

exploration and development in the vicinity of the Northeast Planning Area, pumped lakes have

recharged in the spring at levels similar to unpumped lakes (Streever et al. 2001; URS 2001; 

Baker 2002). These observations are likely transferable to other areas that have a high 

concentration of lakes; however, areas with sparse lakes will have different watershed dynamics 

that will require additional study. In most cases, spring flooding during break-up would likely 

be sufficient to restore water levels (Rovansek et al. 1996). There is also potential for impacts to 

birds due to potential impacts to invertebrate food resources from varying winter water levels 

due to pumping or if recharge does not fully recharge pumped lakes. 

Dust deposition can affect bird habitat by causing early snow melt and thus early green-up on 

tundra adjacent to roads and pads, which could attract waterfowl and shorebirds early in the 

season, when other areas are not yet snow free. Dust deposition could also increase thermokarst 

and soil pH, and reduce the photosynthetic capabilities of plants in areas adjacent to roads 

(Walker and Everett 1987; Auerbach et al. 1997). Traffic levels, air traffic (including 

helicopters), and wind can all influence the amount of dust that may be deposited adjacent to

roads and pads. Troy (1988) reported higher densities of birds on lightly dusted sides of roads in 

the Prudhoe Bay oil field than on heavily dusted sides, although red-necked phalarope was an 

exception to this generality. Rodrigues (1992) also reported that red-necked phalarope nest 

densities were higher on tundra near abandoned gravel pads than in areas away from pads, and 

suggested that phalaropes may be attracted to areas of thermokarst near the edges of gravel 

pads. 

The melting of ice roads could be delayed compared to surrounding tundra, causing 

impoundments of water. Impoundments created by ice roads or gravel structures could cause 

temporary or permanent flooding on adjacent tundra. Impoundments could be ephemeral, 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-146 

Alternative A (No Action): Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

drying up early during the summer, or they could become permanent water bodies that would

persist from year to year (Walker et al. 1987a,b; Walker 1996). Tundra covered by impounded 

water could result in a loss of nesting habitat for some birds. However, impoundments could 

also create new feeding and brood-rearing habitat that would be beneficial to some bird species. 

Noel et al. (1996) reported that the areas occupied by impoundments in the Prudhoe Bay area 

generally supported higher waterfowl densities than the same areas did prior to development. 

Kertell (1993, 1994) reported few differences in invertebrate numbers and numbers of Pacific 

loons when comparing use of natural ponds and impoundments in the Prudhoe Bay area. He

also reported that ducks were more abundant on impoundments than natural ponds, although 

this difference was not statistically significant. The formation of impoundments could be 

beneficial to some species associated with nesting and brood-rearing in association with water 

provided the water level in the impoundment does not drop below the level necessary for 

successful completion of the breeding cycle. Impoundments that flooded upland habitats could 

negatively impact species such as plovers and buff-breasted sandpiper that use dry upland 

habitats for nesting or as courtship displaying areas. The effects of impoundments could be 

minimized or eliminated with culverts to allow for adequate cross-drainage at gravel structures. 

However, culverts blocked by snow or ice could prolong the spring flooding period (Walker 

1996). 

Mortality. Bird mortality could result from road kills due to collisions with vehicular traffic. 

Within the TAPS, road kills were the greatest source of bird mortality, particularly along the 

Dalton Highway where dust shadows caused early green-up along the road that attracted birds 

(TAPS 2001). The primary groups affected were grouse and passerines. Although the number of 

birds killed was not quantified, the level of mortality was probably minor when compared to the 

size of local populations. Reduced speed limits along roads, particularly during periods of poor

visibility, and during spring breakup when birds may be aggregated adjacent to roads, could 

help to reduce the potential for bird collisions with vehicles. 

Some bird mortality could also result from collisions with structures such as elevated pipelines,

buildings, drilling rigs, towers, power lines if suspended above ground, boats (including barges), 

or bridges. Birds are at risk of collisions with objects in their path, particularly when visibility 

is impaired during darkness or inclement weather (Weir 1976). Collisions seem to increase 

when objects are illuminated with constant diffuse light and the tendency for birds to be drawn 

to diffuse light appears to increase during foggy or rainy weather (USDOI BLM 1999b 1998). 

Many of the birds migrating to and from the planning area will likely encounter structures 

associated with oil exploration, development or production and these structures may pose 

collision risks to these birds. However, visibility is generally good during long summer daylight 

hours in the Arctic, and collision has apparently been only a minor source of bird mortality 

associated with the TAPS (TAPS 2001). Bird collisions with powerlines in the Prudhoe Bay oil 

field have also been reported (Anderson and Murphy 1988). 

Some predators, such as ravens, gulls, Arctic fox, and bears, would be attracted to areas of 

human activity where anthropogenic sources of food and denning or nesting sites are present 

(Eberhardt et al. 1982, 1983a, b; Day 1998; Burgess 2000). The availability of anthropogenic 

food sources, particularly during the winter, could increase winter survival of Arctic foxes and 

contribute to increases in their population. Increased levels of predation due to elevated

numbers of predators could in turn impact nesting and brood-rearing birds. Major negative 

impacts have occurred at the Howe Island goose colony in the Sagavanirktok Delta from

predation by Arctic fox and grizzly bears (Johnson 2000a), and Arctic foxes and glaucous gulls 

are predators of common eider and brant eggs and young on the barrier islands (Noel et al. 

2002). Arctic fox predation can also impact tundra nesting shorebirds and passerines (Day 1998, 

4-147 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Rodrigues 2002). In recent years, oil field operators have installed predator-proof dumpsters at 

camps and implemented new refuse handling techniques to minimize the attraction of predators 

to the landfill. In addition, oil field workers undergo training to make them aware of the 

problems associated with feeding wildlife. At the Alpine field, Johnson et al. (2003b) reported 

that except for the nesting of one pair of ravens, the numbers of predators and levels of 

predation after development did not increase in the area compared to pre-development levels. 

Lease Stipulations 1, 2, and 3 require proper disposal of refuse to avoid human-caused changes 

in predator populations. 

There has been speculation that researchers conducting studies on avian nest density and 

success may inadvertently affect the results by attracting predators to nests and broods (Bart 

1977, Strang 1980, Johnson 1984, Götmark 1992). Birds that are flushed from their nests 

during surveys may be more susceptible to nest predation than undisturbed birds. However, 

Vacca and Handel (1988) reported that covering eggs with down after incubating geese were 

flushed from nests essentially negated the effect of attracting predators during nest visits. 

Nonetheless, ongoing activities with repeated disturbance by researchers could cause some 

mortality to eggs and chicks of tundra nesting birds. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

The impacts of abandonment and rehabilitation of oil fields on birds would be similar in many 

respects to those incurred by construction activity. Activities occurring in the winter would 

cause little disturbance or displacement, because most species would be absent from the area. 

Summer road and air traffic generated by abandonment and rehabilitation activities could 

cause disturbance, displacement, and mortality to birds that would be similar to, and at the 

same levels as that caused by traffic during construction and operations. If pads, roads, and 

airstrips were not revegetated, their value to birds would be lessened. If they were revegetated 

without removing the gravel, the habitat would not return to its current utility for most birds of 

the area. If gravel was removed, habitat similar to that currently existing in the area could be 

created and used by birds, though the precise mix of habitat types would likely not be the same

as what prevailed at the time of disturbance. Foam insulating materials used in pad 

construction could be broken up in the course of removal. Fine particles of foam not removed 

from the environment could be ingested by some birds incidentally; depending on the material’s 

toxicity and the amount ingested, ingestion of foam could cause sickness or mortality, though

the number of birds harmed would likely be very small. 

Effects of Spills 

Crude oil spills could occur from pipelines, production and exploration pads, airstrips, roads and 

bridges. Spills that leave the pads and roadbeds could reach one or more of several habitat 

types, including wet and dry tundra, tundra ponds, lakes, flowing creeks and rivers, and 

potentially the adjacent nearshore Beaufort Sea. Spills could occur anytime during the year. 

Refined-oil spills could occur along ice roads, or from barges, helicopters, airplanes, gravel pad 

facilities, or trucks along the road system. Typical refined products spilled on the North Slope 

are aviation fuel, diesel fuel, engine lube oil, fuel oil, gasoline, grease, hydraulic oil, transformer 

oil, and transmission oil. Refined oil is most often spilled in very small volumes and is

addressed here in conjunction with crude oil in small spill scenarios in order to address concerns 

about the potential chronic effects from numerous small spills. If seawater were used for 

enhancement of oil production, a saltwater spill could occur within the planning area. There is 

potential of negative impacts to birds from spills of all sizes and types occurring on land or on 

water (lakes, streams, rivers, marine waters). Spills of crude oil and refined products onto either 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-148 

Alternative A (No Action): Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

the tundra, freshwater or marine environments could affect birds through any and likely a 

complex interaction of the following: direct oiling of plumage, oiling of eggs, ingestion of oil, 

contamination of food resources, disturbance due to clean up efforts, and loss or alteration of 

habitat due to clean up activities. The extent of impacts to birds would depend upon the type

and amount of materials spilled, the location of the spill, time of year, weather conditions, and 

the effectiveness of the response. 

Oil spills or leaks onto tundra or marine habitats could negatively impact birds in numerous 

ways. Oil could come in contact with and adhere to birds’ feathers, causing the feathers to lose 

their insulating capabilities and result in hypothermia (Patten et al. 1991). This effect would be 

particularly severe for birds that come in contact with water where feather integrity is 

necessary to maintain water repellency and buoyancy. Birds could also suffer toxic effects from 

ingestion of oil by consumption of food contaminated by an oil spill or from oil ingestion 

resulting from preening of oiled feathers (Hansen 1981). Oil contacting bird eggs could cause 

toxic effects to embryos (Patten and Patten 1979, Stickel and Dieter 1979). Oil could come in 

contact with eggs directly as a result of a spill, or indirectly from oiled feathers of incubating 

adults. 

Topographical features could confine oil spills and leaks from pipelines located in terrestrial 

habitats. Spilled oil could also enter a lake or pond and be contained by the banks of these 

waterbodies. McDonald et al. (2002) developed a hypothetical spill scenario involving terrestrial 

and aquatic spills in the Prudhoe Bay area that covered 24 and 186 acres, respectively. 

Assuming a nest density of 0.6 nests per acre on 145 acres of tundra covered by a terrestrial oil 

spill, approximately 87 nests would be affected by the spill. 

During spring flooding, an oil spill could spread to a much larger area, depending on the 

amount of oil spilled, surface topography, and the extent and duration of flooding. Oil entering a 

river or stream would have the potential to spread into delta or coastal areas, where impacts to 

waterfowl (including sensitive species such as yellow-billed and red-throated loons, eiders, longtailed duck, and brant) could be more severe. The potential for an oil spill to enter major rivers 

or streams would be minimized by Lease Stipulation 39 that provides setbacks of 1⁄2 to 3 miles 

from specified rivers. However, if oil were spilled during the winter and not completely cleaned 

up or spilled during the spring breakup, free flowing water could carry oil to streams and rivers. 

Permanent oil and gas facilities, including gravel pads, roads, airstrips, and pipelines, would be 

prohibited within these setbacks, although pipelines could be permitted for water crossings in 

some of these areas. The large areas put aside as not available for leasing and no surface 

activity in Alternative A provide significant protections from the potential of an oil spill 

occurring in or reaching the high value habitats in the goose molting area. 

In marine habitats, wind and currents would have the potential to spread spilled oil over a 

larger area than in terrestrial habitats; therefore, birds residing in marine habitats could be 

particularly susceptible to the negative impacts of an oil spill. The planning area does not 

contain offshore areas; however, a potential spill from an onshore or near shore source could 

spread to offshore marine areas, or a fuel barge or other support vessel could spill oil in offshore 

waters. A spill occurring during the summer breeding or spring or fall staging seasons would 

have a greater impact on birds than a spill occurring during the winter, when most birds are on 

wintering grounds. An oil spill spreading into offshore waters adjacent to the planning area, 

from Harrison Bay to Smith Bay could affect molting, brood-rearing and staging waterfowl, 

including yellow-billed and red-throated loons, long-tailed ducks, scoters, and eiders (Fischer et

al. 2002). An oil spill in coastal zone habitats of the Colville River Delta, Harrison Bay, and 

Smith Bay which support thousands of post-breeding shorebirds, could affect large numbers of 

4-149 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

birds. An onshore spill along the coastline could affect molting and brood-rearing brant and 

other geese and waterfowl, although very little coastline would be available for oil and gas 

leasing and development activities under Alternative A. Cleanup of spilled oil during icecovered periods or periods of broken ice will be difficult, and lingering oil may be present. If oil 

is present it will be hazardous to birds migrating and staging in the spring. Lingering effects 

from a winter spill could impact returning birds during the following breeding season if cleanup activities did not adequately remove contaminants from bird habitats and food sources. In 

addition, oiled carcasses of dead birds washing up on beaches or shorelines could also be 

hazardous to scavenging birds such as gulls, golden eagle, gyrfalcon, and peregrine falcon that 

feed on these carcasses. 

Spill response activities would disturb birds if they were present in the spill area. The extent of 

the disturbance would depend upon a variety of factors, including spill size and location, 

response actions, weather and season. Aircraft or overland vehicles would temporarily disturb 

birds present in the vicinity of the spill. Response to disturbance could last from a few minutes 

to a few hours to multiple days. Displacement of birds could occur on a temporal scale of a few 

days to the duration of the period that animals would be present in the spill area in that year. 

Depending on the size and timing of the spill birds may be affected by loss of life, reduced 

survival, reduced future breeding opportunities, loss of yearly nesting attempt, loss of brood or 

loss of body condition. 

If an oil release from a pipeline, or a spill large enough to escape from a gravel facility pad were 

to occur, some tundra vegetation would become contaminated. For most spills, control and 

clean-up operations (ground traffic, air traffic, and personnel) at the spill site would frighten 

birds away from the spill and limit the likelihood that these animals would graze on the oiled 

vegetation. In most cases, onshore oil spills would not be expected to affect birds through 

ingestion of oiled vegetation. For large spills that are not immediately or successfully cleaned 

up, the potential for contamination would persist for a longer time and there would be a greater 

likelihood of animals being exposed to the oil. Cleanup success would likely vary depending 

upon the environment (see section 4.3.5 regarding effects of oil on different types of 

vegetation). Habitat would be lost for use by birds during the spill, clean-up and some period 

after the clean-up while vegetation recovery is occurring. Over time, any remaining oil would 

gradually degrade. Although oiling of animals would be unlikely to remain a threat after cleanup efforts, some toxic products could remain for some time. Depending upon the spill 

environment, a portion of the oil could persist for five years (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998). 

If seawater were used for enhancement of oil production, a saltwater spill could occur within the 

planning area. According to McKendrick (2000), brine spills kill plants on contact and increase 

soil salinity to the point that many species cannot survive. Unlike oil, salts are not 

biodegradable, and natural recovery occurs only after salts have leached from the soil. A spill 

would have effects on salt-intolerant vegetation near the seawater spill, but the amount of 

tundra habitat affected would likely be no more than a few acres. Thus, unless a seawater spill 

occurred in an area of high density foraging, forage availability for birds in the planning area 

would not likely be affected. Over the long term, mortality of vegetation in the area affected by 

the spill would make the area undesirable for grazing by birds until the vegetation recovered. 

The assumed volume of small crude/refined oil spills over the life of the development in 

Northeast NPR-A under Alternative A is considered to be 2,778 bbl. This estimated small spills 

volume for Alternative A is considerably lower that the estimated small spills volume for 

Alternative B, C and D due to the following: 1) amount of infrastructure [length of pipeline (of 

all types), number of central processing facilities and production pads, miles of roads, etc. see 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-150 

Alternative A (No Action): Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Table 4.2-E and 4.2-G], and 2) amount of area available for oil development and exclusion from

leasing of particularly sensitive areas. Because of the relatively small volumes involved, 

management practices, and the substantial emphasis that is placed on oil-spill response plans 

and procedures, small crude and refined-oil spills associated with Alternative A would not likely 

have a measurable effect on birds at a population level in the planning area, although effects to

individual birds could range from short-term disturbance to death. Many independent factors 

will determine the probability that birds will be negatively impacted by a small oil spill, 

including the quantity spilled, season, location (e.g. land versus water), and proximity to 

sensitive habitat. Impacts to birds from small crude/refined oil spills under Alternative A would 

have the least impact as compared to Alternative B, C, and D. 

The assumed volume of large crude oil spills over the life of the development in Northeast NPRA under Alternative A is considered to be 11,880 bbl over the course of an estimated 2.5 spill 

events. This estimated large spills volume for Alternative A is lower that the estimated large 

spills volume for Alternative B, C and D due to the total amount of infrastructure [length of 

pipeline (of all types), number of central processing facilities and production pads, miles of 

roads, etc. see Table 4.2-E and 4.2-G] expected to be in the area. Even with the protection of 

particularly sensitive areas (goose molting area), management practices, and the substantial 

emphasis that is placed on safe-guarding against an oil spill, oil-spill response plans and 

procedures, large crude oil spills associated with Alternative A could have a measurable effect

on birds at a population level in the planning area, and the effects to individual birds could 

range from short-term disturbance to death. Impacts to birds on a population level could occur

if oil from a large spill entered rivers, important molting or brood-rearing lakes, or marine areas 

during periods when large proportions of specific populations (e.g. brant, long-tailed ducks, 

eiders and shorebirds) were present. Many independent factors will determine the probability 

and extent to which birds will be negatively impacted by a large oil spill, including the quantity 

spilled, season, location (e.g. land versus water), and proximity to sensitive habitat. Impacts to 

birds from large crude/refined oil spills under Alternative A would have the least impact as 

compared to Alternatives B, C, and D. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Any effects on birds of natural gas development and production under Alternative A that are 

associated with previously constructed oil infrastructure, such as noise and visual disturbance 

from vehicles or construction activity, are expected to be temporary, nonlethal, and local, 

affecting few individuals. Resident ptarmigan, gyrfalcons, snowy owls and ravens may be 

present in the area during construction activities associated with gas development; however, the 

impacts to these species will be slight. Migrant bird species, which account for the vast majority 

of the avian species on the North Slope, will not be present during winter construction activities

(ADNR, 2006b). Changes in vegetation community caused by burial of the pipeline could result 

in a loss of bird habitat. Any emergency repair of a buried pipeline that occurred in summer

has the potential to disturb nesting, brood-rearing, feeding, staging or molting birds. Buried 

pipelines would not impact birds. Above ground pipelines could present a collision hazard to 

low-flying birds. 

A natural gas well blowout occurring between May and October could affect birds that are 

nesting, rearing young, staging, or migrating. Some mortality could result from such an 

incident, although it is likely that a small number of individuals would be affected. A gas 

pipeline leak may also cause effects on birds through the presence of response personnel and

equipment. Such impacts to waterfowl would be less likely in Alternative A than in the other 

4-151 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

alternatives, because Alternative A would not make available for leasing or development the 

important bird habitat north and east of Teshekpuk Lake. 

4.3.8.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations 

Numerous lease stipulations were developed in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD to effectively 

protect birds and their habitats within the planning area. These include Lease Stipulations (1 

through 17) to ensure that solid, liquid, and hazardous wastes (including fuels) do not impact 

birds or their habitats, and to reduce the potential for garbage to attract animals that may prey 

upon birds to exploration and development sites. Lease Stipulation 20 protects bird habitat and 

food resources by limiting the withdrawal of water from rivers and streams during winter. 

Lease Stipulation 21 ensures that water withdrawals do not impact lakes, or lake habitats, used 

by molting geese, while Lease Stipulations 24(i&k) prohibits operations including seismic 

ground operations during spring and summer to prevent activity-related disturbance to geese

during the nesting and molting period. Lease Stipulation 38 requires that all pipelines be 

constructed with the best technology for detecting corrosion and leaks. Lease Stipulation 41, 

which prohibits the construction of all permanent oil and gas facilities, roadways, airstrips, and 

pipelines within 500 feet of any active floodplain unless otherwise permitted by the AO, also 

establishes a buffer zone to protect bird habitat from oil spills. Disturbances caused by aircraft 

are controlled within the Goose Molting LUEA under Lease Stipulations 53 and 54. Wetlands 

used by shorebirds and other birds are given special protection (Lease Stipulation 46). In 

addition, there are numerous Lease Stipulations that regulate the types of activities that can 

occur near water bodies, including rivers and streams, types of equipment that can be used, and

types of exploration and development activities that can be conducted in the planning area, to

protect birds and their habitats. 

4.3.8.4 Conclusion 

Bird groups that could be affected by activities in the planning area include loons, waterfowl, 

shorebirds, raptors, passerines, seabirds, and ptarmigan. Most species in these groups migrate 

to wintering areas located outside of the planning area and would not be directly affected by 

winter exploration or construction activities, although their habitats could be affected. A few 

species, such as ptarmigan, gyrfalcon, and snowy owl, could remain in the planning area during 

the winter and could be temporarily displaced from preferred feeding or hunting habitats by 

winter exploration or construction activities. During the exploration period, summer fixed-wing 

or helicopter aircraft activity could result in disturbance to tundra-nesting birds, causing 

temporary or permanent displacement from preferred feeding, nesting, or brood-rearing 

habitats in localized areas near areas of activity. Aircraft support for summer research camps or 

for cleanup of abandoned sites in the planning area could also impact birds near these sites. 

Most aircraft disturbance during construction and development would be confined to the area 

within approximately 2,300 feet of the site, and little disturbance would be likely beyond 6,500 

feet. Predators attracted to areas of human activity could also impact tundra-nesting birds by 

causing depredation of eggs and young; however, lease stipulations designed to eliminate 

attraction of predators to camps or equipment maintenance sites would help to mitigate 

potential increases in predators. Effectiveness of lease stipulations are unknown at this time 

but are presumed to be effective. Although lease stipulations promote practices to discourage

bird nesting at facility sites, it may be difficult to prevent ravens from nesting on buildings or 

other structures. 

Activities related to oil development and production, such as vehicle, aircraft, pedestrian and 

boat traffic, summer tundra travel, routine maintenance activities, heavy equipment use, 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-152 

Alternative A (No Action): Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

facility noise, and oil spill clean-up activities, could cause disturbances that would affect tundranesting birds. Most vehicle disturbance would likely be confined to areas within 160 to 685 feet 

of roads and pads. Disturbance related to aircraft activity would likely be confined to areas 

within 2,300 feet of landing strips, when stipulations requiring minimum flight altitudes are 

followed, and little disturbance would be likely beyond 6,500 feet. Pedestrian traffic would be 

likely to cause more disturbance than other activities, as birds may acclimate to routine aircraft 

or vehicular activity and to equipment or facility noise. Barges and other vessels could 

temporarily displace loons and waterfowl from preferred offshore and near shore feeding, 

staging, brood-rearing, or molting areas. However, birds would likely move back to preferred

areas after vessels passed through the area or continue to use adjacent areas, and the effects of

occasional vessel traffic would likely be minimal. Effects may change if vessel traffic becomes

more that occasional. Smaller watercraft on rivers or lakes used during oil spill clean-up or 

training exercises also cause disturbance to tundra-nesting birds. Surveys conducted prior to 

development would help identify areas with low levels of bird use that would be suitable for oil 

spill training activities and cause the least impact to tundra-nesting birds. Conducting activities 

during time periods of low bird activity (i.e. post fledging) may also reduce the potential impacts 

of spill exercises. 

Permanent habitat loss would result from gravel placement for roads and pads, and at gravel

mine sites. Temporary habitat loss or alteration could also occur in areas adjacent to gravel 

roads due to snow and/or dust deposition, thermokarst, and the formation of impoundments. 

Some types of habitat alteration, such as the formation of impoundments, could be beneficial to 

some species while having a negative impact on others. Withdrawal of water from source lakes 

during winter construction of ice-roads could impact tundra-nesting birds if water levels or prey 

availability in source lakes were affected. Lake surveys conducted prior to water withdrawal, 

State of Alaska regulations limiting the amount of water that may be withdrawn from specific 

lakes, and the ability of lakes to naturally recharge, would likely eliminate any potential 

negative impacts related to water withdrawal. 

Bird mortality could result from collisions with vehicular or vessel traffic, or collisions with 

towers, buildings, pipelines, powerlines suspended from pipelines, bridges, or other facilities. 

However, it is expected that collisions would only be a minor source of bird mortality. Bird 

mortality could also result from the attraction of predators to areas of human activity. 

Adherence to lease stipulations that require proper disposal of garbage to avoid human-caused 

changes in predator populations would likely minimize potential impacts to tundra-nesting 

birds from increased predation pressure. Additional bird mortality could result from subsistence 

hunting activities if oil field infrastructure were to provide hunters with access to previously 

inaccessible areas. Typically, however, subsistence users tend to hunt and fish away from oil 

and gas infrastructure (see section 4.3.12.3). 

An oil spill could impact tundra-nesting birds on terrestrial or marine habitats. Potential 

impacts to tundra-nesting birds would depend on the location and size of the spill and on the 

time of year. Due to the actions of wind and currents, a marine spill would have a greater 

potential to spread to a large area than a terrestrial spill. A marine spill could impact 

thousands of molting and brood-rearing waterfowl and loons. 

The expected number of fields and the level of development under Alternative A would be lower

than under the other alternatives. Therefore, the potential effects of disturbance, habitat loss 

and alteration, and bird mortality due to development would also likely be lower under 

Alternative A than the other alternatives. 

4-153 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

In general, impacts to birds from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas activities, 

would be additive. Impacts to birds from exploration and development activities would also be

additive. Potential impacts from seismic activity would be the same for all alternatives as it is 

expected that 3 2-D and 2 3-D surveys would be conducted under each alternative in the 

foreseeable future. During the exploration and discovery phases Alternatives B, C and D would

cause 13, 39 and 29%, respectively, greater short term surface disturbance, compared to 

Alternative A, due to the number of exploration and delineation wells that would be drilled 

(Table 4.2-G). During the development and production phases Alternatives B, C and D would

cause 18, 40 and 22%, respectively, greater short term surface disturbance, compared to 

Alternative A, and 14, 42, and 33%, respectively, greater long term surface disturbance due 

amount of infrastructure needed (Table 4.2-G). 

4.3.8.5 Potential New Mitigation Measures 

1) Colville River Special Area 

Potential Mitigation Measure (New Stipulation)

a. Removal of sand and/or gravel from cliffs shall be prohibited. 

b. Any extraction of sand and/or gravel from an active river or stream channel shall be 

prohibited unless preceded by a hydrological study that indicates no potential impact by the 

action to the integrity of the river bluffs. 

Potential Benefits and Residual/Unavoidable Impacts 

Prohibiting the removal of sand and gravel from cliffs in the Colville River Special Area will 

enhance existing protections to raptor nest sites in this Special Area. Preservation of cliffs 

would allow for the continued expansion of the breeding population of cliff nesting raptors in the 

Colville River Special Area by providing potential nest sites for all species of cliff nesting 

raptors. Prohibition of removal of sand and/or gravel from an active river or stream channel 

will negate to potential for subsequent erosion of downstream cliffs. Nest sites for cliff nesting

raptors are potentially population limiting and destruction of cliff nest sites caused by 

sand/gravel mining would accelerate the existing natural erosion of cliffs in the Special Area. 

Paleontological resources may indirectly benefit from this measure by providing protection to

the substrates that may contain these undiscovered resources. Water quality downstream of a 

gravel mining operation that occurs in the river bed would benefit from the prohibition of

mining in the stream bed and the subsequent erosion of downstream cliffs. Visual resources 

and recreation would benefit from this measure by virtue of an environment unchanged by 

human cause gravel mining and subsequent erosion of downstream cliffs. 

Construction costs may increase in some situations if gravel needs to be transported to the

construction site instead of mining of gravel near the site. 

2) Raptor Protection 

Potential Mitigation Measure (New Stipulation)

Comply with the most up to date suggested practices for raptor protection on power lines. Refer 

to the publication: Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the 

Art in 2006 Item #40-06-01-008 funded and produced by the Avian Power Line Interaction 

Committee and the California Energy Commission. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-154 

Alternative A (No Action): Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Potential Benefits and Residual/Unavoidable Impacts 

Requiring all power lines and poles to be designed and constructed in a manner which reflects 

raptor safe configurations will prevent death of raptors by electrocution. 

Additional cost may be incurred by the developer in order to provide raptor safe power lines and 

poles. 

4.3.9 Mammals 

4.3.9-a Terrestrial Mammals 

Terrestrial mammals that could be affected under Alternative A include species such as caribou 

from the TLH, CAH, and WAH, moose, muskox, grizzly bear, wolf, wolverine, red fox, Arctic fox,

and small mammals (e.g., Arctic ground squirrel, ermine, least weasel, lemming, voles, and 

shrews). 

4.3.9-a.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Activities such as resources inventories, aerial surveys, and research camps would have shortterm effects on terrestrial mammals. 

Effects of Disturbances 

Non-oil and gas activities that could disturb terrestrial mammals include aerial surveys and 

ground activities such as resource inventories, paleontological excavations, research camps, 

recreational camps, and overland moves. Overland moves would occur during the winter on 

frozen tundra, ice roads, or stable shorefast ice. Other activities would occur from summer to 

early autumn (June-September). Potential causes of disturbance to terrestrial mammals from 

inventory activities and overland moves would be helicopter traffic (1 to 2 round trips per day 

for 3 to 6 weeks per survey party), fixed-wing aircraft traffic (2 trips per week per party), 

surface-vehicular traffic on ice roads, and humans on foot. Caribou have been shown to exhibit 

panic or violent flight reactions to aircraft flying at elevations of approximately 160 feet and to 

exhibit strong escape responses (animals trotting or running from aircraft) to aircraft flying at 

150 to 1,000 feet (Calef et al. 1976). These documented reactions were responses to aircraft that 

circled and repeatedly flew over caribou groups. While aircraft associated with aerial wildlife 

surveys might circle or fly over a group of caribou more than once, aircraft associated with 

support of survey and inventory camps would pass over caribou only once on any given flight to

or from a camp. Recreational and research camps could result in short-term displacement (24 

hours to several weeks) or harassment of terrestrial mammals and minor disturbance to the 

vegetation and soil due to trampling. Potential habitat disturbance from large camps would be 

reduced by using existing sites whenever possible. 

In some cases, recreational camps could attract grizzly bears and Arctic and red foxes, resulting 

in the shooting of bears that learn to associate humans with food sources, or the shooting of 

foxes that present a risk to personnel safety because of rabies. Any such losses would be minor 

to the bear or fox populations on the North Slope, but would contribute to cumulative effects. 

4-155 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Small rodents, such as lemmings and voles, and their predators, such as ermines and least 

weasels, would likely be affected locally, with direct mortality and minor loss of habitat possibly 

resulting from paleontological excavations and by overland moves. 

Effects of Spills 

Very small fuel spills (probably less than 1 bbl) could occur in association with resourceinventory surveys, recreational activities, and overland moves. These spills would likely involve 

aviation fuel and other light-fraction hydrocarbon fuels that would evaporate and disperse

rapidly in the environment with only a local effect on vegetation. Under current BLM 

regulations, fuel spills would be cleaned up immediately, if possible. However, it is not clear 

how many spills go unreported. Small spills associated with non-oil and gas activities would not

be expected to have a substantial effect on terrestrial mammal populations in the planning 

area, although they could greatly affect individual animals. 

4.3.9-a.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Under Alternative A, approximately 87% of the planning area would be available for leasing 

and possible development. The development scenario under Alternative A assumes that five 

CPFs along with associated with production pads and other facilities would be developed south 

of the Teshekpuk Lake area. Impacts to terrestrial mammals are expected to come from motor 

vehicle, foot, and aircraft traffic; seismic operations; oil spills; gravel mining; and construction. 

The primary impacts to terrestrial mammals would likely be those associated with disturbance 

and habitat alteration, and potentially could include increased energy expenditure, decreased

body reserves and reduced fecundity. 

Effects of Disturbances 

Seismic. Impacts to habitat used by terrestrial mammals would be minor, as most seismic

activities would occur during the winter on frozen tundra or ice. Potential causes of disturbance 

to terrestrial mammals from seismic activities would include surface vehicular traffic on frozen 

tundra or ice and fixed-wing aircraft traffic. In most cases, these activities would cause shortterm displacements of and/or disturbance to terrestrial mammals. Where 3-D seismic 

exploration survey lines were located only 500 to 2,000 feet apart, localized displacement of 

terrestrial mammals could last for several days or lead to complete abandonment of localized 

habitat. 

Effects on caribou and moose would be similar in type to those discussed under non-oil and gas 

activities, but would likely be greater in extent, frequency, and duration. During winter, moose 

move to the riparian areas of large rivers; in the planning area they are most likely to

concentrate along the Colville River. The TLH caribou are present throughout much of the 

planning area during the winter, with large numbers often congregating in the central and 

eastern portions of the planning Area. Therefore, caribou would likely be encountered during 

seismic surveys in the planning area. It is possible that displacement of caribou by seismic 

exploration activities during winter could have a negative effect on their energy balance (intake

vs. expenditure). Because these animals are mobile and the operation would be short-term 

(passage of vehicles) in duration, it is not anticipated that any lasting adverse impacts to 

caribou would result under most circumstances. However, this assumption has not been 

scientifically tested and conditions for winter survival vary from year to year. It is possible that

this disturbance could have an additive effect on natural winter mortality and could 

disproportionately impact young of the year and pregnant cows. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-156 

Alternative A (No Action): Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Previous studies of the effects of oil and gas exploration on muskox in Alaska and Canada

focused on disturbances associated with winter seismic operations. Some muskox reacted to 

seismic activities at distances up to 21⁄2 miles from the operations; however, reactions were

highly variable among individuals (Reynolds and LaPlant 1985). Responses varied from no 

response to becoming alert, forming defense formations, or running away (Winters and Shideler 

1990). The movements of muskox away from the seismic operations did not exceed 3 miles and 

had no apparent effect on muskox distribution (Reynolds and LaPlant 1986). Unlike caribou, 

muskox are not able to travel and dig through snow easily. In the winter, they search out sites 

with shallow snow, and greatly reduce movements and activity to conserve energy (USDOI 

USFWS 1999). Muskox survive the winter by using stored body fat and reducing movement to 

compensate for low forage intake (Dau 2001). Because of this strategy, muskox may be even 

more susceptible to disturbances during the winter. It is possible that repeated disturbances of 

the same animals during winter could result in increased energetic costs that could increase 

mortality rates. Depending upon the location of the seismic exploration, impacts on muskox

would be non-existent to minor. Mixed-sex groups of muskox have occurred in the planning 

area, but there are currently no reports of year-round occupancy. However, potential habitat 

occurs throughout, and populations outside of the planning area are gradually expanding their 

range. Most likely, seismic operations would be expected to encounter no more than one to a 

few bulls. Breeding groups would more likely be affected, if at all, by seismic crews accessing

the planning area from overland routes from the Kuparuk River area. 

Exploration activities and human presence pose potentially serious disturbances to denning 

bears. In one study, seismic activities within 1.2 miles of a grizzly bear den caused changes in 

heart rate and movement of the female bear and cubs (Reynolds et al. 1986). The investigators 

suggested that seismic testing activities within about 600 feet of a den may cause abandonment 

of the den. Under Alternative A, Lease Stipulation 75 prohibits exploration activities within 1⁄2 

mile of occupied grizzly bear dens. If den locations were known in the areas in which seismic 

work occurred, impacts to hibernating bears would be reduced. Overall, it is expected that 

impacts to bears would be minor, since the level of proposed seismic work is low. In addition, 

the area of highest potential for oil is the lowest density bear habitat (the highest bear density 

is located in the extreme southern portion of the planning area). 

Seismic camps could result in localized disturbance and/or displacement of terrestrial mammals 

for up to a few days. Bears and foxes could also be attracted to camps, and in rare instances 

mortality could result. Since seismic camps generally move at least once a week and proper 

handling of wastes would be regulated by lease stipulations, the potential for bears or foxes to 

be attracted to human food sources would be minor. In addition, most seismic activity would 

occur when bears were hibernating. 

The potential effects of oil and gas activities on wolverines would include disturbance from air

and surface-vehicle traffic, and increased human presence. Wolverines are considered a shy and

secretive species that is present at very low densities and may be sensitive to disturbance. 

Winter seismic activities in the Pik Dunes area south of Teshekpuk Lake are known to have

caused the displacement of a wolverine from its den (Brower 1997 in USDOI BLM 1997). 

Wolverines have been sighted to the west of Teshekpuk Lake, along the Colville, Kikiakrorak, 

Kogosukruk rivers, and Judy and Fish creeks. 

Small rodents (arctic ground squirrels, lemmings, voles, etc.) could be locally affected through

direct mortality and by minor loss of habitat from overland traffic associated with seismic 

4-157 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

operations. Their predators, such as short-tailed weasels, could be indirectly affected in local 

areas due to a reduction in prey. These losses would likely be minor at the population level. 

The use of airguns for seismic work in Teshekpuk Lake during the summer, assumed to be

unlikely under Alternative A, would probably cause only temporary displacement of terrestrial 

mammals near the lake. Displacement would occur primarily from the support activity 

associated with the surveys, such as helicopter flights to bring equipment to the lake. Once 

surveys were finished and the sources of disturbance had left the area, mammals would likely 

move back into the area around the lake. 

Exploratory Drilling. Impacts to terrestrial mammals from exploratory drilling would be 

similar to those caused by seismic activity, though affecting a smaller area and lasting longer at 

one location. Habitat impacts would be negligible, as exploratory drilling would occur during the 

winter on frozen tundra, packed snow roads, and ice roads, and would affect a very small 

proportion of the total area. 

Potential causes of disturbance to terrestrial mammals from exploratory drilling include surface 

vehicular traffic, humans on foot, fixed-wing aircraft traffic and the noise of the drill rig itself. 

These activities may cause short-term (a few minutes to 1 hour) displacements of and 

disturbance to terrestrial mammals, or they may cause abandonment of the local area for the 

remainder of the winter. Camps at drill sites could result in localized disturbance and 

displacement of terrestrial mammals for several weeks to months. 

Exploratory drilling operations and ice roads would traverse TLH caribou wintering areas and 

could encounter some wintering caribou from the WAH, although most WAH caribou winter a

considerable distance to the south of the planning area (Dau 2005). Any caribou in the 

immediate vicinity of the activity would be disturbed, possibly having a negative effect on their 

energy balance, hormonal status, and potentially calving success due to prolonged stress. 

Because these animals are mobile and the operation would be temporary, it is not expected that 

there would be any long-lasting effects on caribou. However, as with affects of disturbance by

seismic operations, this assumption has not been tested and conditions for winter survival vary 

from year to year. It is possible that this disturbance could have an additive effect on natural 

winter mortality. 

The winter distribution of muskox and moose is such that exploratory drilling activities would 

be unlikely to have any impacts on these species unless they occurred near riparian areas, such

as the Colville River. Under such a circumstance, impacts would likely include short-term 

displacement or disturbance of animals, as described above, but may result in abandonment of

winter habitat and negative effects on energy balance. Impacts to Arctic fox, grizzly bear, and 

wolverine would be similar to impacts from seismic activities, but would be more frequent 

and/or longer in duration. There would be a greater potential for foxes to be attracted or 

habituated to camps associated with drill sites, as they would be in place for one to two months, 

rather than a week or less. Small rodents could be locally affected due to direct mortality and 

minor loss of habitat from snow compaction or ice road construction. However, these losses

should be negligible at the population level. 

Oil Development. The primary effects of oil development on terrestrial mammals would 

result from the construction of facilities, such as roads and pipelines; motor vehicle traffic 

within the oil field(s) and on connecting roads; foot traffic near facilities and camps; aircraft 

traffic; crude-oil and fuel spills contaminating tundra, stream, and coastal habitats; and habitat 

alteration associated with gravel mining and construction. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-158 

Alternative A (No Action): Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Caribou 

Although much of the construction associated with oil development would occur primarily 

during winter, caribou are often present in the planning area during that season. Operation of 

developments would bring year-round facilities and activities within caribou summer range. 

Caribou could be disturbed by traffic, humans on foot, and low-flying aircraft (Calef et al. 1976; 

Horejsi 1981; Shideler 1986; Tyler 1991; Murphy and Lawhead 2000). The response of caribou 

to disturbance would be highly variable, ranging from no reaction to violent escape reactions 

depending on: distance from human activity; speed of the approaching disturbance source; 

frequency of disturbance; sex, age, and physiological condition of the animals; size of the caribou 

group; and season, terrain, and weather. Caribou cow and calf groups appear to be the most 

sensitive to traffic, especially in early summer during and immediately after calving, while bulls 

appear to be least sensitive all year. Tolerance to aircraft, ground vehicle traffic, and other

human activities has been reported in several studies of caribou and other hoofed-mammal 

populations in North America (Johnson and Todd 1977; Davis et al. 1980). It appears that 

caribou can habituate to structures, noise, and odors, but habituate slowly or not at all to 

humans on foot or large moving objects such as vehicles (Murphy and Lawhead 2000). Most of 

the caribou in the planning area are from the TLH and WAH caribou herds, however, and have 

had less exposure to human activities and are less likely to be tolerant of disturbances than 

animals habituated to activities at Prudhoe Bay. 

Displacement of the CAH caribou from a portion of the calving range near the Prudhoe Bay and

Milne Point facilities has been documented (Cameron et al. 1981, 1983, 1992). In the KuparukMilne Point area, the relative distribution of calving has shifted away from development 

facilities (Lawhead et al. 1997; Wolf 2000). Cameron et al. (2002) evaluated changes in the 

distribution of calving CAH caribou associated with the Kuparuk-Milne Point area. Before 

construction of a road system to Milne Point, caribou were found in a single, more or less 

continuous concentration, roughly centered where the road was later built. After construction of 

the road, a bimodal distribution with separate concentrations of animals east and west of the 

road was apparent. Ground observations of caribou within the Kuparuk area from 1978 to 1990 

indicated that caribou increasingly avoided zones of intense activity, especially during the 

calving period (Smith et. al. 1994). Lawhead et al. (2004) reported that maternal caribou with 

calves were displaced from areas near both the Tarn and Meltwater roads during calving and 

up to two weeks post calving. Very few calves were observed within 1.2 miles of either road

during the calving period and densities appeared to be reduced as far away as 2.4 miles. Traffic 

convoying on the Meltwater road was not effective at reducing calving displacement to less than 

1.2 to 2.4 miles, or reducing the disturbance reactions of caribou within 1,640 feet of the road. 

Data analyzed by Cameron et al. (2002) suggested that having roads too closely spaced would 

displace calving activity within the oil field complex. Other studies (Roby 1978; Cameron et al. 

1981, 1983, 1992; Pollard and Ballard 1993) and literature reviews (Cronin et al. 1994, 1998) 

indicate some seasonal avoidance of habitats within three miles of existing Prudhoe Bay area 

facilities by cows and calves during calving and early post-calving periods (May through June). 

The WAH and CAH caribou core calving ranges lie outside of the planning area, while the TLH

caribou calving area is concentrated in the northern section of the planning area near 

Teshekpuk Lake. Under Alternative A, no permanent oil and gas surface facilities would be 

permitted in the Teshekpuk Lake Surface Protection Area, which is a subset of the Teshekpuk 

Lake Special Area. Exploratory or delineation wells would not be allowed in this area; however,

ice roads, seismic activities, winter overland moves, and other nonpermanent activities could be 

authorized. Under such conditions, development under the Alternative A would have the

potential to affect only that smaller portion of core calving habitat that lies southeast of the 

4-159 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Teshekpuk Lake Surface Protection Area. On-site development in this area could affect caribou 

movements or cause displacement of calving caribou. This may result in reduced use or the loss

of some core calving habitat, which could in turn affect TLH productivity. Although populations 

level effects for the CAH following displacement from portions of its calving range have not been 

demonstrated conclusively (Cronin et al. 1998), a recent study of CAH productivity in the oil 

fields suggests that habitat quality in the calving area in one year may affect calf size at birth in

the following year (Arthur and Del Vecchio 2006). Calf size at birth in turn influences calf size 

at the end of the first summer, which has consequences for survival through the following 

winter. 

In some years, 5 to 10% of the WAH caribou may winter on the North Slope. Depending upon 

the location of oil development infrastructure, movement of both TLH and WAH caribou from 

winter range to calving grounds could be disrupted by oil development. The level of effect would 

depend upon the level of development. An appropriately elevated pipeline with no associated

road would have little effect on movement between winter habitat and calving grounds 

(Lawhead et al. 2006). A road and associated traffic would have a greater impact. Pregnant 

caribou could be delayed in reaching the calving grounds because of delays in crossing roads or 

attempts to detour around roads or oil fields. Calving en route to calving grounds could result in

reduced calf survival (Carroll et al. 2005). One issue arising from oil field development is the 

ability of caribou to move freely through the oil fields to insect-relief habitats. Caribou under 

extreme insect harassment initially move rapidly to insect-relief habitat. For the TLH caribou,

this is often coastal areas outside of the planning area from west of Barrow to Smith Bay, and

more importantly to the north and east of Teshekpuk Lake (within the planning area), 

predominately in the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area where permanent development would be 

prohibited under Alternative A. After reaching these habitats, caribou often continue to move

rapidly and may cover long distances. Caribou generally react less to disturbance when under 

the stress of extreme insect harassment. The stress of human disturbances at this time may be 

additive to that caused by insect harassment. When insect harassment abates, caribou drift 

inland to better foraging areas. At this time, they are more reactive to disturbance and 

infrastructure and activities in oil fields or roads between oil fields could delay or alter 

movements of caribou from coastal insect-relief areas to foraging habitat further inland. 

Impaired movements between insect-relief habitat and inland foraging areas could reduce food

intake and slow rates of cow and calf weight gain (Smith 1996). The probability of producing a 

calf is directly related to body weight and fat content of females during the previous autumn 

(Cameron et al. 2000). Since reproductive success of caribou is highly correlated with nutritional 

status (Cameron et al. 2002), there could be reproductive consequences from extensive 

disruption of caribou during the insect-relief season. 

Cameron et al. (1995) noted that reports of insect-harassed caribou aggregations along the 

Beaufort Sea Coast and completely traversing the Prudhoe Bay complex, as reported in the 

1970s, had become rare. An analysis of the distribution of radio-collared female CAH caribou 

from 1980 to 1993 suggested that caribou use of the oil field region at Prudhoe Bay had declined 

considerably from that observed in the 1970s (Cameron et al. 2002). However, the Prudhoe Bay 

field was not designed to facilitate caribou movement. It is complex and has many older 

pipelines that are less than five feet above the ground. Movement of insect-harassed caribou 

through the Kuparuk oil field has been examined in several studies (Johnson and Lawhead

1989; Lawhead et al. 1994; Smith et al. 1994). In the Kuparuk oil field where all pipelines are 

elevated a minimum of five feet above ground, mosquito-harassed caribou were able to pass 

through the field on their way to and from insect-relief habitat, although they typically detoured 

around drill pads and were often delayed up to several hours at road crossings. Smith et al. 

(1994) monitored caribou movement in relation to roads and increasing development in the 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-160 

Alternative A (No Action): Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Kuparuk Area from 1978 to 1990. They found that groups of mosquito-harassed caribou were 

deterred from crossing roads with higher levels of vehicular traffic. Over the 12 years of the 

study, a change in access to the oil field area by insect-harassed caribou occurred. During the 

early years of construction, large insect-harassed groups of caribou approached the road from 

the middle section. By the end of the study, most large groups were observed at the extremes of 

the road transect, indicating that caribou might have been avoiding the core areas of industrial 

activity. 

Development in the TLH caribou insect-relief habitat would be unlikely under Alternative A, 

since the majority of the insect-relief habitat is covered by the Teshekpuk Lake Surface 

Protection Area. When mosquito numbers decline and oestrid fly harassment increases in midJuly, the large aggregations of caribou generally disperse into smaller groups of animals 

seeking insect-relief habitats. These insect-relief habitats include a variety of unvegetated and

elevated sites. Coastal areas apparently provide little relief from fly harassment (Ballard et al. 

2000). Gravel pads and roads are sometimes used as fly-relief habitat by caribou (Johnson and 

Lawhead 1989; Pollard et al. 1996b). Oestrid flies are less common in shade than in sunlit areas 

(Pollard et al. 1996a), and caribou sometimes use the shade of elevated pipelines and buildings 

to escape from flies (Murphy and Lawhead 2000). Caribou are more aggregated at this time 

than during the fall and winter, and may move long distances when insect harassment occurs.

At this time, oil field facilities and roads that temporarily delay movement of animals back to 

foraging habitats may negatively affect caribou movements. In the planning area, the majority 

of insect-relief habitat during the oestrid fly season is located around Teshekpuk Lake, although

caribou tend to be more dispersed than they are during the mosquito season. Most oestrid fly 

relief habitat is located within the Teshekpuk Lake Surface Protection Area, and would not be 

affected under Alternative A. However, caribou do range further south in search of relief and do 

enter areas where development is possible. 

Curatolo and Murphy (1986) evaluated the ability of caribou to cross roads and pipelines. They 

concluded that crossing success was reduced where pipelines were adjacent to heavily traveled 

roads (greater than 15 vehicles per hour). Isolated pipelines or roads had lesser effects on

crossing success. Groups did eventually cross the roads and move through the oil field. For 

caribou in the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk oil fields and pipeline-road corridors, the greatest 

human-caused influence on behavior and movement is vehicle traffic (particularly high traffic 

levels, such as 40 to 60 vehicles per hour, or traffic levels of greater than 15 vehicles per hour) 

within the pipeline-road corridors (Murphy and Curatolo 1984, Lawhead and Flint 1993). 

Caribou are hesitant to cross the Dalton Highway and other roads on the oil fields because of

the traffic (Lampe 1997 in USDOI BLM 1997). A decline in the frequency with which caribou 

cross pipeline corridors is attributed to high traffic levels on the adjacent road (Curatolo 1984). 

Caribou generally hesitate before crossing under an elevated pipeline, and may be delayed in 

crossing a pipeline and road for several minutes or hours during periods of heavy road traffic; 

however, successful crossings do occur. Caribou have returned to areas of previous disturbance 

after construction was complete in other development areas (Hill 1984, Northcott 1984). 

A pipeline from an oil field(s) in the northern and central planning area would connect to the 

TAPS through facilities at the Kuparuk oil field, while an oil field in the extreme south of the 

planning area could connect to TAPS by a southern route. Any pipelines would be constructed 

during winter using ice roads, and no permanent road would be built. During construction, air 

traffic would include several flights per day, which could temporarily disturb some caribou 

within about a mile of the pipeline. It is expected that disturbance effects on caribou would be 

short term, interference with their movements would be temporary (a few minutes to less than 

a few days), and they eventually would cross the pipeline area. Also, disturbance reactions 

4-161 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

would diminish after construction was completed. Disturbance of important riparian areas 

would be avoided. Oil field facilities (other than pipeline) would not be located within one mile

of major stream drainages. 

The mere physical presence of a pipeline would probably have a minimal effect on the behavior, 

movement, or distribution of caribou, except perhaps when heavy snowfall prevented some

animals from crossing under or over the pipeline. During the winter, caribou movements could 

be blocked or interrupted along the elevated (5-foot) pipelines by snow drifting under the 

pipeline (Nukapigak 1997 in USDOI BLM 1997). Such an effect should be temporary and 

localized, however, with the caribou moving across the corridors at locations with shallower 

snow. Construction of additional pipelines from the Northwest NPR-A to the Kuparuk area 

would add to the cumulative effect of development on TLH and CAH caribou. Construction of a 

pump station in the NPR-A would result in the loss of up to 40 acres of tundra habitat and the 

temporary displacement or disturbance of caribou during construction. 

Development of an oil field(s) could result in impacts to wintering TLH caribou; WAH caribou

are unlikely to be encountered during winter since most winter south of the Brooks Range. 

Depending on the location of the development, some TLH caribou migration movements could

be temporarily disrupted or diverted by air and surface traffic along pipelines and roads within 

the oil field. Wintering animals could also be temporarily disturbed or avoid the development

area. Repeated disturbance of the same animals during the winter could have negative impacts 

on the energy balance of individual animals which might result in lowered calving success or

even increased winter mortality. 

Development of oil fields would require large amounts of gravel (up to five million cubic yards). 

Gravel is a scarce resource in the NPR-A, and if local sources of gravel were not available, 

alternative strategies could be used, including barging construction materials to coastal staging 

areas for later transit over ice roads, processing bedrock for construction materials, using yearround ice pads, or reusing gravel from previous Husky drill sites. Gravel extraction (outside of 

the planning area), hauling of the gravel on ice roads (into the planning area), and deposition of 

gravel in the lease areas would occur in winter when caribou are less mobile and often present 

in large, loose aggregations. These activities could result in local disturbance or displacement of 

some animals, but would not likely affect the overall distribution of caribou. The loss of 

relatively small areas of tundra habitat to gravel pads, roads, and other alterations generally 

has not had major effects on the CAH caribou, and would likely have a minimal impact on the 

TLH and WAH caribou. 

Under Alternative A, some terrestrial mammals could be affected by offshore drilling from an 

ice island, and subsequent oil development on the coast of the planning area in Harrison Bay, in 

a small area south of Atigaru Point. This area is used by TLH caribou as insect-relief habitat 

during the mosquito season and during the oestrid fly season. Barging of supplies could also 

occur in this area but is not expected to have a substantial impact on terrestrial mammals. 

Noise and disturbance from these activities would be local and are not likely to affect terrestrial 

mammal populations. 

Moose 

Moose occur in low densities in the planning area during the summer and are concentrated in 

major drainages at the southern edge of the planning area in the winter. Unless an oil field

were to be developed in the extreme south of the planning area near the Colville River, 

development would be unlikely to impact moose. A number of studies show that the TAPS has 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-162 

Alternative A (No Action): Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

no major effect on moose movements and habitat use near the pipeline (Sopuck and Vernam 

1984, 1986; Eide et al. 1986). In one study, 94% of moose successfully crossed the pipeline 

corridor, and moose distribution was independent of distance from the pipeline (Sopuck and 

Vernam 1986). However, moose preferred to cross pipelines elevated above five feet (Sopuck and 

Vernam 1984). Under Alternative A, in-field pipelines and a crude oil pipeline (elevated five 

feet) connecting with the TAPS would not be expected to affect moose habitat use and

movements regardless of the location of the field(s). Air and surface traffic could also disturb 

moose, but the number of animals affected would likely be small, and no impacts to the 

population would be anticipated; any air or surface traffic disturbance should be of short 

duration. 

If gravel were mined from riverbeds in the planning area, a temporary displacement and 

disturbance of moose could occur. Borrow pit operations could destroy or degrade up to 550 

acres of moose habitat. 

Muskox 

Potential effects of oil and gas development activities on muskoxen include displacement and

disturbance of individual animals, direct habitat loss from gravel mining in river floodplains 

and at oil field facilities, and indirect habitat loss through reduced access caused by physical or 

behavioral barriers created by roads, pipelines, and other facilities (Garner and Reynolds 1986; 

Clough et al. 1987). Muskox may be more exposed to oil exploration and development than 

caribou, because they tend to remain year-round in the same habitat area (Jingfors 1982); 

conversely, muskoxen may be able to habituate to these activities because of this year-round

exposure. Muskoxen have been exposed to the TAPS, the Dalton Highway, and the Kuparuk 

and Alpine oil fields with the expansion of their range west from the Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge and the Kavik River. If populations expand west into the planning area, they could move

into further areas of development. Construction of oil pipelines to Prudhoe Bay could result in 

temporary disturbance of mixed-sex groups of muskoxen in the Colville River and Fish Creek 

areas. Repeated disturbance of the same group during the winter, by air traffic, for example 

could negatively affect the energy balance of individual animals and potentially contribute to

winter mortality. Under Alternative A, lease stipulations are in place to minimize impacts to 

muskoxen—for example, by avoiding activities close to riparian habitat, prohibiting hunting by 

employees, limiting ground transportation, and controlling air traffic. 

Grizzly Bears

Major sources of noise include construction of roads, installation of crude oil pipelines, pump 

stations, gravel mining, and drilling operations. These activities could disturb grizzly bears 

within a few miles of the noise sources and could keep bears from accessing their preferred

denning sites. Industrial activities and human presence could also cause potentially serious

disturbances to denning bears. In one study, seismic activities within 1.2 miles of a grizzly bear 

den caused changes in heart rate and movement of the female bear and cubs (Reynolds et al. 

1986). The investigators suggest that seismic testing activities within about 600 feet of the den 

may cause abandonment of the den. A similar effect could occur from construction activities 

within 600 feet of dens. In a study of maternal denning of polar bears and their cubs (a 

comparable species), disturbances from capture, marking, and radio tracking did not affect litter 

sizes or the stature of cubs produced. This tolerance by bears, and the fact that maternal 

investment in the denning effort increases through the winter, indicate that spatial and 

temporal restrictions on development activities could prevent abandonment of the dens 

(Amstrup 1993). 

4-163 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Human scent and other noises could also disturb bears. When grizzly bears first encounter 

humans on foot, their initial response is to flee; responses to ground-based human activities are 

stronger than responses to aircraft, especially when encounters occur in open areas such as the 

North Slope (McLellan and Shackleton 1989). The increase in human presence and resulting 

encounters with grizzly bears associated with recreation and tourism are temporary in nature. 

The establishment of permanent settlements (oil fields, mines, etc.), however, usually leads to 

human-bear encounters on a regular basis and to conflict, particularly if bears learn to associate 

humans with food (Harding and Nagy 1980, Schallenberger 1980, Miller and Chihuly 1987, 

McLellan 1990). Grizzly bears initially avoid human settlements because of the noise and 

disturbance (Harding and Nagy 1980), but if the area includes an important food source, some 

bears are likely to habituate to the noise and human presence, leading to an increase in

encounters. Individual bears, especially females with cubs, vary in the degree of habituationtolerance to human presence, and some would continue to avoid areas when humans are 

present (Olson and Gilbert 1994). Although studies show cub survival is higher among bears 

using anthropogenic food sources in the oil field region (Prudhoe and Kuparuk), this effect is 

countered by the fact that these bears have a lower than normal survival rate after becoming

sub-adults (Shideler and Hechtel 2000). 

The attraction of grizzly bears to garbage or other food odors at oil and gas facilities has led to 

encounters in which the need to protect workers results in the loss of bears (Schallenberger

1980). Once bears become conditioned to the availability of human sources of food, measures to 

reduce this availability by improved garbage handling are not always effective (McCarthy and 

Seavoy 1994). The bears respond by making an extra effort to get to the food sources that they 

are conditioned to having. 

Under Alternative A, oil exploration and development would likely attract some grizzly bears to 

oil production facilities, and could result in the loss of some bears due to interactions with 

humans, including mortality on roads. In addition, bears could be subjected to increased 

hunting pressure through improved access or increased human presence associated with oil 

development. The level of impacts to bears would be dependent upon the location of the oil

fields. Bears are much less common in the ACP than in the foothills of the southern part of the 

planning area. Oil development in the area with the highest potential for oil reserves (the 

north) would initially have fewer impacts on bears than development in the middle to southern 

portion of the planning area. However, if bears were attracted to development, impacts could 

increase over time. Shideler and Hechtel (2000) estimated bear densities in the oil field region 

(Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk river Unit) to be 1.5 bears per mi2, more than twice the highest 

density estimate for the ACP. Because this higher density could not be attributed to 

anthropogenic food sources, the authors speculated that the oil field region was higher quality 

habitat than other parts of the ACP. 

Gravel mining in riparian corridors along major rivers could result in the disturbance and loss 

of up to 550 acres of bear habitat. Shideler and Hechtel (2000) found that bears often used 

riparian habitats on the North Slope. On average, 51% of their observations of radio-collared

bears were in riparian corridors along major rivers and streams. 

Lease Stipulations 24, 29, 39, and 41 restrict industrial activities close to riparian habitat and 

bear dens, and should reduce impacts. 

Wolves 

Potential effects on wolves include short-term disturbances from air and surface traffic and 

human presence, and increased hunting and trapping pressure through improved access or 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-164 

Alternative A (No Action): Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

increased human presence associated with oil development. If caribou abundance were 

negatively affected by oil development, wolf abundance could in turn be affected. Wolves are 

generally not abundant in the planning area, and the highest populations are located in the 

southern portions of the area. Therefore, oil development in the high potential area would have 

an impact on a minimal number of wolves. 

Wolverines 

The potential effects of oil development on wolverines could include disturbance from air and

surface vehicle traffic, increased human presence, and habitat alteration. Because wolverines 

are considered a shy and secretive species, they could be sensitive to oil exploration and

development activities. Winter seismic activities in the Pik Dunes area south of Teshekpuk 

Lake caused the displacement of a wolverine from its den (Brower 1997 in USDOI BLM 1997). 

If caribou abundance were affected by oil development, wolverines could also be affected. 

Decline in the distribution and abundance of wolverines in Canada was attributed to increased 

harvest and decline in caribou populations (Van Zyll de Jong 1975). Alteration of riparian 

habitats through gravel excavation or pipeline construction could affect wolverines, especially 

during the winter, when these habitats provide cover and important hunting areas. Under 

Alternative A, some wolverines could be displaced near (within a few miles) oil field facilities. 

Lease stipulations that control or prohibit development activities near riparian areas in the 

vicinity of the Pik Dunes and in the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area would help mitigate impacts 

on wolverines. 

Foxes 

Oil development activities could affect Arctic and red fox populations by increasing the 

availability of food and shelter. Oil field facilities provide additional food sources for foxes at 

dumpster sites near the galley and dining halls and at dump sites (Eberhardt et al. 1982; 

Rodrigues et al. 1994). Crawl spaces under housing, culverts, and pipes provide foxes with 

shelter for resting and, in some cases, artificial dens (Eberhardt et al. 1982; Burgess and 

Banyas 1993). Localized oil development activities do not appear to have any dramatic, 

deleterious effect on Arctic fox populations (Eberhardt et al. 1982). A study of den sites and fox 

productivity near Prudhoe Bay indicates that adult fox densities and pup production are higher 

in the oil fields than in surrounding undeveloped areas (Burgess et al. 1993). An increase in the 

fox population associated with oil development could affect some prey species of foxes (such as 

ground-nesting birds and molting waterfowl) in the development area and over a region larger

than the oil field itself. Standard waste management practices and employee training would 

reduce the likelihood that foxes would be attracted to oil field facilities. 

Other Mammals 

Small rodents and their predators would be affected locally (direct mortality and loss of habitat 

of individuals or small groups of lemmings and voles) along pipelines, gravel pads, and other 

facilities. Arctic ground squirrels sometimes den in gravel fill in the oil fields (Shideler and 

Hechtel 2000). The availability of suitable burrowing habitat could increase the local densities 

of ground squirrels. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Abandonment and rehabilitation activities would disturb and displace terrestrial mammals in a 

manner similar to that associated with construction. The intensity of the disturbance might be 

less than during construction, because it is possible that caribou, muskox, and other terrestrial 

mammals would have become habituated to road and air traffic over the course of construction 

and operation of the facilities. Some individuals could be killed by collisions with road traffic. If 

4-165 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

roads were left in place and maintained in useable condition upon abandonment, they could 

continue to provide improved access to hunting areas, with consequent hunting pressure on 

caribou and other subsistence species. Revegetation of the roads, pads, and the airstrip left in 

place would facilitate restoration of habitat. Plant communities on these raised gravel 

structures would likely be different from those that prevail in adjacent areas. However, pads, 

roads, and airstrips, if left in place, could provide some insect-relief habitat for caribou. If gravel 

fill was removed and the pad revegetated with vegetation similar to the surrounding plant 

communities, caribou, and possibly other terrestrial mammals, would use the area. Foam 

insulating materials that could be used in pad construction could be broken up in the course of 

removal. If some of this foam escapes being cleaned up, it may be, used by fox as denning 

material. Depending on the material’s toxicity and the amount ingested by fox, this could cause 

mortality, though the numbers of fox killed would likely be very small. Overall, the impacts of 

abandonment and rehabilitation activities would be measured as impacts to individuals; no 

adverse impacts to populations are expected. 

Effects of Spills 

Typical refined products that are spilled on the Alaska North Slope include aviation fuel, diesel 

fuel, engine oil, fuel oil, gasoline, grease, hydraulic oil, transformer oil, and transmission oil.

The extent of environmental impacts would depend upon the type and amount of materials 

spilled, the location of the spill, and the effectiveness of the response. The majority of small 

spills would be contained on the gravel pad and would have no impact on terrestrial mammals 

or their habitat. 

Caribou and other terrestrial mammals could be coated with oil or ingest contaminated 

vegetation. Adult caribou, moose, and muskox that were to become oiled would not likely suffer 

from a loss of thermal insulation during the summer, although toxic hydrocarbons could be 

absorbed through the skin or inhaled. However, the oiling of young calves could reduce thermal 

insulation, leading to their death (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998). Oiled caribou, moose, and 

muskox hair would be shed during the summer before the winter fur was grown. If animals 

were oiled in the winter after shedding their summer coats, oiling may affect thermal insulation 

and result in winter mortality. No documented caribou deaths have been attributed to spills 

associated with TAPS. Toxicity studies of crude-oil ingestion in cattle indicate that anorexia 

(substantial weight loss) and aspiration pneumonia leading to death are possible effects (Rowe 

et al. 1973). Exposure of livestock (horses and cattle) utilizing grazing lands with oil 

development has resulted in mortality and morbidity (Edwards 1985). Exposure could involve 

heavy metals, salt water, caustic chemicals, crude oil, and condensates. In cattle, this exposure

has been shown to result in a wide variety of symptoms including effects on the central nervous

system, cardio-pulmonary abnormalities, gastrointestinal disorders, inhalation pneumonia, and 

sudden death. Caribou, moose, and muskox that become oiled by contact with a spill in 

contaminated lakes, ponds, rivers, or coastal waters could die from toxic hydrocarbon inhalation 

and absorption through the skin. In addition to acute toxicity, mortality from chronic effects 

could occur well after a spill. 

Spill response would disturb terrestrial mammals; some oiled animals could be captured for 

treatment, while non-oiled animals could potentially be hazed from the area under agency 

guidance. The extent of the disturbance would depend upon a variety of factors, including spill 

size and location, response actions, and season. Aircraft or overland vehicles would temporarily 

disturb terrestrial mammals present in the vicinity of the spill. Response to disturbance could 

last from a few minutes to a few hours. Larger and more mobile terrestrial mammals would be 

temporarily displaced by human activity around the clean-up site; displacement could last for a 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-166 

Alternative A (No Action): Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

few days to a few weeks. Small mammals, such as lemmings and voles, could be killed during 

clean-up activities. It is not expected that these disturbance impacts would have population

level effects on any terrestrial mammals. 

If an oil release from a pipeline, or a spill large enough to escape from a gravel facility pad were 

to occur, some tundra vegetation would become contaminated. Caribou, moose, and muskox

probably would not ingest oiled vegetation, because they tend to be selective grazers and are 

particular about the plants they consume (Kuropat and Bryant 1980). For most spills, control 

and clean-up operations (ground traffic, air traffic, and personnel) at the spill site would 

frighten caribou, moose, and muskox away from the spill and limit the likelihood that these 

animals would graze on the oiled vegetation. In most cases, onshore oil spills would not be 

expected to affect caribou, moose, and muskox through ingestion of oiled vegetation. For large 

spills that are not immediately or successfully cleaned up, the potential for contamination 

would persist for a longer time and there would be a greater likelihood of animals being exposed 

to the oil. Cleanup success would likely vary depending upon the environment. Over time, any

remaining oil would gradually degrade. Although oiling of animals would be unlikely to remain 

a threat after clean-up efforts, some toxic products could remain for some time. Depending upon 

the spill environment, a portion of the oil could persist for five years (USDOI BLM and MMS 

1998). 

Oil spills on wet tundra would kill the moss layers and aboveground parts of vascular plants 

and could potentially kill all of the macroflora at the site (McKendrick and Mitchell 1978). 

Damage to oil-sensitive mosses could persist for several years if the site were not rehabilitated. 

The length of time that a spill would persist would be dependent upon soil moisture and 

concentration of the product spilled. McKendrick (2000) reported that complete vegetation 

recovery occurred within 20 years on a wet sedge meadow without any cleanup. At a dry habitat 

exposed to the same application, vegetation cover was less than 5% after 24 years. For the most 

part, onshore oil spills would be very localized (less than one acre) in their effects and would not

be expected to substantially contaminate or alter caribou, moose, and muskox habitat. However, 

some local contamination of tundra vegetation would likely occur near production wells and

processing facilities. Spills occurring within or near streams and lakes could affect foraging 

habitat along these waterbodies. 

Grizzly bears depend on coastal streams, beaches, mudflats, and river mouths during the 

summer and fall for catching fish and finding carrion. If an oil spill were to contaminate beaches 

and tidal flats along the Beaufort Sea coast (an extremely unlikely situation under the 

Alternative A), some grizzly bears would be likely to ingest contaminated food, such as oiled 

birds, seals, or other carrion (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998). Such ingestion could result in the 

loss of some bears through acute toxicity. An oiling experiment on captive polar bears indicated 

that if a bear’s fur becomes oiled and the bear ingests a considerable amount of oil while 

grooming, kidney failure and other complications could lead to the bear’s death (Oritsland et al. 

1981). Brown bears on the Shelikof Strait Coast of Katmai National Park (an area contacted by 

the Exxon Valdez oil spill) were observed with oil on their fur and were consuming oiled 

carcasses; one young bear that died had high concentrations of aromatic hydrocarbons in its bile 

and might have died from oil ingestion (Lewis and Sellers 1991). Anecdotal accounts of polar 

bears deliberately ingesting hydraulic and motor oil, and foreign objects from human garbage 

sites suggest that both bear species are vulnerable to ingesting oil directly, especially from oiled 

carrion and other contaminated food sources (Derocher and Stirling 1991). Skin damage and 

temporary loss of hair can result from oiling of bears, with effects on thermal insulation. 

Alternative A could result in the loss of a very small number of grizzly bears through ingestion

of contaminated prey or carrion. 

4-167 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Small mammals and furbearers could be affected by spills due to oiling or ingestion of 

contaminated forage or prey items. These impacts would be localized around the spill area and 

would not have population level impacts. 

If seawater were used for enhancement of oil production, a saltwater spill could occur within the 

planning area. According to McKendrick (2000), brine spills kill plants on contact and increase 

soil salinity to the point that many species cannot survive. Unlike oil, salts are not 

biodegradable, and natural recovery occurs only after salts have leached from the soil. A spill 

would have effects on salt-intolerant vegetation near the seawater pipeline, but the amount of 

tundra habitat affected would be no more than a few acres. Thus, saltwater spills would 

probably not affect forage availability for caribou, muskox, moose, or other terrestrial mammals 

in the planning area. In cattle, ingestion of saltwater at greater than 10,000 ppm salt can cause 

sodium-ion toxicity and at lower levels may affect rumen activity (Edwards 1985). In the case of 

a saltwater spill on tundra habitat, the water would likely be adsorbed into the vegetative mat 

or in wet habitats, diluted with fresh water. Cleanup and rehabilitation activities would likely 

keep terrestrial wildlife out of the spill area for the short term. Over the long term, mortality of 

vegetation in the area affected by the spill would make the area undesirable for grazing by 

terrestrial mammals until the vegetation recovered. 

In the event of a natural gas-well blowout or pipeline rupture, there would be a short-term

release of gas (less than one day) which could extend downwind for about 1⁄2 mile and would 

quickly dissipate once the blowout or leak was stopped. Terrestrial mammals in the immediate

vicinity of the blowout could be killed. Natural gas and condensates that did not burn in the 

blowout would be hazardous to any terrestrial mammal exposed to high concentrations. Given 

the small area that would be exposed to the plume and the rapid dissipation of the gas, it is not 

likely that any animals other than individuals present in the immediate vicinity at the time of 

the blowout would be affected. The likelihood of caribou, moose, muskox, wolves, or grizzly 

bears being exposed to toxic amounts of gas and condensates would be very minor and would 

probably only affect a few individuals. Smaller, less mobile species with small home ranges, 

such as squirrels, voles, and lemmings could be affected in larger numbers. However, there

would be no population level impacts on these species. 

Commercial Gas Development 

If gas pipelines leading from CPFs to gas pipelines east of the planning are buried, they would

have no impact on caribou movement except during the winters in which the pipeline was 

constructed and whatever impacts may be associated with a 10- to 20-acre compressor station 

whose noise may cause avoidance, but whose raised surface may attract caribou seeking insect 

relief. The construction disturbance would be similar to that associated with building 

aboveground oil pipelines. In addition, up to about 290 acres of caribou habitat would be 

altered by change in vegetation along the buried pipeline route. 

If a gas pipeline was elevated on a set of VSMs separate from oil-pipeline bearing VSMs, there 

could be additional impacts to caribou movement. As described above in section 4.3.9.1, under 

certain circumstances caribou may alter their movements or delay for a short period of time 

passing under an elevated pipeline. Passing through parallel sets of pipelines can further delay 

transit, though the impact of multiple pipelines (or roads) can be reduced if the structures are 

separated by 500 feet. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-168 

Alternative A (No Action): Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Construction and operation of gas facilities would likely impact other terrestrial mammals in a 

manner similar to and in like proportion to the impacts associated with oil development. 

Elevated pipelines generally do not impact most species, though moose prefer movement 

through pipeline elevated higher than the 5-foot height required in Alternative A (Sopuck and

Vernam 1984). Winter construction may disturb denning brown bears, resulting in bears 

expending increased energy and potentially leaving the den. Any cubs in the den would most 

likely die if the den were abandoned. 

In the event of a natural gas well blowout or pipeline rupture, there would be a short-term

release of gas (one day) that could extend downwind for about 1 km and would quickly dissipate

once the blowout or leak was stopped. Terrestrial mammals in the immediate vicinity of the 

blowout could be killed. Natural gas and condensates that did not burn in the blowout would be 

hazardous to any terrestrial mammal exposed to high concentrations. Given the small area that 

would be exposed to the plume and the rapid dissipation of the gas, it is not likely that any 

animals other than individuals present in the immediate vicinity at the time of the blowout 

would be affected. The likelihood of caribou, moose, muskoxen, wolves, or grizzly bears being 

exposed to toxic amounts of gas and condensates is very low and (should it occur) would 

probably only affect a few individuals. Smaller, less mobile species with small home ranges, 

such as squirrels, voles, and lemmings may be affected in larger numbers. However, there

would be no population level impacts on any species. 

4.3.9-a.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations 

Lease stipulations described in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998)

would reduce the impacts of development under Alternative A. 

Several Lease Stipulations (1 through 17) that specifically address solid and liquid-waste 

disposal, fuel handling, and spill cleanup should reduce the potential effects of oils and other 

waste on terrestrial mammals. Lease Stipulation 24(a-n) addresses overland moves and seismic 

work and would minimize alteration of terrestrial mammal habitats, while Lease Stipulation 55 

requiring that aircraft maintain an altitude of 1,000 feet AGL (except for takeoffs and landings) 

over caribou winter ranges from October through May 15, and an altitude of 2,000 feet AGL 

over the Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat LUEA from May 16 through July 31, along with 

Lease Stipulations 52-54 and 57 (limiting flights) should minimize aircraft disturbance of 

caribou. 

Lease stipulations (29, 31-37, 40, 43, 45, 46 and 48) addressing oil and gas development, 

including facility design and construction of pipelines, roads, drill pads, airstrips, and other 

facilities, as well as ground transportation, should minimize interference with caribou 

movements and the amount of terrestrial mammal habitat altered by gravel pads and other 

surface disturbances. The setbacks outlined in lease stipulations associated with development

near rivers and lakes (39a-I and 41) would be particularly effective at minimizing impacts to 

terrestrial mammals such as caribou, moose, and muskox. 

4.3.9-a.4 Conclusion 

Terrestrial mammal populations that could be affected by management actions under 

Alternative A include the TLH, WAH, and CAH caribou. However, impacts to caribou would be 

greatly limited, since permanent oil and gas surface occupancy would not be permitted in the

Teshekpuk Lake Surface Protection Area, which is a subset of the Teshekpuk Lake Special 

Area. Caribou could be temporarily exposed to helicopter traffic and other human activities 

4-169 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

associated with resource inventories, seismic operations, exploratory drilling, and pipeline 

construction, but such exposure would not be expected to have any effects at the population 

level. The TLH caribou movements within insect-relief areas could be disrupted by oil 

development activities, which could impact herd productivity. However, most insect-relief 

habitat in the planning area used by the TLH would be protected by lease stipulations under 

Alternative A; therefore any impacts to herd productivity would likely be minor. The WAH 

caribou could also be exposed to oil development facilities in localized areas. Moose, muskoxen, 

grizzly bears, wolves, wolverines, foxes, and small mammals could be locally affected by 

activities associated with oil and gas exploration and development. In general, management 

actions would not affect terrestrial mammal populations in the planning area. There would be 

some permanent loss of habitat associated with gravel placement, as well as potential avoidance 

of areas where development occurs. Noise associated with development would cause a 

temporary disruption of normal behavior patterns, but would be unlikely to cause any long-term 

impacts to the animals. Bears and foxes could be attracted to developments, although the 

attractiveness of developments could be limited by proper waste handling. 

In general, impacts to mammals from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas activities, 

would likely be additive, except in those areas where both types of activities occurred. Impacts 

to mammals from exploration and development activities would also be additive, except where 

development occurred in areas previously disturbed during exploration. In areas where two or

more activities occurred, overall impacts would reflect those impacts associated with the first 

activity and any new impacts associated with later activities. Based on the amount of habitat 

with a potential to be affected, the potential for impacts to mammals under this alternative 

would be about 87% (Alternative B), 83% (Alternative C) or 92% (Alternative D) as much for oil

exploration and development activities, as compared to the action alternatives. If oil and gas 

activities occurred in areas with an abundance of caribou or other mammals, or in areas with 

high quality habitat, impacts could be greater than those based strictly on number of acres of 

habitat impacted. 

4.3.9-b Marine Mammals 

4.3.9-b.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

The principle non-oil and gas activities occurring in the planning area would be aircraft traffic 

(both rotary- and fixed-wing) associated with surveys and wildlife studies; ground activities 

such as resource inventories, paleontological excavations and research, and recreational camps; 

overland traffic; and human foot traffic. Overland moves would occur during the winter on 

stable sea ice or frozen tundra, and could impact small numbers of seals. Most of the other nonoil and gas activities would take place in summer and early fall (June-September) and could

only impact marine mammals if they occurred along the coast of the planning area. These types

of activities would be either highly localized (worksite/camp) or transient (surveys and

inventories) could cause short-term (hours for a single event, or several days to 2-3 weeks if a 

camp or worksite is located immediately next to the coast in areas used by marine mammals) 

displacement or limited harassment of hauled-out seals. 

Overland moves would take place during the winter, and follow routes from Prudhoe Bay or 

Oliktok Point to Barrow or Nuiqsut. Overland routes would occur over stable sea-ice and over 

frozen tundra. Vehicle and sled trains could disturb denning ringed seals if the routes occurred 

over denning habitat in floating fast-ice, and could temporarily displace basking seals near the 

traffic route. Most over-ice routes are expected to be over land-fast ice and across shallow 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-170 

Alternative A (No Action): Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

water (<10 feet). Ringed seals occur in very low densities in these shallower areas (~0.03 

seals/mi2) and do not appear to be significantly affected by construction and operation on sea ice 

roads (Moulton et al. 2005). 

Small fuel spills would likely occur in association with resource inventories and surveys, 

recreational activities, and overland moves. These spills would most likely involve aviation fuel 

and other light-fraction hydrocarbons fuels that would evaporate and disperse rapidly, and 

would be cleaned up immediately whenever possible. These small spills would not be expected 

to impact marine mammals in or near the planning area. 

The effects of non-oil and gas activities on marine mammals in the planning area should be 

localized and short term. 

4.3.9-b.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

The development scenarios do not include off-shore structures or other permanent facilities. 

None of the marine mammals that occur regularly near or within the planning area regularly 

use terrestrial environments, with the exception of polar bears (addressed in section 4.3.10).

Those seals that do haul out onshore during summer months are limited to the immediate 

coastal area. Therefore the primary potential impacts to marine mammals are from

disturbance (noise and visual), contaminant spills, and collisions with ships. Each alternative 

has the potential for these impacts, however, the frequency, spatial extent, and magnitude 

(intensity and duration) likely will vary between alternatives. Some species (e.g. belugas) may 

enter river systems and may be impacted by changes in in-water conditions or geomorphology 

from development, particularly changes that could increase stranding, or reduce access to food 

resources. 

Disturbance activities may over-ice seismic surveys occurring in lagoons and bays within the 

planning area; shipping, to bring exploration, drilling, and construction equipment and 

supplies, large modules, and annual re-supply and maintenance materials once development 

commenced. Air traffic may also have auditory and visual disturbance effects. 

Contaminant may enter the water system from on-shore spills that reached rivers or the marine 

systems directly or they may occur as a result of shipping. Petroleum based material spills are 

the most likely to enter the marine system and impact marine mammals. 

Ships strikes of marine mammals are generally expected to impact the whale species more than 

seals. Strikes may include direct collisions or contact with propellers. 

Effects of Disturbances 

Seismic 

Onshore seismic surveys would not be expected to have any impacts on marine mammal species 

since none of the marine mammals addressed here occur onshore during the winter when 

seismic would occur. 

Small areas off-shore in the Atigaru Point area inside the barrier islands (Map 2-1) would be 

open and seismic activity may occur. It is expected that any seismic activity would be done over

ice, therefore only ice seals would have the potential to be affected. These areas are shallow 

(<10 feet). Ringed seals are less common in these shallow areas than in deeper water (Moulton 

4-171 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

et al. 2005). Disturbance distances for on-ice activity have not been determined for ice seals, 

but seal density near Northstar was not affected by construction drilling, or, operation. Some 

reduced density following over-ice vibroseis was noted but the effect was minor compared to 

natural factors (Moulton et al. 2005). Any seismic that did occur in this area would be limited 

to one season and would occur in winter. Seals are expected to occur at very low density if at all 

in this area; however, some avoidance of the area may occur. Seals that did not abandon the 

area may be subject to more ‘startle” events resulting in increased diving activity. 

Visual and Noise Disturbance 

Aircraft 

Potential noise disturbance to marine mammals could result from support aircraft for

exploration and development. Most aircraft flights would originate from Prudhoe 

Bay/Deadhorse or the Alpine air field. Some may originate from the Barrow Airport. Most 

flights to support exploration occur during winter months; summer flights to support

exploration typically are conducted in mid-July and are related to equipment maintenance over 

a period of 10-14 days (BLM 2004). Limited information on the effects of aircraft on marine 

mammals in the arctic exists. Information that is available suggests alert behavior is the most 

common reaction for ringed seals (Richardson and Williams 2004, Moulton et al. 2005) and 

short-term avoidance responses (diving/direction change) (Born et al. 1999, Patenaude et al. 

2002, Richardson and Williams 2004) that do not persist after the aircraft has left the area. 

Flights in support of construction and development would include both rotary- and fixed-wing 

aircraft, also likely originating from Deadhorse/Prudhoe, Alpine, or Barrow. These flights are 

expected to be more numerous, particularly during prior to and during construction. Helicopter

flights can be numerous immediately prior to and during construction, however, the majority of 

these are in support of field studies and are relatively short flights in the immediate vicinity of 

the development (e.g. Johnson et al. 2006). Although there likely will be many flights, it is 

expected that primarily fixed-wing aircraft would be over the Beaufort. The number of flights 

and duration over water would be dependent on which airport the aircraft originated from and 

where the airstrip they were landing at was. Because the area surrounding Teshekpuk Lake 

would not be leased or would have no surface activity restrictions and because of the relative 

location of airports, it is expected that the number and length of flights over the Beaufort would 

be limited compared to other alternatives. 

Effects on seals should be localized (within approximate 1⁄4 mile flight path) and short-term 

(lasting only for the duration the flights are overhead and within ~1 mile lateral distances) 

(Born, 1999), but could cause displacement from preferred resting and feeding locations. 

Available information suggests minor responses to fixed wings at altitudes ≤ 300 feet and don’t 

suggest area abandonment (Born et al. 1999; Moulton et al. 2005; Richardson and Williams 

2004). Overflights by fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters could cause the temporary displacement 

of seals from their haul outs. Aircraft would be required to be above 300 feet in altitude, except 

on takeoff and landing, which would reduce the potential for aircraft disturbance. The number 

of seals affected would depend on the number of disturbance incidents and the number of seals 

hauled out on the ice. Moulton et al. (2003) reported minor responses by seals to fixed-wing 

surveys flown at 300 feet; only 1.5% of the observed seals were reported to dive into their holes 

in response to the aircraft. Aircraft routes would not likely occur over ringed seal pupping 

habitat, so no impacts to ringed seal pups are expected. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-172 

Alternative A (No Action): Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Grey whales, killer whales, and harbour porpoise may be in near shore waters and may be 

exposed to some aircraft. Given the apparent rarity of these species in the area offshore of the 

planning area (Suydam and George 1992, George and Suydam 1998, Moore et al. 2006) and the 

relatively low number of expected flights that would occur over marine waters under this 

alternative, disturbance effects are expected to be minimal. If flights regularly originate/return 

to the Barrow airport there is a greater chance that aircraft could encounter these animals. 

During the summer, some of the air traffic to and from exploration and production facilities 

could disturb ringed, bearded, and spotted seals hauled out on nearshore ice or on beaches. Such 

disturbance could result in the displacement of seals into the water. Aircraft disturbance to

seals hauled out along the coast or on nearshore ice would not be expected to result in the death 

of any seals, although increases in physiological stress resulting from frequent disturbance 

could reduce the fitness of individual seals. 

Under Alternative A, seals could be affected by possible offshore oil exploration and subsequent 

development on the coast of the planning area in a small area south of Atigaru Point (Map 2-1). 

The effects of these activities would be localized and would not be likely to affect marine 

mammal populations. Most exploration and development activities would occur onshore, where 

they would be unlikely to affect individual marine mammals or populations. Development and 

operation of Northstar did not result in any changes in density of ringed seals even though 

ringed seal density is much higher around Northstar (Moulton et al. 2005) than would be 

expected in the shallow waters off Atigaru Point.

 Shipping 

Most boat traffic associated with exploration and development within the planning area is 

expected to be either multi-vessel sealifts to support construction, or single transport vessel for 

annual re-supply/new/equipment. Some small vessel traffic may also occur for oil spill response 

practice. 

The reasonably foreseeable development scenario for Alternative A assumes that each of the 

five potential CPFs would require 1-2 sealifts over 1-2 years (one per year) with each sealift 

consisting of up to 30 barges. This would total 5-10 sealifts and as many 150-300 total barges. 

The development scenario assumes that development of CPFs would not occur concurrently but 

sequentially with approximate 10 years between starts with the same gap between these major 

sealifts. Sea-lifts and regular support shipping typically take place in late July through 

September to take advantage of the reduced ice and to avoid conflict with subsistence whaling. 

Sea lifts to support construction would likely come ashore along the northern coast of the 

planning area and material would be stored at a staging area until ice roads could be 

constructed and the material then would be moved overland to the construction site. 

Because barge loads are frequently consolidated, and different leasees may chose alternate 

transport (truck and aircraft), no estimate of re-supply vessel trips is made. There would be 

some amount of increase in average annual traffic associated with exploration and operation on 

the North Slope, but it is expected that the number of trips associated with the planning area 

would be substantially less than required for construction. Much of that material may come 

ashore at the Prudhoe area where facilities for storage exist and be transported overland or by 

air, with only heavier equipment landed in the planning area. 

4-173 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Marine mammals that occur in or adjacent to the planning area react to and maneuver to avoid 

boats. However, the distance at which they react is dependent on the species, individual, 

activity/season, type size and behavior of boat, and physical conditions (review in (Richardson et

al. 1995). The duration and severity of the avoidance behavior also seems to vary, with some 

evidence that whales actively avoid shipping lanes, and other reports of possible habituation 

(Moore and Clarke 2002). 

Vessel traffic associated with exploration and development may encounter multiple individuals 

of several species of marine mammals. Encounter times would be relatively short and 

individuals would likely encounter the vessel once in any period, possibly twice as vessels would 

be traveling point to point, unlike survey ships or seismic vessels. Shipping activity would take 

place after calving/birthing periods and when animals are typically well distributed foraging, or 

possibly during the beginning of early fall migration. Beluga, which tend to react at long 

distances and avoid areas of vessel activity for days during spring migration while moving leads 

(Richardson et al 1995) are usually far off-shore (Moore et al. 2000, Suydam et al. 2005) and less 

sensitive to ships during this period. Other whales and seals are expected to have short-term, 

short distance avoidance behaviors, which may reduce feeding opportunities, but are not 

expected to result in abandonment of foraging areas, or measurable declines in body condition 

as a result (Richardson et al. 1995). 

If shipping occurred during early migration and it caused migrating whales to deflect 

oceanward and bypass high density foraging areas some effects to whale fitness may occur, but 

given the short duration and limited number of disturbance events resulting from development

in the planning area, the effects are not expected to result in reduced reproductive rates or

direct mortality. 

Contaminant Spills 

Effects from a Large Spill. Two to three large pipeline spills (4,800 bbls) are considered likely 

to occur in the planning area under this Alternative (Section 4.2.2.2). However, no offshore 

development is anticipated and the conditions necessary for a terrestrial spill to reach areas 

used by marine mammals are unlikely to occur. For a spill to affect marine mammals it would 

have to be of sufficient size to reach areas used by marine mammals either through overland

flow or by river transport and it would have to reach areas used by marine mammals in 

sufficient concentration to impact marine mammals. Several factors combine to make these 

circumstances unlikely. The majority of the planning area coastline is unavailable for 

development, and the relative length of coastline that is available is short. Stipulation 39

requires a minimum of 1⁄2 mile setbacks from major rivers including pipelines but not excluding 

crossings. Tundra is capable of “storing” 300 -1,500 bbls of oil (section 4.2.2.3); therefore, any 

spill occurring greater than approximately 0.2 miles from a river would not be expected to enter 

the river (Spill Volume/Midpoint of storage capacity [900 bbls] x side length of an acre). Finally

all leasees must have a spill response plan to include containment and cleanup which would be 

expected to substantially lessen oil spread in all events except in the unlikely event of a large 

spill occurring directly into a river channel during the broken ice period. Although a large spill 

may occur under this alternative and it is possible it could reach areas used by marine 

mammals, it is improbable that series of events and chance necessary would occur. 

If a large spill occurred near the Colville River Delta, some oil could reach the marine 

environment. Some spotted seals and beluga whales within the Colville River Delta could be 

exposed to oil if the spill occurred during the open-water season. A spill could affect ringed seals 

if it occurred during spring break-up. Assuming that the spill occurred during the open-water 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-174 

Alternative A (No Action): Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

season, the coastline of many small islands in the Colville River Delta could be oiled. A small 

number of spotted seals regularly use the Colville River main channel and Nigliq Channel in 

summer. Johnson et al. (1998, 1999) reported spotted seals in the East Channel of the Colville 

River, at the mouth of the Kachemach River, and on the southwest end of Anachlik Island. 

Local residents of Nuiqsut reported that spotted seals regularly use Nigliq Channel, and the 

Fish Creek and Judy Creek deltas. Spotted seals have been observed as far upstream as Ocean 

Point, and occur regularly as far as the mouth of the Itkilik River (Reed 1956; Seaman et al. 

1981). There are limited records of coastal sightings of beluga whales near the Colville River 

Delta. Beluga whales are common near shorefast ice in the Colville River Delta region until ice 

moves offshore in July. Seaman et al. (1981) reported sightings of a few groups, ranging up to 

100 beluga whales, near Jones, Pingok, and Thetis islands, north and east of the Colville River 

Delta, during fall migration. Recently, Nuiqsut hunters reported that beluga whales have been

seen in Niglik Channel in the Colville River, and were seen stranded in shallow water in the 

Fish Creek Delta (Lampe 2003). 

Effects from Small Onshore Spills. Small onshore spills would generally not have any effects 

on marine mammals unless the spills entered and contaminated streams that run into the 

Colville River Delta, Fish Creek or Judy Creek, or the Kogru River. Although small spills are 

expected to happen under this alternative, because of the much lower expected spill volume 

(<500 bbls) it is even more unlikely that oil would reach areas used by marine mammals. 

If small spill should enter a river system directly, no containment or cleanup impacts are 

possible, although as noted this is highly unlikely. Spotted seals and belugas do occur in the 

lower portions of the Colville system and its tributaries. The number that could be affected 

would be dependent on when the spill occurred and the density and location of the seals/whales 

relative to the spill. In this scenario, a small number of spotted seals or beluga whales might be 

exposed to oil in nearshore habitats and suffer lethal or sublethal effects. A small number of 

ringed seals and their pups could be contaminated if a spill were to reach the marine 

environment during early winter. Such contamination could result in the death of a small 

number of pups. If the spill occurred during the open-water season, a small number of spotted 

seals could be exposed to oil. A few spotted seals could suffer sublethal or lethal effects. A small 

number of beluga whales could be exposed to oil in the Colville River Delta and in Fish or Judy 

creeks. The small number of deaths that could occur from small onshore spills is not expected 

to affect seal, or beluga, populations in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. Small onshore spills 

would be unlikely to affect bearded seals, walruses or gray whales that occur offshore of the 

planning area. 

Vessel Strikes 

Vessels may strike and injure or kill marine mammals (Laist et al. 2001), and are the main 

source of anthropogenic mortality preventing the North Atlantic right whale from recovering 

(Kraus, 1990). Direct collisions have resulted in mortality and injury to whale species. Contact 

with the propeller(s) and direct collisions are known to injure bowhead whales and other large 

marine mammals (George et al. 1994; review in Laist et al. 2001). 

Based on behavior and habitat use, it is more likely that whale species would be struck than 

seal species, and that larger, slower, or less reactive species would have greater potential to be 

struck. While all sizes of vessels have been involved in collisions with whales, vessel size and 

speed are factors in determining whether a collision results in severe injury or death. Ships

over 260 feet long are more likely to cause sever injury or death as are vessels traveling 14 

knots (16 mph) (Laist et al. 2001). Barges transiting the Beaufort Sea usually travel at 6-7 

4-175 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

knots (7-8 mph) or half the speed associated with most severe injury or mortality. Total length 

of barge – tow vessel may be greater than 260 feet but it is not known if they are equally likely 

as a self contained vessel to cause severe injury in a collision. 

George et al (1994) found that approximately 1% of bowheads taken by subsistence whaling had 

been struck by propellers. No information regarding mortality rates from strikes in the 

Beaufort of Chukchi Sea were found; however, compared to other areas where shipping occurs 

at greater rates, greater speeds and year around (review in Laist et al. 2001) mortality and 

injury rates are expected to continue to be low and the increase in vessel traffic due to 

development in the planning area would only minimally increase the potential for strikes and is 

not expected to have a population level effect. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Impacts of abandonment and rehabilitation activities are expected to be similar to those for 

construction. Given the expense of transport vessel traffic is expected to be somewhat lower

than occurred during construction as large modules or other equipment may be moved to other

development or stored at regional staging areas rather than moving it off the North Slope. 

4.3.9-b.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations 

Lease Stipulations 1 through 17 concern waste prevention, handling, and disposal, and spills. 

These lease stipulations should be effective in reducing potential marine pollution and its 

effects on marine mammals in the Colville River Delta where oil exploration and development 

could occur under Alternative A. Lease stipulations addressing waste prevention, and handling

and disposal of food and garbage should also be effective in preventing or minimizing attraction 

of polar bears to oil field camps by minimizing food odors, although curious bears might still 

approach camps. Minimizing or preventing polar bear attraction should reduce the potential for 

negative bear-human interactions and reduce the likelihood of bears being killed in defense of 

human life and property. 

Lease Stipulation 24(a) would require consultation with the USFWS before overland moves or 

seismic surveys could be conducted within 25 miles of the coast. Lease Stipulation 39 would 

require setbacks 1/2 mile or greater for Fish Creek, Judy Creek, and the Colville River. These 

lease stipulations should be effective in preventing disturbance to spotted seals, and perhaps 

beluga whales, that inhabit the waters of the Colville River Delta, Fish Creek, and Judy Creek 

during the open-water season. 

Lease Stipulation 63 would require lessees to implement a program to inform personnel about 

the importance of not disturbing biological resources, including marine mammals. This lease 

stipulation should be effective in minimizing direct disturbance to marine mammals from 

human activities. Lease Stipulation 77 would encourage operators to apply for a letter of 

authorization from the USFWS to conduct activities in polar bear denning areas. This lease 

stipulation would be effective in minimizing disturbance to denning polar bears. 

Permanent oil and gas surface occupancy and seasonal exploratory or delineation wells would

not be permitted in the Teshekpuk Lake Surface Protection Area. This measure would preclude

disturbance to marine mammals from onshore oil and gas activities along the coast of the 

planning area from north of the Kogru River to the east side of Smith Bay. Ice roads, seismic 

activities and winter overland moves could be authorized in the planning area, but the lease 

stipulations described above should prevent these activities from disturbing marine mammals. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-176 

Alternative A (No Action): Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.3.9-b.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative A, the effects of non-oil and gas activities on marine mammals, particularly 

ringed seals along the coast of the planning area, would likely be short term and localized and 

occur within 1 mile of aircraft corridors, survey sites, recreational camps, and overland moves

The effects of oil and gas leasing and development activities would likely cause increases in 

noise and disturbance, primarily near the Colville River Delta and Inner Harrison Bay areas 

and along shipping paths. Effects would be localized (within 1 mile of aircraft corridors and 

activities) and short term (generally <1 shipping event/year) and should have minor effects on 

marine mammals. 

A small number of ringed seals, spotted seals, and beluga whales could be affected by oil spills 

reaching Fish Creek, Judy Creek, the Kogru River, the Colville River, or drainages that empty 

into the Colville River. Such an event is highly unlikely but if it did occur it is expected that the 

mortality would be minor, and would not substantially impact marine mammal populations. 

The effects of development under Alternative A on marine mammals would likely be short term. 

Overall, it is not expected that oil exploration and development activities under Alternative A

would have a measurable effect on marine mammal populations in or adjacent to the planning 

area. Since nearly all exploration and development activity would occur onshore, impacts to 

marine mammal resources under Alternative A would be similar to, or slightly less than, those 

that would occur under the Alternative D and alternatives B and C. 

4.3.10 Threatened and Endangered Species 

Management actions in the planning area could affect the endangered bowhead whale, which 

would be present in the Beaufort Sea offshore of the planning area, primarily from August 

through October. In addition, two threatened bird species, spectacled and Steller’s eiders, could

potentially be affected by management actions in the planning area under Alternative A. Polar 

bears were proposed for listing as threatened throughout their range January 9, 2007 (USFWS, 

2007) and are also included in this section. Activities that could affect listed and proposed 

species include oil and gas exploration and development, subsistence hunting, recreational use,

and activities associated with scientific survey and research camps. Spectacled and Steller’s 

eiders are most likely to be affected. Spectacled eiders are distributed in low densities 

throughout much of the planning area, with the highest concentrations occurring in wetland 

habitats north of Teshekpuk Lake (Larned, 2006; Map 3-32). Steller’s eiders occur in much 

lower densities (average density over 15 years = 0.01/mi2

; Larned et al 2006), with no known 

areas of concentration within the planning area. Polar bears largely occur offshore in

association with ice but have been recorded denning along the northern coast of the planning 

area (Map 3-29) and may be occasional visitors elsewhere. 

4-177 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.3.10-a Bowhead Whale 

4.3.10-a.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative A, bowhead whales would be disturbed by non-oil and gas activities only 

under exceptional circumstances. Such circumstances could occur when whales migrate near 

the coast when barge traffic was present, or possibly from air traffic, supply camps, or aerial 

surveys located along barrier islands or offshore areas. Effects would likely be localized and 

short term, and would be unlikely to have a high impact on individuals or the population

(Richardson and Malme 1993, Richardson and Williams 2002, USDOI BLM and MMS 2003). 

4.3.10.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbances 

Under Alternative A, the coastline north of the Kogru River would be unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing. Only a small portion of the coast, and a small area in Harrison Bay, south of Atigaru 

Point, would be available for development. Bowhead whales generally do not enter Harrison 

Bay during the fall westward migration (Treacy 1988-1997, 2000-2002). No drilling activities 

would occur in OCS waters under this alternative. Types of potential impacts on bowheads are 

the same as discussed for marine mammals in section 4.3.9-b.2. Noise-producing activities, 

including most seismic surveys and all drilling activities, would take place in winter (early 

December to mid-April), and onshore. It is possible that some seismic data collection could occur

landward of the barrier islands at Atigaru Point and the Koguru River but in these areas 

seismic is expected to be conducted in the winter over ice, not in open water. Therefore, it is 

unlikely that any impacts to bowhead whales would occur from exploration activities under 

Alternative A. 

Visual and Noise Disturbance 

Aircraft 

Aircraft flying at altitudes greater than 1,000 feet AGL generally do not affect bowhead whales 

(Patenaude et al., 2002). It is unlikely that flights supporting oil and gas operations in the 

planning area would occur over marine waters beyond the nearshore zone, and these activities 

should therefore be well outside the bowhead whale migration corridor. The effect of aircraft 

traffic on bowhead whale behavior would likely be localized and short term. 

Under Alternative A, aircraft associated with development are unlikely to occur over waters 

occupied by bowhead whales given the location of the two major airports of origin and the fact 

that no leasing would occur in the Teshekpuk Lake area. Fixed-wing aircraft may occur,

particularly over Harrison Bay, if weather or other flight restrictions cause pilots to turn over

the area to approach or leave an airstrip in Northeast NPR-A, but helicopter traffic is unlikely. 

Fixed-wing aircraft flying at ≥500 feet altitude frequently resulted in rapid diving of overflown 

bowheads. Repeated low-altitude overflights at 500 feet during aerial photogrammetry studies 

of feeding bowheads sometimes caused abrupt turns and quick dives (Richardson and Malme, 

1993). A study of bowhead reactions to experimental twin otter aircraft overflights during 

spring migration through the lead system found that aircraft elevation and altitude influence 

reaction rates. Very few whales reacted to any overflights, but of those that did most reacted to 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-178 

Alternative A (No Action): T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

aircraft less than 600 feet in elevation and 820 feet lateral distance from the whales (Patenaude 

et al. 2002). 

The lack of an overt response from aircraft should not be interpreted as the lack of an effect.

Undetectable changes in behavior such as succession of feeding, or other behaviors may have 

occurred. However, it is unlikely that the relative effect rose to a level that would affect the 

fitness of the animal. Repeated low-level overflights may cause sufficient disturbance to 

produce an impact. The expected low number of flights that would occur over areas used by 

bowhead, the low number of bowhead likely to occur in areas potentially overflown, and the fact 

that normal operating elevations are great enough that no effect would be predicted by available 

information suggest that aircraft activity under Alternative A is unlikely to impact bowhead 

whale. 

 Shipping 

Bowheads exhibit strong and consistent avoidance behavior if approached directly by vessels; 

reacting to ships at 2.5 miles or greater (Richardson 1995). Avoidance behavior appears to be 

generally temporary but may displace whales several miles. Research to determine if individual 

short term displacement from ship traffic has a significant effect on individuals is lacking. 

Noise-producing marine vessel and aircraft traffic would be the most probable source of 

disturbance to bowhead whales under this alternative. Although bowhead whales could 

encounter a few vessels associated with oil and gas activities in the planning area during their 

fall migration through the Beaufort Sea, most of the vessel activity would be in shallow, 

nearshore waters in Harrison Bay, which is rarely traversed by migrating bowhead whales 

(Treacy 1988-1997, 2000-2002). The effects of vessel traffic on bowhead whales would likely be 

localized and short term, although it is unknown if disturbance from shipping traffic leads to 

significant impacts to whales. Whalers in Barrow perceived that bowhead whales migrated 

farther from shore in 2003 than in other years, and hypothesized that the deflection resulted 

from vessel operations at Camp Lonely, within the Northeast NPR-A (G. Ahmaogak, pers. 

comm.). Bowheads shift between inner shelf and coastal waters and outer-shelf and slope 

waters during fall migration, apparently dependent on ice characteristics and its relationship to 

prey density (Moore 2000). If vessel traffic caused whales to move off-shore away from high 

density forage areas it could cause reduced fitness. However available evidence suggests that 

displacement is temporary and bowhead return to use areas after disturbance (Richardson 

1995). Therefore, at least some displaced whales would be expected to return to normal (for the 

ice conditions) migration routes after clearing the disturbance zone of the vessel (possibly 2.5 

miles or more). 

 Contaminant Spills 

The effects of an oil spill on bowhead whales are unknown as is the relative 

concentration/exposure time necessary to produce and adverse effect. A detailed discussion of 

the potential effects of oil on whales can be found in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area Oil and 

Gas Lease Sale 186, 195, and 202: Final EIS (USDOI MMS, 2003d), pages IV-73-IV -77. This 

document and the subsequent Biological Evaluation for the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea OCS 

Leases (USDOI MMS, 2006f) document the uncertainty regarding effects oil on bowhead and 

the difficulty in applying information from other species. MMS (2003d) suggests that oil may 

act on bowhead whales through oiling the skin, inhalation, ingestion, baleen fouling, reduced 

prey and displacement from feeding areas, and death. In examining the available information, 

MMS found that support for and against such effects occurring were equivocal. MMS concluded 

4-179 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

in their Biological Evaluation that most adult whales exposed to spilled oil would suffer 

temporary or permanent non-lethal effects, but that prolonged exposure to freshly spilled oil 

could result in death (USDOI MMS, 2006f, p 87). Impacts to newborn and very young calves

may be greater. 

It is unknown how activities associated with spill containment and clean up, if they were to 

occur outside of the nearshore habitat of Harrison Bay during the westward migration in 

autumn, may effect migrating bowhead whales by causing deflection and avoidance of the area, 

Any adverse effect is likely outweighed by the reduced potential to come in contact with spilled 

oil. 

An oil spill resulting from development under this alternative would be unlikely to occur in the 

marine environment, or to reach typical bowhead whale migration habitat from onshore 

locations. Small spills would be very unlikely to reach marine habitats, and thus would have a 

minor probability of affecting bowhead whales. 

 Collisions 

Any increase in shipping traffic related to development in Northeast NPR-A could increase the 

potential for collisions with bowhead whales. Alternative A could result in 150-300 barge trips 

over approximately 50 years in addition to the existing shipping to support other development 

in Prudhoe Bay and North Slope villages. The only study specifically dealing with collisions and 

bowhead whales was conducted by George et al (1994). They found that approximately 1% of 

whales harvested off Barrow had scarring consistent with contact with propellers of large ships 

(George et al. 1994). Whether the collisions happened in the Beaufort or Chukchi is unknown. 

The 1% estimate is likely biased low as whales killed by collisions were not available for harvest 

and sample size was relatively small compared to the population. Some evidence is provided by 

Laist et al 2001 that the number of whale strikes has increased as the number of ships 

increased worldwide, suggesting that an increase in shipping traffic could result in increased 

strikes (Laist et al. 2001). However, the relative number of additional vessels moving through 

the Chukchi and western Beaufort related to potential development under this alternative is 

expected to be low. In addition, barge traffic is typically slow, while most collisions causing 

severe injury or mortality occur when ships are traveling faster than 14 knots (~16 mph) (Laist 

et al. 2001). George et al (1994) concluded that ship-caused mortality was not sufficient to 

interfere with growth of the western Arctic stock. However, it should be noted that total vessel

traffic in the Beaufort or the rest of the western Arctic stock range is unknown and may have 

increased in the intervening years with some increase in mortality. If so the mortality is likely

low as the population continues to increase (George et al. 2004). 

Commercial Gas Development 

If natural gas development and production occur in the planning area, it is unlikely that 

bowhead whales would be affected other than temporary, nonlethal effects from marine vessels 

as described for traffic associated with oil development. 

4.3.10.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations 

Under Alternative A, lease stipulations would help prevent spilled fuel, oil, or other toxic 

materials from reaching the marine environment, minimizing potential effects to individual 

bowhead whales or the population (Lease Stipulations 1 through 17). 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-180 

Alternative A (No Action): T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.3.10.4 Conclusion 

The most likely effects Alternative A would have on bowhead whales are disturbance-related. 

Short-term avoidance behavior including dives, direction changes, and temporary abandonment 

of areas may occur as the result of ship traffic or aircraft. Because the number of activities that 

may cause disturbance are expected to be few, limited seasonally, and generally in areas/times 

where whales are not concentrated, although it is unknown what lasting impacts and 

significant effect occur to bowhead whales as a result of disturbance from aircraft and shipping 

traffic. Spill analysis suggests that a terrestrial spill large enough to reach areas used regularly 

by bowheads is very unlikely. Inwater spills (i.e. ship accidents) cannot be discounted nor easily 

predicted and could have severe localized effects but are generally expected to be unlikely. 

Vessel strikes are the most likely impact to whales that may result in serious harm or death, 

but they also appear to be rare but may occur at higher frequencies if barge traffic increases in 

the future. 

4.3.10-b Spectacled and Steller’s Eiders 

4.3.10-b.1 Activities Not Associated with Oil and Gas Development and 

Exploration 

Various types of activities not related to oil and gas leasing and development, including private 

or commercial air traffic, aerial surveys to inventory wildlife or other resources, summer 

research camps, hazardous material or debris removal, subsistence hunting and fishing, and 

recreational camps and boating activity, could affect spectacled or Steller’s eiders in the 

planning area. During the winter, when most birds are on wintering grounds, these activities 

would have no direct impact on eiders, although eiders could be indirectly impacted if their 

habitat is harmed. However, many of these activities would occur during the summer breeding 

season when eiders are in the planning area. 

Aerial surveys for wildlife could include fixed-wing surveys for waterfowl and caribou, or 

helicopter surveys for grizzly bears and caribou. These surveys could cause temporary 

displacement of some eiders from feeding, nesting, or brood-rearing habitats, but would not be 

likely to have population level effects. 

Aircraft use associated with mobilizing and re-supplying summer camps could disturb eiders 

along continually-used flight corridors and near airstrips during take-offs and landings. 

Helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft could also be used for clean-up activities at abandoned sites in 

the planning area, which could affect eiders. These activities could be intermittent or occur on a 

regular basis. The potential effects of this type of visual and noise disturbance would range from 

temporary displacement from preferred habitats to nest abandonment. Cumulative impacts of 

aircraft disturbance of all types is of concern for spectacled and Steller’s eiders. 

Various types of disturbances could affect eiders near summer camps. Noise and ground activity 

could disturb feeding, nesting, brood-rearing, molting, and staging birds, causing temporary or 

permanent displacement from feeding or nesting areas and potentially affecting the bird’s 

energy budget and success in producing young. Disturbance to eiders from aircraft traffic and 

camp activities would likely be greatest within approximately 2,300 feet of the camp, and have 

little or no effect beyond 6,500 feet (Johnson et al. 2003b). Eiders nesting near summer camps 

could suffer mortality or egg loss from predators attracted to anthropogenic sources of food at 

camps. However, the lease stipulations under Alternative A would require proper handling of 

4-181 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

food and waste to eliminate predator attraction to areas of human activity. If possible, summer 

camps should be located in areas away from habitats used by spectacled and Steller’s eiders. 

Subsistence hunting would obviously result in the mortality of eiders taken during spring or fall 

hunts, as well as potential loss of eggs due to collection. Other subsistence hunting and fishing 

activities could cause disturbances in areas where activities occurred. Summer boat traffic could 

occur on the Colville, Kogosukruk, Kikiakrorak, and Ikpikpuk rivers for recreational or 

subsistence activities, or to re-supply camps along these rivers. 

4.3.10-b.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbances 

 Visual and Noise Disturbance 

Seismic 

Because seismic surveys to collect geological data and exploration drilling activities would occur 

during the winter months when eiders are not present in the planning area, these activities 

would have no direct impacts on eiders. Rolligons and track vehicles used during seismic 

exploration could leave tracks on tundra habitats that would be observable for a number of 

years. These types of disturbances would likely affect wet areas less than dry areas (Walker 

1996), and impacts to eiders would probably be minimal. Indirect impacts associated with iceroad construction and its effect on tundra vegetation would also be unlikely to affect eiders. In 

some cases, equipment would be stored on ice pads that are specially designed and constructed

to last through the summer and into the following winter. The tundra under the footprint of 

these ice pads would be lost as feeding, nesting, or brood-rearing habitat during the course of 

that season. 

Predators attracted to anthropogenic sources of food or shelter could cause increased predation 

pressure on eiders near facilities. However, Lease Stipulations 2 and 3 would require proper 

handling of non-hazardous waste to avoid human-caused changes in predator populations. This 

policy has apparently been successful at the Alpine field, where Johnson et al. (2003b) reported 

no increase in the numbers of most predator species after development. The one exception was 

common raven, which became more common and nested at the Alpine field after development.

However, ravens were never observed predating camera-monitored spectacled eider nests in the 

area surrounding CD-1, although these monitored birds likely represent a small proportion of 

the surrounding population (Johnson et al 2003b). 

Development and Production 

Activities related to oil development and production in the planning area, such as vehicle, 

aircraft, pedestrian and boat traffic, routine maintenance activities, heavy equipment use, oilspill clean-up activities, and surveys to monitor eider populations could cause disturbances that 

would affect threatened eiders in the vicinity of gravel roads and pads. The effects of these types

of disturbances, which are discussed for other waterfowl in section 4.3.8, Birds, could result in 

temporary displacement from preferred foraging, nesting, and brood-rearing habitats, decreased 

nest attendance or nest abandonment, and increased energy expenditures that could affect the 

physiological condition and rate of survival or reproduction. The potential for the various 

sources of disturbance to impact eiders would depend on the location of the disturbance, the

number of individuals in the area, and the time of year. Under Alternative A, development 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-182 

Alternative A (No Action): T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

would not occur in the areas with the highest concentrations of spectacled eiders in the wetland

habitats north of Teshekpuk Lake. 

Most construction activities, including pipeline installation, gravel mining, and placement for

oil field infrastructure (airstrips, and pads, camps, staging areas, and processing facilities), 

would be conducted during the winter when eiders are not present in the planning area. During

the summer, eiders could be subject to disturbances associated with vehicular and pedestrian 

traffic, and noise from equipment on roads or at facilities, including large trucks hauling cranes 

and other equipment, and road maintenance equipment on access roads and pads. No studies 

have been conducted to determine how these types of disturbances would affect spectacled or

Steller’s eiders; however, it is reasonable to assume that effects would be similar to those 

described for other waterfowl. These types of disturbances have been shown to have greater 

effects on geese feeding within 160 feet of roads than on geese feeding further away, although 

some disturbance could occur as far as 685 feet away (Murphy et al. 1988; Murphy and 

Anderson 1993). Disturbances would occur most often during the pre-nesting period when birds 

gather to feed in open areas near roads, and during brood-rearing and fall staging when some 

geese exhibit higher rates of alertness (e.g., “heads up” behavior) in areas near roads than in 

undisturbed areas. A small percentage of birds could walk, run, or fly to avoid vehicular 

disturbances (Murphy and Anderson 1993). 

Pedestrian traffic could have a greater impact than vehicular traffic on some birds. During a 

study of the effects of disturbance related to the Lisburne Development in the Prudhoe Bay oil 

field, Murphy and Anderson (1993) reported that of the more common sources of disturbance, 

humans on foot elicited the strongest reactions from geese and swans. Johnson et al. (2003b) 

reported that aircraft and pedestrians elicited higher responses by nesting geese at the Alpine 

field than other sources of disturbance (vehicles). Restricting or reducing the level of foot traffic 

on gravel roads and pads could help to reduce the potential for disturbance to foraging, nesting,

or brood-rearing eiders. 

Air-Traffic 

Both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters could be used to transport personnel, supplies, and 

equipment to airstrips or staging areas during development and production activities in the 

planning area. The potential for disturbance to waterfowl from aircraft is well documented 

(Schweinsburg 1974; Ward and Stehn 1989; Derksen et al. 1992; McKechnie and Gladwin 1993). 

Johnson et al. (2003b) conducted the most thorough study of aircraft disturbance to waterfowl 

in the Arctic at the Alpine field in the Colville River Delta. Such disturbances may displace 

birds from feeding habitats and negatively impact energy budgets. Gollop et al. (1974b) 

suggested that helicopters may be more disturbing to wildlife than low-flying fixed-wing 

aircraft, although Balogh (1997) indicated that fixed-wing aircraft flown at 150 feet AGL often 

caused spectacled eiders to flush, while helicopters flown at similar altitudes in the vicinity of 

Prudhoe Bay did not. Under Alternative A development would be prohibited in the wetland 

habitats north of Teshekpuk Lake, where the highest concentrations of spectacled eiders occur,

and most aircraft overflights related to oil and gas development in this area would be rare and 

likely be at altitudes sufficiently high to avoid disturbance to eiders. Aircraft disturbance could 

affect eiders in portions of the planning area open to development, although under Alternative 

A the effects of aircraft disturbance would likely be reduced compared to other alternatives. 

The Alpine field avian monitoring program in the Colville River Delta was a multi-year project

designed to identify the potential effects of noise and disturbance from aircraft, vehicle, and 

pedestrian traffic on birds nesting near the airstrip and on large waterbirds during brood4-183 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

rearing (Johnson et al. 2003b). Pre-nesting spectacled eiders are expected to react to 

disturbance similar to other waterfowl (Johnson et al. 2004). When compared to preconstruction numbers, the overall number of waterfowl nests near the airstrip declined in the

area within 3,250 feet of the airstrip after construction began (Johnson et al. 2003b). However, 

the number of post-development nests increased in the area between 3,250 and 5,000 feet from 

the airstrip. The decline could not be directly linked to disturbance, as other factors, such as 

lower temperatures and more severe flooding later into the breeding season during construction 

years, may also have influenced nest densities. During years of heavy construction, whitefronted goose nest sites were apparently displaced to habitats similar to those used prior to 

construction, but located further from the airstrip. Johnson et al. (2003b) suggested that whitefronted goose nesting habitats in the Alpine field area had not been saturated with nests prior 

to development, and that nesting habitat was available in areas away from the airstrip. 

Proximity to the airstrip apparently did not affect nest success; successful white-fronted goose 

nests had a tendency to be closer to the Alpine field airstrip, the flight path, and the nearest 

gravel than unsuccessful nests, although most comparisons were not statistically significant. 

Successful waterfowl nests located near aircraft activity were also documented by Johnson

(1984), who reported that at least three successful common eider nests were located within 

1,000 feet of a helicopter pad on Thetis Island that averaged approximately 12 trips per day. 

Although there would be the potential for displacement of some eiders nesting near routinely

used aircraft landing sites as a result of numerous overflights, landings, and takeoffs, some 

eiders would likely habituate to routine air traffic. 

ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc (CPAI) funded studies specific to spectacled eiders at the CD-3 

satellite to Alpine similar in methodology to those conducted at the Alpine CPF (Johnson et al. 

2003). First year results indicate that spectacled eider nest density and reproductive success 

were not impacted by construction activities which include a high number of rotary and fixed 

wing flights (Johnson et al. 2006). The authors do caution that sample size remains low. No 

spatial change (avoidance) by pre-nesting spectacled eiders of the CD-3 area or the Alpine 

facility was detected; however the total number of pre-nesting spectacled eiders detected in a 

larger study area including CD-3 and the Alpine CPF has been declining (Johnson et al. 2006). 

Low-level helicopter survey flights to monitor pipelines for potential oil spills or leaks could also 

disturb threatened eiders. Routine flights would be of short duration and limited to a particular 

area, and would likely cause minimal disturbance. However, temporary displacement from 

preferred feeding habitats or brood-rearing habitats could affect the energy budgets of some

eiders, and incubating eiders could be temporarily displaced from nests, which could increase 

the chance of eggs being predated. 

 Watercraft 

Several types of watercraft could be used during the summer for transportation of equipment 

and supplies and for oil spill response training drills. Summer barge traffic with the potential 

to temporarily displace molting eiders, could occur in offshore waters of the planning area from 

mid-July through October. Displaced eiders would probably move to adjacent habitats or return 

to original habitats after barges pass though the area. Most of the area adjacent to the coastline 

would be unavailable to oil and gas leasing under Alternative A, and the potential for barge 

traffic to displace eiders in offshore habitats would likely be lower than under Alternatives B, C, 

and D. 

Oil spill response training activities using watercraft could be conducted on rivers and lakes 

several times during the summer open-water season. The vessels used would likely be small 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-184 

Alternative A (No Action): T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

maneuverable crafts, suitable for work in shallow waters. Spill response training activities 

would have the potential to disturb foraging, nesting, or brood-rearing eiders. Boat activity 

could cause alert postures, disruption of feeding behavior, and flight in waterfowl, shorebirds, 

and raptors (Burger 1986, Belanger and Bedard 1989, Steidl and Anthony 2000). Rodgers and 

Smith (1995) and Rodgers and Schwikert (2001) determined the required setback distances for 

minimizing the potential for boat disturbance to various bird groups. Suggested buffer zones 

around areas of activity ranged from 325 feet for shorebirds to 600 feet for wading birds. 

Establishing buffer zones around known areas of eider activity during oil spill response-training 

activities, or conducting these activities in areas not frequented by eiders, could help to reduce

negative impacts. 

Habitat Loss and Alteration 

Gravel mining and placement for the construction of oil field infrastructure would have the 

greatest potential to result in the loss of eider habitat. The potential long-term impacts 

associated with habitat loss could be minimized by locating gravel roads, pads, airstrips, and 

mine sites away from areas with high concentrations of eiders. Habitat studies and eider 

surveys conducted in areas proposed for development prior to the establishment of gravel mine

sites and construction of roads could identify areas that are important to threatened eiders. 

Under Alternative A, Lease Stipulations 39 to 41 would provide for setbacks from lakes in the 

Deep Water Lakes Area south of Teshekpuk Lake within which permanent oil facilities would 

be prohibited. Although these lease stipulations were designed primarily to protect fish habitat, 

they may also help to mitigate potential impacts to adjacent eider habitats. 

Under the development scenario for Alternative A, the gravel footprint for roads, pads, airstrips, 

staging areas and gravel extraction sites is estimated to be approximately 3,270 acres. Loss of

eider habitat would be permanent in the area occupied by the development footprint, and eiders 

nesting in this area would be displaced to other areas. If spectacled and Steller’s eider densities 

are assumed to be 2.0 and 0.02 birds per mi2 (640 acres per mi2) respectively (relatively high 

estimates based on aerial survey data; Larned et al. 2006; Ritchie and King 2003), up to 10.3 

spectacled eiders and 0.1 Steller’s eider could be expected to be displaced by the gravel footprint 

if all development occurred in high density areas. This estimate is likely overly-conservative as 

areas of “high high” density make up only a small proportion of the planning area (Map 3-33). 

Under Alternative A, it is likely that fewer eiders would be impacted by development than 

under Alternatives B, C and D, because development would not be permitted in the area with 

the highest concentrations of spectacled eiders in the wetlands north of Teshekpuk Lake. 

Average eider density over 15 years in area north of Teshekpuk Lake is 0.79/mi2, which is 

greater than the long-term average for the entire eider breeding population survey area average 

density of 0.57/mi2 and is the highest density strata within the Northeast NPR-A Planning Area. 

This area also contains approximately 57% of the indicated population within the Northeast 

NPR-A Planning Area (FWS, unpublished data). Because of the closure of the area north of 

Teshekpuk Lake under these Alternative, impacts to spectacled eiders are expected to be much

lower then the total acre impact estimate would suggest since eiders occur at greater density 

(0.79/mi2 versus 0.212mi2) in the closed area than in the remaining planning area 

However, under all alternatives, the potential effects of habitat loss would depend on the

location of the development, the types of habitat lost, and the level of eider use in the areas to be

developed. Without specific information on the locations of potential developments, the 

estimates of eiders potentially impacted should be seen as an index of comparison between 

alternatives, not an absolute value of birds affected. 

4-185 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

In addition to permanent habitat loss, temporary loss of habitat associated with gravel 

placement could occur on tundra adjacent to gravel structures, where accumulated snow from

snow plowing activities or snow drifts would become compacted and cause delayed snowmelt. 

Delayed snowmelt persisting into the nesting season could preclude eiders from nesting in those 

areas. 

Dust deposition could affect eider habitat by causing early green-up on tundra adjacent to roads 

and pads, which could attract eiders and other waterfowl early in the season, when other areas 

were not yet snow free. Traffic levels, air traffic (including helicopters), and wind can all 

influence the amount of dust that may be deposited adjacent to roads and pads. 

Impoundments created by gravel structures could cause temporary or permanent flooding on 

adjacent tundra. Impoundments could be ephemeral, drying up early during the summer, or 

they could become permanent water bodies that would persist from year to year (Walker et al. 

1987a, b; Walker 1996). Tundra covered by impounded water could result in a loss of nesting 

habitat for some birds. However, impoundments could also create new feeding and broodrearing habitat that would be beneficial to waterfowl, including eiders. Noel et al. (1996) 

reported that the areas occupied by impoundments in the Prudhoe Bay area generally 

supported higher waterfowl densities than the same areas did prior to development, and that 

spectacled eiders nested on some impoundments. Warnock and Troy (1992) and Anderson et al. 

(1992) also reported use of impoundments by spectacled eider in the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk 

oil fields. The effects of impoundments could be minimized or eliminated with engineering plans 

that provided culverts to allow for adequate cross-drainage at gravel structures. However, 

culverts blocked by snow or ice could prolong the spring flooding period (Walker 1996). 

Mortality 

Eider mortality could result from road kills due to collisions with vehicular traffic. Within the 

TAPS, roadkills were the greatest source of bird mortality, particularly along the Dalton 

Highway where dust shadows caused early green-up along the road that attracted birds (TAPS 

2001). However, spectacled eiders are primarily aquatic foragers (Petersen et al. 2000) and are 

unlikely to be attracted to near road areas because of terrestrial vegetation phrenology; but they

may move into early meltwater ponds adjacent to roads, possibly increasing collision risk. In 

addition, eiders are mobile and will move broods between lakes and are low elevation fliers, so 

collisions are possible. The relatively lower amount of development under this Alternative 

compared to Alternatives B-D would indicate a relatively lower level of potential impact. 

Some earlier mortality could also result from collisions with structures such as elevated 

pipelines, buildings, towers, boats, or bridges. Quakenbush and Snyder-Conn (1993) reported 

that a female Steller’s eider was apparently killed by a collision with an observation tower at 

Nanvak Bay near Cape Pierce, Alaska. Lovvorn et al. (2003) salvaged three spectacled eiders 

that collided with a ship during the predawn hours in the Bering Sea. Eiders have also 

apparently been killed after striking transmission lines or guywires in Barrow and Prudhoe Bay 

(USFWS 2005). However, visibility is generally good during long summer daylight hours in the 

Arctic, and collision has apparently been only a minor source of bird mortality associated with 

the TAPS (TAPS 2001). The biggest risk period would be to females with broods in the fall 

during staging when there is a higher potential of poor visibility due to storms. 

Some predators, such as ravens, gulls, Arctic fox, and bears, would be attracted to areas of 

human activity where anthropogenic sources of food and denning or nesting sites were present 

(Eberhardt et al. 1982, 1983a, b; Day 1998; Burgess 2000). Increased levels of predation due to 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-186 

Alternative A (No Action): T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

greater numbers of predators could in turn impact nesting and brood-rearing eiders. Major 

negative impacts have occurred at the Howe Island goose colony in the Sagavanirktok Delta 

from predation by Arctic fox and grizzly bears (Johnson 2000a), and Arctic fox and glaucous gull 

are predators of common eider and brant eggs and young on the barrier islands (Noel et al. 

2002). Arctic fox predation can also impact tundra nesting shorebirds and passerines (Day 1998, 

Rodrigues 2002). In recent years, oil field operators have installed predator-proof dumpsters at 

camps and implemented new refuse handling techniques. At least through construction these 

methods have apparently been successful. No increase in fox den density or reproductive

success was noted through construction of the Alpine CPF (Johnson et al. 2003). However, the 

study only included the period through completion of construction and operational activities, 

therefore it is unknown if activities after this time period have resulted in a change in fox den

density or reproductive success. 

Contaminant Spills 

Oil spills or leaks onto tundra or marine habitats could negatively impact spectacled or Steller’s 

eiders in numerous ways. Oil could come in contact with and adhere to feathers, causing the 

feathers to lose their insulating capabilities and resulting in hypothermia (Patten et al. 1991). 

This effect would be particularly severe for birds that come in contact with water where feather 

integrity is necessary to maintain water repellency and buoyancy, and could have more severe 

consequences in marine habitats than in terrestrial habitats. Birds could also suffer toxic effects 

from ingestion of oil by consumption of food contaminated by an oil spill or from oil ingestion 

resulting from preening of oiled feathers (Hansen 1981). Oil contacting with bird eggs could 

cause toxic effects to embryos (Patten and Patten 1979, Stickel and Dieter 1979). Oil could come 

in contact with eggs directly as a result of a spill, or indirectly from oiled feathers of incubating 

adults. 

Topographical features could confine oil spills and leaks from pipelines located in terrestrial 

habitats. Spilled oil could also enter a lake or pond and be contained by the banks of these 

waterbodies. However, during spring flooding, an oil spill could spread to a much larger area, 

depending on the amount of oil spilled, surface topography, and the extent and duration of

flooding. Oil entering a river or stream would have the potential to spread into delta or coastal 

areas, where impacts to birds could be more severe. Under Alternative A, Lease Stipulation 39 

would help to mitigate potential impacts to eiders from an oil spill by providing setbacks of 1⁄2 to

3 miles from specified rivers, within which permanent oil facilities would be prohibited. 

McDonald et al. (2002) conducted an oil spill risk assessment for spectacled eiders in the 

Prudhoe Bay area, using scenarios constructed to mimic spills that had occurred on lake and 

tundra habitats in the Prudhoe Bay oil field. Based on the assumptions of these scenarios, a 

maximum of 0.1 spectacled eiders would be exposed to oil from an aquatic spill covering 185 

acres, and 0.02 spectacled eiders would be exposed to oil from a tundra spill covering 24 acres. 

In marine habitats, wind and currents would have the potential to spread an oil spill over a 

larger area than in under most terrestrial habitats; therefore, molting eiders in marine habitats 

could be particularly susceptible to the negative impacts of an oil spill. Under Alternative A, 

offshore development is not proposed for the planning area; however, a potential spill from an 

onshore source could spread to offshore areas, or a tanker spill could occur in offshore waters. A 

spill occurring during the summer breeding season would have a greater impact on threatened 

eiders than a spill occurring during the winter, when eiders are on wintering grounds. However, 

lingering effects from a winter spill could impact eiders during the following breeding season if 

clean-up activities did not adequately remove contaminants from bird habitats, such as open 

leads that are used by eiders during spring migration. An oil spill spreading into offshore 

4-187 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

waters of Harrison Bay during the fall molting/staging period would have the potential to affect 

a greater number of spectacled eiders than a nearshore spill (Fischer et al. 2002). Stehn and 

Platte (2000) developed an oil spill scenario for the central Beaufort Sea for the proposed 

Liberty Project based on a spill size of 5,912 bbl. When taking spectacled eider densities in the 

Beaufort Sea into consideration, the highest mean number of spectacled eiders exposed to oil 

was two birds. There is some evidence, however, that spectacled eiders can occur in flocks in

offshore Beaufort Sea habitats (Fischer et al. 2002). Under such a scenario, an offshore spill 

could impact more birds than predicted by Stehn and Platte (2000). 

Commercial Gas Development 

Gas development would have impacts on eiders similar to that described for oil development, 

except that there would be no impacts from oil spills. Any effects of natural gas development 

and production on spectacled and Steller’s eiders are expected to be limited to temporary, 

nonlethal effects, perhaps resulting in disturbance to a few birds. However, a natural gas well 

blowout occurring from June to September could affect eiders that are nesting, rearing young, 

staging, or migrating. Some mortality could result from such an incident, although it is likely 

that no more than a small number of individuals would be affected. Such impacts to eiders 

would be more likely in alternatives B, C, and D, which make lands available for leasing north 

and east of Teshekpuk Lake than Alternative A. 

4.3.10-b.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations 

Under Alternative A, lease stipulations would help prevent spilled fuel, oil, or other toxic 

materials from reaching the marine and freshweater environment, minimizing potential effects 

to eiders (Lease Stipulations 1 through 17). Eiders would benefit from lease stipulations to 

ensure protection of vegetation used for nesting, cover, and foraging (Lease Stipulations 18 and

24), and aquatic habitats (Lease Stipulations 21, 31, 39, 41, and 46). Eiders would also benefit 

from lease stipulations designed to reduce or prohibit activities that could disturb the birds, 

including seismic operations and aircraft activities (Lease Stipulations 24, 53, and 57). 

4.3.10-b.4 Conclusion 

Spectacled and Steller’s eiders may be affected by oil and gas leasing and development in the 

planning area. Activities related to oil and gas development and production such as vehicle, 

aircraft, pedestrian and boat traffic, routine maintenance activities, heavy equipment use,

facility noise, and oil spill clean-up activities could cause disturbances that affect eiders. 

Permanent habitat loss would result from gravel placement for roads and pads, and at gravel

mine sites. Temporary habitat loss or alteration may occur in areas adjacent to gravel roads due 

to snow and/or dust deposition, thermokarst, and the formation of impoundments. Eider 

mortality could result from collisions with vehicular or vessel traffic, or collisions with towers, 

buildings, pipelines, bridges, or other facilities. An oil spill also could impact eiders on 

terrestrial or marine habitats. 

The expected number of fields and the level of development under Alternative A would be 

reduced compared to the other alternatives and the potential effects of disturbance, habitat loss 

and alteration, and mortality to spectacled and Steller’s eiders due to development under this 

alternative would likely be reduced compared to other alternatives. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-188 

Alternative A (No Action): T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.3.10-c Polar Bear 

4.3.10-c.1 Activities Not Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Subsistence hunting and disturbance of denning bears resulting from winter overland travel 

likely have the most effect on bears in planning area. There is no record of where bears are 

taken, so the how subsistence take impacts bears in or near the planning area is unknown, but 

on average 32 bears from the Southern Beaufort Sea stock are taken annually in Alaska 

(Angliss and Outlaw, 2005). Winter overland travel not in support of oil and gas is likely 

relatively rare in the planning area and unlikely to result in significant disturbance effects. 

Research activities and close passes (<1 mile) may cause abandonment of a den if they occur 

early in the season but do not appear to have significant effects later in the season (Amstrup, 

1993). 

4.3.10-c.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Seismic 

Under Alternative A, seismic surveys conducted near the coast could expose a few denning polar 

bears to noise and associated disturbances. This disturbance could result in the displacement of 

a few maternal polar bears and their dependent cubs, leading to the abandonment of the den 

site and possible death of a small number of cubs. However, relatively few polar bears would be 

affected because of the low number of recorded maternal den sites in and adjacent to the 

planning area. Lease stipulations prohibit seismic surveys within one mile of known or 

suspected polar bear dens. 

Exploration 

Exploratory drilling near the coast during winter (December to mid-April) would potentially 

disturb, displace, or attract polar bears. Female polar bears denning within one mile of the 

construction activity could be disturbed by vehicle traffic or construction noise. Disturbance of 

females in maternity dens could result in abandonment of the cubs or premature exposure of 

cubs (Amstrup 1993). Few dens have been reported in the planning area in the last 10 years 

(Map 3-29), although bears are known to occasionally den in the area. Lease Stipulation 24(a) 

requires that industrial activities maintain a 1-mile buffer around known or suspected polar 

bear dens. MacGillivray et al.(2003) measured noise from industrial activities in the air and 

within artificial polar bear dens at varying distances from the activity. Noise within the dens 

from vehicle traffic was generally attenuated to background levels when vehicles were

approximately 1,600 feet away. In addition, most polar bear dens are off the coast of the 

northern portion of the planning area, which is closed under this alternative. Thus, it appears 

that current lease stipulations would be sufficient to minimize disturbance to polar bears in 

natal dens. 

Development and Production 

Female polar bears denning within approximately one mile of construction activity could be 

disturbed by vehicle traffic and construction noise, which could result in the abandonment of 

the den and the potential death of cubs (Amstrup 1993). The number of bears affected would 

depend on the number of undetected dens located within the 1-mile buffer around construction 

4-189 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

activity. The severity of the effect would depend on the reaction of individual bears, whether the

den was active or abandoned, and the age of the cubs when the disturbance occurred. 

Denning polar bears could be disturbed, and mortality caused to cubs if they are abandoned or 

prematurely exposed to adverse weather conditions, by activities within about 1 mile of their 

dens if these dens were not detected and disturbance avoided as required by lease stipulations. 

Some polar bears could be attracted to oil field camps by food odors and curiosity. Attraction to

the area would increase the potential for human-bear interactions, and could result in 

intentional harassment or death of the bear in defense of human life or property. However, such

actions have been rare in the past, and should not be common in the planning area. Workers

would be required to participate in bear-awareness training programs (Lease Stipulation 63), 

and Lease Stipulations 76 and 77 have been established that would minimize the potential for 

polar bear interaction with humans. Consultation between oil field developers and the USFWS 

should result in the use of nonlethal means of deterrence in most cases. Therefore, the number 

of bears lost as a result of such encounters is expected to be minor and not result in population 

impacts (USFWS 2007). 

Contaminant Spill 

Polar bears are known to travel and den along the Colville River and would be most vulnerable 

during fall (open water), winter, and spring months. Oil has been documented to be highly toxic 

to polar bears (Oritsland et al, 1981. Polar bears may be affected directly through contacting 

spilled oil or ingesting contaminated prey (Pristland et al. 1981; Stirling 1990), or indirectly 

through loss of habitat or prey species. However, the low probability of a very large oil spill 

combined with the likelihood of low numbers of bears occurring in the area suggests that 

population-level effects would likely be minor, unless spilled oil traveled extensively into the 

marine environment, or aggregations of bears encountered oil. 

Female polar bears select “bluffs” including river banks for denning habitat, thus they are more 

likely to be present in river drainages. Any spill that reached a river during late fall when polar 

bears are constructing dens, occurred in winter under ice, or in spring during broken ice periods 

could impact denning polar bears and their young if the spill was large enough to reach the den 

area. 

Spring or summer spills that reached marine waters would have the greatest likelihood of 

impacting polar bears or their prey. Spills during broken ice or in the lead system would have 

the largest potential for adverse effect. 

In certain areas polar bears congregate in large numbers to take advantage of whale carcasses 

brought ashore by subsistence hunters. Areas of concentration include Point Barrow, Cross 

Island, and Kaktovik (USDOI, FWS, 1999). More than 60 polar bears have been observed 

feeding on whale carcasses just outside of Kaktovik (Miller, 2006), and in the autumn of 2002, 

North Slope Borough and FWS biologists documented more than 100 polar bears that came 

ashore in and around Barrow (USDOI, FWS, pers. comm. Cited in MMS 2006). None of these 

areas are within the planning area. In most other areas polar bears are generally widely 

dispersed (Amstrup, 1986; Amstrup et al., 2000), thus any spill would be unlikely to affect more 

than one to three bears. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-190 

Alternative A (No Action): T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Effects would generally be the same as under construction. Dismantling of equipment and

modules and readying it for transport would most likely take place during summer. Transport 

of large or heavy material would be a winter activity and occur over ice roads. Any recontouring or removal of gravel would primarily be done in the winter, although some summer

activity may be necessary to complete rehabilitation efforts. Any planting or monitoring would 

also be conducted in the summer. A combination of surface vehicles and aircraft would be 

required for transportation. The potential for large spills would be substantially reduced after 

shut-down of oil and gas operations. 

Abandoned pads or their remnants may provide topographic relief that catches snow and 

provide denning substrate; possibly increasing terrestrial denning availability. This effect is 

likely to be negligible, however. 

Commercial Gas Development 

If natural gas development and production occur in the coastal areas used by polar bears, 

potential impacts would include those described above for oil development, such as attraction to 

waste from the facilities, though there would be no oil spill impacts. Denning female bears may 

be encountered during winter construction or maintenance activities. Aroused female bears may 

abandon the den, potentially leaving cubs. Additionally, increased energy expenditure could 

negatively impact the cub survival. 

4.3.10-c.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations 

Under Alternative A, lease stipulations would help prevent spilled fuel, oil, or other toxic 

materials from reaching the marine environment, minimizing potential effects to polar bears or 

their prey (Lease Stipulations 1 through 17). Polar bears would also benefit somewhat from 

lease stipulations designed to reduce or prohibit activities that could disturb the birds, including 

seismic operations and aircraft activities (Lease Stipulations 24, 53, and 57). 

4.3.10-c.4 Conclusion 

The potential for impacts to polar bears under Alternative A is low. The area where most 

denning polar bears are likely to be found is closed to development. Avoidance requirements 

should substantially reduce the potential of disturbance to bears denning in other areas and 

good management practices reduce the potential for human-bear interactions. Although an oil 

spill could impact bears or their prey, the likelihood of a large enough spill to reach the marine 

environment in sufficient concentration to have adverse impacts is very low. Further, bears are 

typically widely dispersed, so impacts would only occur to a few bears. 

4.3.11 Cultural Resources 

4.3.11.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Aircraft and watercraft traffic, scientific investigations (e.g., archaeological, paleontological, and 

geological survey and excavation), summer camps, hazardous and solid waste material removal 

4-191 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

and remediation, overland moves and recreation associated with non-oil and gas activities 

would all have effects on cultural resources. Aircraft use would not directly affect cultural 

resources; however, it could have an indirect effect by making cultural resources more accessible

to recreation and other users. Watercraft can also provide easy access to cultural resource

locales. 

BLM and BLM permittees conduct archaeological, paleontological, and geological research,

survey and excavation within the planning area. Surveys (pedestrian and aerial), excavation, 

and collection generally occur during the summer. Survey personnel often encounter cultural 

resources by chance because they are generally located on or near the surface. While excavation 

and collection are destructive activities, they are necessary for the recovery of scientific data. 

The temporary summer field camps commonly associated with scientific research or resource

assessment generally affect small areas for one to several summers. Larger camps would most

likely be located at the Inigok airstrip, Point Lonely DEW-Line site, or the Ivotuk airstrip. 

These sites would use existing gravel pads where available, and low-impact camp practices 

elsewhere. It is possible that larger camps would affect undocumented cultural resources. 

However, these camps have been in place for some time, and previous research and surveys 

should have already identified any cultural resources near these camps. Therefore, temporary

camps and the activities that are associated with them, such as aircraft use, on-the-ground 

survey and reconnaissance, hazardous and solid-material removal and site remediation, and 

recreation, would not have any discernable effect on cultural resources. 

Prior to or during ground disturbing activities, qualified cultural resources personnel would 

determine if cultural resources exist on the site and monitor hazardous and solid waste material 

removal and remediation. Determinations of National Register of Historic Place eligibility 

would be, and have been, conducted for sites undergoing hazardous and solid waste material 

removal and remediation to determine whether the sites being cleaned up are themselves 

archaeologically and historically important (e.g., Point Lonely DEW-Line site, Planning Area 

exploration camps, pioneer exploration pads, and wells). Cultural resource monitoring and 

clearance would occur during the discovery, site verification, risk assessment, and site 

evaluation stages, if ground-disturbing activities were to occur. 

BLM regulates non-oil and gas related overland moves, which only occur during the winter 

when there is adequate snow cover and depth of frozen ground, or when ice roads are present. It 

is possible that damage would occur to known or unidentified cultural resources in the planning 

area. The prevalence of shallow and surface level cultural resources in the planning area 

suggests that undocumented cultural resources could be damaged even using the best available 

practices. Since non-oil and gas-related overland moves are not numerous in the planning area, 

however, they would have minor impact on cultural resources. 

Recreational use of the planning area primarily includes summer use by birdwatchers and 

rafters. Given the importance of waterways to prehistoric and historic peoples for 

transportation and subsistence, cultural resources are concentrated along these corridors and

may be exposed by erosion over time. Therefore, recreational users camping on riverbanks and 

bars could affect these resources as a result of boating activities, and through unauthorized 

collecting of cultural resources found along waterways or near camps. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-192 

Alternative A (No Action): Cultural Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.3.11.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Because gathering of seismic data is permitted only during the winter using low-groundpressure vehicles (Lease Stipulation 24[f]), it is unlikely that this activity would effect 

undocumented subsurface cultural resources. However, use of seismic vehicles could result in 

the damage or destruction of surface cultural resources. In general, permittees can visually 

detect and subsequently avoid most surface cultural resources, which are usually structures of 

some type, even when these resources are covered by snow. Snow cover and frozen vegetation 

would protect other surface cultural resources, such as isolated artifacts, from vehicle crushing.

An exception could be human skeletal remains that lie on the ground surface and may not be

protected from vehicle crushing by snow cover. 

It is worth noting that cultural resources are not as widespread as wildlife and vegetation. As a 

result, oil and gas exploration or development activities would have a minor effect on cultural 

resources, because permittees could conduct oil and gas activities to avoid the locations of 

identified cultural resources. However, as modern users tend to use the same areas used by 

prehistoric and historic Iñupiat, such as high, dry ground along rivers, streams, and lakes, 

minor damage to resources in these areas could occur. 

Effects of Disturbances 

Under Alternative A, exploration and development activities in the planning area would be 

conducted on existing leases, outside the areas excluded by withdrawals and lease stipulations 

listed in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD. However, because most of these activities would 

occur during the winter months, the potential for effects to subsurface cultural resources would 

be minor. 

Disturbances associated with development activities (i.e., the construction of production pads 

connected by roads, airstrips, staging bases, and pipelines) could affect cultural resources under 

Alternative A. This type of development would be most likely to affect cultural resources

through the excavation of material (e.g., gravel) for the construction of permanent facilities, as 

the location of terrestrial gravel sources often coincides with the location of cultural resources.

Placement of gravel for pads, roads, and airstrips could potentially alter or destroy cultural 

resources. Pre-construction assessment and monitoring under Lease Stipulations 64 and 74, as 

well as under the NHPA, would identify the location and extent of nearby cultural resources. 

The placement of VSMs during pipeline construction could also affect buried cultural resources 

in the planning area, depending on the depth at which the VSMs were set. The excavation and 

burial of pipelines could also alter or destroy subsurface resources, depending on the depth, size, 

and location of the pipeline. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

It is unlikely that cultural resources would be impacted by abandonment activities unless the 

facilities to be abandoned or removed during rehabilitation were themselves historic. 

Effects of Spills 

In the exploration stage, most spills would occur on an ice pad or ice road and during winter 

conditions. In such a case, the spill or subsequent spill cleanup would most likely not alter or 

destroy buried cultural resources, but could affect surface cultural resources by covering these 

resources with oil or other spill material. If the oil is warm enough, however, it could melt 

4-193 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Cultural Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

through the snow and melt the ground and impact cultural resources buried near the surface of 

the ground. A spill occurring during the summer would have a greater potential to affect surface 

and subsurface cultural resource sites than a spill occurring during the winter because the 

effects of both the spill and subsequent cleanup would be greater. Oil spills on cultural resource 

sites would cause damage proportional to the extent of contamination, and could require data 

recovery (excavation) as part of remediation and clean-up efforts. However, irreparable damage 

to some of the data could occur. Oil spills at cultural resource sites, either surface or buried, 

would make radiocarbon dating of that site problematic or impossible. The spilled oil would seep 

into charcoal, bone, wood, or other materials used for radiocarbon dating, and contaminate them 

so that their true dates would no longer be possible to accurately determine. 

Commercial Gas Development 

If commercial gas development occurs and gas pipelines are buried, disturbance of, and 

potential alteration or destruction of cultural resources could occur during excavation and 

burial of the pipelines. A 162-mile pipeline buried in a 4-foot-wide trench would involve 

excavation of 80 acres and surface disturbance during pipeline construction of approximately 

210 additional acres. The risk of impacts to cultural resources would be reduced dramatically if 

gas pipelines are put on VSMs rather than buried. In such a situation, cultural resource 

impacts would be extremely low—limited to approximately 1.5 acres impacted by the VSMs 

themselves (assuming a separate set of VSMs are needed rather than using the VSMs

associated with oil transportation) and disturbance associated with building a 10- to 20-acre 

compressor pad. 

4.3.11.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations 

Under Alternative A, several lease stipulations would minimize the effects of oil exploration and

development activities on cultural resources. Lease Stipulation 24 addresses overland 

transportation and restrictions on ground surface disturbance, and would potentially protect 

subsurface cultural resources by requiring that operators use low-ground-pressure vehicles and 

cease operations when the spring melt of snow begins. Lease Stipulation 26 prohibits 

exploratory drilling within 1,200 feet, and Lease Stipulation 47 prohibits permanent oil and gas 

facilities (with the exception of pipelines) within 1 mile, of any known, long-term cabin or 

campsite. Lease Stipulations 39 and 62 provide for setbacks along rivers, streams, lakes, 

cabins, and the coast, providing additional protection for cultural resources and

traditional/cultural land use areas. Lease Stipulation 63 minimizes cultural and resource 

conflicts through an orientation program for personnel that would include instruction on the 

importance of not disturbing archaeological resources and sensitivity to community values, 

customs, and lifestyles. Lease Stipulation 64 calls for an inventory of known traditional land 

use sites (NSB TLUI sites; see Appendix I) prior to any field activity so that these sites can be

avoided and any damage from field activities can be mitigated. Lease Stipulation 67 mandates 

the avoidance or minimization of damage to vegetation, including the tundra mat, which could 

protect shallow sites. Lease Stipulation 74 calls for a cultural resources survey prior to any 

ground disturbing activity. 

BLM requires permittees to complete a cultural resources survey prior to any undertaking (i.e., 

any ground-disturbing activity, such as the construction of buried pipelines) on Federal lands. If 

surveyors identify cultural resources during the survey, BLM guidelines and policy require that 

all potential effects to these resources be mitigated to the satisfaction of the land manager. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-194 

Alternative A (No Action): Cultural Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.3.11.4 Conclusion 

The potential exists for harm to or loss of cultural resources from non-oil and gas activities, and 

those activities associated with oil and gas exploration and development, but these impacts 

should be minor. Most impacts would be associated with ground-disturbance activities, but 

lessees are required to conduct a cultural resource survey prior to implementing any grounddisturbing activity. 

Approximately 2 to 3% of the planning area has been surveyed for cultural resources. The

distribution of known cultural sites does not reflect locational preference of prehistoric and

historic people, but rather indicates that only portions of the planning area (e.g., well sites, 

portions of the coast, the Colville River, the Ikpikpuk River, and the Teshekpuk Lake area) have 

been examined through some type of organized reconnaissance for the presence of cultural sites.

The TLUI sites generally cluster in these same areas with greater density on the lower 

Ikpikpuk River and associated drainages (NSB 1978, 2003). Activities that occur near these 

areas may have a greater likelihood of impacting cultural resources. In the most general terms,

where surveys and inventories have been conducted, cultural sites have usually been found. 

Since surveys are required before any ground-disturbing activity can take place, the potential 

impacts to cultural resources from oil and gas exploration and development activities under

Alternative A is minor. These impacts would be mitigated by lease stipulations that prohibit oil 

and gas exploration and development in areas with a high likelihood of having cultural 

resources, enforcement of lease stipulations that prohibit collection of artifacts and require 

training of workers regarding avoidance of effects on cultural resources, and compliance with all 

Federal laws, including the National Historic Preservation Act, requiring surveys for cultural 

resources in areas where ground-disturbing activities are proposed. 

4.3.12 Subsistence 

4.3.12.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Activities not associated with oil and gas exploration and development include: aircraft and 

watercraft use; research activities, including remote camps associated with research; overland 

moves; and recreation. All of these activities have the potential to affect subsistence use. See 

section 4.1 for a detailed description of the types of non-oil and gas activities that may occur in 

the planning area. 

Effects of Disturbances 

Aircraft Use 

Under all alternatives, it is anticipated that there will be a certain level of aircraft activity 

associated with management of the NPR-A, including aircraft activity in support of research, 

surveying crews, or other projects. This aircraft activity includes fixed-wing surveys, such as 

those conducted to determine wildlife populations; point-to-point flights by both fixed-wing 

aircraft and helicopters; and helicopter-supported surveys. Aircraft operating under a BLM 

permit for non-oil and gas projects would be required to follow the stipulated altitude and 

activity rules; however, BLM would have no authority over private aircraft not associated with 

permitted activities. It is anticipated that most non-oil and gas aircraft activity would occur

during the summer months in support of research or other projects; however, aircraft use could 

4-195 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Cultural Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

also occur during the winter in support of remediation or clean-up work, as well as some climate 

research activities. 

Of all non-oil and gas activities, aircraft use, especially the use of helicopters, has the potential 

to be the most disrupting to subsistence use in the planning area. As noted in the mammals 

section (see section 4.3.9.1), caribou show a definite response to low-flying aircraft, resulting in 

displacement away from the aircraft activity. Under certain conditions (e.g., insect harassment,

hard or deep snow cover), aircraft activity could increase stress in these animals, possibly 

leading to failed breeding or even death of individuals. However, most fixed-wing flights that 

would occur in the planning area, including wildlife surveys, would be conducted at a sufficient 

altitude to minimize impacts to wildlife. 

Helicopters are commonly used in support of most field activities in the planning area, as a 

result of the limited amount of adequate landing areas for fixed wing aircraft, and the lack of

road or trail systems. Testimony from local hunters, including direct complaints to BLM and 

the North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management, indicate that helicopters 

frequently disrupt hunting parties by scattering and displacing caribou or other game, resulting 

in a missed harvest, as hunters will rarely harvest an animal that has been “spooked” due to the 

resulting bad flavor of the meat (USDOI-BLM SAP 2004, 2005, 2006a, 2006b). A disrupted

harvest such as this results in direct impacts to the hunter in terms of lost time, effort, and 

resources, such as fuel. Subsistence harvesters also describe the stress that occurs when they 

are out hunting and hear a helicopter operating nearby, because they are never sure whether 

the helicopter will approach and disrupt the hunt. 

Watercraft Use 

Like aircraft, watercraft (e.g., airboats, outboards, jet-drive, and non-powered boats) use would 

be allowed in the planning area. Watercraft operations would be managed in the same fashion 

as aircraft, in that all BLM permitted watercraft users would be required to follow the 

appropriate stipulations. Non-oil and gas watercraft activities would have a localized effect that 

could cause subsistence species, such as caribou, to avoid the immediate area of activity (i.e.,

along the riverbank, or near the lake shore) or cause the short-term abandonment of habitats by 

waterfowl. Watercraft use is not anticipated to disrupt harvesters as much as helicopter use,

both because of the limited area of effect, and the relative low-level of use. The effect on harvest 

patterns would be dependent on the frequency of the watercraft activity, but would most likely 

be a temporary and local effect on harvest patterns. 

Research activities 

Scientific research and data collection in a variety of disciplines (e.g., biological, geological, 

archaeological, and paleontological) is a frequent occurrence in the planning area. Research 

and data collection activities could require the establishment of temporary or semi-permanent 

camps; the use of aircraft, four-wheelers, or boats; and the disturbance of wildlife, vegetation, or 

soil. Temporary camps could cause displacement of subsistence resources from the immediate 

area for the duration of the camp, and could also cause harvesters to avoid the area of the camp

while out hunting, so as not to discharge a weapon in the vicinity of people. The larger the 

camp and the longer the occupancy, the greater the potential effect to subsistence users. 

Wildlife attracted to camps, such as grizzly bear or foxes, could be killed as a result of defense of 

life and property, but not at a level that would affect the overall population or availability of 

these resources for subsistence harvesters. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-196 

Alternative A (No Action): Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Personnel walking on the tundra could disturb caribou and muskox to a greater degree than 

other activities (Murphy and Lawhead 2000). Depending on the timing of research and data 

collection, and its areas of effect and intensity, these activities could cause terrestrial mammals, 

birds, and fish to move out of areas where subsistence harvesters would anticipate them to be 

available, thus affecting subsistence patterns for the duration of the activities. Residents of 

Nuiqsut have noted a decrease in bird populations, which they attribute to foxes (SRBA 2003a, 

b). Scientists that observe nesting waterfowl could influence predator behavior by attracting 

predators to the nest. The effects of research activities on subsistence harvest patterns would

be temporary and localized (e.g., limited to the camp and data collection areas). 

Aircraft and watercraft use associated with research would have the same effects as those 

described above. Additionally, camps and or research projects that are supported by helicopter

usually have a fuel cache located nearby. These caches require a permit from BLM, including 

requirements for containment and proper handling, and are not expected to result in an impact 

to subsistence resources or use. The use of ATVs or snowmobiles by researchers also has the 

potential to temporarily displace resources from the area of such use. However, this activity is 

not expected to appreciably affect subsistence harvesters, as only a very small amount of 

research is carried out using these types of vehicles. 

Recreation 

Recreational uses of the planning area include rafting and bird-watching tours conducted 

primarily on the Colville River by commercial guiding companies. Commercial permit holders 

are subject to the stipulations outlined in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD. Non-guided rafting 

and bird watching tours could take place during the summer, but the frequency, duration, and 

intensity of this use are difficult to predict. Non-guided recreational users are not legally bound

to any of the lease stipulations, but must comply with existing laws and regulations for the 

area. Recreational uses could disturb the movements and habitat use of subsistence species, 

causing a short-term, localized effect. Recreational users would likely frequent waterways 

shared with other users, such as subsistence hunters, potentially resulting in resource user 

conflicts. Non-resident hunters of Game Management Unit 26A, which encompasses the 

planning area, could harvest bear, caribou or moose under the state hunting regulations. 

However, this recreational sport hunting is limited by the lack of access in to the area, and 

restrictions on the timing of hunts and state bag limits. Currently, there are no hunting guides 

operating under a BLM permit in the Northeast planning area. Effects on subsistence harvest 

patterns caused by recreational users would be localized and temporary. 

Solid and Hazardous Waste Removal and Remediation 

Solid and hazardous waste removal and remediation, including the monitoring of existing cleanup sites and aging infrastructure (e.g., wellheads), would occur under Alternative A. This 

activity would involve conducting site characterizations, removal of hazardous materials, 

possible stockpiling of contaminated materials, and eventual disposal in an appropriate facility. 

Site characterizations would be completed during the summer, and access would most likely be 

by helicopter. This use could cause temporary and localized displacement as described above 

under aircraft use. Equipment to be used during the clean-up process would be moved to the 

area over ice roads or snow packed trails during the winter, or, depending on the location of the

clean-up activity, could be barged to the area during the summer. Ice road construction, or 

winter movement over a snow-packed trail, could also displace resources from the route during 

the activity. The barging of clean-up equipment, or the resulting contaminated material could 

affect sea mammal and bowhead whale hunting. Site cleanup and remediation activities could 

4-197 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

temporarily divert or disturb caribou, muskox, and grizzly and polar bears, but would have little 

effect on long-term subsistence harvest patterns. Long-term effects could include a decreased 

potential for contamination of subsistence species with the cleanup of waste sites. Given the 

cost of conducting this type of activity, it is unlikely that more than one clean-up would occur in 

any given year. Additionally, communities on the North Slope have placed a high value and 

fully support this type of activity (USDOI-BLM SAP 2005, 2006a, 2006b). Effects on 

subsistence harvest patterns by this activity would be localized and temporary. 

Overland moves 

Overland moves, such as supply trips to communities via rolligon, would occur only by permit 

and would be subject to the stipulations in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD. These moves 

would only occur in the winter on frozen tundra with an adequate accumulation of snow pack, 

or on ice roads. Overland moves can displace or disturb caribou, grizzly bears, polar bears, 

muskox, wolves, and wolverines from the immediate area of the travel route. The effects of 

overland moves on subsistence harvest patterns would also be localized and of short duration; 

however, their effects on harvest patterns would increase as the frequency increased. In cases 

where oil and gas ice roads were used for non-oil and gas activities, increased traffic could result 

in additional effects on harvest patterns. These effects would last for as long as the ice road was 

used, and would vary depending on the intensity and frequency of traffic. 

Conclusion 

Non-oil and gas activities that could affect subsistence harvest patterns would include air and 

watercraft use, scientific research and remediation projects, recreational use, and overland 

moves. These activities could alter the availability of subsistence species in traditional harvest 

areas through direct interference with hunts. This direct interference could affect harvest 

patterns by requiring hunters to travel further because the subsistence resources are more wary 

than normal following a disturbance or are deflected from traditional harvest areas following 

the presence of vehicles, vessels, and aircraft. Nuiqsut residents stated in the Alpine Satellite 

Development Plan EIS that aircraft have diverted subsistence resources away from areas where 

hunters were actively pursuing them, directly interfered with harvests, or caused harvests to 

fail (USDOI BLM 2004c). Increased travel distances would result in greater expenditures for 

fuel and equipment as wear and tear on snowmobiles, outboards, and four-wheelers could occur.

The risk of equipment failure would increase as travel distances and times increased, which 

could require increased search and rescue efforts by the NSB. 

4.3.12.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Alternative A would withhold approximately 600,000 acres from leasing and development, 

including a large portion of the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area. This would leave 87% of the 

planning area available for oil and gas leasing. 

Effects of Disturbances 

 Seismic Survey Activity 

Seismic surveys are conducted to gain an understanding of the subsurface geology of a region, in 

order to identify locations for exploratory drilling. Any given seismic survey covers a large area, 

and consists of 8-10 vehicles that travel over the tundra when conditions allow, stopping to 

produce a sound source that is recorded by lines of geophones strung out across the ground and 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-198 

Alternative A (No Action): Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

connected to 8-10 receiver vehicles. Support for the survey is provided by a mobile camp unit 

consisting of sleigh-mounted trailers pulled by tracked D-7 bulldozers, and assorted tracked and 

wheeled vehicles. The mobile camp will include a kitchen, diner, washroom, sleeping rooms, 

offices, generator rooms and storage areas, and is moved every few days during the operation. 

Under Alternative A, seismic surveys can only be conducted when frost has reached a depth of 

12 inches below surface and there is six inches of snow. 

Under all alternatives, it is anticipated that five additional seismic surveys, three 2-D and two 

3-D, would be conducted within the planning area in order to cover all gaps where seismic has 

not yet occurred. The three 2-D surveys are projected to potentially impact a total of 8,126 

acres, which is the combined total of acres impacted by the survey and acres impacted by the 

camp train overland move. The two 3-D surveys are estimated to potentially impact a total of 

99,870 acres, combined. It is also assumed that the surveys would occur in those areas 

currently not covered by 3-D surveys, which include the foothills area and the area north and

east of Teshekpuk Lake (see Figure 4.6). 

Because seismic exploration by vibroseis occurs during the winter months, the primary 

subsistence activities that may be impacted include caribou and furbearer hunting, trapping, 

and fishing. Seismic activity has the potential to affect the following terrestrial subsistence 

resources: caribou, wolves, wolverine and polar bear. Testimony by community members from

Barrow and Nuiqsut has indicated that seismic exploration does interfere with overland travel 

by snowmobiles (USDOI-BLM SAP 2002). Specifically, the deep ruts left in the snow by seismic 

vehicles freeze, creating difficult terrain to traverse, resulting in excessive wear-and-tear on 

both snowmobiles and the sleds that are pulled behind them. Additionally, there is the 

potential for a machine to become inoperable, and the need for Search and Rescue services. 

Replacement or repair of these tools that are used for subsistence harvesting is costly. 

Additionally, subsistence hunters report that seismic activity displaces game, especially 

caribou, wolves and wolverine from the area being surveyed (USDOI-BLM SAP 2006a). 

Because of the harsh conditions during the winter, many caribou hunts are based from remote 

hunting cabins, many of which are located on BLM lands. If seismic activity occurs near a 

hunter’s cabin locale, the resulting displacement causes the hunter to have to travel farther 

away. Disturbance of subsistence activities by seismic activities affects subsistence users in the 

following ways: loss of subsistence food; loss of time; loss of money; increased stress and anxiety; 

increased risk of equipment failure; and increased risk of loss of life or serious bodily injury.

These affects may also put more responsibility on local municipalities to provide rescue 

response. Similarly, hunters who conduct day trips from their community have the potential to 

experience similar impacts. 

Nuiqsut, located on the eastern boundary of the planning area, has the greatest potential to be 

impacted by seismic activities in Northeast NPR-A, which is that community’s primary harvest 

area. Hunters from Barrow and Atqasuk may also harvest from the planning area during the 

winter, and residents of Anaktuvuk Pass may utilize the foothills area in southern Northeast 

NPR-A during the winter months. It is unlikely that residents from Wainwright would utilize 

the area during winter. 

The use of airguns for boat-based seismic work could occur in Teshekpuk Lake during the

summer under Alternative A. Airguns have been shown to affect mortality in eggs and juvenile 

fish, and result in flight response for adult fish (see section 4.3.7.1). These activities could 

affect the subsistence harvest of broad whitefish, arctic grayling, burbot and lake trout in river 

and stream systems connected to Teshekpuk Lake, including the Miguakiak and the Ikpikpuk 

4-199 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Rivers. There is potential for long-term impacts to subsistence fishing if large quantities of eggs 

and/or juvenile fish suffer mortality. Altogether, these effects could result in lower harvests for 

subsistence users. In addition, subsistence fishers who customarily utilize Teshekpuk Lake 

would likely avoid setting nets or fishing in the lake during the timeframe of this activity. 

Summer seismic activity in Teshekpuk Lake would primarily affect the communities of Barrow

and Nuiqsut. 

Exploratory Drilling 

Exploratory drilling is carried out in order to test potential locations that have been identified 

by seismic exploration as likely to contain subsurface fluids or gas. The only way to determine 

whether the area contains oil, gas or water is to drill an exploratory well and conduct tests. 

Unless the exploratory drilling operation is conducted from one of the three existing gravel pads 

in the planning area (e.g., Lonely, Inigok, Umiat), exploratory drilling only occurs during the 

winter, once tundra travel has commenced. In order to drill an exploratory well, the operator 

must move a drill rig over either hardened snow trails or constructed ice roads to an ice pad. 

The route to the proposed drillsite is dependent upon the location of the rig, and the type of 

access used (i.e., snow trail or ice road) is dependent upon the type of rig and the type of support 

vehicles employed. If the rig can be broken down into smaller components and/or rolligon or 

tracked vehicles are the primary means of getting the rig to the proposed location, then

companies usually rely on hardened snow trails for access. If the rig cannot be broken down 

and/or needs to be trucked to the location, then ice roads are the primary means of access.

Usually, if more than one location is to be drilled, then an ice road is constructed between the 

two locations in order to avoid the time it takes to break down and reassemble the rig. If 

necessary, drill rigs and other equipment may need to be “staged” within the planning area 

prior to the winter operating season. This may require companies to make several barge trips 

back and forth from Prudhoe Bay and other current facilities to staging areas, such as the 

Lonely DEW Line Site, during the open water season. 

Under Alternative A, it is estimated that 86 exploratory wells will be drilled in the planning 

area, with an additional 65 delineation wells drilled in subsequent years near wells that showed 

potential as oil producers. Wells that do not indicate the presence of hydrocarbons in 

developable quantities will be plugged and abandoned. Wells that show potential may be 

“suspended,” and capped with what is known as a “Christmas tree” at the surface. It is 

anticipated that at most, five drill rigs will be operating in the planning area in any given 

winter season. 

Winter exploratory drilling operations are always conducted from an ice pad, which also holds 

the crew quarters, an equipment area, a shop, and other necessary portable buildings for the 

operation. An ice airstrip is usually constructed near the drilling operation to facilitate crew 

changes and for resupply, especially if access was by snow trail. Ice airstrips are frequently

constructed on lakes, which may be the only level ground in the area. In order to construct the 

ice pad, airstrip, and ice roads, as well as throughout the drilling operation, the company needs 

a large supply of water. This water is obtained from the numerous lakes and ponds present in 

the planning area, and companies are allowed by the State to withdraw a certain amount of 

water from each lake based on the volume and the presence or absence of certain species of fish. 

As a result of this, research needs to be conducted by the operator during the summer in order

to identify the proposed route to the drillsite(s), to test potential lakes for water withdrawal, 

and to identify any cultural resources along the access route and in the area of drilling. Along

with these summer studies, the company must also “stake” the proposed drilling locations, 

which involves inspection by BLM to ensure that location of the drillsite conforms to the 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-200 

Alternative A (No Action): Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

stipulations for that planning area. Most of the summer studies, route identification, and

stakings are conducted via helicopter. 

The summer activity associated with exploratory drilling would result in impacts to subsistence 

resources and users similar to those discussed above under non-oil and gas activities—namely, 

displacement of resources due to aircraft or watercraft use; impacts to hunters from disrupted 

hunts; and possible increases in the amount of time, effort, and fuel needed to harvest displaced 

animals. Impacts to harvesters during the summer would be greatest during those times that 

caribou are intensively harvested, namely the late summer/early fall months of August through

October, when caribou are considered in their prime before the fall rut. The planning area is 

used intensively by the community of Nuiqsut, and used regularly by residents of Barrow and 

Atqasuk. Hunters from Wainwright and Anaktuvuk Pass occasionally travel into the planning 

area, usually when hunting with friends and family from one of the other communities. 

Direct impacts to subsistence users and resources from the exploratory drilling operation would 

be similar to those discussed above under seismic exploration, including: displacement of 

resources from along access routes, especially ice roads during their construction; displacement 

of resources away from the drillsite; possible impacts to overwintering fish from water 

withdrawals, river crossings, and fuel spills near ice airstrips; and increased time, effort, and 

expense during hunting. Ice roads and/or packed snow trails are customarily used by local 

residents during the winter, both by snowmobile and truck/car. The presence of these types of 

access may concentrate hunting efforts along the route(s). In addition, increased traffic by 

locals increases the likelihood that resources such as caribou will be displaced from the route. 

Caribou are year-round residents of the planning area, and the TLH is not habituated to oil and 

gas activities. Muskox are not frequently observed in the planning area, but would likely avoid

activity areas, as would moose using riparian habitats. Other terrestrial mammals (e.g., grizzly 

and polar bears, wolves, and wolverines) would also avoid oil and gas activity areas, although 

some animals (e.g., denning grizzly and polar bears) would not be able to avoid these activity 

areas. In addition, if grizzly bears and polar bears were to associate oil and gas activity areas 

with food, then they might be attracted to these areas. Oil and gas activity areas would be likely 

to attract foxes, which associate these areas with denning habitat and food in the form of 

handouts and trash (Burgess 2000). 

Overwintering fish could be affected by exploratory drilling activities, however, stipulations 

limit the placement of temporary infrastructure and fuel caches, and lessen the potential for 

impact to this resource. Likewise, waterfowl are not expected to be impacted by winter 

exploratory drilling, as they are not present in the planning area. Depending on the location of 

the ice pad, harvestable vegetation, such as berries or willow leaves, could be impacted during 

the summer immediately following the activity. However, this would be temporary and only 

cover a small amount of total area. 

Alternative A would not be expected to affect marine mammals, unless the barging of 

equipment to staging areas was required during the open water season. If barging were to take

place during the fall bowhead whale hunt, this activity could affect whalers from Nuiqsut and 

Barrow. Other, smaller-scale sea mammal harvests could also be affected. Seals may also use 

the Ikpikpuk and Colville rivers (Nigeluk Channel) seasonally in the summer and the nearshore 

environment in later winter and early spring. Aircraft traffic, vehicle traffic on nearshore ice 

roads, and activities near the rivers could affect spotted, ringed, and bearded seals by increasing 

their levels of stress and restricting their access to some habitats. 

4-201 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Development and Permanent Facilities 

Once oil is found in commercial quantities, companies enter into the Development Phase of 

operation. This includes the construction of permanent facilities, including: roads, pipelines, 

gravel drilling/production pads, airstrips, central processing facilities, and possibly, staging 

areas for the storage of equipment and supplies during the construction period. The large 

amount of gravel needed during the construction phase would require companies to locate and 

utilize gravel pits, or barge gravel to the area. Under Alternative A, it is estimated that there 

will be a need for five central processing facilities (90 acres each) in the planning area. In 

conjunction with these facilities there are other support structures, such as gravel production 

pads, gravel runways in-field gravel roads, several types of pipelines, and other associated

structures, that will also cause surface disturbances. 

It is estimated that under Alternative A, there will be: 23 gravel production pads (10 acres 

each); 5 gravel runways (11 acres each); 230 miles of in-field gravel roads (7.75 acres/mile); 230 

miles of three-phase produced fluids (oil, gas, water) gathering lines; 162 miles of sales oil 

pipelines; 5 pump stations (20 acres each); 2 staging bases (50 acres each); and 11 gravel pits 

(50 acres each). It is estimated that during the construction phase of these facilities that the 

total disturbance would be 4,679 acres. Construction of the permanent facilities will primarily 

take place during the winter, using ice roads and pads in the area of development to move and 

stage machinery, supplies, personnel and housing. It is estimated that construction for a 

typical development would take a minimum of 3-6 years. During this construction phase, it is

estimated that there would be an average of approximately 115-160 one-way aircraft flights per 

month during the winter, and 70-90 one-way operational flights per month during the summer. 

Construction activities could result in an economic boon to local communities, and could directly 

affect harvesters if they were hired by the companies. This increase in income could offset the 

increased cost of fuel needed to harvest displaced resources, but might also lead to a 

corresponding decrease in the amount of time a harvester could be out on the land depending on

the work schedule (see sections 4.3.13.2 and 4.3.18.2 for further discussion on economic 

impacts). 

After construction is completed, the production phase would begin. Because the development 

would be “roadless” (i.e., not connected to outside oil and gas infrastructure by gravel road, with 

the only gravel roads between the productions and the CPF) primary access to the area would

be by aircraft. It is estimated that there would be an average of 8-32 flights per month during 

the winter, and 8 to 80 flights per month in summer. 

Caribou are year-round residents of the planning area, and the TLH is not habituated to oil and 

gas activities. Prior to becoming habituated to development activities, the TLH caribou would 

likely be wary of and avoid the new infrastructure and associated activities (USDOI BLM 2003). 

During the construction phase, caribou would most likely avoid the area of development, due to

the noise and disturbance caused by construction activities. The effects of disturbance from

permanent oil and gas facilities on terrestrial mammals during the production phase would be 

of relatively long duration, but would be local in nature. This disturbance would consist of noise 

from the CPF, noise and visual impacts from traffic on the roads between the production pads

and the CPF, and aircraft flights to the area. These effects would continue until species were 

able to habituate to the new environment, which could take several years (e.g., for

infrastructure), or could never occur (e.g., for human and vehicle activities; Murphy and 

Lawhead 2000). 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-202 

Alternative A (No Action): Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Winter oil and gas activities would not affect waterfowl; however, waterfowl could be affected by

changes to nesting and molting habitat due to oil and gas activities in the summer. For 

example, gravel extraction could create new habitat (e.g., dredge ponds) favorable for the

survival of waterfowl, as these deep ponds would be inaccessible to predators. However, 

waterfowl could be negatively affected by vehicle strikes (e.g. aircraft and trucks), and

accidental collisions with structures and powerlines (USDOI BLM 2003). Increases in fox and 

other predator populations associated with human activities could also result in an increased 

risk for predation of molting geese. Overall, disturbance to waterfowl caused by oil and gas 

activities would be localized and infrequent. 

Fish and fish habitats could be affected by water withdrawals, gravel mines, changes to 

hydrologic regimes due to infrastructure (e.g., pads, roads, causeways, docks, bridges and 

culverts), increases in turbidity and salinity, oil and hazardous materials spills, and access to

new habitats. These activities have the potential to reduce fish populations, divert fish from

their normal locations, kill large numbers of fish, or contaminate fish populations and habitat. 

Depending on the event or activity, effects could be widespread, last from one season to several 

years, and result in population level effects on fish. 

Based on data from Pedersen et al. (2000) and Pedersen and Taalak (2001), as a consequence of 

oil development, Nuiqsut harvesters avoid development, with approximately 78% of the 1993 

and 1994 caribou harvests occurring greater than 16 miles from the development east of the 

Colville River. In addition, 51% of the 1999-2000 harvests occurred greater than 16 miles from 

the Alpine field and 27% occurred 6 to 15 miles from the Alpine field. The avoidance of 

development by harvesters has two aspects: 1) the concern that discharging a firearm near the 

various facilities and infrastructure will result in liability for damage, death to a worker, or 

serious environmental consequences (e.g., an oil spill resulting from a punctured pipeline); and 

2) the belief that animals that have habituated to oil and gas infrastructure are contaminated 

and not safe for human consumption. As a result, the total area of any development in the 

planning area could be effectively removed from the traditional harvest area of a given 

community. 

The connection via pipeline of production pads to the CPFs and the CPFs to the existing 

pipeline system could result in travel and access issues for harvesters utilizing the planning 

area. For example, the speculative future pipeline corridors as depicted in Figure 4.2 surround

the community of Nuiqsut, creating an obstacle between the community and their primary 

harvest area to the west, and to the Colville Delta to the north. Under Alternative A, pipeline 

height is stipulated as a minimum of five feet above the ground surface, a height that residents 

feel is inadequate for the passage of caribou and harvesters during the winter due to snow 

accumulation, and possibly during the summer depending upon the terrain. 

Nuiqsut hunters would be the most affected by development in the planning area, while Barrow 

and Atqasuk may be affected, and Wainwright and Anaktuvuk Pass hunters would likely see 

fewer effects, as development would likely proceed west from the Nuiqsut vicinity. 

Conclusion 

Muskox and moose are rarely seen in the planning area, and muskox are not a preferred

subsistence food. However, moose are harvested along the Colville River between Nuiqsut and 

Umiat, and subsistence hunting of this species could be affected by oil and gas activity in the 

Umiat vicinity. Subsistence users primarily harvest fox and bear when they become nuisances 

or dangers (SRBA 2003a,b). Wolf and wolverine hunting is a major activity for Nuiqsut, Barrow, 

4-203 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

and Atqasuk in the planning area, and subsistence users have noted that these species have 

avoided areas where they normally could be found because of oil and gas activity. These species

are important for cash and for traditional clothing. 

Waterfowl harvests could be affected, as oil and gas activity could cause migratory birds to move 

outside of their normal migration routes and nesting and molting areas. Although new gravel 

ponds could increase population numbers by increasing the protected habitat available to birds, 

they could also put waterfowl out of reach of subsistence users. For subsistence users who 

prefer not to hunt near oil infrastructure, birds using habitats near facilities would effectively 

be inaccessible. Oil and gas activity under Alternative A could affect waterfowl subsistence 

harvest patterns if waterfowl avoid traditional harvest locations. Nuiqsut is the community 

most likely to be affected by any change in waterfowl numbers or availability within the 

planning area; however, hunters would continue to be able to harvest early arriving birds 

following the Colville River en route to coastal areas. Should impacts result in population-level 

decreases, then communities on the North Slope, the Seward Peninsula, and in the YukonKuskokwim Delta Region could all be affected. 

Seal in nearshore and riverine habitats could be affected by oil and gas activities. However, 

these animals should still be available to hunters from Nuiqsut. With few exceptions, Barrow, 

Atqasuk, Wainwright and Anaktuvuk Pass hunters do not travel to the planning area to 

harvest seals or other marine mammals (SRBA 2003a,b). 

Fish and their habitats could be disturbed by oil and gas activities. In the past, Iñupiat 

subsistence users associated fish kills with seismic testing across water bodies and oil and fuel 

spills (Edwardson 1976). However, these effects have not been cited as recent occurrences since 

the early 1980s, and likely have been corrected with improved seismic testing and hazardous 

materials handling and transport methods. Fish provide approximately 30-40% of Nuiqsut’s and

7-14% of Barrow’s subsistence harvest by weight (see section 3.4.2), the two communities who

primarily use the planning area for fishing. An interruption in subsistence fishing would cause 

severe hardship for Nuiqsut, and would present challenges for Barrow. Thus, Nuiqsut 

subsistence harvest patterns for fish are the most likely to be affected by disturbances from oil 

and gas activities under the Alternative A. 

The resource to most likely be impacted by oil and gas activities in the planning area is also one 

of the most crucial to the residents of the North Slope—caribou. The area north of Teshekpuk

Lake has been identified as core calving and insect-relief habitat for the TLH. Under 

Alternative A, this area would not be offered for oil and gas leasing, and seismic activity would 

only be permitted in the non-vital winter months. Depending on their location, permanent 

facilities, including roads and pipelines, could affect the movement of caribou from 

overwintering areas to the calving and insect-relief area. This change could affect harvesters by 

displacing caribou further from their customary harvesting locales, and result in stress and 

missed opportunities if harvesters were unable to apply traditional knowledge regarding 

caribou movement during the course of the hunt. No population-level effects to the TLH are 

anticipated under this alternative, however, it is expected that caribou would be displaced from

areas of exploration and construction during the period of activity, and possibly from permanent 

facilities during the life of the producing oil field. 

Overall, disturbances from oil and gas activities under Alternative A would have an effect on 

subsistence harvest patterns by causing subsistence resources to move away from areas of 

activity, and hunters to avoid areas of development in their entirety. In addition to having to 

travel greater distances to harvest resources that are displaced by exploratory activities, 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-204 

Alternative A (No Action): Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

resulting in great expenditures of time, effort, and cash, the disturbance caused to the snow 

surface by seismic exploration increases the likelihood that equipment would be damaged or

subsistence users potentially injured in crossing the trails (ICAS 2004). It is not likely that the

displacement of subsistence resources and hunters would be great enough to substantially 

reduce subsistence harvests. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

During oil facility abandonment and rehabilitation activities, which include the removal of all 

equipment and facilities, and the plugging of all wells, subsistence resources and activities 

would be subject to impacts similar to those caused by construction. Following the

abandonment and rehabilitation, subsistence resources would be subject to fewer impacts. If the 

gravel roads and pads were left in place and remained serviceable, they could be used by 

residents to provide access to subsistence resources, possibly reducing hunting effort and time. 

Effects of Spills 

Under Alternative A, it is assumed that 2.175 large spills (e.g., greater than or equal to 500 

barrels of oil, but less than 120,000 barrels) consisting of an estimated total of 10,440 barrels of 

oil, could occur in the planning area. Small spills (e.g., less than 500 barrels) are currently the 

most frequently-occurring spill type on the North Slope, and primarily consist of the release of 

less than a barrel of aviation fuel, diesel fuel, engine lube oil, fuels oil, gasoline, grease, 

hydraulic oil, transformer oil and transmission oil. Under Alternative A it is estimated that a 

total of 516 small crude oil spills and 1,276 refined oil spills could occur in the planning area. A 

very-large spill, defined as a spill greater than or equal to 120,000 barrels of oil, is considered 

extremely unlikely to occur within the lifetime of this plan. 

The effects of oil spills on subsistence species would depend upon the size of the oil spill and the 

environment in which the oil spill occurred. Spills contained on pads (small and some large) 

would likely have few impacts to subsistence species, as companies are required to report and 

quickly contain/clean-up these types of spills. In addition, oil spills (small and large) on the 

tundra, if they did not escape to a waterway and occurred on snow or frozen tundra, could affect 

small numbers of terrestrial mammals and waterfowl that were unable to avoid the spill area, 

but would be unlikely to have population-level effects. Oil spills on wet or non-frozen tundra 

would have some possibility of seeping into lakes and streams, and very large spills would most 

likely contaminate a waterway. Oil spills directly into a water body, particularly under 

conditions that made them difficult to contain, such as during breakup or when there is broken

ice, could spread widely and be toxic to fish and waterfowl, leading to long-term, population 

level effects. In the nearshore environment, a large to very large spill, particularly when there is 

broken ice or storm conditions, could also affect marine mammals, such as seals, and beluga and 

bowhead whales. 

The Iñupiat people consider contamination from oil spills in nearshore waters to be a

catastrophic possibility that would threaten their very existence (Brower 1976, Itta 2001). A 

large or very large oil spill into nearshore or riverine environments could cause injury or death 

to bowhead whales, or cause them to move off of their normal course, thereby making them

unavailable for subsistence harvest for Nuiqsut, Barrow, Wainwright, and possibly other 

communities. In this unlikely event, residents of both whaling and non-whaling communities 

would lose an important source of subsistence food as well as face issues of contamination, 

increased cost and effort to replace lost resources, social disruption due to resource damage and 

inability to participate in whaling, and financial hardship cause by the loss of a major source of 

4-205 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

subsistence food. Subsistence users would likely also allow for a period of time for the 

resources, especially bowhead whales, to recover following exposure to oil. Such an event could 

also trigger a reduction in the International Whaling Commission subsistence bowhead whale 

quota, causing hardship to all subsistence whaling communities in Alaska, Arctic Canada, and 

Eastern Siberia. 

A spill could interrupt subsistence seal hunting and fishing in riverine, lacustrine, or nearshore 

environments. The effects of a spill into lakes, rivers, or nearshore waters would extend beyond 

the margins of the spill itself, and concerns about contamination would last for many years. In 

Barrow, marine mammals, including seals and whales, supply from 53 to 74% of the total 

subsistence harvest by weight. Marine mammal harvests in Nuiqsut ranged from 8% in a poor

year to 35% in a more successful bowhead whale harvest year. In Wainwright, the marine 

mammal harvest comprises 70% of the annual harvest during a successful bowhead year. 

Atqasuk residents harvest seals, and may harvest whales in cooperation with other 

communities, while Anaktuvuk Pass residents depend on trade for marine mammal products. 

An oil spill (of any volume) into a river system or lake could affect subsistence fish harvests. 

Loss of some portion of the subsistence fish harvest from the planning area would negatively 

affect Barrow and Nuiqsut. Nuiqsut has depended upon fish for 30 to 45% of its total 

subsistence harvest by weight⎯the larger number when no bowhead whales were harvested.

Barrow, Atqasuk, and Anaktuvuk Pass depend on subsistence fish harvests for varying 

proportions of their diet. A worst-case scenario would result from a spill into lakes, rivers, or 

nearshore waters, particularly in key areas such as spawning and feeding areas and 

overwintering habitat. In addition, broken ice conditions pose significant challenges to timely 

and effective cleanup. Any impact due to an oil spill would compound risks associated with 

current contamination levels. 

Oil spills also have the potential to impact subsistence harvest patterns indirectly, in that 

subsistence users would decrease harvests of subsistence resources due to contamination 

concerns. For example, the people of Nuiqsut have a contamination issue with regard to burbot 

livers, which many residents believe should not be eaten because of high levels of toxic 

chemicals. According to interviewees, residents have been advised not to eat more than six 

burbot livers, the amount of one meal according to interviewees (SRBA 2003a,b). Despite 

scientific evidence to the contrary, numerous residents of Nuiqsut still believe that burbot livers 

are unsafe, and therefore, refrain from ingesting them. If the spill were to occur on the tundra, 

subsistence harvesters would not harvest caribou or other consumed resources from the general 

area. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Effects on subsistence resources and harvest patterns from natural gas development and 

production would occur in much the same way as effects would occur from oil development and 

production, though there would be no crude oil spills from gas production. Winter burial of the 

pipeline would potentially disrupt caribou and subsistence hunters, though once buried, a gas 

pipeline should not have additional impacts on subsistence. If a natural gas well blowout

occurred, the subsistence harvest of any species in the vicinity could be affected and, if an 

explosion and fire occurred, subsistence resources in the immediate vicinity could be killed. 

Natural gas and condensates that did not burn in the blowout would be hazardous to any 

organism exposed in high concentrations. However, natural gas vapors and condensates would 

be dispersed very rapidly from the blowout site (1 km downwind for about 1 day) and would 

affect only those species in the immediate vicinity of the accident. While such an effect would 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-206 

Alternative A (No Action): Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

be relatively short term and localized and likely would not measurably affect the regional 

population of any species, it could cause disruption to subsistence harvests in the area of the 

blowout. In addition, subsistence hunters, who already tend to avoid oil field infrastructure, 

may be even more likely to avoid gas fields for fear of a well blowout. 

4.3.12.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations 

Many of the lease stipulations outlined in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD relate to ensuring 

the continued health of subsistence resources and wildlife (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998). Oil 

and gas development is subject to continuous improvements in methods, and each new 

generation of technology improves safety and reliability. Many of the lease stipulations reflect 

knowledge gained from past mistakes and reflect a desire by BLM to safeguard wildlife and 

subsistence resources from harm. The 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD calls for consultation with 

affected communities (Lease Stipulation 61), which would help include residents in the decisionmaking process for activities that could impact subsistence harvest activities in those 

communities. 

Effectiveness of Stipulations on Subsistence Species 

The lease stipulations in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD would protect subsistence species by 

withdrawing critical habitat for TLH caribou calving and insect relief, as well as habitat for 

molting geese; establishing buffers around lakes and streams; mandating that exploration and 

construction activities minimize impacts on subsistence animals; and establishing conflict 

resolution processes. Buffers along rivers, where year-round surface occupancy would be 

prohibited, would protect fragile riparian habitat (Lease Stipulations 28, 39, and 41). The 

Teshekpuk Lake Surface Protection Area (Lease Stipulation 31) and the Pik Dunes LUEA 

(Lease Stipulation 45) would be unavailable for year-round occupation and would be seasonally 

closed to exploration and drilling. Protections for fish-bearing and deep-water lakes, streams, 

and nearshore habitats (Lease Stipulations 28, 30, 39, 40, 41, 46, 62, 70, and 78) would protect 

fish, waterfowl, and marine mammal species using those habitats. Maintaining the suitability 

of overwintering fish habitat, spawning areas, and feeding habitats are the key goals of lease 

stipulations addressing water and fish habitat management. Agency jurisdiction over these

issues would be dependent on the water body (e.g., USACE on the Colville River Delta, and U.S. 

Coast Guard on navigable waters). 

Protections for denning grizzly and polar bears and strategies for managing human-bear 

interaction have been designed to minimize effects to these animals (Lease Stipulations 2, 24, 

72, 76, and 77). Lease stipulations intended to minimize effects on waterfowl populations 

include 21, 25, 31, 39, 46, 50 through 55, 57, 62, 71, 72, and 73. Caribou are addressed in Lease 

Stipulations 25, 29, 33 through 37, 49, 50 through 55, 57, 72, and 73. The main goals of the 

bear, waterfowl, and caribou lease stipulations are to protect these species while they are 

vulnerable (e.g., bears denning, caribou calving, and waterfowl nesting and molting). During 

these times, aircraft and ground activity would be regulated to minimize effects on these 

species. Raptors would be protected by aircraft harassment under Lease Stipulation 56. 

Under lease stipulations outlined in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD, development could 

proceed in areas that have already been leased. These activities would be bound by the lease 

stipulations of the ROD, with the caveat that procedures for the AO to grant exceptions to the 

lease stipulations exist (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998). Granting an exception would require the 

AO to find that implementation of the lease stipulation would be not technically feasible or 

economically prohibitive, or that an environmentally preferable alternative was available, and 

4-207 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

that the alternative proposed by the lessee would fully satisfy the objectives of the lease 

stipulation. 

Effectiveness of Stipulations on Subsistence Harvest Patterns 

Lease stipulations to protect subsistence species, as listed above, should aid in keeping those 

species available to subsistence users by maintaining population numbers. The management 

goal of other lease stipulations would be to prevent oil and gas activities from causing 

subsistence resources to move outside of their traditional harvest areas (Lease Stipulations 23, 

47, 51, 57, 59, 62, 72, 73, and 78). Additional lease stipulations would minimize conflicts with 

subsistence users by directing industry to avoid subsistence camps and cabins, maintaining 

subsistence access, and initiating consultation for conflict avoidance and resolution (Lease 

Stipulations 23, 26, 47, 59, 60, 61, 63 and 73). Lease Stipulation 71, prohibiting pesticide use, 

would reduce concerns about contamination for some species. Other lease stipulations could 

reduce concerns about the effects of development on subsistence resource availability and 

harvest success (Lease Stipulation 30), aircraft altitude and activity (Lease Stipulations 52 

through 57, and 59), and surface activity (Lease Stipulations 24, 25, 34, 35, 36, 50, 51, and 73). 

Subsistence users in Nuiqsut believe that Lease Stipulation 37, which makes 5 feet the 

minimum pipeline height above ground, would be inadequate to allow caribou passage under 

most conditions (SRBA 2003a,b). 

4.3.12.4 Conclusion 

Most impacts associated with oil and gas exploration and development would be localized and 

would have minimal impacts to subsistence species. Because only 87% of the planning area 

would be available for leasing, impacts to subsistence resources should be less under 

Alternative A than the action alternatives. In addition, the lease stipulations discussed above 

would be protective of subsistence species and would help to resolve conflicts between the oil 

and gas industry and local residents. However, it is impossible to fully mitigate all impacts to 

subsistence use from oil and gas exploration and development, primarily the displacement of

resources from areas of activity, and the disruption to hunters resulting from summer/fall 

aircraft use. 

It was apparent from public scoping and hearing testimonies that local residents are concerned 

about the future of subsistence hunting on the North Slope, their ability to carry on with 

traditional customs and ways, and their ability to be able to pass along these traditions to their 

children. These issues are discussed in more detail in the next section. 

4.3.13 Sociocultural Systems 

The social and cultural effects of this plan would take place against a background of other 

continuing social effects caused by both oil development and the ongoing adaptation of Iñupiat 

residents to changing social, political, technological, and economic factors associated with the 

rapid introduction of hunter-gatherers to modern technical and industrial society (USDOI BLM 

and MMS 2003). The primary aspects of the sociocultural systems covered in this analysis 

include social organization, cultural values, and social health, as described in section 3.4.3, 

Sociocultural Systems. 

Effects on social organization and cultural values from increased industrial activities, 

population, and employment, and from changes in subsistence harvest patterns associated with 

oil and gas development, could be brought about at both the community and regional level, as 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-208 

Alternative A (No Action): Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Iñupiat cultural values and social organization transcend individual communities. Iñupiat are

mobile between communities and often have lived in several communities over their lifetimes. 

Extensive kinship ties exist between communities and the value placed on subsistence activities 

and distribution is widespread throughout the North Slope. 

As stated in Nuiqsut Paisanich (Brown 1979), “Today, as in the past, subsistence harvest of wild 

resources is the central occupation of traditionalist Iñupiat. Most of the people in Nuiqsut and

other northern Alaska villages are traditionalists. Despite their acceptance of many elements of 

Euro-American culture, technology and economy, these people continue to participate in and

depend on the subsistence way of life, either as hunters or as sponsors and sharers of the hunt. 

Subsistence provides such necessities as food and clothing, and it organizes the people’s lives

seasonally, socially, and ceremonially in the defining patterns of their culture.” Subsistence 

activities are the vehicle through which culture and values are passed on to the next generation. 

It is also through the subsistence harvest that successful hunters are able engage in the sharing 

of meat, a tradition that is a significant part of the Iñupiat culture and that is key to the 

cohesiveness of families and communities. 

Potential sociocultural effects associated with Alternative A include, but are not limited to, 

changes in social cohesion, changes in social interaction within and between communities, 

increases in suicides and violent crimes, high risk behavior and substance abuse, and decreases 

in cultural transmission between youths and elders (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998, 2003). These 

problems are also discussed in detail in section 4.3.19, Public Health. Iñupiat values in large 

part originate from and are sustained by subsistence activities and uses that include sharing, 

transfer of knowledge, satisfaction of eating traditional food, integrity of culturally important 

places, and autonomy. To the extent that outside influences come into conflict with those 

activities, they conflict with core Iñupiat values, and produce sociocultural consequences. In this

sense, cultural values are a standard against which change can be compared. The impending 

change could allow greater opportunities for Iñupiat to realize their values and goals, or it could 

constrain and restrict the realization of these values and goals. In general, modernization in 

Inuit societies has been associated with the displacement of traditional subsistence-based 

sociocultural systems (Curtis et al. 2005; Shepard and Rode 1996). 

An analysis of the social organization of a society involves examining how people are divided 

into social groups and networks. Activities such as the sharing of subsistence foods are 

profoundly important to the maintenance of Iñupiat family ties, kinship networks, and a sense 

of community well-being. In rural Alaskan Native communities, task groups associated with 

subsistence harvests are important in defining social roles and kinship. The individuals one 

cooperates with help define kin ties, and the distribution of specific tasks reflects and reinforces 

the roles of husbands, wives, grandparents, children, friends, and others (USDOI BLM and 

MMS 1998, 2003). Social groups generally are based on kinship and marriage systems, as well 

as on nonbiological alliance groups formed by characteristics such as age, sex, ethnicity, 

community, and trade. Kinship relations and nonbiological alliances serve to extend and ensure 

cooperation within the society. Social organization on the North Slope centers on group

subsistence activities and on an extensive network that shares subsistence resources. An influx 

of a new population that caused growth in the community or change in the organization of social 

groups and networks could affect social organization. The interdependence of individuals 

within social and family kinship networks is known as “social capital.” Measures of social 

capital tend to be high in subsistence-based cultures, and are associated with increased wellbeing and improved physical health (Wilkinson and Marmot 2003). Disruption of subsistence 

harvest task groups would damage the social bonds that hold the community together and 

4-209 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Sociocultural Systems 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

reduce social capital. In addition, disruption of the subsistence cycle could change the way these 

groups are organized. 

An analysis of cultural values involves examining those values shared by most members of a 

social group. Effects on cultural values could result from a fundamental cultural change 

imposed or induced by external forces, such as when an incoming group causes acculturation of 

the residing group, or when a series of fundamental technological inventions change existing 

physical and social conditions. Such changes in cultural values can occur slowly and 

imperceptibly, or suddenly and dramatically (Chance 1990; Lantis 1959). For the system of 

sharing to operate properly, some households must be able to consistently produce a surplus of 

subsistence goods. For this reason, sharing, and the supply of subsistence foods in the sharing 

network, could be more sensitive to harvest disruptions than the actual harvest and 

consumption of these foods by active producers. Disruption of subsistence harvest patterns 

would conflict with cultural values, and could trigger an array of negative emotions such as 

fear, anger, and frustration, as well as a sense of loss and helplessness. Because of the 

importance of subsistence in sharing networks, threats to subsistence activities are a major 

cause for anxieties about oil development. 

Alternative A would maintain the existing lease stipulations published in the 1998 Northeast 

IAP/EIS ROD. The area north of Teshekpuk Lake would be closed to year-round surface 

occupancy and leasing, and would continue to be protected, as would buffers around fishbearing lakes and streams. Alternative A would be unlikely to cause further sociocultural 

impacts to the communities described in the affected environment; however, the existing and

foreseeable impacts of this alternative should not be minimized or discounted depending on 

what projects are proposed and undertaken, where operations are to occur, how they are to be 

conducted, and when they occur. 

4.3.13.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Non-oil and gas activities include use of aircraft and watercraft, scientific research and data 

collection, recreation, overland moves, and solid and hazardous waste removal and remediation. 

Under Alternative A, these activities would be of short duration and would occur in limited 

areas. Research and data collection could result in the diversion or deflection of subsistence 

resources where helicopter or fixed-winged aircraft were used, which could result in local and 

temporary disruption to subsistence harvests of these resources. These localized and temporary

effects would be unlikely to affect sociocultural patterns in North Slope communities.

Archaeological research could increase interest in Iñupiat cultural history; however, some 

members of the community might oppose archaeological research for religious or cultural 

reasons. Recreational uses, primarily rafting and bird watching, would generally occur during 

the summer along rivers such as the Colville and Ikpikpuk, which could create localized and 

temporary effects (e.g. user conflicts and subsistence resource deflection), that would last only 

as long as these users were in the area. Overland moves are, in some cases, necessary for 

supplying communities with bulky goods and fuel, as well as for moving scientific and other 

camp equipment during the winter using low ground pressure vehicles, and are subject to the

restrictions placed on such activities in the lease stipulations (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998). 

Effects from these overland moves would be temporary and would be unlikely to affect overall 

sociocultural patterns. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-210 

Alternative A (No Action): Sociocultural Systems 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.3.13.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Alternative A would withhold approximately 600,000 acres from leasing and development, 

including a large portion of the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area. This would leave 87% of the 

planning area available for oil and gas leasing. Residents living on the North Slope, especially 

those living in the community of Nuiqsut, expressed their view in scoping and

comment/ANILCA 810 meetings on the Amended IAP/EIS that the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS 

ROD was a negotiated compromise between the Iñupiat people, the Federal government, and 

the oil industry. 

Effects of Disturbances 

Effects on Social Organization. As discussed in Chapter 3, the social organization of Iñupiat 

communities is strongly based on kinship, and the relationship that exists between extended

families. It is kinship that defines the sharing network inherent to subsistence use, and 

comprises the foundation for community decision-making and well-being. Oil and gas activities

that result in significant impacts to subsistence harvest have the potential to disrupt the 

customary sharing networks both within and between communities, especially if harvests were

impacted in successive years. However, it is the inherent resilience of the sharing network to 

adapt to changing conditions and harvests that has allowed the Iñupiat to remain successful for 

thousands of years. 

Effects on Cultural Values. Nuiqsut is the community in closest proximity to oil and gas 

development activity. Many Nuiqsut residents have stated during scoping testimony that they 

are being affected by oil and gas development and related activities enveloping the community 

from the east and excluding them from preferred subsistence harvest areas (Ahtuangaruak 

2001). Oil and gas development in the central and southern portion of the planning area, as 

allowed under the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD, could further surround the community of 

Nuiqsut and increase the difficulty, expense, and risk of traveling to desired subsistence harvest 

areas. This development could also divert subsistence users for a distance of 5 to more than 25 

miles from facilities. This would decrease the use of traditionally-used lands by reducing access 

to these lands and lowering the quality of the experience of and connections to the land for 

Iñupiat users. This disconnection from traditional uses threatens the subsistence way of life 

that is a major component of Iñupiat culture. Nuiqsut residents observe direct connections

between the general well-being of their community and subsistence harvests (Ahtuangaruak 

1997). To the extent that oil and gas activities conflict with ongoing subsistence activities, they 

conflict with Iñupiat cultural values. 

Under Alternative A, subsistence harvest areas used by Nuiqsut, Atqasuk and Barrow for wolf 

and wolverine hunting, caribou harvests, and fishing would be available for year-round 

occupation and development, including large areas south of Teshekpuk Lake that are outside

the setbacks protecting fish-bearing lakes and streams. In addition to being used for 

subsistence, this area contributes to the wilderness character and solitude desired by many 

North Slope residents. Oil and gas exploration and development could alter subsistence 

harvests in these areas, thus affecting cultural values such as transfer of knowledge between 

elders and youth related to those areas; the integrity of culturally important places; and the 

importance of hard work, cooperation, and sharing. Areas with traditional importance to

families, such as camps and cabins used by many residents for caribou, fish and waterfowl 

hunting, would be protected by the closed area and stream and lake setbacks. This is consistent 

with the high value the Iñupiat place on these locations. 

4-211 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Sociocultural Systems 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

As discussed in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS, long-term change depends on the relative 

weakening of traditional stabilizing institutions through prolonged stress and disruptive effects 

that could be exacerbated by activities occurring under the planning area. These changes are 

already occurring to some degree on the North Slope as a result of onshore oil and gas 

development, more dependence on a wage economy, higher levels of education, improved

technology, improved housing and community facilities, improved infrastructures, increased 

presence of non-Natives, increased travel outside of the North Slope, and the increasing 

presence of television and the Internet. Data from other circumpolar Inuit populations suggest 

that continued modernization is associated with a trend toward displacement of sociocultural 

systems, including: a trend toward less time being spent conducting subsistence harvest 

activities; less subsistence consumption among younger generations; a greater focus on a cashbased economy, as opposed to the egalitarian sharing network; an increased importance on the 

nuclear family, as opposed to the more-traditional extended family structure (Curtis et al. 2005; 

Nobmann et al. 2005; Condon et al. 1995). North Slope Borough institutions, such as the school 

district that promotes the teaching of Iñupiat language and culture, the Arctic Eskimo Whaling 

Commission that negotiates with industry to protect Iñupiat subsistence whaling interests, the 

NSB Department of Wildlife Management, and other regional and village Native corporations 

and organizations, have been working vigorously and quite successfully at preventing the 

weakening of traditional Iñupiat cultural institutions and practices. Increased social 

interactions between oil-industry workers and Nuiqsut residents could be long term, but there 

is not expected to be a tendency toward displacement of Iñupiat social institutions. However, 

population changes in ethnicity, such as the influx of a large non-native population, could 

disrupt or displace existing sociocultural systems and cultural institutions. Small-scale changes

in population and employment are unlikely to disrupt sociocultural systems or displace existing

institutions (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998, 2003). 

Effects on Social Health. Public testimony indicates a relationship between oil and gas 

development and social stress or well-being (Ahtuangaruak 1997). Studies are currently being 

carried out or proposed to explore the relationship between oil and gas activity and social 

impacts, including: 1) a limited ethnographic and harvest pattern study of bowhead whaling at 

Cross Island (Galginaitis 2003), sponsored by MMS as part of a broader effort to monitor effects 

of British Petroleum’s Northstar offshore oil development facility on selected environmental 

variables; and 2) a MMS sponsored study that will analyze NSB residents’ observations and 

perceptions about effects from past, present, and future oil industry activities and other forces

of modernity on their lives and subsistence whale hunting activities (EDAW In Prep). In 

addition, the NSB has submitted a grant request to the State of Alaska for a study of the 

cultural, social, and economic impacts to NPR-A subsistence communities resulting from 

current Arctic oil and gas exploration and production. Despite the lack of systematically 

collected data documenting the correlation between oil and gas development and social stress, 

years of testimony by residents during public meetings for BLM and MMS oil and gas lease 

sales relate the concerns, anxiety, and apprehension felt by locals regarding oil and gas activity, 

especially with regard to the lack of control they feel over what is happening on their traditional 

lands. Additionally, as described in more detail in section 4.3.19, existing public health data on

indicators of social stress, for example, suicide rates, domestic violence prevalence, injury rates 

related to alcohol and substance abuse, as well as studies on the etiology of these problems in 

Arctic communities, suggest pathways through which industrial activity would be likely to 

impact social health. 

Anaktuvuk Pass could be affected by oil and gas activity in the planning area under Alternative 

A, if TLH caribou were diverted or deflected from their normal migration routes by oil and gas 

activity. As discussed in section 4.3.12, Subsistence, such effects have occurred in the recent 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-212 

Alternative A (No Action): Sociocultural Systems 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

past. If subsistence foods were not available from Nuiqsut or other communities, it could be 

necessary for Anaktuvuk Pass hunters to travel outside of traditional harvest areas to harvest 

subsistence foods, which would increase the difficulty, expense, and risk of traveling to 

subsistence harvest areas. As a result, there would be an increase in social stress, as hunters 

would leave the community for longer periods to harvest resources, and potentially experience

less successful hunts. Indirect effects could include increased competition for subsistence 

resources with other communities, a change in subsistence emphasis to other resources (e.g.,

sheep, moose, and fish), decreased self-sufficiency, and changes in relations with other Iñupiat 

communities. 

Under Alternative A, staging for oil and gas activities in the planning area would occur 

primarily from facilities at the Prudhoe Bay/Deadhorse, Kuparuk, and other existing sites, 

which would reduce disruption to nearby communities. Increasing oil and gas activity could 

increase access to urban communities and cause more interaction with oil-industry workers, 

resulting in the introduction of new values and ideas as well as increased racial tensions and an 

increased availability of drugs and alcohol. Tensions would be created and could result in 

increased incidents of socially maladaptive behavior and family stress, potentially straining the 

ability of traditional Iñupiat institutions to maintain social stability and cultural continuity. 

See section 4.3.19 for discussion on the impacts to Human Health. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Abandonment and rehabilitation activities would likely generate jobs for local residents for 

several years above the level that would exist during operations. However, after the production 

pads were shut down and termination activities were completed, jobs associated with them 

would cease. If local residents were to become substantially integrated into satellite operations 

and the community was to become substantially dependent on revenues associated with their 

operation, and if other oil fields were not active in the area to provide jobs and contribute 

economically to the local economy and government revenues, the community would face a time

of economic depression, which is associated with increased social pathology in Inuit 

communities, as discussed in section 4.3.19. Other potential avenues for maintaining income 

at the standards established in the oil development era have not been identified. Subsistence 

resources would be subject to fewer impacts, potentially improving subsistence opportunities. 

Effects of Oil Spills 

Small spills that remained on land and did not spread to fresh water or marine environments 

would likely have a minor effect on overall sociocultural patterns. Large and very large spills, if

contained on land, could disrupt subsistence harvests, as hunters would avoid contaminated 

resources, and not participate in traditional subsistence activities in contaminated areas. This 

decrease in participation could increase the cost and effort of harvesting uncontaminated 

resources, or lead residents to depend on store-bought foods. 

A large or very large oil spill into a river, lake, or marine environment prior to breakup could 

contaminate a wide area with crude oil. Oil spills in these environments could affect fish and 

marine mammals, and many residents would decrease harvests of these contaminated 

resources. Effects on subsistence and sociocultural responses, similar to those described for the 

Exxon Valdez oil spill, could result from the unlikely, but possible, release of large volumes of 

crude oil in the planning area (Fall et al. 2001). If oil spill contamination concerns or clean-up 

activities were to result in the suspension of whaling, then Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Atqasuk 

would be directly affected for the duration of the suspension, as whaling is the basis for most 

4-213 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Sociocultural Systems 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

social organization and interaction in those communities. The Iñupiat believe that a large 

marine oil spill would injure or kill large numbers of whales, especially during the spring 

migration when whales and oil spills would concentrate in open leads (NRC 2003). In addition, 

the Iñupiat fear that the International Whaling Commission would reduce or curtail whaling 

quotas due to the increased threat to bowhead whales following a spill (Napageak 1990, NRC 

2003). A reduction in International Whaling Commission bowhead whaling quotas on the North 

Slope would result in negative subsistence, economic, cultural, and social impacts throughout 

the region. Whaling is important to the Iñupiat for both subsistence and cultural purposes. 

Organization of whaling crews and preparations for the hunt reinforce social and cultural 

bonds, and processing of the whale often involves a large portion of the community. Therefore,

disruptions to the bowhead whale hunts would affect social organization and add to social 

stress. Sharing of the whale is a valuable part of the Iñupiat culture, and a loss of this resource

would affect cultural values and Iñupiat well-being. A large or very large oil spill into a riverine, 

lacustrine, or marine environment prior to breakup could indirectly affect Anaktuvuk Pass due 

to a decrease in bartered subsistence foods from other North Slope communities. 

Other industrial activities associated with oil development that could have an effect on

sociocultural systems would be those associated with cleanup if an oil spill did occur. In the 

event of a large spill contacting and extensively oiling habitats, the presence of hundreds of 

humans, boats, and aircraft would increase the displacement of subsistence species and alter or

reduce access to subsistence species by subsistence hunters. Because oil spills would be small, 

chronic events, and would normally be contained on the drill pad, effects from the spills 

themselves and potential disruption from clean-up activities are not likely to cause great 

disturbance to sociocultural systems or the surrounding environment. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Effects on sociocultural systems under Alternative A and all other alternatives would be due to 

effects on subsistence harvest patterns, changes in employment and population, and effects on 

public health. In the event of natural gas development and production in the planning area, 

there could be an increase in employment and population in some North Slope communities and

subsistence use patterns may be affected as described in section 4.3.12. The amount of 

employment and population change would probably differ among the alternatives in rough 

proportion to the amount of oil production and infrastructure development that would occur

under each alternative; therefore, it is likely that least amount of employment and population 

impacts would occur under Alternative A. 

4.3.13.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations 

Under Alternative A, lease stipulations identified in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD would 

remain in effect. These lease stipulations were the result of 18 months of intensive consultation 

among the communities near the planning area and the local, state, and Federal agencies with 

management interests in NPR-A lands and waters. The 79 lease stipulations provide 

protections for subsistence resources, cabins, camps, and river corridors, as well as the system 

of negotiating conflicts between permittees, leaseholders, and subsistence users. Lease 

stipulations relevant to sociocultural effects are also described in section 4.3.12, Subsistence. 

Under Alternative A, Lease Stipulation 39 would prohibit permanent oil and gas facilities, 

including roads, airstrips, and pipelines, within and adjacent to listed water bodies in order to 

protect fish and raptor habitat, cultural, and paleontological resources, and subsistence and 

other resource values (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998). Lease Stipulation 47 would prohibit 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-214 

Alternative A (No Action): Sociocultural Systems 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

permanent oil and gas facilities within 1 mile of known long-term cabins or long-term 

campsites. Lease Stipulations 59 through 62 specifically address subsistence (e.g., management 

plans, consultation, and access to traditional use areas). Lease Stipulation 63 outlines an 

orientation program for all personnel involved in exploration or development and production

activities. The purpose of this orientation would be to inform individuals working on the project

of specific types of environmental, social, and cultural concerns that relate to the planning area 

and increase sensitivity and understanding of personnel to community values, customs, and 

lifestyles in areas in which personnel would be operating. Lease Stipulation 64 would require 

lessees to conduct an inventory of known traditional land use sites prior to any field activity, 

develop a plan to avoid these sites and mitigate any potential damage that could result from

field activities, and indicate how local subsistence users would be provided access to the site. 

Lease Stipulation 73 would prohibit hunting and trapping by a lessee's employees, agents, and 

contractors when these persons are on “work status,” and would prohibit use of lessee facilities, 

equipment, or transport for personnel access or aid in hunting and trapping. Lease Stipulation 

74 would require lessees to conduct a cultural and paleontological resources survey prior to any 

ground-disturbing activity. If any potential cultural or paleontological resource were found 

during oil and gas activities, then the lessee or their designated representative would be 

required to notify the AO and suspend all operations in the immediate area of such discovery 

until written authorization to proceed was issued by the AO. 

The implementation of the 1998 prescriptive lease stipulations has been underway for a 

relatively short period of time, limiting an empirical assessment of their effectiveness. However, 

the 1998 lease stipulations were developed through extensive consultation with local 

communities, and many local residents have testified that they believe the prescriptive 

stipulations in the 1998 ROD are effective at adequately mitigating impacts resulting from oil 

and gas activity and development in the NPR-A. 

4.3.13.4 Conclusion 

Oil and gas development in the planning area could surround the community of Nuiqsut, and 

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. Nuiqsut residents report in public testimony and 

scoping direct connections between the general well-being of their community and subsistence 

harvests (e.g., Ahtuangaruk 1997). To the extent that oil and gas activities conflict with ongoing 

subsistence activities, they conflict with Iñupiat cultural values and pose a risk to social health. 

The lease stipulations listed in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD were the result of several 

years of collaboration between the communities near the planning area and the local, state, and 

Federal agencies with management interests in NPR-A lands and waters. The prescriptive

approach adopted in 1998 gained legitimacy and credibility through the extended consultation 

leading to the final decision. The lease stipulations provide protections for subsistence 

resources, cabins, camps, and river corridors, as well as the system of negotiating conflicts 

between permittees, leaseholders and subsistence users, through the Subsistence Advisory 

Panel. Although these lease stipulations would not eliminate conflicts between Iñupiat cultural 

values and oil and gas development activities, they would help to reduce these risks and allow 

Iñupiat cultural values to coexist with development. 

4-215 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Sociocultural Systems 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.3.14 Environmental Justice 

Executive Order No. 12898 of February 1994 is “intended to promote nondiscrimination in 

Federal programs substantially affecting human health and the environment, and to provide 

minority communities and low-income communities access to public information on, and an 

opportunity for participation in, matters relating to human health and the environment.” EO 

12898 requires that Federal agencies collect and analyze information on the human health and 

subsistence effects, and to use this information to “determine whether their programs, policies,

and activities have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects 

on minority populations and low-income populations.” 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for evaluating the potential environmental 

effects of projects require specific identification of minority populations when either: 1) a 

minority population exceeds 50% of the population of the affected area; or 2) a minority 

population represents a meaningfully greater increment of the affected population than of the 

population of some other appropriate geographic unit, as a whole. CEQ guidance on

implementing EO 12898 suggest that to accomplish these goals, “Agencies should consider 

relevant public health data and industry data concerning the potential for multiple or 

cumulative exposure to human health or environmental hazards in the affected population.” 

The CEQ further recommends that agencies specifically solicit input from local public health 

agencies and experts. 

An extensive effort was made to provide all interested parties in the project vicinity with access 

to public information and opportunities to participate in the review process for this amendment 

(see section 3.4.4, Environmental Justice, and Chapter 5, Consultation and 

Coordination). An informational letter was sent to individuals, organizations, Federal, state, 

and local agencies, and Alaska Native groups describing the proposed planning effort and

requesting comments. Similar notices were published in newspapers in the area. Several 

meetings were held on the North Slope to solicit local community input early in the process. 

Every effort was made in the public consultation process to ensure that access to information 

was available to all interested parties in a non-discriminatory manner. 

Subsistence activities in the planning area are important for providing dietary sustenance, and 

contribute to the health and well-being of North Slope residents. As a consequence, impacts to 

subsistence resources and access to those resources have a direct relationship to the analysis of 

whether the alternatives would have a disproportionate effect on minority and low-income

populations. 

4.3.14.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

As noted throughout this document, and in sections 4.3.12 Subsistence and 4.3.19 Public 

Health, in particular, the non-oil and gas activities likely to occur in the planning area would 

primarily be transitory in nature, of short duration, and highly localized. The effects of these 

activities on subsistence resources would be to temporarily divert or disturb subsistence species 

from their normal movement patterns or activities. Consequently, there could be an effect on 

the subsistence hunting activities of the local minority population as a result of non-oil and gas 

activities. These effects would be minor, temporary, short term, and generally highly localized. 

The effects on health, as described in section 4.3.19.1, would likely be sporadic and limited to

impacts on individuals or families as opposed to impacting the health of the minority 

population. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-216 

Alternative A (No Action): Environmental Justice 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.3.14.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbance 

Under Alternative A, oil and gas activities could have long-term effects on several terrestrial 

mammal species, although the effects would be localized in nature. Infrequent and localized

effects on waterfowl harvested for subsistence could also occur. Onshore oil and gas activities 

would be expected to have little or no effect on marine mammals, but noise and disturbance 

associated with offshore barge and vessel traffic could impact bowhead whale migration 

patterns under Alternative A. There are concerns that, depending on the particular activity 

and, especially, the location of the activity, actions occurring under Alternative A could cause 

widespread effects on fish, perhaps to the level of affecting populations. All of these effects 

would be mostly experienced primarily by the subsistence dependent minority Iñupiat 

population. 

Section 4.3.19.1 indicates that there could be substantial impacts to human health under 

Alternative A. These impacts would occur as a result of: potential restrictions in subsistence 

harvest and consumption; the influx of large numbers of outside workers; new access routes to

the community; sociocultural and economic change; altered employment; and emissions. 

Diabetes, hypertension, and related metabolic disorders would be expected to increase as 

subsistence is curtailed or as sociocultural changes lead to alterations in dietary patterns. These 

health outcomes would be mitigated by measures which protect subsistence, but as 

displacement of fish, caribou, and potentially whales are still anticipated, mitigation would not 

be entirely effective. Cancer, lung disease, endocrine disruption, and neurodevelopmental delay 

are related to contaminants common to oil and gas development. However, the existing data, 

though incomplete, are reassuring as to present levels of contaminants. Social pathology could

also result from the anticipated economic changes, increased access to drugs and alcohol, and 

from stress. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Activities associated with dismantling and removing of production pads and facilities could 

disproportionately impact Nuiqsut residents through disturbance, displacement, and mortality 

of subsistence resources, through subsistence users’ avoidance of areas undergoing 

dismantlement and removal, and through potential impacts to water and air quality, and noise. 

Once abandonment and rehabilitation were completed, Nuiqsut residents would be 

disproportionately impacted by the reduction in local and Native corporation revenues and by 

fewer local jobs and business opportunities. Since economic depression is associated with 

increased social pathology, this could result in increases in domestic violence, injury, drug and 

alcohol problems, and suicide. Local residents could benefit from a reduction in impacts on 

subsistence resources, compared to during construction and operation. 

Effects of Oil Spills 

The effects of oil spills on subsistence species would greatly depend upon the size of the oil spill 

and the environment in which the oil spill occurred. Tundra oil spills could affect small 

numbers of terrestrial mammals and waterfowl unable to avoid the spill area, but would be 

unlikely to have population level effects. Oil spills directly into a water body, particularly in 

difficult to contain conditions, such as breakup or broken ice, could spread widely and have 

long-term, population level effects on fish and waterfowl. In the nearshore environment, a large 

4-217 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Environmental Justice 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

to very large spill, particularly during broken ice or storm conditions, could affect marine 

mammals including seals, and beluga and bowhead whales. 

The Iñupiat people consider contamination from oil spills in nearshore waters to be a

catastrophic possibility that would threaten their very existence, primarily because of the 

potential effects of spills on bowhead whales, which are a very important part of their culture in 

addition to being a favored food source (Brower 1976, Itta 2001). These effects include acute or 

chronic toxicity to whales or their prey. Thus, a major oil spill would result in effects that would 

impact Iñupiat subsistence users more than other human groups. Oil spills can also be 

associated with toxicological health effects in human populations, as outlined in section 4.3.19. 

Furthermore, if a large spill resulted in a substantial decrease in consumption of subsistence 

foods, food insecurity and hunger as well as diabetes and related metabolic disorders could 

increase. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Environmental Justice impacts of gas development for Alternative A would be largely 

attributable to impacts to subsistence, sociocultural changes, and public health impacts and are 

described, respectively, in sections 4.3.12, 4.3.13, and 4.3.19. While impacts from an oil spill 

would not be a factor, it is possible that well blowouts or the fear of blowouts would increase

subsistence users’ avoidance of infrastructure. The proportional impacts among the 

alternatives would mirror that attributed to oil development, and therefore the smallest impacts 

would be under Alternative A. 

4.3.14.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations 

Many of the lease stipulations outlined in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD are designed to 

ensure the continued health of subsistence resources and wildlife (USDOI BLM and MMS 

1998). Oil and gas development is subject to continuous improvements in methods, and each 

new generation of technology improves safety and reliability. Many of the lease stipulations 

reflect knowledge gained from past mistakes and reflect a desire by BLM to safeguard wildlife 

and subsistence resources from harm. Lease Stipulation 61 calls for consultation with affected 

communities, which would help include residents in the processes that could change subsistence 

harvest activities in those communities. 

Lease stipulations to protect subsistence species should aid in keeping those species available to 

subsistence users by maintaining population numbers. The management goal of other lease 

stipulations would be to prevent oil and gas activities from harming or disturbing subsistence 

resources. 

4.3.14.4 Conclusion 

Several lease sales have already taken place in the planning area. Exploration programs, 

consisting of seismic testing and drilling using ice pads and roads, are ongoing. Residents of 

Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Atqasuk have noted some effects from these activities on subsistence

(SRBA 2003a,b). One effect included the redistribution of caribou, wolves, and wolverines in 

response to seismic activity and cat trains operating in the NPR-A. While these effects would 

continue under Alternative A, most effects of disturbance would be localized, short term, and 

relatively minor. Since the amount of area available for leasing, and the number of seismic 

operations proposed is less, the effects to subsistence resources should be less under this 

alternative than the action alternatives. Effects from oil spills would depend greatly on the 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-218 

Alternative A (No Action): Environmental Justice 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

size, location, and season of the spill. Small spills on gravel pads would have little or no 

environmental justice effects. A major spill into a watercourse, on the other hand, could have 

long-term serious effects on Iñupiat subsistence activities. While any major spill would have 

serious consequences, the worst, from an environmental justice standpoint, would be one that 

occurred in a key harvest area or near a community, particularly Nuiqsut. 

The activities under Alternative A could also have substantial health effects, as outlined above 

and discussed in detail in section 4.3.19. Because the population within and near the planning 

area is primarily comprised of Iñupiat, any health effects that occur would disproportionately 

affect this minority population. 

4.3.15 Coastal Zone Management 

This section discusses the potential effects of management actions in the planning area on land 

use and consistency with Coastal Zone Management priorities under Alternative A. The 

following sections summarize the information previously presented in the 1998 Northeast 

IAP/EIS (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998), which has been amended with some additional data 

from studies conducted since 1998, particularly for the Northwest IAP/EIS (USDOI BLM and 

MMS 2003). 

Federal lands within the NPR-A are excluded from the coastal zone; however, all uses and 

activities on Federal lands that occur within the coastal zone or that are expected to affect the 

coastal area and its resources must be consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with 

enforceable standards of the Alaska Coastal Management Plan ACMP, including Alaska 

statewide standards in 11 AAC 112 and enforceable policies of the NSB Coastal Management 

Plan (CMP). Federal activities that affect coastal uses or resources require preparation of a 

Federal consistency determination that undergoes review by the State of Alaska. (11 AAC 112

is the standards section of the amended ACMP developed pursuant to 2003 ACMA revisions; 

the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) 

approved the amended ACMP effective December 29, 2005). 

The coastal area subject to a consistency determination includes a 25 mile strip of land along 

the coast and a one-mile area west of the Colville River. The coastal areas are indicated on the 

Coastal Zone Boundaries of Alaska maps posted on the ACMP web page at: 

http://alaskacoast.state.ak.us/District/swf/nwNSB.htm. 

The NSB CMP addressed in this document reflects enforceable policies approved in 1988. Draft 

revisions to the NSB CMP are currently in review and must be approved by the State’s Office of

Project Management and Permitting, the DNR Commissioner, and the OCRM to comply with 

the amended ACMP. The NSB’s Area Wide Comprehensive Plan was approved by the NSB 

Assembly in October 2005. The primary goal of the comprehensive plan is to protect the 

subsistence lifestyle of the NSB’s largely Iñupiat population, while also encouraging and 

managing economic development. 

Major land uses on the North Slope include traditional subsistence uses and hydrocarbondevelopment operations. Subsistence uses of coastal resources in the planning area have been, 

and will continue to be, of the highest priority to the NSB Iñupiat, given cultural and historic 

patterns of existence within the planning area. Stipulations for development prohibit severe 

harm to subsistence resources or activities or disturbance of cultural and historic sites. 

Stipulations address reasonable use of vehicles, vessels, and aircraft; engineering criteria for

structures; drilling plans; oil spill control and clean-up plans; pipelines; causeways, residential 

4-219 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Environmental Justice 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

development associated with resource development; air and water quality; and solid-waste 

disposal. 

4.3.15.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative A, non-oil and gas activities would be subject to all applicable lease 

stipulations listed in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998), as well 

as any other Federal, state, or NSB regulations that pertain to the activities in question. These 

activities would include aircraft use for point-to-point transport, wildlife, and other aerial 

surveys; ground activities such as seismic surveys, resource inventories for paleontological and 

cultural excavations, research and recreational camps, and overland moves; and guided hunting 

and river float activities on the Colville River from the headwaters to below Umiat. Hazardous 

and solid waste removal and remediation would continue to occur at abandoned drill sites. Oil 

spills could occur from fuel storage at construction sites and camps, but the size of such spills 

would likely be small (a few barrels), resulting in a small area of contamination. Clean-up 

activities are not likely to greatly disturb subsistence harvest activities or the surrounding 

environment. As non-oil and gas activities are normal occurrences under existing BLM 

management practices, it is expected that there would be little net change in the amount of 

disturbance to the primary uses of the planning area, which are related to subsistence resources 

and harvest patterns of nearby communities. 

4.3.15.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Under Alternative A, several ground-impacting management actions would be associated with 

oil and gas development. Most oil exploration activities, seismic surveys, and exploration 

drilling would occur in winter (early December to mid-April), although exploratory drilling 

would also be allowed only from current production pads or platforms sited within a lake body 

from May 20 through August 20 in the Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area. Construction 

materials (and gravel for pads), personnel, and fuel would be transported over winter ice roads 

from existing infrastructure at Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk. Large equipment would be barged to

coastal staging areas in the summer, stockpiled, and moved inland the following winter. 

As previously indicated, although all Federal lands, including those within the planning area, 

are categorically defined as being excluded from the coastal zone, all Federal activities and 

federally-permitted activities must be reviewed for consistency with the ACMP. Therefore,

onshore activities within the planning area and some offshore activities identified under 

Alternative A should be assessed against the ACMP statewide standards and the enforceable 

policies of the, NSB CMP. 

Although the entire planning area is technically outside the coastal zone, it is within the NSB. 

The NSB applies its Comprehensive Plan policies and CMP policies to all developments 

occurring on private, Federal, and state lands. Oil and gas development activities could include 

portions of road/pipeline corridors, including the offshore portions (such as inlets and bays) 

within the NSB boundary. Development activities occurring adjacent to the Colville and 

Ikpikpuk rivers that could affect coastal resources or uses, including activities described in 

exploration plans and development and production plans, could be subject to the statewide 

ACMP standards and NSB district enforceable policies of the ACMP. Policies of the ACMP are 

examined herein for potential conflicts with effects from oil and gas exploration or development 

activities. Potential effects are summarized as succinctly as possible. Additional information is 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-220

Alternative A (No Action): Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

contained in the Coastal Zone Management section of the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS (USDOI 

BLM and MMS 1998). 

Effects of Exploration and Development on the Alaska Coastal Management Program 

Section 307(c)(3)(B) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act requires applicants to certify 

that each activity described in an exploration or development and production plan that affects 

any land use or water use in the coastal zone complies with, and would be implemented 

consistent with, the state’s coastal program. The state may concur with or object to an

applicant’s certification. The state reviews exploration and development and production plans to

determine whether activities that could affect the coastal zone resources and uses are consistent 

with the ACMP. 

The following paragraphs discuss ACMP uses and activities standards and resources and 

habitat standards related to Alternative A and to potential effects identified in other resource

sections of the amendment. Policies of the current NSB CMP are assessed in conjunction with 

the most closely associated statewide standard. Generally, activities and uses that do not 

conform specifically to the standards must “avoid, minimize, or mitigate” adverse effects, which

means avoiding “adverse impacts to the maximum extent practicable; where avoidance is not 

practicable, minimizing adverse impacts to the maximum extent practicable; or if neither

avoidance nor minimization is practicable, conducting mitigation to the extent appropriate and 

practicable” (11 AAC 112.900). 

This analysis is not a consistency determination pursuant to the CZMA of 1972, as amended, 

nor should it be used as a local planning document. 

 Coastal Development (11 AAC 112.200) 

Water dependency is a prime criterion for development along the shoreline. The intent of this 

policy is to ensure that onshore developments and activities that could be placed inland would 

not displace activities that depend on shoreline locations, which include marine, lakeshore, and

river waterfronts. Only activities around Kogru Inlet south of Atigaru Point would require a 

shoreline location, since almost the entire Beaufort Sea coast within the planning area is 

excluded from leasing under Alternative A. Protective measures would forbid most types of 

surface use for oil and gas activities, including permanent oil and gas surface occupancy, in 

sensitive issues areas along most of the coast and near deep-water lakes and major creeks and 

rivers (see Maps 3-6 and 3-7). Leasing would be allowed on lands subject to pending Kuukpik 

Corporation conveyances, but any lands selected before the sale would be deleted from the sale. 

Lease stipulations in place under Alternative A would further reduce the potential for conflicts 

with this policy around lakes and rivers. Specifically, lease stipulations related to wasteprevention, handling, and disposal and spills (1 through 17); ice roads and water use (18 

through 22); facility design and construction (29 through 48); abandonment (58); and 

protections for subsistence and traditional use sites (59 through 68); would reduce conflicts, 

making Alternative A consistent with this standard. Although large equipment could be barged

outside the planning area to coastal staging areas in the summer and stockpiled until winter, no 

development activity would conflict with this policy. 

4-221 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Natural Hazard Areas (11 AAC 112.210) 

This statewide standard permits coastal districts and state agencies to identify and designate 

areas in which natural hazards are known to exist that may present a threat to life or property.

Development in these areas would be prohibited until siting, design, and construction measures 

for minimizing property damage and protecting against the loss of life were provided. 

Flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, storm surges, ice 

formations, snow avalanches, erosion, and beach processes in the planning area should be 

considered. Onshore development would be sited in areas of permafrost. Development in these 

areas would be required to maintain the natural permafrost insulation quality of existing soils 

and vegetation (NSB CMP 2.4.6[c] and NSB Municipal Code [NSBMC] 19.70.050.L.3). Lease 

stipulations (see Table 2-2 in Chapter 2) in place under Alternative A would reduce conflicts, 

making this alternative consistent with this standard. 

Coastal Access (11 AAC 112.220) 

Districts and state agencies shall ensure that projects maintain and, where appropriate, 

increase public access to, from, and along coastal water. Lease stipulations (see Table 2-2 in 

Chapter 2) in place under Alternative A would reduce conflicts, making the alternative 

consistent with this standard. 

 Energy Facilities (11 AAC 112.230) 

The ACMP requires that decisions on the siting and approval of energy-related facilities be 

based, to the extent practicable, on 16 criteria within the energy facilities standard. Lease 

stipulations in place under Alternative A would reduce conflicts, making this alternative 

consistent with this standard. 

Other criteria within this standard require that facilities be consolidated and sited in areas of 

least biological productivity, diversity, and vulnerability and where effluents and spills can be 

controlled or contained (11 AAC 112.230 (a) [3] and [14]). The NSB CMP also requires that 

transportation facilities and utilities must be consolidated to the maximum extent possible 

(NSB CMP 2.4.5.2[f] and NSBMC 19.70.050.K.6). 

Construction associated with energy-related facilities under Alternative A would be required to 

comply with siting standards that apply to all types of development, which are discussed below 

under: 1) Habitats; 2) Air, Land, and Water Quality; and 3) Historic, Prehistoric, and 

Archeological Resources.

 Utility Routes and Facilities (11 AAC 112.240) and Transportation Routes and 

Facilities (11 AAC 112.280) 

These statewide standards require that routes for transportation and utilities be compatible 

with district programs and sited inland from shorelines and beaches. Utility routes and 

facilities along the coast must avoid, minimize, or mitigate alterations in drainage patterns, 

disruption in wildlife transit, and blockage of existing or traditional access. 

The NSB CMP contains several additional policies related to transportation and utilities that 

may be relevant to this analysis. All but one of the policies are best-effort policies and subject to 

some flexibility if: 1) there is a substantial public need for the proposed use and activity; 2) all 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-222

Alternative A (No Action): Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

feasible and prudent alternatives have been rigorously explored and objectively evaluated; and

3) all feasible and prudent steps have been taken to avoid the effects the policy was intended to 

prevent. Transportation development, including pipelines, which obstructs wildlife migration is 

subject to the three conditions listed above (NSB CMP 2.4.5.1[g] and NSBMC 19.70.050.J.3.f). 

Section 4.3.9, Mammals, indicates that interference with caribou movements would be 

temporary and brief under Alternative A; caribou migrations and overall distribution should not 

be affected. Lease stipulations related to the TLH caribou, including restrictions on overland 

moves and seismic work, oil and gas exploratory drilling, facility design and construction, ice 

roads and water use, ground transportation, and abandonment in place under Alternative A 

would further reduce conflicts, making Alternative A consistent with this standard. 

Transportation and utility facilities would be consolidated to the maximum extent practicable. 

Therefore, there should be no conflict with either NSB CMP 2.4.5.1(i) (NSBMC 19.70.050.J.3.h), 

which discourages duplicative transportation corridors from resource-extraction sites, or NSB 

CMP 2.4.5.2(f) (NSBMC 19.70.050.K.6), which requires that transportation facilities and 

utilities be consolidated to the maximum extent practical. Lease stipulations (see Table 2-2 in 

Chapter 2) required under Alternative A would further reduce conflicts, making this alternative 

consistent with this standard. 

The NSB CMP 2.4.6(b) (NSBMC 19.70.050.L.2), under the category of Minimization of Negative 

Impacts, requires that alterations to shorelines, watercourses, wetlands, and tidal marshes and 

substantial disturbance to important habitat associated with transportation and utilities be 

minimized, and that periods critical for fish migration be avoided. The discussion of habitats 

recognizes that alterations to wetland habitat and ponds and lakes would occur and birds could 

be disturbed during construction. These stipulations (see Table 2-2 in Chapter 2) identify 

constraints for the siting, design, construction, and maintenance of transportation and utility 

facilities. Lease stipulations in place under Alternative A would reduce conflicts, making 

Alternative A consistent with this standard. 

Sand and Gravel Extraction (11 AAC 112.260) 

Extraction of sand and gravel is a major concern on the North Slope. Gravel resources are 

needed for construction of pads, roadbeds, berms, causeways, and docks to protect the tundra. 

The ACMP statewide standards indicate sand and gravel may be extracted from coastal waters, 

intertidal areas, barrier islands, and spits if no practicable noncoastal alternative is available to 

meet the public need. Substantial alteration of shoreline dynamics is prohibited (NSB CMP 

2.4.5.1[j] and NSBMC 19.70.050.J.3.i). Constraints may be placed on extraction activities to 

lessen environmental degradation of coastal lands and waters, if gravel is not obtained from

inland sites, and to ensure floodplain integrity (NSB CMP 2.4.5.2[a] and [d] and NSBMC 

19.70.050.K.1 and 4). The amount of extraction required to support oil and gas development 

under Alternative A, combined with the lease stipulations in place, would reduce conflicts, 

making this alternative consistent with this standard and the NSB policies. 

 Subsistence (11 AAC 112.270) 

The statewide standard for subsistence indicates a project within a designated subsistence use

area must avoid or minimize impacts to subsistence uses of coastal resources. Subsistence uses

of coastal resources and maintenance of the subsistence way of life are primary concerns of the 

residents of the NSB. Under Alternative A, nearly the entire Beaufort Sea coast, except for the 

area around Kogru Inlet, within the planning area would be excluded from leasing, reducing 

potential disturbance to bowhead whales and other marine mammals. Teshekpuk Lake and the 

4-223 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

areas north and east of the lake would not be available for leasing. However, access to 

subsistence resources, and subsistence hunting and resource use could be affected by reductions

in subsistence resources and changes in their distribution patterns. These changes could occur

as a result of disturbance from seismic surveys; aircraft and vessel traffic; drilling activities; 

and construction of pipelines, structures, support-bases, pump stations, and roads. Disturbances 

and oil spills associated with oil and gas activities would have short-term and localized impacts 

on the TLH caribou and other terrestrial mammals, fish, birds, and bowhead whales and other 

marine mammals. These impacts would not affect subsistence harvests for Barrow, Atqasuk, 

and Nuiqsut hunters. Subsistence-hunter concerns about access to resources and resource 

contamination would be minimal. Impacts would be further minimized by not leasing in

important caribou, waterfowl, and fishing areas, and by protections afforded by lease

stipulations identified in sections 4.3.7, Fish, 4.3.8, Birds, and 4.3.9, Mammals to protect 

marine and fish, waterfowl, and terrestrial mammals. Surface, air, and foot traffic near the oil 

fields would likely increase under Alternative A and displace some caribou, moose, muskox,

grizzly bears, wolves, and wolverines, but would not substantially affect North Slope 

populations. This conclusion is based, on part, on the established policy that roads and pipelines

be constructed to provide for unimpeded wildlife crossings. Based on the analysis of disturbance 

effects to caribou (described in section 4.3.9) and subsistence (described in Section 4.3.12), and 

the lease stipulations identified in Appendix D, potential conflict with the subsistence policies 

would be reduced, making Alternative A consistent with this standard. 

Policy 2.4.3(d) (NSBMC 19.70.050.D) requires that development not preclude reasonable access 

to a subsistence resource. Onshore pipelines and construction activities could cause disruptions 

to subsistence caribou harvests from access and movement conflicts, but effects are expected to 

be short term. Where access is reduced or restricted, development can occur only if no feasible or 

prudent alternative is available, and is then subject to the conditions of best-effort policies. 

Conflict with these standards and policies also would be minimized under Alternative A by the 

exclusion of the Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat LUEA from leasing. 

Several important NSB CMP policies relate to effects on subsistence resources. The NSB CMP 

policy 2.4.3(a) (NSBMC 19.70.050.A) relates to extensive impacts to a subsistence resource that 

are likely and cannot be avoided or mitigated. In such an instance, development must not 

deplete subsistence resources below the subsistence needs of local residents of the NSB. Policy 

2.4.5.1(a) (NSBMC 19.70.050.J.3.a) addresses development that would likely result in 

substantially decreased productivity of subsistence resources or their ecosystems. Temporary 

reductions in subsistence resources and changes in subsistence resource-distribution patterns 

could occur as a result of disturbance from seismic surveys, aircraft and vessel traffic, drilling 

activities, and construction activities (offshore dredging, pipeline construction, structure 

placement and onshore pipelines, and construction of support bases, pump stations, and roads). 

Alternative A development scenario projects that there would be an onshore pipeline for oil

delivery to the TAPS and that a pipeline spill could potentially contaminate the Colville River. 

A spill entering the Colville River could substantially affect the subsistence harvest by reducing 

fish populations, disrupting subsistence-fishing activity, and curtailing the subsistence hunt by

tainting resources or making subsistence users perceive them as tainted. The effects of 

estimated oil spills of different sizes and their impacts on subsistence uses is discussed in 

section 4.3.12. 

Conflict with these policies would be possible during the exploration, development, and 

production phases, but is more likely during development and production. Special lease 

stipulations (see Table 2-2 in Chapter 2) would be in place under Alternative A (section 4.3.12, 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-224

Alternative A (No Action): Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Subsistence) to protect subsistence resources, particularly lease stipulations that would 

establish procedures and advisory bodies to address subsistence resources, uses, and research 

for inventorying and monitoring; that would require that lessees not unreasonably restrict 

access in development areas to subsistence users; and that would prescribe conflict avoidance 

procedures under which lessees would consult with the NSB, affected communities, and the 

Subsistence Advisory Panel. Under Alternative A, representatives of Federal, state, and NSB

agencies with biological expertise would participate on an interagency team that would 

coordinate research and monitoring projects related to the effectiveness of lease stipulations and

surface resource impacts. Lease stipulations would also require lessees to develop an orientation 

program to increase sensitivity and understanding of local community values, customs, and 

lifestyles, and to provide guidance on avoiding conflicts with subsistence resources and 

activities. The lease stipulations would reduce subsistence conflicts, making Alternative A 

consistent with the statewide standard. 

Habitats (11 AAC 112.300) 

The statewide standard for habitats are specific to nine areas: offshore areas; estuaries; 

wetlands; tideflats; rocky islands and seacliffs; barrier islands and lagoons; exposed high-energy

coasts; rivers, streams, and lakes (including associated floodplains and riparian management 

areas); and important upland habitat. The NSB CMP contains a district policy that reiterates 

the applicability of the statewide standard (NSB CMP 2.4.5.2[g] and NSBMC 19.70.050.K.7), 

plus several others that augment the overall policy or can be related to activities within a 

specific habitat. Under Alternative A, particularly sensitive habitat areas would be excluded 

from leasing. The special lease stipulations developed for Alternative A would provide

protection for birds, terrestrial mammals, and fish and their habitats. Therefore, conflicts with 

the ACMP standards would be reduced and activities under Alternative A would be consistent 

with the statewide standard. 

The ACMP statewide standard for habitats in the coastal zone requires that habitats be 

managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts to habitat resources. This

policy is supported by an NSB CMP policy requiring that development be located, designed, and 

maintained in a manner that prevents substantial impacts on fish and wildlife and their 

habitats, including water circulation and drainage patterns and coastal processes (NSB CMP 

2.4.5.2[b] and NSBMC 19.70.050.K.2). In addition, vehicles, vessels, and aircraft that are likely 

to cause disturbance must avoid areas where species that are sensitive to noise or movement 

are concentrated, at times when such species are concentrated (NSB CMP 2.4.4[a] and NSBMC 

19.70.050.I.1). Some disturbances associated with exploration and development would be 

mitigated by lease stipulations placed on permits. Special lease stipulations in place under 

Alternative A would reduce potential conflicts, and the activities would be consistent with the 

statewide standard. 

Oil and gas development activities could affect several of the habitats identified in the statewide 

standard, including lagoons, wetlands, rivers, lakes, and streams. Therefore, onshoredevelopment activities would need to be designed and constructed to “avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate significant adverse impacts” to natural water flow and drainage patterns, and 

competing uses such as commercial, recreational, or subsistence uses, to the extent that those 

uses are determined to be in competition with the proposed use. Water impoundments created

by a pipeline/road corridor would have both positive and negative effects. In localized areas near 

the pipeline/road complex, impoundments would benefit some waterfowl by creating additional 

habitat, but would displace other nesting birds. 

4-225 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

It is expected that caribou of the CAH and TLH would be disturbed and their movements 

delayed along the pipeline during periods of air overflights (i.e. pipeline inspections), but that 

disturbances would not affect migrations or overall distribution. It is expected that surface, air,

and foot traffic near the oil fields would increase under Alternative A, displacing some caribou,

moose, muskox, grizzly bears, wolves, and wolverines, though not enough to affect North Slope

populations. The NSB CMP policy 2.4.6(e) (NSBMC 19.70.050.L.5) emphasizes that roads and 

pipelines must provide for unimpeded wildlife crossing and provides a set of guidelines and an 

intent statement specifically to implement the policy. 

Rivers, lakes, and streams are managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse 

impacts to natural water flow, active floodplains, and natural vegetation within riparian 

management areas. Pipeline and road construction, including gravel extraction, could affect 

these waterways and would need to be conducted in a manner that would ensure the protection 

of riverine habitat and fish resources. Gravel extraction also is regulated under policies that are 

described in Section 11AAC 112.260. The special lease stipulations in place under Alternative A 

would reduce conflicts, making Alternative A consistent with the statewide standard. 

Air, Land, and Water Quality (11 AAC 112.310) 

The air, land, and water quality standard of the ACMP incorporates by reference all the 

statutes pertaining to, and regulations and procedures of, the ADEC. The NSB reiterates this 

standard in its district policies and emphasizes the need to comply with specific water and air 

quality regulations in several additional policies. Water quality can be affected by oil spills, 

deliberate discharges and emissions, and gravel operations. As a precaution against accidental 

spills, the NSB CMP requires the use of impermeable lining and diking for fuel-storage units 

with a capacity of greater than 660 gallons (NSB CMP 2.4.4[k] and NSBMC 19.70.050.I.11). In 

addition, development within 1,500 feet of a coast, lake, or river shoreline that has the potential 

to impact water quality (e.g., landfills, hazardous-materials storage areas, dumps, etc.) must 

comply with the conditions of the best-effort policies (NSB CMP 2.4.5.1[e] and NSBMC 

19.70.050.J.3.d): 1) there must be a substantial public need, 2) the developer has rigorously 

explored and objectively evaluated all feasible and prudent alternatives and cannot comply with 

the policy, and 3) all feasible and prudent steps have been taken to avoid the effects the policy

was intended to prevent. Under Alternative A, there could be some short-term conflict, 

pertaining to water quality and potential oil spills, between this policy and activities assumed 

under this alternative. However, the lease stipulations in place would reduce conflicts, and 

Alternative A would be consistent with the statewide standard. 

Some discharges and emissions would occur during exploration and development, and the NSB 

CMP policy 2.4.4(c) (NSBMC 19.70.050.I.3) requires that these emissions comply with all state 

and Federal regulations, which is consistent with the statewide standard. Discharges of drilling 

muds, cuttings, and drilling fluids are regulated closely. Formation water produced from the 

wells along with the oil is regulated by the USEPA Underground Injection Control program. 

The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has primacy for this program for Class II 

wells in the State of Alaska. Produced waters and drilling wastes fall within the Class II 

category. Some wastes are disposed of through the annulus of producing wells. This activity is 

exempt from the Underground Injection Control program; however, the Alaska Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission also regulates this practice for the State of Alaska. Surface disposal 

of drilling wastes would require a solid waste permit from ADEC. 

Because discharges are carefully regulated, no conflict is anticipated with the statewide 

standard or NSB CMP policy 2.4.4(d) (NSBMC 19.70.050.I.4), which requires that industrial 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-226

Alternative A (No Action): Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

and commercial development be served by solid waste disposal facilities that meet state and 

Federal regulations. Any onshore development under Alternative A would be required to meet 

the statewide standard and the district policy related to solid-waste disposal. Assuming the 

regulations were implemented properly, including Lease Stipulation 13 related to waste 

handling and hazardous-material disposal and cleanup, there would be no inherent conflict 

between the proposed activities and the ACMP water-quality provisions. 

Air quality also must conform to Federal and state standards (11 AAC 112.310, NSB CMP 

2.4.3[i] and 2.4.4[c], and NSBMC 19.70.050.H and I.3). The analysis of air-quality effects under 

Alternative A in section 4.3.1, Air Quality indicates that conformance is anticipated, and no

conflict between air quality and coastal policies should occur. 

 Historic, Prehistoric, and Archeological Resources (11 AAC 112.320) 

The ACMP statewide standard requires that coastal districts and appropriate state agencies

identify areas of the coast that are important to the study, understanding, or illustration of 

national, state, or local history or prehistory, including natural processes. 

The NSB developed additional policies to ensure protection of its heritage. The NSB CMP 

2.4.3(e) (NSBMC 19.70.050.E) requires that development that is likely to disturb cultural or 

historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places; sites eligible for inclusion in the 

National Register; or sites identified as important to the study, understanding, or illustration of 

national, state, or local history or prehistory shall 1) be required to avoid the sites, or 2) be 

required to consult with appropriate local, state, and Federal agencies and survey and excavate 

the site prior to disturbance. The NSB CMP 2.4.3(g) (NSBMC 19.70.050.G) also requires that 

development not disturb newly discovered historic or cultural sites prior to archeological 

investigation. Although the NPR-A is technically excluded from the coastal area, given the 

number of existing sites, it is likely that new cultural and paleontological sites would be 

discovered under Alternative A. However, conflicts with these policies should not occur since 

lease stipulations in place under Alternative A would require an inventory of traditional use 

sites prior to conducting any activities, which would reduce conflicts, making Alternative A 

consistent with the statewide standard. 

Traditional activities at cultural or historic sites also are protected under the NSB CMP 2.4.3(f) 

(NSBMC 19.70.050.F) and 2.4.5.2(h) (NSBMC 19.70.050.K.8). As noted in the discussion of

policies related to subsistence, the latter is a best-effort policy that requires protection for 

transportation to subsistence use areas as well as cultural use sites. There is no inherent reason 

to assume conflict with these policies. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Land ownership would not be affected by abandonment and rehabilitation. Upon completion of 

abandonment and rehabilitation, land uses and management could return to as near the 

original condition as practicable. 

4.3.15.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations 

Lease stipulations (see Table 2-2 in Chapter 2) referred to under each of the ACMP standards 

discussed above, and itemized in greater detail in section 4.3.12, Subsistence, should be 

sufficient for Alternative A to achieve compliance with ACMP and NSB CMP policies and 

standards. While it is expected that there could be land use and ACMP standards conflicts over 

4-227 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

the life of Alternative A development scenario, any such conflicts should be short term and

subject to resolution. Conflicts, should they occur, would most likely result from oil and gas 

development activities interrupting subsistence activities, but the scale of development and

enforcement of applicable lease stipulations would minimize the conflicts and quickly return the 

development to compliance with policies and standards. 

4.3.15.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative A, conflicts could occur with specific ACMP statewide standards and NSB 

CMP enforceable policies related to potential user conflicts between development activities and

access to subsistence resources. Conflicts with the NSB CMP policy related to effects on 

subsistence resources resulting from periodic disturbance and oil spills would be possible, but no 

resource would become unavailable, undesirable for use, or experience overall population 

reductions. These effects would occur in the unlikely event of spilled oil contacting subsistence 

resources and habitats, and during oil-spill cleanup. The lease stipulations in place under 

Alternative A, however, would reduce conflicts, making Alternative A consistent with ACMP 

standards. 

It is expected that disturbance and oil spills associated with oil and gas activities would cause 

short-term and localized impacts to the TLH caribou and other terrestrial mammals, fish, birds, 

and bowhead whales and other marine mammals, but that subsistence-hunter concerns about 

access to resources and resource contamination would be minimal under Alternative A. Impacts

would be minimized by not leasing in important caribou, waterfowl, and fishing areas and by 

implementing lease stipulations. Under the guiding assumptions of Alternative A, and with the 

lease stipulations in place, this alternative should be consistent with coastal management 

policies and standards of the ACMP and NSB CMP. Combined oversight by the BLM, the

ADNR, and the NSB, under the guidance of their respective standards, would be sufficient to

deal with any potential conflict that could arise between Alternative A and the policies 

addressed in this section. 

4.3.16 Recreational Resources 

4.3.16.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative A, some impacts to recreation resources would result from on-the-ground 

management activities such as archeological collection efforts, field camps, survey work, and 

overland moves. Over a period of 6-12 weeks, between June and September, possibly three to

four camps, survey, or collection efforts are anticipated at any one time in the planning area. In 

winter, several overland moves may occur during a single season. Aircraft and watercraft 

activity, and ongoing solid and hazardous waste removal, would also be observable in the 

planning area. 

Temporary structures (e.g., sleds, tents), vehicles (e.g., Rolligons, tractors), noise from

generators, aircraft, human presence, and associated activity all would have some minimal 

short-term impact on the experience of solitude, naturalness, or primitive/unconfined 

recreation. These short-term impacts would be confined primarily to the activity site viewshed 

or noiseshed (approximately 1⁄2 mile in any direction or 500 acres) and are expected to affect no 

more than a total of approximately 2,000 acres at a time (500 acres each for four camps). 

Because all of these identified non-oil and gas activities would be transitory and short term, the 

likelihood of recreationists encountering them in any given location in the 4.6 million acre 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-228

Alternative A (No Action): Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

planning area is probably small. If such activities were encountered, the recreation experience 

and opportunity for solitude on the North Slope would be diminished somewhat. Depending on 

the activity, there may be some increased likelihood of an encounter with recreationists because 

of the propensity to concentrate on major rivers and coastal areas. 

A longer-lasting impact would be trails resulting from overland moves. These trails are created

by vehicles compacting snow and dead vegetative matter that in turn results in the greater 

availability of moisture and nutrients for underlying vegetation the following growing season. 

These trails do not necessarily develop over the entire route of an overland move, but when they 

do they can be very detectable from the air for 2 to 5 years. They usually are difficult to 

recognize from the ground. Another impact along these trails that has occurred in the past is 

vegetation actually being damaged or broken or the tops of tussocks being scraped off. Current 

operating procedures make this an infrequent problem, but one that can occur in conjunction 

with these trails. Because overland moves would be relatively constant from year to year and 

generally follow the same route(s), several hundred to several thousand miles of intermittent 

trail in some phase of recovery (attributable to overland moves) could be visible from the air 

during any one summer season. Though still relatively short term in nature, the linear nature 

of these trails would emphasize the presence of man, which would reduce the sense of 

naturalness and unconfined primitiveness to a small degree. 

Although there are no formal designations of wilderness or wild and scenic rivers in the 

planning area, and none are anticipated at this time, none of the identified non-oil and gas 

activities would diminish requisite wilderness and wild and scenic river characteristics 

sufficiently, to preclude such designations in the future. 

4.3.16.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Exploration 

Under Alternative A, seismic-survey work could continue throughout the area with five 

operations each year. This work would occur in winter using all-terrain low-ground-pressure 

vehicles supported by light aircraft. Seismic crews are housed in mobile camps consisting of a 

train of trailer sleds pulled by tractors. These moving camps, associated noise (e.g., vehicles, 

aircraft), and activities would result in a short-term impact on the primitive setting of the 

planning area and a loss of solitude and naturalness. These impacts would be confined 

primarily to the activity site viewshed or noiseshed, or approximately 1⁄2 mile in any direction. 

A longer lasting impact would be trails resulting from seismic survey operations. Unlike 

overland moves, seismic operations do not follow the same routes every year and the number of 

miles of survey line run can vary greatly from year to year. In some years, no surveys would 

occur. As with trails created by overland moves, these trails do not necessarily develop over the 

entire survey route and are visible for about 2 to 5 years. Because of the many variables 

involved, it is difficult to make a reliable estimate as to the number of miles of trail that would 

be visible during any one summer season as a result of seismic operations. However, oil and gas 

scenarios state that approximately 250 miles (6,060 acres) of line would be surveyed using 2-D 

seismic methods, while approximately 10,560 miles (98,880 acres) of line could be surveyed 

annually using 3-D seismic methods, potentially resulting in several thousand miles of trails. 

Mobile camp trails could add another 840 miles (3,056 acres) of trails. Although some of the

camp train route could be outside of the planning area and could overlap survey line miles. The 

number of miles of trail visible would decline as this phase of exploration slows. Though 

relatively short term in nature, the linear nature of these trails would emphasize the presence 

4-229 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Recreational Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

of man, which would reduce the sense of naturalness and unconfined primitiveness to a small 

degree. 

Approximately 151 exploration and delineation wells are anticipated under Alternative A. 

However, due to the limited number of drilling rigs available, no more than five wells would be 

anticipated to be drilled at any one time. Drilling would occur over several winter seasons using 

ice pads, roads, and airstrips. Temporary on-site location of structures (e.g., drilling rigs); noise 

from generators, vehicles, aircraft, etc.; human presence; and associated activity all would have 

short-term impacts on solitude, naturalness, and primitive/unconfined recreation experiences 

during the winter season. These impacts would be expected to be greatest within a 2-mile radius 

of the drilling site, which is an area of approximately 8,000 acres per well site. Accordingly, 

under this alternative, there would be a temporary loss of solitude, naturalness, or 

primitive/unconfined recreation over an area of approximately 40,000 acres in any given winter. 

This would be equivalent to about 0.01% of the planning area and the potential effect on 

recreation opportunities and experience would be further minimized by the fact that very little 

winter recreation takes place in the area. 

In addition to the short-term impacts that result from ongoing exploratory drilling operations, 

an accumulating summer-season visual concern exists as a result of the greening of vegetation 

under vacated ice pads, airstrips, and roads. This direct impact to the area’s naturalness would 

be a result of the same conditions that create “green trails," the greater availability of moisture 

and nutrients as ice or compacted snow melts. This greening of the vegetation does not 

necessarily develop wherever ice pads are constructed or snow is compacted, but when it does, it

can be very detectable from the air for 2 to 5 years, somewhat less noticeable from the ground. 

Another impact at these sites would be vegetation actually being damaged or broken especially 

along the perimeter of a pad or edge of a road. Exploratory drilling operations and ancilliary 

facilities i.e. 151 ice pads (6 acres each), 20 airstrips (11 acres each) and 5,162 miles of ice 

roads(3 acres/mile) would result in as many as 16,768 acres that would be in a various state of 

recovery from these impacts. 

Exploration wells that do not indicate the presence of hydrocarbons in developable quantities 

will be plugged and abandoned leaving nothing more than possibly a mound of dirt expected to 

be no larger than a square foot on the lands surface. Wells that show potential may be 

“suspended,” and capped with what is known as a “Christmas tree” at the surface, especially if 

the well might be used again for possible oil production. These are essentially a permanent 

impacts (less than 6 feet high), but almost unnoticeable from several hundred feet away. 

Effects of Development 

Up to 23 production pads and 162 miles of pipeline that extend beyond the production area are 

anticipated under Alternative A. While the intensity of impacts would be greatest during actual 

construction and development of these facilities, remaining structures, human presence, and 

associated activity and noise all would have impacts on the experience of solitude, naturalness, 

and primitive/unconfined recreation opportunity during the life of the field. Because production

could occur for 10-50 years beyond the development phase, impacts would be long term. These 

long-term impacts are expected to be greatest within two miles of a pad site (or an area of about 

8,000 acres). Pipelines would be elevated at least five feet and would also impact recreation 

values. 

There would be little if any associated on-the-ground activity, except during construction and 

repair. Long-term impacts to recreation values from pipelines are expected to be minimal 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-230 

Alternative A (No Action): Recreational Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

beyond about 1⁄2 mile. This equates to about 640 acres per mile of pipeline. Under this 

alternative, there would be a long-term loss of solitude, naturalness, or primitive/unconfined 

recreation opportunity over an area of up to 287,680 acres (i.e., [8,000 acres/pad x 23 pads] + 

[640 acres/mile x 162 miles of pipeline]). In addition, it is estimated that long-term surface (i.e. 

two miles from footprint of staging and CPFs) disturbance and consequently impacts to 

primitive recreation from two staging areas (50 acres each) and 5 CPFs (90 acres each) 

including pads, roads, airstrips, gravel pits, and infield gathering pipelines and associated

infield gravel roads (280 miles) would impact 246,300 acres (i.e. [9,300 acres/staging area x 2 

staging areas] + [9,700 acres/CPF x 5 CPFs] + [640 acres/mile of road x 280 miles]). These 

impacts combined (533,980 acres), would be equivalent to about 11.6% of the planning area. 

Short-term, routine/daily inspection flights also would impact solitude and naturalness along 

the length of all pipelines as long as they are in use. The potential effect on recreation

opportunities and experience would be greatest for development activities, because it would 

entail year-round activity and would thus continue during the summer when most recreational 

activity in the planning area occurs. Therefore, the effects to recreation use would not be 

considered a great impact, because they would impact such a small portion of the planning area 

(11.6%) and because there is such a small amount of recreation use in the area. The actual 

effects would depend greatly on where development fields were located relative to major 

watercourses and the Beaufort Sea coast. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

While abandonment and rehabilitation activities occurred, a small number of recreational users 

in the area of rehabilitation could have their wilderness experience diminished by noise, marred 

views, and disturbance to animals which they have come to observe (bird-watchers) or harvest 

(hunters). However, over the long term, these efforts would minimize and impacts to recreation

use would likewise be minimized. 

Effects of Spills 

Most small spills would be confined to a pad. Small spills not confined to a pad usually are 

confined to the area immediately around the pad or pipeline and usually impact less than five 

acres. Therefore, impacts on solitude, naturalness, or primitive/unconfined recreation 

opportunities resulting from small spills likely would be confined to the same area as described 

above under Effects of Development. 

A large spill that reaches a river, especially the Colville River, and moves rapidly downstream 

could have disastrous short-term (and possibly long-term) impacts on recreation values. 

Effects to Wilderness and Wild and Scenic River Values 

None of the identified non-oil and gas activities would diminish requisite characteristics 

sufficiently to preclude wilderness or wild and scenic river designations in the future. 

Potential wilderness values of naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude and 

primitive, unconfined recreation experiences would be affected by long-term development of 

petroleum resources on as much as 13% of the planning area under Alternative A. Despite the 

lost values, over 4 million acres (87%) of the planning area would likely retain substantial 

wilderness values. 

4-231 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Recreational Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

The “outstandingly remarkable values” that support Wild and Scenic River eligibility for the 

Colville River include recreation, wildlife viewing, geology and archeology upstream from 

Umiat, and paleontology and wildlife from Umiat to Nuiqsut. Only a small portion of the 

Colville River would experience effects to these values from activities associated with the 

Alternative A, primarily an expected pipeline crossing of the river in an as yet undetermined

location. Specified buffer areas would provide substantial protection for the Colville and other 

rivers, except in the area very near an expected pipeline crossing. Although pipeline crossings 

are discouraged in designated Wild and Scenic River areas, they are permissible, when 

unavoidable, if measures to minimize effects on the river’s outstandingly remarkable values are 

utilized. 

Wild and Scenic River designation is not planned or proposed for the Colville River, as noted in 

section 3.4.6.3, but the applicable lease stipulations would preserve most, if not all, of the 

character and values that could qualify the river for designation in the future, if local and state 

political sentiments should ever determine designation to be favorable. A potential pipeline 

would not disrupt the requisite “free flowing” nature of the river and, to the degree possible, it 

would be sited to avoid the areas specific to the “outstandingly remarkable values” noted above. 

Selection of a river crossing location for the pipeline would require a permit from BLM, which 

would afford an opportunity for more detailed review of effects on the Wild and Scenic River 

eligibility of the Colville River. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Because a gas pipeline would likely be buried and because little recreation occurs in the 

planning area in the winter when construction would primarily occur, there would be very little 

impact to recreation from gas development. The exception might be if gas development 

prompted some development that would not occur if only oil could be developed. In those cases, 

impacts would be similar to those associated with oil development. Because less land would be 

available for such development under Alternative A than under the other alternatives, it is least 

likely to impact recreation. 

4.3.16.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations 

Although the lease stipulations in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD do not specifically address 

recreation activities and there is no current intention to consider designation of wilderness or 

wild and scenic rivers in the planning area, many of the standards required for development of 

Alternative A would serve to protect recreation values in the area. For example, areas excluded

from leasing and several lease stipulations address protection of subsistence values and wildlife 

in the planning area. Also, surface activity and facility development restrictions serve to 

minimize potentially damaging activity in and near creeks, rivers and lakes. Since wildlife 

viewing, big game hunting, and boating are major factors attracting recreationists to the 

planning area, these lease stipulations associated with Alternative A also serve to protect and

preserve recreation values. 

4.3.16.4 Conclusion 

There would be approximately 2,000 acres in temporary impacts to recreation values from 

activities other than oil and gas exploration and development. Short-term (temporary) 

disturbance from ongoing oil and gas exploration activities would impact approximately 107,996 

acres. The “greening” of vegetation resulting from ice pads, roads, airstrips, and compacted 

snow would impact an additional 16,768 acres. Most of the combined 124,764 acres could be in a 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-232 

Alternative A (No Action): Recreational Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

various state of recovery from the “greening” effect. Seismic operations would result in 

temporary impacts to recreation use over many hundreds of miles of trails and noise and other 

disturbance produced by seismic operations. Short-term impacts such as trails and pads, 

disturbance from noise, aircraft and other on-going activities would not accumulate. 

Oil and gas development would result in the long-term loss of solitude, naturalness, or 

primitive/unconfined recreation opportunities over an area of approximately 533,980 acres (or 

11.6% of the planning area) for the life of production fields and pipelines. 

4.3.17 Visual Resources 

4.3.17.1 Activities Not Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative A, impacts to visual resources would result from on-the-ground management

activities, such as archaeological collection efforts, field camps, survey work, overland

movements, and hazardous and solid material removal and remediation activities. 

Temporary structures (e.g., sleds, tents), vehicles (e.g., Rolligons, tractors), aircraft, human 

presence, and associated activities would have some minimal short-term impacts on visual 

resources or scenic quality, by creating a contrast to the line, color, and texture of a primarily 

horizontal natural landscape. The colors of structures and equipment would contrast with the 

white color of the snow-covered landscape and the various hues of greens and browns, and the 

smooth texture of the facilities would contrast the varied textures of the windswept terrain and 

the irregular texture of vegetation. Non-oil and gas activities would need to occur within the 

Foreground-Middleground Zone of the viewshed in order to attract the attention of the casual 

observer. 

A longer-lasting impact would be trails, sometimes referred to as “green trails,” resulting from 

winter overland moves. Between 20 and 60 trains comprised of one to six vehicles and attached

sleds could engage in overland travel each year. These trails form when vehicles compact snow 

and dead vegetative material, resulting in a greater availability of moisture and nutrients for 

underlying vegetation the following growing season. Visible trails would not necessarily develop 

over the entire route of the overland move. Vegetation could be damaged along these trails and

the tops of tussocks could be scraped off, although current operating procedures would ensure

that such damage was an infrequent problem. Trails would be visible for about 2 to 5 years, but 

some trails may be visible for longer periods of time. However, because they visually modify 

existing vegetation, rather than adding something foreign into the viewshed, trails would not 

produce much contrast to line, form, or texture. The color contrast would be minimal from 

ground view because of the natural variation in hue, and would be almost nonexistent from

more than a few hundred feet away. 

4.3.17.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Exploration 

Under Alternative A, five seismic surveys would occur. Seismic work would occur in the winter 

using cat trains with low-ground-pressure vehicles supported by light aircraft. Seismic crews 

would be housed in mobile camps consisting of a train of trailer sleds pulled by tractors along 

different trails. These moving camps and associated activities would result in short-term 

impacts on visual resources and the scenic quality of the area by creating color contrast between 

4-233 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Recreational Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

the vehicles and trailers and the predominantly white background of the snow-covered

landscape. These impacts would be confined primarily to the activity-site viewshed. 

Trails resulting from seismic survey operations would result in a longer-lasting impact to visual 

resources. Unlike overland moves, seismic operations would not follow the same routes every

year, and the number of miles of survey line could vary greatly from year to year. In some years,

no surveys would occur. Like trails caused by overland moves, trails caused by seismic 

operations would not necessarily develop over the entire survey route, but where present would

be visible for about 2 to 5 years, but some trails may be visible for longer periods of time. 

Approximately 250 miles (6,060 acres) of lines would be surveyed using 2-D seismic surveys, 

while approximately 10,560 miles (98,880 acres) of lines could be surveyed during each 3-D 

seismic survey, potentially resulting in several thousand miles of trails. Mobile camp trails 

could add another 840 miles (3,056 acres) of trails. Because trails visually modify existing 

vegetation, they would not produce much contrast to line, form, or texture. The color contrast 

would be minimal from ground view because of the natural variation in hue, and would be 

almost nonexistent from more than a few hundred feet away. 

Approximately 151 exploration and delineation wells would be drilled under this alternative. 

Given the limited number of drilling rigs available, however, no more than five drilling rigs 

would likely be operating at any one time. Drill rigs (average height of 208 feet) would introduce 

strong vertical lines into a predominantly horizontal landscape. Because they are painted red, 

most drill rigs would also produce a strong visual contrast to the white background of the snowcovered landscape. Winter drilling requires lighting, which would create a visual contrast 

against the dark night sky. Drill rigs, because of their height, could be seen and attract the 

attention of the casual observer if they were located within the Foreground-Middleground Zone

and Background Zone. 

In addition to the impacts that would result from ongoing exploratory drilling operations, the 

greening of vegetation under vacated ice pads, ice airstrips, and ice roads would cause impacts 

to visual resources during the summer. This greening of vegetation would be caused by the 

same conditions that create “green trails,” a greater availability of moisture and nutrients as ice 

or compacted snow melts. However, greening of vegetation would not necessarily occur 

everywhere ice facilities were constructed or snow was compacted. There would also be a “ring 

effect” around ice pads, ice airstrips, and ice roads caused by the death of vegetation adjacent to 

these snow and ice structures. Winter facilities inclusive of 151 ice pads (6 acres each), 20 

airstrips (11 acres each), and 5,162 miles of ice roads (3 acres per mile) would result in as many 

as 16,768 acres that would be in various states of recovery from greening and ring effects under 

Alternative A. Because greening and ring effects visually modify existing vegetation, they would

not produce much contrast to line, form, or texture. The color contrast would be minimal from 

ground view because of the natural variation in hue, and would be almost nonexistent from

more that a few hundred feet away. 

Dry exploration wells would be cut off and plugged below ground level and temporally leave 

only a small area barren of vegetation while exploration wells with production potential would 

leave behind a marker pipe (also known as a Christmas tree), which would likely be less than 6 

feet tall and no larger than a square foot on the surface. This marker pipe would essentially be a 

permanent impact, but would be almost unnoticeable from several hundred feet away. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-234 

Alternative A (No Action): Visual Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects of Development 

Production rigs (two with an average height of 208 feet) would introduce strong vertical lines 

into a predominantly horizontal landscape. Because they are painted red, most drill rigs would 

also introduce strong contrast to the natural browns landforms and greens of the vegetation. In 

addition, burn-off flares and general work lighting would contrast against the dark night sky. 

Drill rigs, because of their height and color, could be seen and dominate the attention of the 

casual observer if they were located within the Foreground-Middleground Zone and Background

Zone. 

It is estimated that long-term surface disturbance from two staging areas (50 acres each), five 

pump stations (20 acres each) and five CPFs (90 acres each) would impact 650 acres. These 

facilities would introduce strong vertical lines from buildings into the landscape of 

predominately soft horizontal lines. There would also be a visual contrast between the simple, 

regular form of the buildings and the complex, irregular forms of the vegetation. Colors of 

buildings and materials would be in contrast with the greens, browns, and blues of vegetation 

and water bodies. Some of the buildings could be up to three stories in height above the tundra, 

and would attract and dominate the view of the casual observer if located within the 

Foreground-Middleground Zone. 

Production pads (23 at 10 acres each), 230 miles of infield roads (1,783 acres), five airstrips (11 

acres each), 11 gravel pits (50 acres each), and 230 miles of infield gathering pipelines (700 

acres) would impact 2,818 acres. The gravel pads, airstrips and infield roads would generally be 

only 3 to 5 feet above the surrounding green tundra, and would be relatively unnoticeable 

beyond a few thousand feet. Infield gathering pipelines (4-10 inches in diameter) would

introduce shiny and smooth horizontal lines into a natural landscape. They would also 

introduce regularly spaced vertical supports into an irregular horizontal landscape, but would 

be associated with other facilities within the disturbance area. Disturbance associated with 

gravel sites from borrow pits or below ground bedrock would generally occur below the ground

surface, with only stockpiled materials being visible aboveground. While these sites could be 

large in size or footprint, very little material would remain as stockpile at any one time. Gravel 

mine sites from above ground bedrock locations may produce visual impacts if material is 

removed from rock outcrops within the planning area. This mining activity would change the 

form of the natural landscape and may be visible from the Foreground-Middleground Zone. 

It is anticipated that as many as 162 miles of sales oil and main pipelines, impacting up to 491 

acres (3 acres per mile), would be constructed under Alternative A. There would be no on-theground activities associated with sales oil and main pipelines, except during construction and

repair. Sales oil and main pipelines (12-20 inches diameter) would introduce shiny and smooth

horizontal lines into the naturally irregular brown and green landscape. They would also 

introduce regularly spaced vertical supports into an irregular horizontal landscape. All 

pipelines would be elevated at least five feet above the surrounding tundra, but could be 

elevated as high as 20 feet above ground level. At these elevations, pipelines would attract the 

attention of the casual observer if located within the Foreground-Middleground Zone. 

Other facilities associated with development would include bridges and communications towers. 

If located within the Foreground-Middleground Zone, bridges, because of their contrast with 

smooth water bodies, and communications towers, because of vertical height above the horizon,

would also be likely to attract the attention of a casual observer. 

4-235 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Visual Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Vehicle traffic on roads during construction and other production activities would create shortterm noticeable visual impacts through the creation of dust. These changes would be limited to 

the Foreground-Middleground Zone. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

During abandonment and rehabilitation activities, vehicle traffic on roads would create shortterm noticeable visual impacts through the creation of dust. Gravel pads and roads may or may 

not be removed and may or may not be revegetated with native species or other appropriate 

vegetative materials. Once closure and abandonment activities including revegetation are 

completed, the strong contrasts with the surrounding vegetation colors created by structures, 

such as pipelines and buildings, gravel pads, roads and airstrips would be eliminated. If gravel 

is not removed and not revegetated, long-term color contrasts would remain between the gravel 

areas and the surrounding natural vegetation. 

Effects of Spills 

Most small spills would be confined to a pad. Small spills not confined to a pad would usually be 

confined to the limited area immediately around the pad or pipeline, and usually impact less 

than five acres. With proper containment and clean-up, there would be no new visual impacts 

associated with small spills estimated to occur 1,792 times over the life of oil and gas activities 

in the planning area under this alternative. 

Large spills, estimated to occur two or three times during the life of oil and gas activities in the 

planning area, would likely reach beyond the gravel pad and enter the environment. Impacts 

associated with visual resources would be to the surrounding vegetation and result in a contrast 

in color between the affected vegetation and soil, and the natural landscape. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Impacts to visual resources associated with surface disturbance and surface facilities for 

development and production of natural gas infrastructure would be similar to those described 

for oil development, though there would be no impacts from an oil spill. If natural gas

production facilities are associated with existing oil infrastructure there would be some 

additional visual impacts associated with pipeline offset impacting additional acres if gas is 

transported on separate aboveground VSMs. If a gas pipeline is buried—considered the more 

likely scenario—there would be some change in line, color, and texture. These changes would 

result from the disturbance of irregular, predominately green, rough vegetation to a more

regular, brown, smooth area of soil as seen within the Foreground–Middleground Zone. 

Facilities associated with a compressor station along a gas pipeline would introduce vertical, 

blocky, colored facilities similar to CPF structures into a predominately horizontal, green, 

irregular landscape and be visible within the Foreground-Middleground Zone and the 

Background Zone from some locations. These facilities would impact additional acres. Since 

Alternative A makes the least amount of lands available for oil and gas leasing, it is least likely 

of the alternatives to create these impacts. 

4.3.17.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations 

Although there are no lease stipulations specific to visual resources, lease stipulations designed 

to minimize impacts to solid and hazardous wastes; regulate overland moves, seismic work, and 

exploratory drilling; and regulate facility design, construction, and siting would reduce the 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-236 

Alternative A (No Action): Visual Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

visual impacts that would occur under Alternative A. In addition, approximately 600,000 acres 

would be unavailable for leasing and development, further protecting visual values in the 

Teshekpuk Lake Special Area. Restricted Surface Occupancy (RSO) stipulations on 

approximately 825,000 acres will help reduce impacts to visual resources by restricting certain 

activities associated with exploration and oil and gas development (see Map 2-1). 

4.3.17.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative A, as many as 11,650 miles of seismic and camp lines will impact 107,996 

acres. Other temporary facilities such as ice roads, pads and airstrips, associated with 

exploratory drilling would impact up to 16,768 additional acres. Most of the combined 124,764 

acres could be in various states of recovery from greening and ring effects. It is anticipated that 

up to 392 miles of pipelines would be constructed under this alternative, creating surface 

disturbance of up to 1,191 acres. There could also be approximately 3,318 acres of disturbance 

associated with gravel pads, roads, gravel sites, pump stations, staging bases, and Central 

Processing Facilities. Visual impacts associated with this alternative would be approximately 

2.8% of the planning area. Approximately 600,000 acres would be unavailable to leasing and 

development around Teshekpuk Lake while another 825,000 acres would have Restricted 

Surface Occupancy (RSO) stipulations. 

4.3.18 Economy 

4.3.18.1 Activities Not Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Recreational river rafting will occur in the planning area, primarily on the Colville River. BLM 

estimates (Table 4.2-A) up to 22 trips each made by four persons taking place each year. 

Employment generated by this activity would result from air taxi service and guide service. 

Neither of these services originate within the planning area. Air taxi services used for Colville 

River access originate in Bettles, Kotzebue, Fairbanks, and Coldfoot. Guides originate in 

Bettles, but may also originate from other locales in Alaska outside the North Slope, or may 

originate outside Alaska entirely.(Delaney 2007) Permitted commercial guided activities will 

result in fees to the Federal government. Operators or guides pay approximately $600 per year 

for BLM permits. BLM estimates their clients pay $1,200-$1,500 each for a trip. 

Other activities such as research or surveys, various ground activities, and aircraft use not

related to petroleum are shown in Table 4.2-A, Summary of Selected Non-Oil and Gas Related 

Management Activities. North Slope Borough residents may be employed in some of these 

activities, as will be other Alaskans and nonresidents. 

4.3.18.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Economic analysis of hydrocarbons in a geologic province is usually performed by establishing a 

statistical model of expected pool size variation in the province, defining generalized 

engineering parameters by pool size, and estimating financial costs of production for each 

engineering model at specified petroleum prices. Economically recoverable volumes include all 

pools where revenues would exceed costs using available technology, factoring in a reasonable 

return on investment. There are several uncertainties involved in the analysis. Specific pools 

are not identified and may require unanticipated engineering solutions to produce. Expenses 

may be higher or lower at the time of development, as the result of inflation, changing

technology, more efficient practices, or other factors. The price of the product may be 

4-237 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Visual Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

substantially different from those used in the analysis. These uncertainties are addressed

through the use of appropriate probability distributions in stochastic simulations, which result 

in a range of statistically defined outcomes. A component of this analysis would be the economic 

impact of management alternatives. This is the analysis that is presented in the Amended 

IAP/EIS. 

For the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario prepared in support of this Supplement, 

it was determined that a more transparent presentation of potential development

characteristics should be presented. Economically recoverable volumes were divided by an 

economic standalone unit size to indicate a representative number of processing facilities 

expected in Northeast NPR-A over time. This is unrelated to the statistical expectation of pool 

size variation. Discounted cash flow (DCF) analyses were performed for each management 

alternative using the single development unit as the sole cost model, replicated by the number

of units expected through the anticipated development timeline. This allowed the use of a

Microsoft Excel spreadsheet model developed by MMS (Craig, 2001, rev 2004, corr 2006). While 

this is a simplified economic model, it allows a transparent presentation of the accounting 

performed to arrive at estimated economic impacts presented in this Supplement, without 

overwhelming the reader with complexity or divulging proprietary cost information. 

In the simplified DCF, general information such as to base year, inflation rate, discount rate, 

and tax rates are entered onto the summary worksheet. This sheet also lists gross estimates for 

various drilling and construction capital and operation costs. The next worksheet contains a 

price forecast. The third worksheet contains the drilling, construction, and production schedule. 

The fourth computes ad valorem property taxes under Alaska laws. The final sheet is the yearby-year computation of revenues, expenditures, and taxes to determine cash flow. These cash 

flows are discounted to present dollars, with the more relevant results brought forward to the 

summary worksheet. These results are used to compare the direct economic effects of 

management alternatives, and do not rise to the level of an accounting forecast. Only the 

unrisked analysis has been performed, since this is for the planning area rather than an 

individual field, diluting the risk of not finding an economic field. 

According to this model, oil production will begin about 2019 in all alternatives. In Alternative 

A, exploration, development, and production are assumed on existing leases or on tracts 

previously not leased. Oil and gas exploration and development activities will increase revenue 

and employment. Peak production in this alternative is calculated at 73.5 million barrels in 

2051, and in 2061. By these dates, up to 5 central processing facilities will be in operation. We 

indicate revenue for 2021 as it is the first year of substantial production for all alternatives 

(31.9 MM bbl). We also show estimated revenue for 2045. (See Table 4.3-B) The fields will 

continue to produce and probably incur other development beyond this time. It is in the future 

that revenues and employment begin to differ among alternatives, as variation in development

and production manifest. 

Revenues 

There are several revenues resulting from oil leasing and production. Bonus bids are monies 

received for the right to lease parcels offered. Bids vary directly with the likelihood of resource 

value. Bonus bids for Federal leases in NPR-A are shared with the state. State property taxes 

are assessed at the rate of 2% on the value of production and transportation hardware. A 

royalty is based upon the Federal royalty rate of 16.67%. By law (42 U.S.C. § 6506a), the State 

and Federal governments share the NPR-A royalties equally. And, the state must give a portion 

of the royalties to local government, in this case NSB. State corporate income tax at 3% was 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-238 

Alternative A (No Action): Economy 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

used in these calculations. Federal corporate income tax is 35%. State severance tax is 

assessed as a percentage of production value of the product at the well head after cost of 

production and transport are considered. In 2006, the severance tax rate was raised to 22.5%, 

and the calculation of wellhead price also changed to include more of the cost of production. 

However, regulations implementing these changes are not complete. Calculations here are 

based upon the earlier version of the tax code, and are offered for comparative purposes. 

Previous revenues from NPR-A are mentioned in sections 3.1.1.1, 3.1.1.3, and 3.1.1.4. 

Bonus bids, estimated to be $10 million, will be lowest for this alternative as no new area will be 

opened to leasing. Exploration, development, and production activities are estimated to 

generate property tax revenue to the North Slope Borough of up to $40 million early in the life 

of the operation. As capital is depreciated, revenue from each field will decline. Other local, 

state, and Federal revenues are also anticipated to increase under Alternative A. Royalty 

payments split equally by the State of Alaska and the Federal government may be as high as 

$1.1 billion by 2045. State Income Taxes will reach approximately $89 million, and Federal 

income tax just over $1 billion. In addition, $606 million in state severance taxes could be 

generated. All estimates are based upon average imported crude oil prices in 2005 dollars from 

the Annual Energy Outlook 2007(Energy Information Administration, 2007). 

Table 4.3-B. Alternative A Revenues (in millions of 2005 dollars) 

Alternative/ 

Revenue 

Bonus 

Bids 

Royalty Property Tax State Tax Federal 

Tax 

Severence 

Tax 

Year 2021 2045 2021 2045 2021 2045 2021 2045 2021 2045 

A 10.0 325 1,193 40 225 30 89 338 1010 165 606 

Employment 

The number of workers needed to operate the infrastructure would be determined by the scale 

of the infrastructure, and level of effort exploring and developing a field, and to a lesser extent 

by the amount of oil produced. A wide range of production volume would be handled by a given 

level of infrastructure. Once the infrastructure was in place, the number of workers needed to

operate it would not depend on the amount of product flowing through it. In contrast to the

Northeast NPR-A Amendment, development as well as oil production is not expected to peak as 

quickly. The lease development schedule for this EIS is aggressive, however, and the number of 

exploratory wells drilled annually depends upon availability of drilling rigs. 

For the purposes of this analysis it is assumed that about ten years of exploration, proving, 

permitting, facility construction, and development drilling precede initial production. It is also 

assumed that development of multiple CPFs will not occur simultaneously, but instead occur 

approximately ten years apart (Figure 4-4). This assumption takes into account the remote

location of the planning area, the availability of equipment and personnel on the North Slope, 

regulatory requirements, and anticipated pipeline capacity. There is considerable economic 

benefit in bringing production online gradually to assure long-term maximum utilization of 

pipeline capacity. It is also assumed that development of each satellite would take about two 

years, allowing for a complement of satellites to be on-line before the next CPF is constructed to 

maximize sales pipeline throughput. It is possible, however, that several large finds are made 

and developed in a short period, or that no economic finds are made for a period extending 

beyond ten years, delaying the development of a new CPF. 

4-239 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Economy 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

It is expected that exploration will begin immediately after leases are acquired. The survey 

effort is expected to be the same for all alternatives. In this alternative we expect five 

exploratory wells each year in six year increments as a field begins. Additional fields will also be 

delineated by exploratory wells ten to thirty years initial activity. Therefore, long before 

exploratory drilling is complete, development wells, central processing facilities, roads, 

pipelines, airstrips, will be under construction. 

Survey crews will be employed for the first two winter seasons beginning as early as 2008. BLM 

estimates 40-60 personnel will be on each crew. This activity will occur at the same time and 

intensity in each alternative. In this alternative, BLM estimates five exploratory wells will be 

drilled with five crews each year for 5 years beginning in 2010. Exploration drilling will employ 

crews of up to 120 workers (using 2 drill rigs) beginning in 2010. By 2017, development wells 

will be added at the rate of 10 the first year, and up to 36 in any one year. Wells are drilled from 

the pad with a central processing facility (CPF) due to be in operation eight years after drilling 

begins. Upon completion of the CPF gravel pad, drilling development wells may continue 

throughout the year. BLM estimates 30 to 60 personnel are required to drill each development

well. Crews are required for construction all facilities. In 2016 this may reach 600 personnel as 

infrastructure and facilities construction is undertaken. Gravel roads, flowlines, sale lines and 

other infrastructure will be added as the first CPF comes on line. Initial production is expected 

in approximately 2019. CPF operation requires 360 to 480 workers on two shifts.(Rothwell 

2007) Sixteen development wells, 10 miles of gravel road, and 10 miles of flowline are also 

constructed the same year. Under this and other alternatives, additional fields, CPFs, and 

associated infrastructure are added incrementally over many years. Therefore, exploration, 

development, and production employment overlap greatly. Production employment will not 

appear distinctly as the only employment component for many years. The employment spread

during selected years may appear as such: 

Table 4.3-C. Potential Employment for selected years under Alternative A 

Tasks/Alternative Year Total 

Direct 

Total 

Indirect 

NSB Direct NSB 

Indirect 

Survey 2008-9 40-60 120-180 3-4 5-7 

Exploratory well

drilling 

2010-15 150-300 450-900 11-21 19-36 

CPF, and 

infrastructure 

construction 

2016 400-600 500-750 36-54 25-37 

CPF operation 

development well

drilling, sale line

construction 

2017 500-680 630-860 35-48 25-34 

Pad, development 

wells, road, pipe, 3 

CPFs in operation,

CPF under 

construction 

2045 1,500-3200 1,890-4,030 105-225 75-160 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-240 

Alternative A (No Action): Economy 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

It is anticipated that total NSB resident employment would capture approximately 8% of 

exploration and development jobs and about 3% of the production jobs (BLM 2005). 

BLM also estimated total indirect and induced employment to be as high as 300% of the 

exploration direct employment and about 130% at development and production stages. NSB 

indirect and induced employment was estimated to be about 170% of NSB direct employment 

during exploration, 68% during development, and 86% during production (BLM 2005). 

During the last decade, 25% to 29% of Alaska’s oil industry workers have been non-residents of 

this state. These workers commute from outside Alaska, and do not generate measurable 

induced employment in Alaska. The economic impact of nonresident employment on the U.S. is

negligible for all alternatives (Fried and Windisch-Cole 2003). 

Commercial Gas Development 

Natural gas development and production from the NPR-A would generate additional 

employment. Construction of pipelines would provide substantial numbers of construction jobs 

for the winter seasons of installation. It is likely that a portion of construction workers would 

reside in the NSB. Once in operation, gas development would not result in substantial 

increases in employment over that associated with oil production. However, if gas development

occurs as oil production is decreasing or ceasing, the addition or shift to gas production may 

prolong employment from planning area petroleum production. Development would generate

additional property taxes and royalty income for the NSB and State, more severance taxes for 

the state, and additional royalties for the Federal government. To the extent that industry is 

attracted to bid on leases for their gas rather than oil production potential, gas development 

opportunities could increase interest and bid amounts at lease sales within Northeast NPR-A, 

providing additional revenues for the Federal and state governments. Alternative A offers less 

land for oil and gas leasing than the other alternatives, so it is anticipated to have less impact 

on employment and revenues than the other alternatives. 

4.3.18.3 Conclusion 

Oil and gas exploration and development would benefit the economy be 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 3,390 to 7,230 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, primarily through the direct loss 

of subsistence resources. 

4.3.19 Public Health 

Decades of testimony and written comments by North Slope residents and organizations has 

demonstrated a longstanding concern regarding the potential impacts of oil and gas exploration 

and development on public health. Recent communications between the BLM, ICAS, the North

Slope Borough, the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, and the EPA indicate that with the expansion 

of plans for leasing, exploration, and development onshore and offshore, in terms of both the

number of proposals and the area involved, public health is becoming an issue of increasing 

importance for potentially affected communities. This section was developed as a response to

these concerns. 

4-241 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Economy 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Methodology 

The effects analysis for public health utilizes the principals of “Health Impact Assessment,”

(HIA) as defined by the World Health Organization (World Health Organization 1999). HIA 

draws on public testimony, literature review, and accepted mechanisms of health and illness to 

establish the scope of health concerns which should be considered. Detailed comments in 

response to the notice of intent for this Supplement synthesizing the pertinent data were

submitted jointly by the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council and NSB. For the analysis of the potential 

health effects, the available public health data, literature from analogous populations, accepted

mechanisms of health and disease, and the effects analysis for other resources are synthesized 

to generate a model, or “logic framework” which guides the analysis. The results of the analysis 

are then subjected to peer review by public health professionals. 

4.3.19.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Non-oil and gas activities include use of aircraft and watercraft, scientific research and data 

collection, recreation, overland moves, and solid and hazardous waste removal and remediation. 

Under Alternative A, these activities should not increase in frequency, would be of short 

duration, and would occur in limited areas. Research and data collection could result in the 

diversion or deflection of subsistence resources where helicopter or fixed-winged aircraft were 

used, which could result in local and temporary disruption to subsistence harvests of these 

resources, and an altered or degraded experience of the land for Inupiat hunters in the region. 

Archaeological research could increase interest in Iñupiat cultural history; however, some 

members of the community might oppose archaeological research for religious or cultural 

reasons. Recreational uses, primarily rafting and bird watching, would generally occur during 

the summer along rivers such as the Colville and Ikpikpuk, which could create localized and 

temporary effects (e.g. user conflicts and subsistence resource deflection), that would last only 

as long as these users were in the area. Overland moves are, in some cases, necessary for 

supplying communities with bulky goods and fuel, as well as for moving scientific and other 

camp equipment during the winter using low ground pressure vehicles, and are subject to the

restrictions placed on such activities in the lease stipulations (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998). 

However, non-oil and gas overland moves are uncommon. 

Overall, these localized and temporary effects could have impacts on individual health 

outcomes, but would be unlikely to lead to significant overall changes in community health. For 

example, local conflicts with individual subsistence users, interruption of family life in camps, 

loss of privacy and feelings of being ‘invaded,’ and temporary deflection of subsistence resources

might all increase stress and frustration for the impacted individuals; stress is known to be 

associated with maladaptive coping, such as drinking or violent behavior, and the risk of this

might increase in individual cases. Deflection of subsistence resources might lead to longer and 

more difficult hunts, exposing individual or small groups of hunters to a higher risk of injury. 

Local emissions or dust might temporarily affect air quality, which in turn might exacerbate an 

individual’s asthma if traveling in the area. Food insecurity and hunger are also possible 

concerns: Inupiat families depend heavily on subsistence resources in the planning area, and it 

may not always be possible to replace subsistence foods with store-bought foods. Sharing 

networks generally help provide for the needs of families who have not been successful 

harvesting food, but if the disturbances to subsistence affect multiple families, hunger could 

result. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-242 

Alternative A (No Action): Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

On an individual basis, such events could be highly significant. But because the activities not 

associated with oil and gas development are expected to be short term, localized, and sporadic, 

they would not be expected to result in overall population health changes. 

4.3.19.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbances 

1. Diabetes, Hypertension, and Associated Metabolic Disorders

Diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia (collectively termed metabolic disorders

here) are among the main risk factors for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases (among 

the leading causes of death and disability in the NSB), renal failure, and peripheral vascular 

disease. Metabolic disorders are disproportionately common in American Indian/Alaska Native 

(AI/AN) groups compared with the U.S. population. However, rates of diabetes in the North 

Slope Inupiat are among the lowest in the U.S., including among non-natives (Naylor et al 2003; 

Bjerregaard and Jorgensen 2004; Zinman.) 

The subsistence diet is the most important protective factor among AI/AN groups against 

metabolic disorders. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the risk of developing 

metabolic health problems increases as the proportion of the total dietary intake from

subsistence foods decreases (Murphy et al 1997; Young et al 1992; Bjerregaard, Young et al 

2004; Bjerregaard, Jorgensen et al 2004.) AI/AN groups are thought to have a particular 

genetic susceptibility to diabetes, such that it occurs at much higher frequency than in the nonNative U.S. population when AI/AN people transition to a more “typical” U.S. diet. Other 

studies have noted that the quality of food available in village stores in rural Alaska tends to be 

low and the expense of buying more nutritious food (such as whole grains, fruits, and 

vegetables) is often prohibitive, such that when subsistence resources are unavailable, obtaining 

a higher percentage of calories through local stores reduces the nutritional value of the diet, and

places people at higher risk for developing metabolic disorders (Bersamin and Luick 2006, 

Kuhnlein H and Receveur 2002). North Slope annual per capita subsistence harvest figures are 

among the highest in the state, and diabetes rates at present are among the lowest, although 

recent years have witnessed a substantial increase (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2000, 

Naylor and Schraer 2003). 

State and local health officials, the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, the Alaska Native 

Health Board, and the North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management have all 

engaged in studies which have helped to document the health benefits of a subsistence diet, and 

all are actively engaged in promoting the nutritional importance of subsistence foods for public 

health. 

Thus, under Alternative A, diabetes and metabolic disorders would be expected to increase if 

impacts to subsistence led to declining subsistence harvests (either through declining 

populations of subsistence resources, displacement of resources making hunting less successful, 

or displacement of hunters by oil activity and infrastructure). 

The likelihood of subsistence impacts under Alternative A is discussed in section 4.3.12. 

Nuiqsut, Atqasuk, and Barrow would be the most impacted, as these villages obtain most of 

their caribou from the TLH; Wainwright and Anaktuvuk Pass also depend heavily upon the 

TLH. Nuiqsut harvests a majority of its fish from the Fish and Judy Creeks and Colville Delta 

portions of the planning area; Barrow and Atqasuk also harvest a portion of their annual fish 

from lakes and drainages in the planning area. Nuiqsut-harvested fish are also shared among 

4-243 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

these villages. Caribou and fish represent two of the most heavily harvested resources, and 

hence impacts to harvest success for any of the villages which depend on the planning area 

could lead to the need to replace subsistence resources with store-bought foods. 

Development under Alternative A would be located in Nuiqsut’s primary subsistence use area. 

Nuiqsut residents could experience further limitation in their hunting range to the South and 

West of the village. Development in the planning area could divert subsistence resources and 

users, decrease the use of traditional harvesting areas and camps, and lower the quality of and 

connection to the land. 

As stated in section 4.3.13.2, this disconnection from traditional uses could threaten not only 

harvest success, but the viability of the subsistence way of life that is a major component of

Inupiat culture and a foundation of health. Dietary change would thus occur not only through

decreased harvest success, but also potentially through a cultural shift away from reliance on 

subsistence. If this occurred, residents could face a substantial increase in diabetes and 

metabolic disorders, likely resulting over the long term in increases in cardiovascular mortality, 

renal disease, peripheral and cerebrovascular disease, and other related complications. 

Modernization and younger age have been found to be risk factors for decreased consumption of 

subsistence foods in Inuit populations (Schraer and Bulkow 1993; Curtis, Kvernmo 2005; 

Nobman, Ponce et.al, 2005; Condon et al 1994). Hence, although subsistence has continued to 

hold its importance as a cultural value, there is a tendency toward subsistence foods making up 

a lower percentage of the total caloric intake. Oil and gas activity is not the sole factor placing 

communities in the planning area at risk for diabetes and metabolic diseases, but rather may 

contribute adversely to an already established trend. 

Oil and gas development may also have effects which facilitate subsistence. Studies have 

documented that the increased income in North Slope villages has provided capital to purchase 

equipment which allows more effective and efficient hunting (Kruse and Braund, in press). To 

the extent that the proposed action tends to increase income, either through direct employment

by industry or through the generation of tax revenues that enable the NSB to maintain or 

increase current local employment levels, this might offset adverse impacts of development 

activities by facilitating subsistence harvest, which might offset the adverse effects on 

subsistence described above. 

2. Food Insecurity and Hunger

Food insecurity and hunger are considered to be severe health problems separate from the

ultimate potential outcomes of severe malnutrition and starvation. Even in early stages, both

food insecurity and hunger are associated with significant psychological dysfunction, learning 

problems, poor self-reported health status, poor overall functional status, and increased

likelihood of chronic illness; food insecurity is also paradoxically associated with being 

overweight in some studies, likely owing in part to the extremely poor nutritional value of many 

low-cost convenience foods (Olson 1999; Vozoris and Tarasuk 2003). These effects persist even 

after adjusting for potentially confounding variables. In the U.S., food insecurity affects an 

estimated 11% of households, and hunger affects roughly 3.4% of households. In Alaska, food 

insecurity impacts roughly 11.7% of households, and hunger affects 4.6% of households (Food 

Research and Action Center, 2006). There are no regional data available. However, although

geographic and political differences prevent an accurate comparison, evidence from Canadian 

Inuit found a markedly elevated prevalence of food insecurity, at up to 49%, owing to their 

remoteness, dependence potentially unreliable harvests of wild foods (both similar to Inupiat), 

and poverty (a less significant problem on the North Slope) (Chan et al. 2006). 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-244 

Alternative A (No Action): Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Wild foods account for roughly 50% of the caloric intake in the Alaskan Arctic, averaged over

the population, and provides well over 100% of protein requirements. In 2000, the monetary

value of this harvest was estimated at between $31 million and $53 million, if suitable meat 

were purchased in its place (ADF&G 2000). Consequently, the potential of impacts to 

subsistence is a likely cause of food insecurity for North Slope villages, and actual impacts to 

subsistence would be expected to lead to an increased prevalence of hunger. Whereas diabetes 

and metabolic syndromes may develop over the course of years, the problem of hunger is more 

immediate. 

Under Alternative A, development could impact subsistence resources, particularly for Nuiqsut. 

The potential of impacts to caribou and fish in the planning area would be a substantial cause 

for food insecurity, but the preservation of subsistence range through setbacks and RSO 

restrictions in some of the most productive areas would mitigate this effect. Hunger would be 

unlikely, but could be a problem if families experienced failed efforts to harvest key resources. 

Sharing networks can mitigate hunger, but if impacts to subsistence were substantial, the 

sharing networks might not be capable of meeting the entire caloric requirements of impacted

families. 

3. Social Pathology (assault, alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence, suicide, and 

homicide)

Health problems associated with social pathology include hospitalization and mortality from 

unintentional injury (secondary to alcohol and drug abuse, abnormal risk-taking, or suicidal 

behavior), intentional injury (suicide and homicide, assault), and alcohol and drug abuse. A 

large body of literature has documented the general association between modernization in 

circumpolar Inuit communities and social pathology (Curtis T, Kvernmo S et al 2005; 

Bjerregaard 2001; Shepard and Rode 1996; Travis R 1984). However, some Alaskan data 

suggest that well-developed and adequately funded political and social systems can allow 

communities to channel effects and economic gains toward more positive social outcomes (Haley

2004). 

Under Alternative A, impacts to sociocultural systems and subsistence could increase adverse 

health outcomes related to social pathology. As discussed in sections 4.3.12 and 4.3.13, if 

subsistence foods were not available from Nuiqsut or other communities, it could be necessary

for hunters from Anaktuvuk Pass and Wainwright to travel outside of traditional harvest areas 

to harvest subsistence foods, which would increase the difficulty, expense, and risk of traveling 

to subsistence harvest areas. As a result, there would be an increase in social stress, as hunters 

would leave the community for longer periods to harvest resources, possibly with less success. 

Indirect effects could include increased competition for subsistence resources with other 

communities, a change in subsistence emphasis to other resources (e.g., sheep, moose, and fish), 

decreased self-sufficiency, and changes in relations with other Iñupiat communities. 

Staging for oil and gas activities in the planning area would occur primarily from facilities at 

Prudhoe Bay/Deadhorse, Kuparuk, and other existing sites, which would reduce disruption to 

nearby Native communities. A trend toward displacement of community social institutions 

could lead to a short-term and decreased emphasis on the importance of the family, cooperation,

sharing, and subsistence as a livelihood. Increasing oil and gas activity could increase access to

urban communities and cause more interaction with oil-industry workers, resulting in the 

introduction of new values and ideas as well as increased racial tensions and an increased 

availability of drugs and alcohol. Tensions would be created and could result in increasing 

problems of maladaptive behavior and family stress, potentially straining the ability of 

traditional Iñupiat institutions to maintain social stability and cultural continuity. Feelings of 

4-245 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

loss, frustration, and disempowerment because of the continued expansion of development 

despite intensive efforts to protect the core of subsistence traditions and lands could heighten

this stress and frustration. These effects could impact health outcomes as follows: 

Access to Alcohol and Drugs 

Access to alcohol has been shown to increase adverse health outcomes related to social 

pathology in remote Alaska Native Villages (Wood and Gruenewald 2006; ANTHC 2006; Chiu 

and Perez 1998). Consequently, all North Slope villages but Barrow ban the possession of

alcohol; in Barrow there is a ban on sale but not possession. Other data have suggested that 

adequate police support in villages can substantially improve social stress (Martin 2005). 

Increasing oil and gas activity could increase access to urban communities, add to the influx of 

workers into the region, and cause more interaction with oil-industry workers, resulting in the 

possibility of increased availability of drugs and alcohol. Residents in Nuiqsut have commented 

on this problem in public testimony: 

We had a lot of problems with alcohol and drugs this whole year. We were lucky 

to get a third officer's position. Unfortunately, our community is also being labeled 

poorly because of this. A lot of it came through the ice road and through various means. 

We had a guy hitch a ride on a truck that came in to deliver either diesel or something of 

the sort that related to the development, who brought in all sorts of drugs and was 

selling them out of the camp. There was at least three that we know of in the last month. 

(Ahtuangaruak 2001) 

Subsistence Impacts 

Perceived and actual threats to subsistence constitute a significant source of ongoing stress and 

tension in North Slope communities. Under Alternative A, subsistence resources and areas 

might be impacted; displacement of caribou and hunters away from oil infrastructure may 

result in longer travel times and less successful hunts. Regardless of the degree to which these 

impacts occur, resident anxiety over the potential challenge to the ongoing viability of their 

traditional diet and way of life and feelings of disempowerment or loss of control over the 

resource development decision process can contribute substantially to individual and family 

tension, which would exacerbate social pathological health outcomes. Speaking about this 

problem, one Nuiqsut resident said: 

When our people can feed themselves, they're very happy. They don't care if they don't 

have a job as long as they're providing for their families, as long as they have the hope in 

their mind of the possibility to provide for their families. You take away that hope, and 

you're going to have many, many people that we lose to the ills of social ills. (Rosemary 

Ahtuangaruak, in MMS 2001). 

Employment 

Increasing employment is generally associated with lower rates of social pathologies, but the 

data pertaining to this question in the Inupiat are complex. For example, one study correlated

high suicide rates in the NWAB with rapid sociocultural change in the context of a period of 

decreasing employment opportunity (Travis 1984). Another study, however, found that in 

Inupiat communities, increased employment was not always associated with improved wellbeing, because of the tensions created between work and subsistence (Martin 2005). However, 

most North Slope residents tend to view employment opportunities as a positive. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-246 

Alternative A (No Action): Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Under Alternative A, it is anticipated that total NSB resident employment would increase in 

the range of 42 to 44 jobs in the peak of development and level off to 17 to 27 jobs during 

production after 2017. Hence, employment would exert a fairly small effect on social pathology. 

Economic Development 

Economic development has generally been found to have positive effects on rates of health 

problems linked to social pathology. The moderate projected revenues from Alternative A (see 

section 4.3.18) could provide ongoing revenue to stabilize economic institutions, support 

services and infrastructure, including public health, and maintain or increase the present

standard of living, all of which would be expected to have beneficial effects on social pathology 

(Haley 2004, Travis 1984). However, large infusions of capital can have disruptive effects on 

social organization as well. An example has been described anecdotally by researchers in 

Nuiqsut. In this case, an increase in income disparity is felt to have resulted from Kuukpik 

corporation revenues which increased as a result of the Alpine project, leading to substantial 

increases in income disparity between Kuukpik shareholders and non-shareholders, and 

consequently in tension and resentment within the community (Galginaitis 2006). Similarly, 

individual employment may contribute to greater relative income disparity between employed

and unemployed members of the community. Since Alternative A is not expected to result in a

large percentage increase in income to any community in the region, this effect is likely to be 

small. 

Sociocultural Change 

Rapid sociocultural change is well-established as a cause of social pathology and related health 

problems in Arctic Indigenous populations (Curtis, Kvernmo et al 2005; Bjerregaard 2001; 

Wexler 2006). Under Alternative A, increased interactions with oil workers could result in the 

introduction of new values and ideas as well as increased racial tensions. Project-specific 

disturbances, such as large numbers of transient workers entering a village, and displacement

and disruption of traditional hunting areas, may lead to feelings of disempowerment among 

residents wishing to protect their traditional way of life; ambivalence among the youth, who

must resolve the tensions between attachment to traditional Inupiat life and non-Native value 

systems, communication styles, diet, and lifestyle; and domestic tensions as family providers 

feel pressure to be both successful hunters and economic providers. Tensions would be created 

and could result in increased incidents of socially maladaptive behavior and family stress, 

potentially straining the ability of traditional Iñupiat institutions to maintain social stability 

and cultural continuity. 

These are changes which are already well established on the North Slope. However, as 

discussed in section 4.3.13, Alternative A could result in substantial local acceleration of 

sociocultural change through the disturbances including but not limited to the influx of 

temporary personnel from outside the region, new industrial infrastructure on traditionally 

valued lands, conflicts between local increases in job opportunity and the need to subsist, and 

infusion of capital to the community via revenues to the village corporation. 

4. Injury Rates

As summarized in section 3.4.10, injury is the second leading cause of death in the North 

Slope, and the leading reason for non-obstetric hospitalization. Figures from the Alaska 

Trauma Registry indicated that the hospitalization rate for injuries on the North Slope was the

highest in the state, at 141/10,000 residents, and over twice the state average. Alcohol has been 

4-247 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

estimated to be involved in up to 40% of injuries and traumatic deaths in Alaska Natives 

(ANTHC 2006). Suicide rates are estimated at roughly 45/100,000; unprocessed arrest data 

show rates of rape and assault from 8-15 times the U.S. rate; the age-adjusted mortality rate for

unintentional injury is 112/100,000, compared with 36/100,000 in the U.S. (Day et al. 2006; US 

Department of Health and Human Services 2006). 

Under Alternative A, injury rates could be affected through two pathways: 

(i) Displacement of subsistence animals resulting in the need to travel longer distances in 

more difficult conditions. 

(ii) Social pathology leading to increased rates of alcohol and substance abuse (as discussed 

under “social pathology” above), and the resultant predictable increases in unintentional and

intentional injury. 

The degree to which injury rates may increase will depend on numerous factors, including: 

(i) The amount of illicit drug and alcohol trafficking which results from increasing access 

between the communities and the road system, and by the influx of outside workers.

(ii) The frequency and duration of contact between residents and transient workers. 

(iii) The degree to which subsistence resources are displaced, creating more difficult and 

dangerous hunting conditions. 

(iv) The degree to which the project-specific disturbances to the traditional range of the 

impacted villages generates stress and maladaptive behavior. 

5. Health Problems related to EPA Criteria Pollutants 

Airborne emissions from oil and gas activities include the EPA “criteria pollutants” (NOx, SO2 

PM10, PM2.5, ozone, lead, and CO), which have been associated with an array of health effects, 

the most common and significant of which include causing and exacerbating respiratory 

illnesses such as asthma; increased risk of cardiac arrhythmias; exacerbated atherosclerotic 

coronary artery disease; and excess overall mortality rates among vulnerable groups. According

to the EPA, PM2.5 in particular is associated with “increased respiratory symptoms, such as 

irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing, for example; decreased lung function;

aggravated asthma; development of chronic bronchitis; irregular heartbeat; nonfatal heart 

attacks; and premature death in people with heart or lung disease” (EPA 2005). 

Current air quality assessments on the North Slope are based on scientific judgment and 

limited modeling. Both EPA and the State of Alaska have established legal limits for air 

pollution based on scientific evidence, known as Ambient Air Quality Standards, to protect 

public health, including the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and 

the elderly. However, according to EPA analysis and several independent studies, substantial 

health effects accrue at even levels below NAAQS standards, down to ambient levels (Ostro et al 

2006; USEPA 2006b). The health effects include higher overall mortality rates and higher loss 

of ‘quality adjusted life years,’ a measure which takes into account time lost from illness. From 

the standpoint of the North Slope population, one of the most important findings of these data is 

that the impacts fall disproportionately to vulnerable populations (elderly, very young, and 

people with chronic illnesses). Given the baseline health disparities described in section 

3.4.10, then, North Slope communities would face substantial risk from increased particulate 

emissions, even if air quality continued to meet NAAQS standards. The state of Alaska, 

however, has not yet adopted a standard for PM2.5, for which the EPA established regulatory 

criteria more recently. The deadline for the state to adopt new PM2.5 standards is December 

2007. Consequently, there are no data available for PM2.5 levels on the North Slope. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-248 

Alternative A (No Action): Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

The NSB has expressed very strong concerns that the models used to predict air quality on the 

North Slope have not been adequately validated, particularly in view of the arctic climate 

conditions. The NSB and AI-TC have further asserted that, because of the health disparities 

and vulnerabilities in North Slope villages (including the high prevalence of certain cancers and 

pulmonary disease, as described in section 3.4.10), it is critically important to establish a 

scientifically robust monitoring program to validate the current predictions. 

If, however, current modeling (as described in section 4.3.1) is correct in that contributions to 

decreased air quality from oil and gas development under this alternative will be low, the 

overall impact to human health airborne emissions under Alternative A would be likely to be 

low as well. Air quality impacts near the areas of potential oil and gas development are likely

but, because of the distance of predicted development from most population centers, substantial 

reductions in village air quality are unlikely. 

6. Health Problems Related to Other Contaminants 

For many years, North Slope residents have expressed concerns regarding the potential 

contamination of the environment and subsistence foods by local industrial development, and

the potential human health consequences. Environmental contaminants may enter the human 

environment through airborne emissions (as discussed above), liquid and solid-phase discharges

such as drilling muds, and spills, and other pathways of water fouling. Airborne contaminants 

(other than the Criteria Pollutants discussed above) are categorized as Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (HAP), a diverse group of pollutants with an array of health effects including an 

etiologic role in certain cancers, cognitive and neurodevelopmental delays, endocrine disorders,

and immunological problems (Jacobsen et al 1996; EPA 2007; AMAP 2003; Cone 2005). HAP 

can contact human populations either directly through emissions, or through the food chain. 

Data from other communities in which the “total petroleum hydrocarbons” concentrated in 

water (from air and waterborne sources) has documented a correlation between proximity to oil 

and gas exploration and production and health outcomes, including cancer and miscarriages 

(San Sebastian, Armstrong 2001, 2002; Hurtig, San Sebastian 2002). However, the small size of 

the North Slope population and the bioaccumulation of contaminants from worldwide sources 

render precise attribution of the contribution of local industrial activity to contaminant-based 

health problems extremely difficult, outside of a scenario such as large-scale contamination 

occurring through a large oil spill. 

Common HAP emissions related to oil and gas development, such as benzene, toluene, 

ethlybenzene, and xylene all have significant adverse health effects, well documented by EPA. 

HAP are a source of great concern for North Slope residents, who feel that their exposure to

contaminants is likely to be significantly greater than the general population because of their

extraordinarily high rates of consumption of fish and game which feed in the region. The NSB

has formally requested, consequently, that Industry be required to utilize the Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology on all HAP emissions sources in the planning area, including 

rigs and exploration sources. The NSB has further suggested that producers should use the

cleanest possible fuel sources, such as natural gas (which is readily available on the North 

Slope), or low-sulfur diesel to protect the health of local inhabitants, subsistence resources, and 

the environment. 

The NSB has maintained an extensive program of monitoring and testing subsistence resources

for contaminants. The results have been encouraging, in that to date, the levels of 

contaminants such as PCBs in subsistence foods have been substantially lower than those 

reported in similar resources in Canada and Greenland. One important study also documented

the presence of PCBs in store-bought foods, and made the point that there is no available food 

4-249 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

source which prevents exposure to such contaminants altogether (O’Hara 2005). The Alaska 

Department of Health has also summarized data on PCBs and mercury in subsistence foods, 

and concluded with a strong recommendation that people continue eating subsistence foods 

because given the relatively low levels of contaminants present, the health benefits clearly 

outweigh the risks (Alaska Department of Health 2004a and 2004b). A 1999 report by the 

Alaska Native Health Board: Alaska Pollution Issues assessed the risks from radionuclides, 

persistent organic pollutants, heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins, and furans, and 

concluded that the “benefits of a traditional food diet far outweigh the relative risks posed by 

the consumption of small amounts of contaminants in traditional foods” (Alaska Native Health 

Board, 1999). There are few data, however addressing water or air concentrations of many 

contaminants in the region, nor are there data regarding levels of these contaminants in the 

human population. 

The lack of a demonstrated link between environmental contamination by local industry and 

specific health outcomes should not be interpreted as evidence that there is no reason for 

concern. The testing programs are not extensive enough to determine local variations in the 

concentration of contaminants near industrial developments. As many residents have pointed 

out, the established safety levels for many contaminants are based on consumption amounts in

the general population, which may consume only a tiny fraction of the fish or game consumed by 

North Slope subsistence families. 

In Alternative A, development would occur in parts of one of the most important subsistence 

lands in the North Slope region. Although data support the conclusion that the overall benefits 

of maintaining an active subsistence lifestyle, culture, and diet outweigh the unproven risks 

posed by contaminants, data are not sufficient to allow projection of the potential incremental 

increased risk posed by contaminants associated with exploration and production facilities. 

Particularly in view of the large quantities of subsistence foods consumed, this is an issue 

worthy of further investigation and monitoring. 

7. Infectious Disease 

As outlined in section 3.4.10, the prevalence of pulmonary disease is high; rates of HIV and

syphilis are substantially lower in the North Slope than in the Alaskan and U.S. general 

population (Alaska Department of Public Health 2002 and 2005); Chlamydia rates are much 

higher in Alaska Natives than non-Natives in Alaska – there are no north Slope-specific data 

available at this time (Alaska Department of Public Health 2006). In our discussions with 

health care providers in the region, many commented that the North Slope community appears 

particularly vulnerable to respiratory infections. This observation has been made in other 

coastal Alaska Native populations as well (Singleton, Bruden et al. 2006). 

Under Alternative A, the influx of oil industry workers from communities far outside of the 

North Slope region could pose a risk of infectious disease transmission. Transmission of 

respiratory infectious would be of greatest concern to vulnerable members of the community, 

including people with chronic illnesses and elders. Under Alternative A, an influx of personnel 

from outside of Alaska – where HIV and syphilis rates are generally substantially higher – 

could expose villages to a significant risk of increased incidence of these diseases. The NSB 

health department has tried in the past to address this problem though sending boxes of 

condoms to oil camps near villages, but existing resources in the NSB have not allowed a more 

coordinated public health effort to study or monitor transmission rates, nor to develop a more 

detailed public health approach to prevention. Diarrheal illnesses, common in groups of 

workers living and working in small enclosed facilities such as oil camps, could also pose a 

threat if infection spread to the community. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-250 

Alternative A (No Action): Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

8. Social Determinants of Health 

Much of the analysis of the potential health impacts of oil development depends on an 

understanding of the complex interplay between socio-economic, cultural, and environmental 

factors. The following discussion should be viewed as a way to provide context to the specific 

health outcomes discussed in detail above. As discussed in section 3.4.10, the social 

determinants of health underlie many of the current disparities between AI/AN health and the 

health of the general U.S. population (Wilkinson R, Marmot M 2003; Alaska Department of 

Public Health 2001). The social determinants of health comprise measurable factors which 

describe social, cultural, and economic differences between subgroups in a population. The 

large-scale social and economic changes associated with oil and gas development in the vicinity 

of small indigenous communities can have marked impacts on these health determinants. 

The analysis of health impacts through the social determinants framework allows identification 

of both adverse and beneficial aspects of development. Beneficial and adverse effects of 

development may occur simultaneously. Through identifying both beneficial and adverse causal 

linkages, it is possible to develop strategies to minimize adverse effects and to maximize 

potential benefits at the same time. Many of the effects on social determinants have been 

discussed above in the analysis for specific health problems. This analysis serves as a summary 

of the ways in which industrial development in the region may impact factors which underlie 

the current health status and prevalent health disparities in the North Slope Inupiat 

community. 

For this analysis, we have organized the findings into a table, which shows the determinants of 

health in the first column, and the potential effects of the proposed action in the second column. 

Table 4.3-D.

The Social Determinants of Health and North Slope Oil and Gas Development 

Social Determinant:i Potential Effects of Development Alternatives 

1. The Social Gradient: 

The ‘social gradient’ describes the 

social hierarchy within a society. 

The “Whitehall Studies” first 

demonstrated this effect, finding a 

gradient in mortality from

managers to low-ranking staff in 

British civil service. Other 

studies since then have confirmed 

the finding. 

Beneficial: 

• Improved educational opportunity and on-the-job

training leading to better jobs 

• Improved economic standard of living 

Adverse: 

• Perception by residents of “unequal playing field” –

adoption of greater society’s value structure. 

• Increased connectivity/exposure to outside ‘norms’ 

lead people (especially youth) to awareness of relative

disparity 

• Loss of political control over traditional lands and 

resources 

• Devaluing role of subsistence within larger society. 

2. Stress 

Studies have developed 

quantitative measures of stress, 

and correlated it with higher rates 

of cardiovascular disease and 

metabolic syndrome. Attempting 

to explain this correlation, several 

studies have suggested that 

Beneficial: 

Improved employment and income 

Adverse: 

• Anxiety and sense of loss over potential and existing

impacts to subsistence. 

• Tension between subsistence pressures and need to work 

• Exposure to/adoption of norms of “dominant society” 

4-251 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Social Determinant:i Potential Effects of Development Alternatives 

catecholamines and cortisol 

(stress hormones) are responsible. 

(“acculturation stress”) 

• Time demands of planning and regulatory meetings. 

• Imposition of a new political process/decision making 

structure, loss of control over lands leading to sense of

disempowerment 

3. Work Environment 

The work environment correlates 

strongly with health status. For 

example, the incidence of coronary 

artery disease is up to 2.5 times 

higher in employees who report low 

job control than those who report

high levels of control. Work pace,

variability, and hours have also all 

been independently associated with 

health outcomes such as repetitive 

motion injury. 

• Work hours: adequate subsistence leave is an ongoing 

concern 

• Job Control: tendency for Native employees to be at

lower end of authority because they are less experienced 

4. Employment and Job Security

Unemployment is associated with 

poor health. However, one study 

found that people who were 

‘insecurely employed’ had poorer

mental health than those who 

were unemployed. One study in 

the North Slope showed that 

employment was inversely 

associated with measures of 

overall satisfaction and wellbeing. 

Beneficial 

• Increased employment 

Adverse: 

• Loss of jobs at conclusion of project 

• Question of tension between subsistence and work 

leading to less overall benefit from work for subsistence 

hunters (Martin 2005) 

5. Education and Early 

Childhood Environment 

Education level correlates with 

better overall health status. 

Similarly, a poor early childhood 

environment (as measured by 

poor parental support and 

physical parameters such as poor 

growth) are associated with poor 

adult health. 

Social pathology is strongly correlated with adverse early 

childhood conditions. Thus the degree to which project 

impacts early childhood is related therefore to the degree

to which social pathology develops in the community, as 

well as quality of educational experience, and quality of 

diet. 

6. Social Support (or “Social 

Capital”) and Social Exclusion

Social support (or ‘social capital’: 

correlated with better health) and 

social exclusion (such as racial

discrimination: linked with poor

health) are powerful determinants

of health. Strong statistical 

correlations persist after 

controlling for factors such as 

• Subsistence impacts could interrupt sharing networks, 

which constitutes a significant decrease in social capital 

• Modern US society has moved toward decreasing social 

capital (from interdependent communities and extended 

family/community support toward individuality/nuclear 

family support). Thus, acculturation which occurs 

through development would tend to decrease social 

capital 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-252 

Alternative A (No Action): Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Social Determinant:i Potential Effects of Development Alternatives 

poverty. Authors have observed 

that social capital is eloquently 

expressed in subsistence sharing 

networks. 

7. Addiction 

Problems of addiction – including

alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs – 

tend to be more prevalent among 

more socio-economically

disadvantaged groups. 

Beneficial 

Increased financial support for prevention/intervention 

Adverse 

• Importation via oil workers, new access routes to

communities 

8. Environmental Quality

Environmental quality is often 

worse near poor communities.

This observation is a 

manifestation of the political 

disempowerment of poor and 

minority groups. Thus, for 

example, industrial activity is 

more often located near large 

industry such as refineries. This 

observation, and its implications 

for health status, lead to E.O 

12898 on Environmental Justice. 

Emissions and small spills contribute to incremental 

degradation of air and water quality 

Large oil spills create potentially large increases in risk of 

contaminant ingestion, contamination of subsistence 

resources and water supplies 

9. Income Inequality

Not only absolute poverty, but 

also income inequality within a 

society has been shown to be

associated with health. One of 

the more dramatic examples 

comes from Japan, which has the 

highest life expectancy but also 

among the highest rates of

smoking per capita; among 

industrialized nations, Japan has 

the lowest income disparity. 

Trend toward increased income disparity within 

communities, owing to income to shareholders in local 

village corporation, and income from work limited to

certain members of community. 

10.Culture 

Cultural integrity protects health. 

In studies of immigrants, people 

relocating in a new culture have a 

tendency to develop the health 

conditions common to the 

dominant culture in proportion to 

the degree of acculturation. 

• Trend away from central role of subsistence in 

community 

• Transition from subsistence to cash economy 

• Acculturative influence of ‘dominant’ culture 

• Altered relationship with the land in general, and loss of 

specific regions of importance 

• New paradigms of decision-making; new locus of control 

in communities 

Thus there would be both beneficial and adverse impacts on health outcomes through the social 

determinants of health. These impacts would vary with the phases of the project, and with the 

degree to which the project impacts subsistence, employment, income, and culture. For 

example, development would result in new employment opportunities and increased median 

4-253 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

income, but the post-rehabilitation phase would be a time of marked economic depression and 

job loss unless new sources of income and employment are found. Similarly, while employment

may be viewed as generally positive, in subsistence communities some data suggests that it can 

also be a source of stress for people who are under pressure as subsistence providers as well 

(Martin, 2005). Acculturation occurs through exposure to norms, values, and practices of 

another culture; projects which involve large numbers of employees entering a community must 

be considered a source of acculturation stress. The loss of control over, and impending 

development of, lands of tremendous traditional and practical importance would likely lead to 

significant stress, and may also be viewed as creating an adverse social gradient, in which 

residents have less control over their lands and way of life than they have at present. Lifestyle 

changes fostered by the economic and social influences of the project may lead to the gradual 

replacement of subsistence by modern foods, and a trend away from the sharing networks which 

are a source of high social capital toward a more “westernized” nuclear family structure. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

The North Slope economy and citizens have become heavily dependent on revenue from oil and

gas development. After the termination of development, revenues to the NSB and local Native 

corporations could decline considerably. The rehabilitation work available may lead to a 

transient increase in employment, but this could be followed by a period of significantly 

declining employment, both because of decreasing NSB revenues and because of loss of direct 

jobs. As noted previously, economic depression and job loss are strongly associated with social 

pathology, which would likely increase during this period. It is possible that subsistence

resources could become more readily accessible after a period of adjustment, although this must

be considered highly speculative in view of the baseline of rapid environmental change. If this 

occurred, it would help offset effect of decreasing capital available for purchase and repair of 

hunting equipment and fuel purchase. The decline of these revenues is likely to have profound 

effects. It is not clear whether people will be able to resume their pre-development way of life, 

whether subsistence resources will have become too depleted or contaminated from oil and gas 

development, or how people will continue to support a lifestyle which depends heavily on 

modern technology. Viewed from the perspective of the social determinants, this period will 

have large implications for health given the large-scale economic and employment transition 

anticipated. 

Effects of Oil Spills 

Oil spills can affect human health in a number of ways. Direct contamination can produce 

toxicological effects; rashes and respiratory symptoms have been documented after acute

exposure (Lyons, Temple et al. 1999). Longer-term effects from contamination of subsistence 

resources by organic compounds such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons could lead to chronic

exposure-related illnesses such as cancer, birth defects, miscarriages, and endocrine disruption 

(AMAP 2002; San Sebastian, Armstrong et al. 2001, 2002). Social and psychological effects of 

large oil spills are also a significant source of morbidity. Residents in the vicinity of an oil spill 

have been shown to have higher rates of anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder 

(Palinkas, Petterson et al 1993; Lyons, Temple et al 1993). A very large oil spill could result in 

a significant decrease in subsistence activity, as was seen after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In 

turn, this would to marked changes in social organization, decreased social capital, decreased

consumption of subsistence foods, and an attendant increased risk of social pathology, injury, 

and diabetes and metabolic disorders (re. social capital and EVOS: Ritchie and Gill 2004). The 

magnitude of these problems would depend largely on the extent of the spill, and the degree to 

which it impacted local subsistence resources. Under Alternative A, the risk of a very large spill 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-254 

Alternative A (No Action): Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

(greater than or equal to 120,000 barrels, such as from a well blowout) is considered very low, 

while two large spills (greater than or equal to 500 barrels but less than 120,000 barrels) are 

expected. 

4.3.19.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations 

Under Alternative A, lease stipulations identified in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD would 

remain in effect. These lease stipulations were the result of 18 months of intensive consultation 

among the communities near the planning area and the local, state, and Federal agencies with 

management interests in NPR-A lands and waters. The 79 lease stipulations provide 

protections for subsistence resources, cabins, camps, and river corridors, as well as the system 

of negotiating conflicts between leaseholders, and subsistence users. Lease stipulations relevant 

to sociocultural effects are also described in section 4.3.12, Subsistence. 

When considering the effectiveness of stipulations in mitigating public health effects, it must be 

recognized that because the Inupiat people continue to value this land deeply as a foundation of 

well-being and culture, any stipulation which contributes to minimizing the environmental 

impacts of development in the region can be seen as contributing positively toward overall wellbeing. Under Alternative A, Stipulations 1-5 and 38 address contaminants, Stipulations 6-14 

address prevention and response to spills; and Stipulations 14-17 address fuel storage. In as 

much as these Stipulations will reduce the potential for environmental contamination by 

substances which could lead to health problems such as cancer, and to contamination of 

subsistence resources which could lead to avoidance, they would be effective in preventing an 

array of health problems. Stipulations 19-20, 30, 39, and 40-43 would help protect fish habitat; 

Stipulations 25, 29, 31-37, and 48-49 are intended to protect caribou calving and migration. To 

the extent that these Stipulations prevent impacts to subsistence resources, they would

effectively lessen nutritionally and socially-mediated public health problems. Stipulations 47

and Lease Stipulations 23 and 47 would help prevent disruption of family campsites and camps 

by limiting seismic activity and permanent facilities nearby. These Stipulations would help 

preserve the cultural value of the region for families, and thereby provide moderately effective 

mitigation. Stipulation 62 would also provide effective mitigation in this regard, through 

establishing additional protection and community consultation for development in areas which

are particularly sensitive ecosystems and important subsistence areas. Stipulation 63

establishes a cultural orientation program for workers. If this orientation is effective at 

changing employees' attitudes and behaviors, it would be effective at helping to prevent 

acculturation stress and social pathology. Overall, however, in the face of expanding 

development, particularly with the development of important subsistence areas, it is likely that 

there would be substantial unmitigated impacts to health and the social determinants of health. 

The implementation of the 1998 prescriptive lease stipulations has been underway for a 

relatively short period of time, limiting an empirical assessment of their effectiveness. However, 

the 1998 lease stipulations were developed through extensive consultation with local 

communities, and local residents are generally less familiar with the new approach to 

mitigation measures, relying on performance-based lease stipulations and ROPs rather than 

prescriptive lease stipulations. 

4.3.19.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative A, there could be substantial impacts to human health. These impacts would

occur primarily through restriction in subsistence; influx of large numbers of outside workers;

new access routes to the community; sociocultural and economic change; altered employment; 

4-255 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

and emissions. Diabetes, hypertension, and related metabolic disorders would be expected to

increase as subsistence is curtailed or as sociocultural changes lead to alterations in dietary 

patterns; these health outcomes would be mitigated by measures which protect subsistence, but 

as displacement of fish, caribou, and potentially whales are still anticipated, mitigation would 

not be entirely effective. Hunger and food insecurity could increase if there are substantial 

disruptions to subsistence harvests. Cancer, lung disease, endocrine disruption, and

neurodevelopmental delay are related to contaminants common to oil and gas development;

there is limited data available to allow determination of the likely concentrations or distribution 

of these emissions. Nevertheless, the existing data, though incomplete, are reassuring as to 

present levels of contaminants. Social pathology could result from the economic changes 

anticipated; from increasing access to drugs and alcohol; and from stress and maladaptive 

coping given the impacts to wider regions of important traditional use areas. While measures 

such as Stipulation 63, which mandates a cultural orientation program, and stipulations that 

protect subsistence resources would be partially effective, they could not offset the large-scale 

socio-economic impacts discussed in the preceding sociocultural and public health sections. 

4.3.19.5 Potential New Mitigation Measures 

1) Health Advisory Board 

Potential Mitigation Measure (New Stipulation)

Lessees in proposals for permanent oil and gas facilities within the planning area shall provide 

a Health Advisory Board, should one be formed by the NSB or other North Slope-wide 

representative entity, or any other source of recognized public health expertise identified by the 

AO, an appropriate analysis of potential public health impacts of the proposal and means 

proposed to mitigate these impacts as part of their development plan. (BLM would also analyze

public health impacts and potential mitigation measures in any NEPA analysis examining such

a proposal). 

Potential Benefits and Residual/Unavoidable Impacts 

This measure would establish a basic framework to allow the evaluation and monitoring of 

public health concerns associated with development in the planning area. Because it will 

facilitate efforts by BLM, industry, ADEC, and public health agencies, this measure is likely to

be very effective in allowing the recognition of potential public health problems. The efficacy of

this measure in preventing adverse public health outcomes would depend on the degree to

which this information is utilized by planners, public health agencies, and industry to inform 

development decisions and public health interventions. Because of the expansion of 

development into a region of key cultural and subsistence value, it is likely that there would be 

residual subsistence-related health effects (including effects on metabolic disorders, food 

security, social pathology, injuries, and, potentially, contaminant-related health concerns.) 

2) Subsistence 

Potential Mitigation Measure (New Stipulation)

Initial Study: Before authorization of construction of permanent facilities, the lessee shall 

design and fund studies, in consultation with affected communities, to: a.) determine the 

historic and current use of resources dependent on proposed development area, and b.) the 

significance of the proposed development area to caribou and any other species important to 

subsistence food intake. The study is to serve as a basis for monitoring impacts to subsistence 

food harvest that may be caused by the lessee’s development. The lessee shall submit study 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-256 

Alternative A (No Action): Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

proposals to the NSB for review and comment, including the adequacy of the area and timescale 

of the studies. The lessee is also advised to consult with the NSSI or relevant constituent 

members to reduce potential duplication of effort. Studies should be designed to address the 

potential confounding factors such as reporting inaccuracies common to harvest studies. 

Lessees are encouraged to cooperate or contract with local entities such as the NSB or ICAS to 

facilitate accuracy of the data collected. A proposed study design along with any comments 

received from the NSB and other state and Federal agencies with relevant expertise on the

study proposals shall be submitted to the AO. The design of the studies must meet the approval 

of the AO. The studies should cover a sufficient time such that, in conjunction with other 

studies, they provide reliable information about the importance of the proposed development 

area to subsistence harvests (generally will be presumed to be approximately 3 years in length). 

The results of the studies shall be submitted as part of permit applications and be used in the 

development NEPA analysis, including in proposing alternatives and mitigation. The AO may 

waive this requirement if, after considering comments by the NSB and relevant state and 

Federal agencies, the AO determines that either (1) the research duplicates other efforts, (2) the 

research will not benefit the communities that depend on the region for subsistence, or (3) the 

research will cause an undue burden on the community(ies) that depend on the region for

subsistence. 

Continued Subsistence Monitoring: During construction, operation, and abandonment, the 

lessee shall, subject to the same waiver provisions applicable to the initial study, conduct 

studies of current subsistence use of the development area, the harvest of caribou and other

subsistence foods from the area, the trends in such use and harvests, and any impacts to 

caribou and other species important to subsistence food intake that would affect their 

availability for subsistence users. The AO may require/authorize changes in the design of the 

studies throughout the period, or terminate or suspend such studies if results warrant. 

Mitigation of Subsistence Impacts: If between the commencement of construction and approval 

of completion of abandonment measures, the AO determines that the lessee’s actions are 

causing or have caused a reduction in subsistence harvests, the AO may require changes in 

construction, operations, or abandonment activities. These changes may include restrictions on 

intensity and timing of activities, including temporary cessation of activities, and any and all 

other practicable measures that could reduce impacts. The restrictions, however, may not so 

restrict the lessee’s activities to preclude exercise of the rights of the lease. Continued 

subsistence monitoring will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of these mitigations. 

Potential Benefits and Residual/Unavoidable Impacts 

Monitoring of subsistence impacts would facilitate early recognition of project-related impacts to 

harvest levels, and allow institution of measures to prevent further decline. This would help

protect subsistence resources, such as caribou and fish, and/or subsistence users’ access to these 

resources and help protect communities from food insecurity, hunger, and diabetes and 

metabolic syndromes; it would also help to prevent social pathology through ensuring the 

continued viability of subsistence as a way of life. Even with the inclusion of this measure, 

some displacement of subsistence animals and hunters may occur, and it may therefore not be 

possible to entirely prevent impacts to subsistence harvest levels. 

4-257 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

3) Public Health Monitoring 

Potential Mitigation Measure (New Stipulation)

In consultation with appropriate experts, including the NSB, lessee will fund the design and 

implementation of a public health monitoring study. The study will involve selection of a 

limited set of public health indicators, chosen for their ability to detect changes in health and 

social conditions, and routine monitoring of these indicators. The study shall include a 

minimum of three years of pre-development data and continue over the life of the development.

Results will be reported semiannually to the AO, who, with appropriate consultation with public 

health experts or the HAB (once established), will utilize this information to inform 

performance-based management decisions involving activities within the planning area. 

Potential Benefits and Residual/Unavoidable Impacts 

Monitoring public health indicators would allow the detection of health status changes over the 

course of development in the planning area, and thus aid efforts to prevent or respond to public 

health problems related to development activities. The efficacy of the measure would depend on 

the degree to which the monitoring effort results in health-focused management decisions. 

Many of the potential public health problems discussed above relate to impacts to other 

resources (such as subsistence and air quality); the monitoring of health indicators may thus 

inform BLM’s management approach to these resources. In some cases, however, BLM may not

have direct authority to render management decisions strictly on the basis of health concerns, 

in which case there may still be unavoidable public health effects despite an effective 

monitoring strategy. 

4) Control of Contaminant-related Health Risk 

Subsistence Food and Habitat monitoring 

Potential Mitigation Measure (New Stipulation)

Initial Study: Before authorization of construction of permanent facilities, the lessee shall 

design and fund a baseline study to determine the level of contaminants, such as benzene, 

toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene, and PCBs, commonly associated with oil production, in 

subsistence food species and their habitat. The study should examine species and habitat 

potentially impacted by contaminants by the lessee’s proposed development. The lessee shall 

consult with relevant Federal, state, and NSB agencies. A proposed study design shall be 

submitted to the AO. The AO may consult with appropriate Federal and State agencies with 

regulatory authority over the release of such contaminants prior to approving the study design. 

The design of the study must meet the approval of the AO. The study should cover a sufficient 

time such that, in conjunction with other studies, they provide reliable information about the 

existing level of contaminants. The results of the studies shall be submitted as part of permit

applications and be used in the development EIS, including in proposing alternatives and 

mitigation. 

Continued Contaminant Monitoring: During construction, operation, and abandonment, the 

lessee shall conduct studies designed to detect any contamination of subsistence foods by the oil

and gas development. These studies shall be subject to approval by the AO. The AO may 

require/authorize changes in the design of the studies throughout the period, or terminate or

suspend such studies if results warrant. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-258 

Alternative A (No Action): Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Mitigation of Contaminant Impacts on Subsistence: If between the commencement of 

construction and approval of completion of abandonment measures, the AO determines that the 

lessee’s actions are causing or have caused levels of contaminants that pose a substantial health 

risk to subsistence resource users, the AO may require changes in construction, operations, or

abandonment activities. The AO will consult with appropriate Federal and State agencies with 

regulatory authority over the release of such contaminants. BLM may defer to these other

agencies, but may independently require mitigative actions. Continued contaminant 

monitoring will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of these mitigations. 

Potential Benefits and Residual/Unavoidable Impacts 

The measure could have several beneficial effects on Public Health. First, it would help ensure 

that the human populations that rely on the planning area would not be exposed to harmful 

levels of oil development-associated contaminants, which would help protect the communities 

against a range of contaminant-associated disorders (such as cancers, birth defects, neurodevelopmental delay, and endocrine disorders). Second, it may help reassure communities of 

the continued safety of subsistence resources, thereby fostering the continued viability of the 

subsistence diet and way of life, and helping to prevent food insecurity, diabetes and metabolic 

syndromes, and social pathology. The measure would be effective in preventing exposure to

contaminants associated with local development. But it would not, however, be expected to

eliminate contaminant-related health risk, nor the perception of risk. Contaminants occur in 

subsistence foods from world-wide sources, and this problem would be expected to continue 

regardless of the controls on local development. In addition, this measure could reduce any 

potential impacts to subsistence resources from contaminants. 

5) Air Quality Monitoring and Management 

Potential Mitigation Measure (New Stipulation)

Prior to initiation of a NEPA analysis for an application to develop a CPF, production pad/well, 

airstrip, road, gas compressor station, or other potential air pollutant emission source, the 

lessee shall identify background air quality and meteorology data to be used in predicting 

potential future air quality conditions resulting from the proposed action and other Reasonably 

Foreseeable Future Actions. If these data can not be estimated, then in the case of a proposed

CPF or other facility with potentially large impacts on air quality, one year of on-site 

monitoring (subject to BLM review and approval) will be conducted to obtain such data. In 

addition, the lessee shall prepare (and submit for BLM approval) a complete list of reasonably 

foreseeable air pollutant emissions, including, but not limited to criteria and hazardous air 

pollutants. Depending on the levels of anticipated emissions, and potential for cumulative air 

quality impacts, the BLM may require complete direct/indirect/cumulative air quality modeling 

for the operation phase of the proposed facility. The modeling shall at a minimum compare

predicted impacts to all applicable local, state, and Federal air quality standards and 

increments, as well as other scientifically defensible significance thresholds (such as impacts to 

Air Quality Related Values, incremental cancer risks, etc.). Depending on the significance of the 

predicted impacts, a lessee proposing a CPF or other facility with potentially large impacts on 

air quality may be required to monitor air pollutant emissions and/or air quality impacts for at 

least one year of operation. Depending upon the initial monitoring results, the AO may also 

require additional monitoring. If monitoring indicates impacts would cause unnecessary or

undue degradation of the lands or fail to protect health (either directly or through use of 

subsistence resources), the AO could require changes in the lessee’s activities at any time to 

reduce such emissions, such as, but not limited to, use of cleaner-burning fuels or low-emission 

compressors. 

4-259 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Potential Benefits and Residual/Unavoidable Impacts 

The measure would protect communities against health problems related to airborne pollutants 

through ensuring the adequacy of data used to evaluate the impact of activities in the planning 

area on local air quality, and through establishing additional regulatory measures if substantial 

degradation of air quality is found to occur. The efficacy of this measure, and the residual air 

quality-related health effects would depend on the accuracy of modeling utilized, and on the 

efficacy of any additional regulatory requirements for emissions controls. 

6) Public Safety and Infectious Disease 

Add the following requirements to Stipulation 63:

Include a module designed to ensure strict compliance with local and corporate drug and alcohol 

policies. This module should be offered to the NSB Health Department for review and 

comment. 

Include a module developed to train employees on how to prevent transmission of communicable

diseases, including sexually transmitted diseases, to the local communities. This module should 

be offered to the NSB Health Department for review and comment. 

Potential Benefits and Residual/Unavoidable Impacts 

To the extent that orientation programs result in meaningful behavior changes, the addition of 

modules addressing communicable diseases and drug and alcohol importation to ROP I-1 may 

be helpful in preventing communicable disease and drug and alcohol abuse. It is likely that

despite efforts at education, there would be a continued residual risk of isolated events of illicit 

drug or alcohol importation and infectious disease transmission. 

7) Oil Spills 

Potential Mitigation Measure (New Stipulation)

In the case of a spill of a size and under circumstances that indicate a potential for substantial 

impacts to subsistence resources, and upon the direction of the AO, lessee shall fund the 

institution of a scientific review panel to advise the AO regarding monitoring of the effects of 

the spill on populations of subsistence resources, harvesting of subsistence resources, and 

contaminant levels in subsistence resources. The AO will appoint members to the scientific 

review panel with expertise in biological and social sciences as well as in public health. The AO 

will determine what monitoring is to be required and how long such monitoring shall continue. 

The lessee shall fund all monitoring. The AO will establish requirements in consultation with 

other Federal, state, and local authorities with authority to require post-spill monitoring and 

remedial actions. 

Potential Benefits and Residual/Unavoidable Impacts 

In the case of a large oil spill, the creation or a formal process for monitoring and mitigating 

public health effects would greatly facilitate efforts to prevent harm to the local communities. 

In addition, remedial actions may benefit surface resources, including, but not limited to 

vegetation, water, fish, terrestrial mammals, and birds. However, even with the most rigorous 

monitoring and remedial actions, a large oil spill might have unmitigatable adverse effects on 

community health and well-being and on surface resources. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-260 

Alternative A (No Action): Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Potential Effects on Oil and Gas Development 

The expense of the above potential mitigation measures varies widely, from insignificant to 

potentially millions of dollars. To the extent that the potential mitigation measures would add 

expense to oil and gas activities, they could discourage leasing, exploration, and development of

oil and gas. 

4-261 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action): Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.4 ALTERNATIVE B 

4.4.1 Air Quality 

4.4.1.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Air quality impacts associated with these activities are the same as those associated with 

Alternative A, discussed in section 4.3.1.1. 

4.4.1.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

The Air Pollutant Emission Sources, Effects of Air Pollution, and Native Views on Air 

Emissions are the same as those associated with Alternative A, discussed in section 4.3.1.2. 

Air Pollutant Emissions 

Air pollutant emission estimates for Alternative B were based on the following information 

sources: 

1) Helicopter emissions were based on the Federal Aviation Administration’s Emissions and 

Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS version 4.1) for a Bell 206 (Edwards, 2007); 

2) Emission estimates developed for the Alpine Satellite Development Plan (USDOI BLM, 

2004c) for satellite well pad/access road construction, fixed wing aircraft flights, drilling rigs, 

and specific production equipment (satellite heaters, field generator, and a CPF turbine); and 

3) Actual 2006 air pollutant emissions from the ConocoPhillips Alpine Production Facility 

(Poteet, 2007). 

These emission factors were adjusted for the following assumed activities under Alternative B:

1) Helicopters: 5,000 one-hour flights per year; 

2) Exploration/Delineation: up to 144 fixed wing flights per year, 97 exploration wells and 73 

delineation wells, 6 drill rigs; 

3) Construction: 3,393 fixed wing flights per year, 2 drill rigs, 3,716 acres of land disturbance; 

and 

4) Production: 672 fixed wing flights per year, 25 satellite well pads, 6 Central Production 

Facilities, and 74 MMbbl peak annual oil production. 

Based on these emission factors and anticipated activity, the maximum annual emissions (in 

tons per year) by activity phase are presented in Table 4.4-A. 

Development and production activities can also produce fugitive dust emissions (primarily as 

PM10). Fugitive dust occurs primarily during the summer months due to driving on unpaved 

roads. Vehicles can also track out fine material from gravel mining operations in the winter and

summer months. Potential control measures include limiting vehicle speeds, and treating 

problematic road sections with surfactants or water. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-262 

Alternative B: Air Quality 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Well closure, abandonment and rehabilitation activities would emit air pollutants similarly to 

those during development (construction), since similar vehicles and other emission sources

would be used. Because closure activity would not occur at a single location for any substantial 

length of time, the impact of air emissions at any single location would be minor and short term. 

Impacts could be minimized by leaving gravel on-site, limiting the amount of transport. Once 

reclamation is complete, production facilities would no longer impact North Slope air quality. 

In comparison, a site-specific air quality impact analysis was conducted for the off-shore Liberty 

Project (USDOI MMS, 2002), which would be somewhat smaller than a typical field that could 

be developed in the planning area, which demonstrated ambient air quality levels would be 

close to, but within applicable PSD Class II increments. The combined facility concentrations 

plus background were predicted to remain well within the ambient air-quality standards 

(between 2 and 30% of the standards). Because Alternative B facilities would have similar air 

emissions as those predicted for the Liberty Project, it is likely potential satellite well pads and 

central production facilities would have similar air quality impacts. However, the accuracy of 

determinations of specific air pollutant emissions and potential impacts is necessarily limited at 

this stage, given that particular site-specific development activities are not yet able to be 

predicted. 

Since CO2 has not been regulated as an air pollutant, potential CO2 emissions were not 

quantified for Alternative B. However, assuming an average 98% combustion efficiency, the CO

emissions reported in Table 4.4-A may be multiplied by 80 to estimate equivalent CO2 emissions 

(a maximum of 23 x 104 tons per year). However, when compared to estimated worldwide 

emissions of CO2 (nearly 28 x 109 tons per year), Alternative B would contribute minuscule 

amounts of CO2 emissions to global levels. 

4.4.1.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

No air quality lease stipulations or ROPs were included for Alternative B. Potential air quality 

impacts from site-specific development activities would be limited based on air quality permits 

issued by the ADEC and EPA, including applicable control technologies. 

4.4.1.4 Conclusion 

Air quality impacts from Alternative B are likely to remain below applicable ambient air quality 

standards and increments, therefore no significant impact to air quality is expected. Air 

pollutant emissions associated with Alternative B are approximately 17 to 19% greater than 

Alternative A, but less than Alternatives C and D. Each new exploration or development 

activity, or production area, would result in an additional air pollutant emissions. However, the 

accuracy of determinations of specific air pollutant emissions and potential impacts is 

necessarily limited at this stage, given that particular site-specific development activities are 

not yet able to be predicted. As exploration and development activities cease, or production 

sites are shut-in, there would be a corresponding decrease in air emissions. 

4-263 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Air Quality 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Table 4.4-A. Alternative B Air Pollutant Emissions from Surface Activities (tons per 

year) 

Activity 

Phase 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

Nitrogen 

Oxides 

Particulate 

Matter 1 

Sulfur 

Dioxide 

Volatile 

Organic 

Compounds 

Helicopters 10 1 1 <1 <1 

Exploration/ 

Delineation 36 160 8 18 <1 

Construction 89 328 23 26 29 

Production 2,711 14,134 335 457 325 

Total 2,845 14,623 366 501 354 

Source: Archer, 2007 1 Combustion sources primarily emit PM2.5 while land disturbance primarily emits PM10. 

4.4.2 Paleontological Resources 

4.4.2.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative B, the types of non-oil and gas activities would be the same as those 

described for Alternative A; however, there would be likely be an increase in the level of aircraft 

and survey activity associated with environmental studies and monitoring. Despite increased 

activity, the impact to paleontological resources, which are deeply buried, would still be minor. 

4.4.2.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Under Alternative B, the level of seismic activity is expected to increase beyond that of 

Alternative A because an additional 387,000 acres would be available for leasing, and these 

additional acres would be in an area with high oil and gas potential. While the types of impacts 

to paleontological resources would remain the same, the increased level of seismic activity 

would increase the potential for impacts to occur. Any impacts associated with the increased 

seismic activity are expected to be minor. 

Significant paleontological resources (primarily vertebrate fossils) are not ubiquitous in the 

planning area as these resources are exposed primarily through erosion (stream cuts, bluff 

faces, etc.) elsewhere they are usually deeply buried. As a result, the location of exposed

material can be to some degree predicted and therefore avoided while the remainder is 

protected by its depth of burial. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-264 

Alternative B: Air Quality 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects of Disturbances 

Under Alternative B, the level of activity in the planning area would increase. However, 

because most of the activity would occur during the winter months, the potential for impacts to 

paleontological resources is extremely minor. The likelihood of impacting surface paleontological 

material also is low due to their isolated and rare occurrence. 

The drilling of exploration wells and delineation wells would typically occur during winter. It is 

expected that no more than six wells would be drilled at one time. Drill pads, camp pads, roads, 

and airstrips made of ice and snow would be used, but permanent pads, roads, or airstrips could 

also be constructed; therefore, ground disturbance could occur and buried paleontological 

material could be impacted. The other substantial subsurface disturbance that would occur as a 

result of the actual drilling would be the making of the drill hole itself. Were scientifically 

important paleontological material present at the site of the borehole, these resources could be 

impacted by the drilling process. However, the likelihood of such an occurrence is minor. 

Surface disturbance from development could impact as much as 3716 acres, but there would be 

limited subsurface impacts associated with these activities. The primary impact to 

paleontological resources would result from the excavation of material for construction of the 

permanent facilities. Extraction of the terrestrial materials could impact paleontological 

resources. Pleistocene vertebrate fossils are commonly recovered during gravel-mining 

operations on the North Slope. It is anticipated that a pipeline would not have associated allweather roads or pads and would be constructed during the winter months from ice roads and/or 

pads. Therefore, the only substantial impact resulting from pipeline construction would be 

associated with the placement of VSMs. Depending on the depth at which the VSMs were set it

is possible, though highly unlikely, that paleontological resources would be impacted. Overall, 

ground disturbance from development would have a minor impact on paleontological resources. 

It is unlikely that paleontological resources would be impacted by abandonment activities, as 

these areas would have been previously disturbed by construction and development activities. 

Effects of Spills 

Under Alternative B, the effects of spills on paleontological resources would be essentially the 

same as discussed under Alternative A. If present, surface paleontological material could be 

impacted; however since the occurrence of paleontological remains is rare, the probability of an 

impact is very low. 

Commercial Gas Development 

The types of impacts on paleontological resources that natural gas development and production 

would cause would be the same as those caused by oil development described above, except that 

there would be no crude-oil spills and if a gas pipeline is buried—the likely method—there 

would be additional acreage disturbed with increased potential for disturbance or destruction of 

paleontological resources. As with Alternative A, it is anticipated that burying the pipeline 

would result in digging up approximately 162 miles of four feet wide and five feet deep trench 

(approximately 80 acres) and potential surface disturbance of 210 acres in areas adjacent to the 

trench from potential disturbance from machinery or placement of backfill. The risk to 

paleontological resources would be reduced dramatically if gas pipelines are put on VSMs. 

Additional disturbance would occur from disturbance associated with building a 10- to 20-acre 

compressor pad. 

4-265 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Paleontological Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.4.2.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Required Operation Procedure C-2(a,b,c,e) would provide protection from seismic and overland

move activities that could potentially disturb the vegetative mat and impact paleontological 

resources that are near the surface. Additionally, ROPs A-3 and A-4(a, b, c, d) would help to 

prevent large fuel or crude oil spills, and consequently reduce the small potential for impacts to 

paleontological resources from spill cleanup. Within the planning area, paleontological 

resources are most diverse and abundant along the Colville and Ikpikpuk rivers. Lease 

Stipulation K-1(a, b) would prohibit the construction of permanent oil and gas facilities within 

and adjacent to waterbodies, which would protect exposed paleontological resources along the 

banks of the Colville and Ikpikpuk rivers. Lease Stipulation E-13 would protect previously 

unknown paleontological resources by requiring a paleontological survey prior to any grounddisturbing activity. If paleontological material were discovered, all operations would be

suspended until written authorization to proceed is issued by the appropriate authority. These 

ROPs and lease stipulations would be highly effective in protecting known and previously 

unknown paleontological resources and preserving their research potential and ensuring that 

impacts to paleontological resources would be minor. 

4.4.2.4 Conclusion 

The types of impacts to paleontological resources from management activities other than oil and

gas exploration and development would be similar in nature to what was described for 

Alternative A. The potential impacts to paleontological resources from oil and gas exploration 

and development are about the same as Alternative A, based on area of surface disturbance. 

Impacts could be greater if exploration and development occurred in an area with abundant 

paleontological resources. However, the ROPs and lease stipulations proposed to protect 

paleontological resources under this alternative would be highly effective. 

4.4.3 Soil Resources 

4.4.3.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Various types of activities not related to oil and gas leasing and development, including private 

or commercial air traffic, summer research camps, use of off-highway vehicles (OHVs), 

recreational camps, paleontological and archaeological excavations, and overland moves could

affect soil resources in the planning area under Alternative B. 

Under Alternative B, impacts associated with non-oil and gas activities would be similar to 

those described under Alternative A. These activities could occur throughout the planning area 

and would be little affected by the increased availability of land for oil and gas leasing. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-266 

Alternative B: Paleontological Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.4.3.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

The following analysis is based on section 4.2.1.2, Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development Activities. See that section for a discussion of estimates and assumptions for 

development as well as a description of how estimated areas of disturbance were calculated for 

each alternative. 

During oil and gas exploration and development, various activities could cause impacts to soil 

resources in the planning area. These activities include seismic activities; construction and use 

of gravel pads, gravel roads, gravel airstrips, and pipelines; excavation of material sites; 

construction of ice roads and ice pads; and summer tundra travel. Impacts could also occur from 

oil spills and from removal of gravel pads and gravel roads during rehabilitation. These 

activities would impact soil productivity and could alter the moisture regime of tundra near the 

structure by changing natural drainage patterns and areas where snow accumulates. Types of 

impacts to soil resources for Alternative B would be similar to those described for Alternative A. 

Differences in the magnitude and area of impacts for Alternative B are described below. 

Effects of Disturbances 

Seismic Surveys. Effects to soils from seismic surveys would be the same as for Alternative A. 

Under all of the alternatives, it is projected that three 2-D and two 3-D surveys would be done 

to fill in gaps in existing surveys. 

Exploration. Under Alternative B, impacts to soil from activities associated with oil and gas 

exploration would be somewhat greater than those described for the Alternative A. It is 

anticipated that under Alternative B there would be a greater number of exploration and

delineation wells drilled, which would result in greater impacts to soil resulting from the 

construction of both multi and single year ice pads (500 feet by 500 feet; 6 acres). Under 

Alternative B, it is assumed 97 exploration wells and 73 delineation wells, or a total of 170 

wells, would be drilled from ice pads in the planning area. Impacts to soils would occur on

approximately 1,020 acres (170 ice pads x 6 acres/ice pad) over a period of about 25 years (Table 

4.2-G). 

Ice road construction, probably up to 50 miles per year impacting approximately 212 acres/year, 

could also be greater under Alternative B in terms of total miles constructed. For Alternative B, 

it is estimated that a total of 6,200 miles of ice road would be constructed during the life of the 

plan impacting approximately 19,000 acres (Table 4.2-G). In addition, approximately 30 miles 

of ice runway would be constructed impacting approximately 330 acres. 

The construction of well cellars during exploration requires digging a hole that would impact 

approximately 16 square feet (0.0004 acres) of ground for each well. Total area disturbed by 

digging well cellars under Alternative B would be approximately 0.06 acres (170 wells x 0.0004 

acres per well). Thermokarst associated with the disruption of the thermal regime in the 

surrounding soil could occur around the well cellars and cause long-term disturbance to these 

small areas. 

Placement of Gravel Fill. Types of impacts to soils from placement of gravel fill would be 

similar to those in Alternative A. Construction of CPFs and associated satellite pads, roads, 

staging areas, and airstrips would result in the loss of soil productivity in the areas of gravel 

placement. Under this alternative, it is estimated that 6 fields would be developed (one more 

4-267 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

than Alternative A), resulting in a total of approximately 3,100 acres of soil productivity lost by 

gravel placement (Table 4.2-G). 

Construction of CPFs and associated gravel pads, roads, staging areas, and airstrips could alter 

the moisture regime of tundra near the structure by changing natural drainage patterns and 

areas where snow accumulates. Snowdrifts caused by gravel structures would increase the 

wintertime soil surface temperature and increase thaw depth in soils near the structures. These 

impacts would be exacerbated by dust deposition and by the formation of impoundments. These 

factors could combine to warm the soil, deepen thaw, and cause thermokarst adjacent to roads 

and other gravel structures (NRC 2003). In flat, thaw-lake plains on the North Slope, gravel 

construction can be anticipated to result in upslope water impoundment and thermokarst 

erosion equivalent to the area directly covered by gravel (Walker et. al. 1987). In this analysis,

approximately 3,050 acres could be covered by gravel under Alternative B. Therefore, the total 

area of soils impacted by gravel fill under Alternative B is estimated at approximately 6,100 (2 x 

3,050) acres. This is approximately 700 acres more than under Alternative A. 

Material Sites. Gravel required for development in the planning area could be mined from

existing sites east of the planning area or could be extracted from new sites developed within 

the planning area. Investigations to identify gravel sources in the planning area have not been 

conducted, but presumably would be initiated if discoveries of recoverable oil or gas were made. 

Under Alternative B, it is possible that 13 gravel mine sites would be necessary, resulting in a 

total of approximately 650 acres impacted, depending on the actual number of sites required. 

Excavation of the gravel mine and stockpiling of overburden would remove soil and impact soil 

productivity at these sites. In this analysis, the likelihood of new gravel sites within the 

planning area would be greater under Alternative B than under Alternative A. 

Pipelines. Under Alternative B, given the potentially greater number of fields developed, 

impacts from pipeline construction would be greater than those described for Alternative A.

Pipelines on the North Slope are typically built on VSMs with a diameter of 12 inches and a 

spacing of 150 VSMs/mile. Under Alternative B, 412 miles of pipeline would be required 

resulting in short term disturbance to soils of approximately 1,251 acres and a long term impact 

at VSM sites of approximately 2 acres (Table 4.2-G). 

The extent of impacts associated with buried pipeline could also be greater under Alternative B

given the potentially greater number of fields developed. In areas where pipelines were buried, 

construction of a trench would impact soil and temporary storage of overburden in adjacent 

areas would alter soil where temporary storage of the overburden occurred. The zone of impact 

would be approximately 12 feet wide for the length of the buried segment, and the total area of 

impact would be 1.5 acres per pipeline mile. Because pipeline burial under tundra has been the 

exception on the North Slope rather than the norm, it is expected that this activity would

disturb only a small amount of area in the planning area. 

Effects of Oil and Gas Development on Permafrost 

Types of impacts to permafrost from oil and gas development would be the same as those

described in Alternative A. Under alternative B, more surface disturbance is expected from oil 

and gas activities as compared to Alternative A (Table 4.2-G). Therefore, there would be more 

area of permafrost potentially affected. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-268 

Alternative B: Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Types of impacts from abandonment and rehabilitation would be the same as those described in 

Alternative A. Under alternative B, it is expected that more structures would be constructed for 

oil and gas activities as compared to Alternative A (Table 4.2-G). Therefore, the amount of 

rehabilitation required, and impacts to soils from abandonment and rehabilitation, would be 

greater than under Alternative A. 

Effects of Spills 

Effects of spills on soils would be similar to those in Alternative A. Under Alternative B, 

impacts to soils from oil spills could be somewhat larger than in Alternative A as the estimated 

number of large and small spills is slightly greater (see section 4.2.2, Oil Spills). 

Summer Tundra Travel 

Under Alternatives B, C, and D some summer tundra travel would be permitted under specific 

circumstances. Although travel off of gravel pads is easiest in winter and generally 

environmentally preferable at that time, some vehicle travel off of pads does occur in North

Slope oil fields during the summer to accomplish specific tasks. The State of Alaska has 

approved some low-ground-pressure vehicles for summer tundra travel after July 15. Similar 

summer tundra travel may be anticipated to be part of oil production in Northeast NPR-A. 

Summer vehicle tundra travel is commonly associated with spill prevention and preparedness 

measures required in spill prevention plans. Each summer season, low-ground-pressure 

vehicles might be used to transport and place booms across streams downstream from pipelines. 

These booms are left in place through the summer to capture any oil that might spill from a 

pipeline and then would be retrieved, again probably using low-ground-pressure vehicles, before 

freeze-up. Pipeline inspections may also entail summer vehicle travel on the tundra. Finally, 

periodically spill response training may occur along and downstream from pipelines in summer. 

As a rule, summer tundra travel would not be permitted under Alternative A. Therefore, given 

the potentially greater number of fields developed and allowance of summer tundra travel 

under certain circumstances, impacts from summer tundra travel under Alternative B could be 

greater than in Alternative A. Short-term, minor impacts to soils are expected from limited

summer tundra travel using low ground pressure vehicles. However, ROP L-1 is designed to 

regulate and monitor summer travel and minimize impacts to soils and vegetation. Summer 

travel would only be permitted on a case-by-case basis if the applicant can demonstrate that the 

proposed use would have no more than minimal impacts to soils and vegetation. 

Commercial Gas Development 

The types of impacts on soils that natural gas development and production would cause under

Alternative B would be the same as those caused by oil development described above, except

that there would be no crude-oil spills. Because the length of buried gas pipeline and the single

stand-alone compressor station would be the same as projected for Alternative A, it is 

anticipated that gas development would cause similar impacts as Alternative A. 

4-269 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.4.3.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

To protect soils in the planning area, the approval of most proposals for summer operations are 

limited. Because of the fragile nature of thawed tundra during the summer, permit sites are

restricted to durable areas such as gravel bars, beaches, or existing gravel pads. Vehicles 

allowed for use in overland moves would exert low ground pressure and be permitted to travel

only over snow-covered ground frozen to a sufficient depth to minimize soil and vegetation 

impacts. Many of the lease stipulations and ROPs under Alternative B directly or indirectly 

limit potential impacts to soils in the planning area. Lease stipulations and ROPs developed to 

protect soil under Alternative B would provide similar protection to soils resources as the 

stipulations developed for Alternative A. 

Many of the lease stipulations and ROPs under Alternative B would directly or indirectly limit 

potential impacts to soils in the planning area. Required Operating Procedures A-2 through A-7 

relate to waste prevention, handling, disposal, and spills. These ROPs would be effective in 

ensuring that waste materials associated with exploration and development activities were

properly disposed of, and helping to prevent impacts to vegetation from spills and mishandling 

of materials. They would also provide for rapid cleanup of spills, which would decrease the 

likelihood of impacts to soils from spills. Required Operating Procedures C-2, C-3, and C-4 

would be highly effective in limiting impacts to soils associated with overland moves and 

seismic work. Required Operating Procedure L-1 would require applicants to demonstrate that 

summer tundra travel would have no more than minimal impacts to soils and vegetation. 

Lease Stipulation D-2 would be highly effective in minimizing surface impacts from exploratory 

drilling by limiting activities to temporary structures such as ice pads, ice roads, ice airstrips, 

and temporary platforms, unless permanent structures were absolutely required. Required

Operating Procedures and Lease Stipulations E-1 through E-5, and E-8, would be highly 

effective in protecting soils by providing facility design and construction regulations that would 

limit the footprint of developments, provide protection from oil spills, place restrictions on the 

development of gravel pits and permanent roads, and ensure resource issues were considered

when deciding on the location of facilities. Lease Stipulation G-1 would restore soil use and 

productivity by providing for removal of all oil and gas facilities at the time of field 

abandonment, unless the AO determined that it was in the best interest of the public to retain 

some or all of the facilities. If facilities were retained, the lease stipulation would be effective in 

minimizing soil erosion and additional soil disturbance. Lease Stipulation K-1 would prohibit 

permanent oil and gas facilities near important rivers in the planning area, although essential 

pipeline and road crossings to the main channel would be permitted; deep-water lakes and 

Teshekpuk Lake would be given similar protection under Lease Stipulations K-2 and K-3. Lease 

Stipulation K-8 would be effective in protecting the soils of the Pik Dunes. 

4.4.3.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative B, the amount of soil area impacted from oil and gas exploration and

development would potentially exceed those of Alternative A as additional high-potential oil and 

gas areas would be available for leasing. Numerous technological advancements have been 

made during the decades of operations on the North Slope that have allowed current

development activities to proceed with less environmental impact than previous operations 

(NRC 2003). However, some short-term disturbance and permanent long-term impacts to soils 

are inevitable. Impacts to soil resources from Alternative B would potentially be somewhat 

higher than Alternative A as additional high-potential oil and gas areas would be available for 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-270 

Alternative B: Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

leasing. See Table 4.2-G for a comparison of estimated total surface area disturbed by 

alternative. 

Impacts to soil from management actions under Alternative B would involve short-term 

disturbance over fairly large areas and long-term disturbance of relatively small areas. 

However, even though impacts in Alternative B cover more of the planning area than

Alternative A (see Table 4.2-G), all areas of soil disturbance would be relatively small as a 

percentage of the entire planning area (see below). The duration of these impacts could range 

from one year or less for minor disturbance of soil and vegetation to decades if the soil was 

destroyed or permafrost thawing was extensive. 

Impacts to soils from activities other than oil and gas development under all alternatives would 

include minor impacts from aircraft landings, archaeological or paleontological excavations, 

camps, and overland moves. Recovery would vary from 1 year for minor disturbance of soil and 

vegetation to decades in those areas where soil was excavated or permafrost thawing was 

extensive. 

Impacts from seismic activities would be the same for all alternatives. Short-term impacts 

could occur on approximately 8,100 acres (0.18 % of the planning area) of soil from 2-D seismic 

surveys and 100,000 acres (2.2 % of the planning area) of soil from 3-D surveys during a 25-year 

period (Table 4.2-F). 

Approximately 1,250 acres could be impacted short-term by pipeline construction. Short-term 

impacts would also occur from temporary ice roads, ice pads, and ice runways. For Alternative

B, it is estimated that a total of 6,200 miles of ice road would be constructed during the life of 

the plan impacting approximately 19,000 acres (Table 4.2-G). In addition, approximately 1,020

acres could be impacted by ice pads for exploration and delineation wells and 30 miles of ice 

runway would be constructed impacting approximately 330 acres. In total, potential short-term

impacts to soils under Alternative B from exploration (excluding seismic activities) and 

development would be approximately 22,000 acres or 0.47% of the planning area. This is 

greater than Alternative A due to more surface disturbance expected from oil and gas activity. 

Oil and gas development and operation would affect soils by compacting and damaging soils 

under gravel pads, gravel roads, and gravel airstrips, excavating material sites, and 

constructing VSMs. These impacts would be long-term. Long-term direct and indirect impacts 

would occur on an estimated 6,100 acres of soil from gravel structures for field and staging area 

development, and 650 acres from gravel extraction activities. Therefore, these activities could 

result in long-term impacts to approximately 6,800 (6,100 + 650) acres or 0.15% of the planning 

area. This is approximately 800 more acres than under Alternative A. The placement of 

pipelines underground could disturb an additional 1.5 acres per pipeline mile. However, because 

pipeline burial under tundra has been the exception on the North Slope rather than the norm, it 

is expected that this activity would disturb only a small amount of area in the planning area. 

Impacts associated with spills, the majority of which would be cleaned up immediately, could 

aversely affect soil resources for a few years to several decades depending on the quantity, 

location, and season of the spill. The potential for impacts from oil spills would be greater under 

Alternative B than under Alternative A since more area would be available for development in 

an area with relatively high oil and gas potential, and the estimated number of large and small 

spills is slightly greater (see section 4.2.2, Oil Spills). 

4-271 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Under Alternatives B, C, and D some summer tundra travel would be permitted under specific 

circumstances. Short-term, minor impacts are expected from limited summer tundra travel 

using low ground pressure vehicles. However, ROP L-1 is designed to regulate and monitor 

summer travel and minimize impacts to soils and vegetation. Summer travel would only be 

permitted on a case-by-case basis if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use would

have no more than minimal impacts to soils and vegetation. 

Impacts to soil resources from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas activities, would 

likely be additive in most cases, except in those areas where the two types of activities 

overlapped. In these areas the total actual impact could be less than the sum of both impacts 

because some of the activity would occur on areas already impacted. Impacts to soil resources

from exploration and development activities would also be additive, except where development 

activities occurred in areas previously disturbed during exploration. In areas where two or more

activities occurred, overall impacts would reflect those impacts associated with the first activity 

and any new impacts associated with later activities. 

Although soils in all map units identified on Map 3-5 could be impacted during oil and gas 

exploration and development, soil associated with map units IQ6 and IQ21 (see section 3.2.7, 

Soil Resources and Map 3-5) would likely be most affected since they are located in the area 

having high oil potential. Lease stipulations and ROPs developed for Alternative B would 

provide protection similar to lease stipulations in Alternative A. 

4.4.4 Water Resources 

4.4.4-a Surface Water and Groundwater Resources 

Because more acreage in the planning area would be open for leasing under Alternative B than 

under Alternative A, more surface water could be impacted by oil and gas activities under this 

alternative. However, ROPs and lease stipulations for Alternative B would be effective in 

protecting water resources. Setbacks from rivers, streams, and fish-bearing lakes would be in 

the range of 1⁄4 to 3 miles under Alternative B. The main difference between these alternatives 

pertaining to water resources is that Alternative B allows for drilling within and near 

Teshekpuk Lake, whereas Alternative A does not allow for drilling near the lake. This greatly

increases the likelihood of exploration or development activities impacting water resources and

quality in this lake. 

4.4.4-a.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Activities not related to oil and gas exploration and development that could occur in the

planning area under Alternative B include aircraft use, watercraft use, collection and 

excavation for scientific research, hunting camps, recreational use of the area, and use of the 

area by local natives for subsistence. These activities would be expected to occur at the same

frequency and intensity, or slightly greater, as under Alternative A. All of these activities have 

the potential to impact water resources. However, all of these activities have also been ongoing

for many years with minimal impact to water resources. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-272 

Alternative B: Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.4.4-a.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Under Alternative B, exploratory and developmental drilling would be allowed on and near 

Teshekpuk Lake, subject to the setbacks listed in Lease Stipulation K-3 (see section 2.6.3.2 

Lease Stipulations that Apply to Biologically Sensitive Areas). Although this lease 

stipulation is generally protective of the water quality in Teshekpuk Lake, drilling on and near 

the lake greatly increases the risk for an oil spill in this lake. Therefore, Alternative B is less 

protective of water resources than the Alternative A, particularly for Teshekpuk Lake. The 

following analysis is based on section 4.2.1.2, Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Activities. See that section for a description of how estimated areas of disturbance were

calculated for each alternative. 

Effects of Exploration and Development 

Seismic activities and overland travel. Effects to water resources from seismic surveys 

would be the same as those described for Alternative A unless seismic boats are used in 

Teshekpuk Lake. Under all of the alternatives, it is projected that three 2-D and two 3-D 

surveys would be done to fill in gaps in existing surveys. 

Ice Road and Pad Construction. Types of impacts from ice road and pad construction would 

be the same as those described under Alternative A. However, under Alternative B the potential 

impacts of ice roads on water resources would be greater than under Alternative A because 

more of the planning area would be open for leasing, and more ice pad and road construction

would be likely to occur. For Alternative B, it is estimated that a total of 6,162 miles of ice 

roads (18,672 acres), 170 exploration and delineation well ice pads (1,020 acres), and 30 ice 

airstrips (330 acres) would be constructed during the estimated exploration and development 

scenario resulting in a total of 20,022 acres of short-term surface disturbance. Impacts to the

tundra under this alternative should be minimal and limited mainly to the spring when the ice 

roads and pads would melt and add somewhat saline water to the shallow tundra pools. This 

impact would likely be temporary in nature, since these ponds will be recharged by local 

snowmelt and runoff. 

Ice Road/Pad Water Use. Types of impacts from ice road/pad water use would be the same as 

those described under Alternative A. Approximately 50 miles of ice road would be needed each 

year under all alternatives resulting in the use of approximately 75 million gallons (MG) of 

water per year (50 miles x 1.5 MG/mile). However, it is estimated that more water would be 

used over the life of the Plan than under Alternative A since more high oil and gas potential 

area would be open for exploration and development and ice roads, pads, and airstrips 

constructed. 

Drilling Water & Camp Use. Types of impacts from drilling water use would be the same as 

those described under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, water withdrawal from lakes for 

drilling water would be governed by the same lease stipulations as those for ice roads and pads. 

Therefore, it is expected that impacts to surface water resources would be minor because of 

lease stipulations governing the amount of drawdown allowed in the lakes, and which lakes 

could be used as water sources. Because more of the planning area would be open to leasing 

under Alternative B, more lakes could potentially be impacted by water withdrawal during the 

winter months than under Alternative A. Lease Stipulations K-1 (Rivers Area) and K-2 (Deep 

Water Lakes) would be protective of water resources in streams and fish-bearing lakes, but 

given the greater number of lakes, Alternative B could potentially have more impact on lakes, 

especially non-fish bearing lakes, than Alternative A. 

4-273 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Snow Compaction. Types of impacts from snow compaction would be the same as those 

described under Alternative A . Because a greater number of lakes could be affected by snow 

compaction, under Alternative B impacts to lakes could be greater under this alternative than 

under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, snow compaction would be prohibited on fish-bearing 

lakes, except at ice road crossings. Therefore, this alternative would be protective of lakes and 

streams. No impacts to ice thickness on fish-bearing lakes are expected as a result of oil and gas 

exploration and development activities. However, lakes without fish could be subject to impacts 

due to snow compaction if this activity were authorized by the AO. 

Drainage Disruption. Types of impacts from disruption of drainage patterns would be the

same as those described under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, drainages would be 

protected by ROPs and lease stipulations. These ROPs and lease stipulations require setbacks 

from specified rivers, require bridges rather than culverts for crossing major rivers, and require 

that culverts used for small drainages have ample capacity to handle the flow of the drainage 

during spring breakup to avoid ice jams. Thus, this alternative would minimize impacts to 

drainages from construction of permanent and temporary facilities related to crossing the 

drainage. Overall, impacts to drainages should be minor under this alternative as a result of 

these lease stipulations. 

However, because a greater portion of the planning area would be open to oil and gas leasing 

under Alternative B, there could potentially be more disruption of drainages than under 

Alternative A. However, if the lease stipulations and ROPs listed for this alternative are 

followed, this potential increase in impacts should be minor. 

Channel Erosion and Sedimentation. Types of impacts from channel erosion and

sedimentation would be the same as those described under Alternative A. Lease stipulations 

and ROPs developed for Alternative B to mitigate for disturbances to drainages, streams, and 

rivers by exploration and production activities would be similar to those developed for 

Alternative A. These lease stipulations and ROPs regulate bridges, culverts, winter crossings, 

removal of ice bridges, and any temporary facilities constructed near rivers. They also include 

setbacks for specified rivers. These ROPs and lease stipulations should be effective in 

minimizing impacts to stream channels. However, because more of the planning area would be 

open to oil and gas leasing under Alternative B, there would potentially be more channel 

erosion and sedimentation under this alternative than under Alternative A. If the lease 

stipulations and ROPs developed for this alternative were followed, this potential increased 

impact to stream channels should be minor. 

Gravel Removal. Types of impacts to water resources from gravel sites would be the same as 

those described under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, gravel mining sites would not be 

permitted in the active floodplain of a river, stream, or lake unless authorized by the AO. Gravel

mining sites would also to be kept to a minimum in the planning area, and, where possible, be 

designed so that fish and wildlife could use them after mining was completed. These measures 

would protect streams, rivers, and lakes and keep impacts to floodplains to a minimum.

However, because more of the planning area would be open to oil and gas leasing under 

Alternative B, there would potentially be more gravel removal under this alternative than 

under Alternative A. It is possible that 13 gravel mine sites could be necessary, impacting a 

total of 650 acres (See section 4.2.1.2, Table 4.2-G). These are 2 more sites and approximately 

100 more acres than estimated for Alternative A. However, lease stipulations and ROPs 

developed for Alternative B would potentially reduce impacts to streams and lakes from gravel 

removal. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-274 

Alternative B: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Pipelines. Types of impacts from pipeline construction and operation would be the same as 

those described under Alternative A. However, under Alternative B more miles of pipeline 

could be constructed since more areas of high oil and gas potential are open to development 

than under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, 412 miles of pipeline would be required 

resulting in short term disturbance to soils of approximately 1,250 acres. However, ROPs and 

lease stipulations for Alternative B, such as construction during the winter, would prevent or

minimize impacts to water resources 

Commercial Gas Development 

If commercial gas is developed on the North Slope, impacts to water quality would be similar to 

those from oil development and similar to those described for Alternative A. Alternative B (as 

well as Alternatives C and D), which makes more lands available in ice-rich areas especially 

susceptible to thermokarst, subsidence and erosion, could have greater impacts from burying a 

gas pipeline. The most notable additional impacts likely to occur to water resources from gas 

development would be associated with burying a gas pipeline. Potential impacts during burial 

of a gas pipeline could include temporary impoundments, diversions, and sedimentation. Buried

gas lines also have potential thermokarst, subsidence, and erosion problems that could persist 

beyond the construction phase. If all work on the pipelines is done during winter, these impacts 

would be greatly reduced. Placement of the gas pipeline on VSMs would also obviate these

impacts associated with pipeline burial. 

4.4.4-b Surface Water and Groundwater Quality 

4.4.4-b.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Impacts under Alternative B would be expected to be similar to those that would occur under

Alternative A and the other alternatives. The only types of non-oil and gas activities in the 

planning area that are likely to affect freshwater quality would be ongoing subsistence and 

recreational activities, primarily along rivers and lakes in the ACP, and use of lakes by 

floatplanes and watercraft. These activities have been ongoing for sometime, and impacts to

freshwater quality appear to have been negligible. 

4.4.4-b.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Types of impacts from oil and gas exploration activities under Alternative B would be similar to

those described under Alternative A, except that Alternative B allows for drilling within and 

near Teshekpuk Lake, whereas Alternative A does not allow for drilling near the lake. This 

greatly increases the likelihood of exploration or development activities impacting water 

resources and quality in this lake. 

Potential surface water quality impacts for oil and gas exploration and development fall into

three general source categories: accidental release of fuels and other substances (including oil 

spills), which could occur during both the construction and operation periods; reductions in 

dissolved oxygen and changes in ion concentrations in lakes used for water supply, which would 

occur mainly during construction but could also happen during operations; and increases in 

terrestrial erosion and sedimentation causing higher turbidity and suspended solids 

concentrations, which could occur during both the construction and operational periods. The 

following analysis is based on section 4.2.1.2, Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

4-275 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Activities. See that section for a description of how estimated areas of disturbance were

calculated for each alternative. 

Effects of Exploration 

Exploration activities that could affect water quality within the planning area under all 

alternatives would be seismic surveys; ice-road and ice-pad construction; and drilling-fluid 

storage and disposal. Oil spills would predominantly be attributable to development activities; 

therefore, spills will be discussed under the analysis of development impacts. 

Seismic Activities and Overland Travel. Effects to water resources from seismic surveys 

would be the same as those described for Alternative A unless seismic boats are used in 

Teskekpuk Lake. Under all of the alternatives, it is projected that three 2-D and two 3-D 

surveys would be done to fill in gaps in existing surveys. 

Ice Road/Pad Water Use. Types of impacts from ice road/pad water use are the same as those 

described in Alternative A. For Alternative B, it is estimated that a total of 6,200 miles of ice 

road would be constructed during the life of the plan impacting approximately 19,000 acres (See 

section 4.2.1.2, Table 4.2-G). In addition, approximately 30 miles of ice runway would be 

constructed impacting approximately 330 acres. This is somewhat greater water use than that 

expected for Alternative A. However, as discussed under Alternative A, studies in other areas of 

the North Slope have shown that water withdrawal from lakes for ice roads and pads has not 

measurably affected long-term water quality (Baker, 2002; Hinzman, 2006). 

Drilling Water Use and Drilling Fluids. Types of impacts from drilling water use would be 

the same as those described in Alternative A. However, more exploration wells would likely be 

needed under Alternative B. Under Alternative B, it is assumed 170 exploration and delineation 

wells would be drilled from ice pads in the planning area. The preferred means of disposing of 

drilling wastes, including muds and cuttings, would be reinjection into wells, which would not 

cause impacts to surface water quality. Mud pits and surface discharge of exploration drilling 

muds and cuttings would be prohibited. Under this scenario, there likely would be a negligible 

impact to water quality from drilling fluids used in exploration. 

Effects of Development 

Development activities that could affect water quality in the planning area include spills; 

excavation of material sites; stream crossings; summer tundra travel; and construction of gravel 

roads, pads, and airstrips. 

Spills. The greatest risk to water quality from oil and gas activity in the planning area is the 

potential for spills, with impacts dependent upon the size, season and nature of the spill. Effects 

of spills would be similar to those described in Alternative A. Under Alternative B, however, 

more of the planning area would be open to exploration and development. Therefore, potential 

impacts to water quality from oil spills could be somewhat larger than in Alternative A as the 

estimated number of large and small spills is slightly greater (see section 4.2.2, Oil Spills). In 

addition, Alternative B allows for drilling within and near Teshekpuk Lake, whereas 

Alternative A does not allow for drilling near the lake. This greatly increases the likelihood of a 

spill impacting water resources and quality in this lake. 

As noted in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998), an oil spill reaching 

Teshekpuk Lake would likely have a minimal effect on water quality. Dissolved oxygen levels 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-276 

Alternative B: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

would not be affected although there may be localized effects. Direct toxicity would be minimal 

because of the much greater dilution volume in Teshekpuk Lake than in the small ponds and

lakes discussed earlier, and because of the relatively unrestricted movement of the slick and 

underlying water. The spreading of the spill over about 60 acres (0.03% of the lake surface) 

could be considered an effect on water quality. This effect would persist for a few weeks, until 

the slick was either cleaned up or the oil stranded on the shoreline. Similar effects would be

expected if an oil spill were to reach any of the lakes in the planning area. 

Gravel Structures. Types of impacts to water quality from construction of CPFs, gravel roads, 

pads, and airstrips, and staging areas, would be similar to those described in Alternative A. 

However, under this alternative, it is estimated that six fields would be developed, resulting in 

direct impacts of approximately 3,050 acres impacted by gravel placement. It is anticipated

that gravel construction would result in indirect impacts of upslope water impoundment and 

thermokarst erosion equivalent to at least the same area as that directly covered by gravel, or 

about 3,050 acres for the development assumptions made under this alternative. This is 

somewhat greater than Alternative A and would increase the potential for thermokarst erosion

to result in water features with high turbidity and suspended-sediment concentrations. 

Gravel Removal. Types of impacts from development of gravel sites would be the same as 

those described in Alternative A. Under Alternative B it is possible that 13 gravel mine sites 

would be necessary, resulting in a total of 650 acres impacted, depending on the actual number 

of sites required. This is approximately 2 more sites and 100 more acres affected than estimated 

for Alternative A. Therefore, the potential is greater for impacting water quality locally by an 

increase in thermokarst and erosion at gravel extraction sites. ROP E-5 is designed to minimize 

the development footprint and would also minimize the amount of gravel and, therefore, gravel

sites. ROP E-8 is designed to minimize the impact of mineral materials mining activities on air,

land, water, fish, and wildlife resources. It would require that sites are located outside the 

active floodplain and would encourage their use for reservoirs and sites for enhancing fish and

wildlife habitat. These ROPs would minimize effects to water quality from material sites. 

Summer tundra travel. There would be fewer impacts from summer tundra travel under

Alternative B than Alternatives C or D. No summer tundra travel is permitted under 

Alternative A. Short-term, minor impacts are expected from limited summer tundra travel 

using low ground pressure vehicles. ROP L-1 is designed to regulate and monitor summer 

travel. Summer travel would be permitted on a case-by-case basis if the applicant can 

demonstrate that the proposed use would have no more than short term impacts to soils; 

vegetation; and, therefore, water quality. 

Stream Crossings. Types of impacts to water quality from stream crossings would be the 

same as those described in Alternative A. Under Alternative B, it is estimated that more roads 

(see section 4.2.1.2, Table 4.2-G) and, therefore, steam crossings could be necessary to reach

areas of high oil and gas potential. The potential for constricting flows and creating increased 

stream velocities, ice jams, ice impacts, scour, and streambank erosion would be greater.

However, Lease Stipulations 42, 43, and 44 provide guidance on the use of bridges and culverts 

that would help ensure natural drainage pattern are maintained. 

Pipelines. Types of impacts from pipeline construction and operation would be the same as 

those described in Alternative A. Under Alternative B, given the potentially greater number of

fields developed, impacts from pipeline construction would be greater than those described for 

Alternative A. Under Alternative B, 412 miles of pipeline would be required resulting in short 

4-277 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

term disturbance to soils of approximately 1,250 acres and a long-term impact at VSM sites of 

approximately 2 acres (see section 4.2.1.2, Table 4.2-G). 

The extent of impacts associated with buried pipeline could also be greater under Alternative B

given the potentially greater number of fields developed. Because pipeline burial under tundra 

has been the exception on the North Slope rather than the norm, it is expected that this activity 

would disturb only a small amount of area in the planning area. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Types of effects from abandonment and rehabilitation would be the same as those described in 

Alternative A. Under Alternative B, given the potentially greater number of fields developed, 

impacts from abandonment and rehabilitation would be greater than those described for 

Alternative A. See section 4.2.1.2, Table 4.2-G for a comparison of areas impacted by 

infrastructure that would need to be rehabilitated. Lease Stipulation G-1 could require removal 

and reclamation of the developed site(s) upon field abandonment, which would eventually result 

in restoration of the natural drainage. 

Commercial Gas Development 

If commercial gas is developed on the North Slope, impacts to water quality would be similar to 

those from oil development, though there would be no oil spill impacts, and similar to those 

described for Alternative A. Alternative B (as well as Alternatives C and D), which makes more 

lands available in ice-rich areas especially susceptible to thermokarst, subsidence and erosion, 

could have greater impacts from burying a gas pipeline. The most notable additional impacts 

likely to occur to water quality from gas development would be associated with burying a gas 

pipeline. Potential impacts during burial of a gas pipeline could include temporary 

impoundments, diversions, and sedimentation. Buried gas lines also have potential 

thermokarst, subsidence, and erosion problems that could persist beyond the construction 

phase. If all work on the pipelines is done during winter, these impacts would be greatly 

reduced. Placement of the gas pipeline on VSMs would also obviate these impacts associated

with pipeline burial. 

4.4.4.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Under Alternative B, the lease stipulations and ROPs listed in Table 2-2 and summarized in the 

paragraph below would potentially protect water resources because they would require setbacks 

from rivers and fish-bearing lakes for oil and gas activities, place limits on the withdrawal of 

water from fish-bearing lakes, and regulate the construction of gravel roads, ice roads and pads, 

and pipelines. Also, oil spill prevention and response procedures would be required, as would oil 

spill clean-up procedures. Refueling would be regulated and thereby kept away from rivers and 

lakes, particularly fish-bearing lakes. The required snowpack would be present on the tundra 

before seismic equipment would be allowed to make overland moves during winter. Drilling 

would not be allowed in streams, rivers, or fish-bearing lakes. 

Several lease stipulations and ROPs would protect water quality under Alternative B. Required 

Operating Procedures A-1 through A-7 would regulate garbage, wastewater, drilling wastes, 

fuel and chemical storage, fuel handling, and spill prevention and clean-up plans. Required 

Operating Procedure B-1 would prohibit water withdrawal from rivers during winter and ROP 

B-2 would regulate amounts of winter water withdrawals from lakes. Required Operating 

Procedures C-2 through C-4 would regulate overland moves, seismic work, ice-road 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-278 

Alternative B: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

construction, and other heavy equipment travel during the winter to limit impacts to water 

resources. Lease Stipulation D-1 would limit exploratory drilling in shallow lakes, streams, and 

floodplains, but would allow exceptions if there was no feasible or prudent alternative. 

Required Operating Procedures and Lease Stipulations E-2, E-3, E-6, and E-8 would limit 

certain facility, structure, and gravel mine site design and construction impacts near lakes and 

rivers, but would allow exceptions if there was no feasible or prudent alternative. ROP E-5 is 

designed to minimize the development footprint and would also minimize the amount of gravel

and, therefore, gravel sites. ROP E-8 is designed to minimize the impact of mineral materials 

mining activities on air, land, water, fish, and wildlife resources. It would require that sites are 

located outside the active floodplain and would encourage their use for reservoirs and sites for

enhancing fish and wildlife habitat. These ROPs would minimize effects to water quality from 

material sites. Lease Stipulation G-1 could require removal and reclamation of the developed

site(s) upon field abandonment, which would eventually result in restoration of the natural 

drainage. Lease Stipulation K-1 would be equally effective as Alternative A Lease Stipulation 

39 in protecting aquatic, floodplain, and riparian areas adjacent to rivers identified as having 

critical aquatic and riparian habitat, except in certain large rivers. Lease Stipulation K-2 would 

also be equally effective as Alternative A Lease Stipulation 39 in protecting aquatic and 

riparian areas adjacent to deepwater lakes, but would allow exceptions if there were no feasible 

or prudent alternatives. 

4.4.4.4 Conclusion 

Under all alternatives, this analysis shows that impacts to water resources from non-oil and gas 

activities would be minor. Most impacts from and oil and gas exploration would also be minor 

and short-term. Short-term impacts include water withdrawals from lakes for ice roads and ice 

pads. Seismic activities could result in thermokarst and erosion on approximately 153 acres 

during a 25-year period under all alternatives. 

Under Alternative B, the amount of area impacted from oil and gas exploration and

development would potentially exceed those of Alternative A as additional high-potential oil and 

gas areas would be available for leasing. Therefore, potential impacts to water resources from 

development infrastructure such as CPFs, roads, pads, runways, pipelines, pump stations, 

staging bases, and material sites would also be greater (see section 4.2.1.2, Table 4.2-G, for a 

comparison of infrastructure by alternative). Long-term impacts from development of CPFs, 

gravel roads, pads, runways, pump stations, and staging bases could have direct impacts of 

approximately 3,050 acres and indirect impacts of approximately 3,050 acres under Alternative 

B. Impacts could include disturbance of stream banks or shorelines and subsequent thawing of 

permafrost (thermokarst); and blockages of natural channels and floodways which would 

disrupt drainage patterns. Excavation of material sites would also result in a loss of 

approximately 650 acres. Total long-term impacts would total 6,750 acres. 

Under Alternative B, it is estimated that more roads and, therefore, steam crossings could be 

necessary to reach areas of high oil and gas potential than under Alternative A. The potential

for constricting flows and creating increased stream velocities, ice jams, ice impacts, scour, and 

streambank erosion would be greater. However, Lease Stipulations 42, 43, and 44 provide 

guidance on the use of bridges and culverts that would help ensure natural drainage pattern are

maintained. 

The greatest risk to water quality from oil and gas activity in the planning area is the potential 

for spills. Under Alternative B, the estimated number and volume of large and small spills 

4-279 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

would be greater than those estimated for Alternative A since additional high oil potential areas 

would be available for development. In addition, there is greater potential for a spill from oil 

and gas activities to affect water quality in Teshekpuk Lake as the Lake, and some area 

surrounding the lake, would be available for oil and gas leasing. 

Impacts to water resources from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas activities, 

would likely be additive, except in those areas where the two types of activities overlapped.

Impacts to water sources from exploration and development activities would also be additive, 

except where development activities occurred in areas previously disturbed during exploration. 

In areas where two or more activities occurred, overall impacts would reflect those impacts 

associated with the first activity and any new impacts associated with later activities. 

Numerous technological advancements have been made during the decades of operations on the

North Slope that have allowed current development activities to proceed with less 

environmental impact than previous operations (NRC 2003). While any surface-disturbing 

activity could affect water resources, the lease stipulations and ROPs under Alternative B 

would help mitigate impacts to these resources. 

4.4.5 Vegetation 

4.4.5.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative B, impacts to vegetation associated with non-oil and gas activities would be 

similar to those described under Alternative A. These activities could occur throughout the 

planning area, and at the same frequency and intensity as under Alternative A, despite the 

increased availability of land for oil and gas leasing. There could be some increased use of OHVs

in the planning area due to an increase in the amount of roads associated with development 

occurred. However, additional impacts to vegetation from this increase would likely be small. 

4.4.5.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbances 

Various activities associated with oil and gas exploration, development, and production could

impact vegetation in the planning area. These activities include seismic operations, exploration 

drilling, gravel road, pad, and airstrip construction, pipeline construction, and construction of 

ice roads and ice pads. 

Exploration 

Under Alternative B, types of impacts to vegetation from activities associated with oil and gas 

exploration would be similar to those that occur under Alternative A, except that there would be 

a greater number of exploration and delineation wells drilled, which would increase the impacts 

of well collar construction and the number and impacts of both ice pads and ice roads. 

Under Alternative B, the same scenario for seismic exploration is assumed as for Alternative A. 

Short-term vegetation disturbance from 2-D and 3-D operations combined would total a 

maximum of 107,996 acres (2.3% of the 4.6 million acres planning area). Long-term disturbance 

is estimated to total 153 acres. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-280 

Alternative B: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

During the life of the plan, it is assumed that 97 exploration wells and 73 delineation wells, or a 

total of 170 wells, would be drilled from ice pads in the planning area under Alternative B. At 

six acres per pad, these would impact 1,020 acres of tundra, spread out over 50 years (13% more 

than Alternative A). Assuming that 4% (seven) of these would also involve an over-summer ice 

pad, an additional 42 acres of vegetation would be affected by ice pads. 

Under Alternative B, ice road construction would also increase in terms of total miles 

constructed because of an increase from five to six in number of total fields discovered. The total 

acreage of short term disturbance from ice roads over 50 years would be 18,672, about 20% more 

than for Alternative A. Since vegetation recovery from ice road impacts is expected within a few 

years (Yokel et al. in press), long-term disturbance from ice roads would be negligible. Although

some evidence of crushed tussocks may still be apparent, new growth would preclude any 

exposed soils. 

Ice airstrips are also used during exploratory drilling, and under Alternative B it is assumed 

that 30 ice airstrips would be constructed covering 11 acres each for a total of 330 acres (50% 

more than under Alternative A). These airstrips are commonly built on the grounded ice of 

large lakes, but if they were built over tundra they would result in impacts similar to ice roads. 

The construction of well cellars during exploration requires the digging of a hole that destroys 

vegetation on approximately 16 square feet (0.0004 acres) of ground. Thermokarst associated 

with the disruption of thermal regime in the surrounding soil may also change the vegetation 

type around the well cellar to a wetter vegetation type. These impacts could result in 0.06 acres 

of vegetation being destroyed under Alternative B (13% more than under Alternative A). 

Development 

During oil and gas development and production, various activities could cause impacts to 

vegetation in the planning area. These activities include construction and use of gravel pads, 

roads, airstrips, and pipelines, excavation of material sites, and construction of ice roads and ice 

pads. Ice roads and pads are covered above. 

Placement of Gravel Fill. Construction of CPFs and associated satellite pads, roads, staging 

areas, and airstrips would result in the destruction of vegetation in the areas of gravel 

placement. Under this alternative, six CPFs and associated satellite pads, roads and airstrips, 

six pump stations, and three staging bases would be developed, resulting in 3,064 acres of 

vegetation destroyed by gravel placement (13% more than under Alternative A). 

The increased facilities construction and use under Alternative B would result in a larger area 

impacted by dust than under Alternative A. Assuming a total of 250 miles of in-field gravel 

roads and 6 miles of airstrips, there is a potential for a total perimeter of 512 miles. Within 30 

feet of gravel fill, up to 1,862 acres of vegetation could be subject to smothering by dust and 

gravel, and another 7,447 acres could be affected by a dust shadow 

Construction of gravel pads, roads, and airstrips could alter the moisture regime of tundra near 

the structure by changing natural drainage patterns and areas where snow accumulates. 

Snowdrifts caused by gravel structures increase the wintertime soil surface temperature and

increase thaw depth in soils near the structures. These impacts are exacerbated by dust 

deposition (described above) and by the formation of impoundments (described below). These 

factors could combine to warm the soil, deepen thaw, and produce thermokarst adjacent to

roads and other gravel structures (NRC 2003). Additionally, these changes could alter the 

4-281 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

species composition of the plant community near gravel structures. In general, most changes in

the plant community around gravel structures would occur within 164 feet of the structure. If 

all effects were to occur within this zone, approximately 10,178 acres would be impacted under 

Alternative B (9% more than under Alternative A). Note that this area includes the 9,309 acres 

affected by dust above, and is not in addition to it. 

Material Sites. Gravel required for development in the planning area could be mined from

existing sites east of the planning area or could be extracted from new sites developed within 

the planning area. Investigations to identify gravel sources in the planning area have not been 

conducted, but presumably would be initiated if discoveries of recoverable oil or gas were made. 

Under Alternative B it is assumed that 13 material sites, each affecting 50 acres, would be 

needed. This would cover a total area of 650 acres (18% more than under Alternative A). 

Excavation of the gravel mine and stockpiling of overburden would destroy vegetation at these 

sites. 

Pipelines. Under Alternative B, types of impacts from oil pipeline construction would be 

similar to those described for Alternative A. The total area disturbed by each VSM would be 

about 14 square feet. About 6% of this area would be vegetation destroyed and replaced by the

VSM, and the remaining portion would be potentially altered in terms of community type or 

species composition. Overall, 0.03 acres of vegetation would be disturbed per pipeline mile. 

Under Alternative B, 250 miles of gathering lines and 162 miles of sales-oil pipelines would 

disturb 12-13 acres of vegetation through VSM placement, or about 5% more than under 

Alternative A. 

Summer Tundra Travel. On a case-by-case basis, BLM may permit low-ground-pressure 

vehicles to travel off of gravel pads and roads during periods other than when the ground is 

frozen and covered with snow. This is expected to be an uncommon occurrence, and if permitted

at all it would likely be only during late summer to fall. Because of restrictions that would be 

placed on this activity, impacts to vegetation should be limited to the compression of standing 

vegetation, similar to what happens during winter following traffic by low-ground-pressure 

vehicles. 

Air Pollution. The potential for impacts to vegetation from air pollution would be greater 

under Alternative B, given the potential for additional oil fields and processing facilities, as 

compared to Alternative A. However, it is unlikely that there would be substantial impacts to 

vegetation from pollutants in the planning area under either alternative. 

Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

During abandonment activities, vegetation and wetlands would be impacted by dust fallout 

along roads, by ice roads and other off-road tundra travel associated with dismantling of 

pipelines and power lines, and by disturbance to vegetation adjacent to VSMs and power line 

poles during their removal. The level of impact from these activities would be roughly the same

as that during construction if gravel fill was removed; impacts would be less if the gravel were 

to be left in place. If roads and pads were left in place, and especially if cross drainage across 

roads was not maintained, water impoundment would occur, and could alter plant communities

as described for the construction period. It is also likely that the unmaintained roads would

have occasional washouts, where tundra vegetation would be covered with washed-out gravel. 

Roads and pads, if left in place, would likely need to be revegetated with plants native to gravel 

bars and ridges in the Arctic (i.e., different from the plant communities surrounding the 

facilities). Revegetation activities could take several years, as initial attempts are not always 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-282 

Alternative B: Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

successful. Removal of gravel from pads, roads, and airstrips could be mandated. Partial or 

complete removal of gravel can result in faster reestablishment of native plant growth, although

establishment can take many years (more than a decade). In addition, thaw subsidence is 

difficult to predict, and complete restoration to preexisting conditions is not likely. 

Effects of Spills 

The greater amount of leasing, development, and production of oil that would occur under 

Alternative B, relative to Alternative A, would result in a greater number of small spills of 

crude and refined oil in the planning area. The chance of a large oil spill occurring would also be 

greater under Alternative B; however, it would still be a rare event. 

Most oil spills cover less than 500 square feet (<0.01 acres), although a pressured aerial mist 

may cover up to 145 acres (Ott 1997). (Such a spill is a very low probability event, occurring less 

than once out of the total spills expected throughout the life of this plan. Thus its magnitude is 

not apparent in the following acreages.) The average spill would cover 0.1 acre. If 11% of all oil 

spills would reach vegetation during summer, under Alternative B this would mean 227 of the 

2,070 crude and refined oil spills assumed to occur over the life of the plan would have more 

than a negligible effect on vegetation. Assuming the average spill would cover 0.1 acre, under 

Alternative B approximately 23 acres would be impacted substantially during the lifetime of 

development in the planning area. This is about 10% more than the acreage impacted under 

Alternative A. Overall, past spills on Alaska’s North Slope have resulted in minor ecological 

damage and ecosystems have shown good potential for recovery (Jorgenson 1997). 

Commercial Gas Development 

The 162-mile-long buried gas pipeline projected for Alternative B (as well as Alternatives A and 

D) would destroy about 80 acres of vegetation directly through excavation of a 4-foot-wide 

trench and, potentially, alter 210 acres along an approximately 11-foot-wide strip where 

compaction and other indirect effects from use of machinery and temporary storage of 

overburden would occur. Because of the difficulty colonizing species would have invade such a 

wide area, a recovery time of several years or longer may be expected, though wetter areas 

would generally revegetate before drier areas (McKendrick, 2000). In addition, vegetation

would be lost to a 10- to 20-acre compressor station pad. Placement of gas pipelines on VSMs, 

would generally reduce impacts to vegetation as described for Alternative A. 

4.4.5.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Many of the lease stipulations and ROPs associated with Alternative B would directly or 

indirectly limit potential impacts to vegetation in the planning area. ROPs A-1 through A-7

relate to waste prevention, handling, disposal, spills, and public safety. They ensure that waste 

materials associated with exploration and development activities would be properly disposed of 

and would effectively minimize impacts to vegetation from spills and mishandling of materials. 

They would also provide for rapid cleanup of spills, decreasing the likelihood of impacts to 

vegetation. ROPs C-2 and C-3 would minimize impacts to vegetation associated with overland 

moves and seismic work. 

Lease Stipulation D-1 would effectively protect riparian habitat by preventing exploratory 

drilling in rivers, streams, and active floodplains. Lease Stipulation D-2 would effectively 

minimize surface impacts from exploratory drilling by limiting activities to temporary 

structures such as ice pads, ice roads, ice airstrips and temporary platforms unless permanent 

4-283 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

structures were absolutely required. ROPs and Stipulations E-1 through E-6, E-8, and E-12 

would effectively minimize impacts to vegetation by providing facility design and construction 

regulations that would limit the footprint of developments, provide protection from oil spills, 

provide setbacks that protect riparian and other high value habitats, and insure that habitat 

and resource issues were considered in the placement of facilities. Lease Stipulation G-1 would 

provide for the removal of all oil and gas facilities at the time of field abandonment unless the 

AO determined that facilities should be left in place. ROP I-1 would help be effective in

minimizing resource conflicts by providing appropriate orientation programs and training for 

facilities workers. Lease Stipulation J-1 would be effective in protecting threatened and 

endangered species within the planning area. All of the “K” lease stipulations would also be 

effective by providing some protection for vegetation by providing for setbacks along the coast, 

rivers, lakes, and other high value habitat areas. 

Under Alternative B, development would result in more impacts to vegetation and plant 

communities than under Alternative A. The ROPs and lease stipulations associated with 

Alternative B are similar in intent to those of Alternative A and would provide protections to

limit impacts by minimizing destruction of vegetation and alteration of plant communities. 

4.4.5.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative B, impacts to vegetation from activities other than oil and gas development

would be similar to those under Alternative A and would include minor impacts from aircraft 

landings, archaeological or paleontological excavations, camps, and overland moves. The 

duration of these impacts would be short term, ranging up to five months, and recovery would 

vary from one to several years. 

As for Alternative A, impacts to vegetation from oil and gas exploration under Alternative B

would occur from seismic work and construction of well cellars during exploratory drilling and 

the construction of ice roads and ice pads. The duration and recovery time for impacts 

associated with seismic work would be similar to those for overland moves and the same as for 

Alternative A. Based on earlier studies, there should be no substantial, long-term impacts to 

vegetation from seismic lines, but camp move trails could substantially impact approximately 

153 acres after 8-9 years. Effects of well cellar construction would also be permanent, but would 

impact only one acre of vegetation. 

The effects of oil and gas development and operation would include destruction of vegetation 

during construction of gravel pads (CPFs, satellite drill pads, pump stations, and staging bases), 

roads, airstrips, and staging areas; from excavation of material sites and burial of gas pipelines; 

and construction of VSMs. These impacts would be long-term and would impact about 3,716 

acres, or 0.08% of the 4.6 million acre planning area (as compared to 0.07% under Alternative 

A). (An additional 80 acres would be destroyed through burial of gas pipelines). Plant 

communities could also be altered by dust deposition, salinity of gravel fill used in construction, 

snow drifts, and blockage of or change to natural drainage patterns. These impacts would be

also be long-term and would impact about 10,178 acres, or 0.2% of the planning area (9% more 

than the amount of vegetation impacted under Alternative A). 

It is assumed that impacts to vegetation types or communities would occur in proportion to

their occurrence within the planning area. However, increased development in the area around

Teshekpuk Lake, which would be allowed under Alternative B, could disproportionately impact 

wetland vegetation classes compared to Alternative A. A higher percentage of wet vegetation 

communities occur in areas in the northern portion of the planning area. This area is also 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-284 

Alternative B: Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

considered to have the highest potential for oil reserves, which would increase the likelihood 

that these areas would be developed under Alternative B. 

Under Alternative B, development would be unlikely to substantially harm plant species or 

communities. However, if development facilities were constructed in an area containing a 

population of a rare plant species, the impacts to that species could be severe. Three rare North

Slope plant species are known to occur in the planning area, and four other rare species are 

known to occur on the North Slope but have not been documented in the Northeast NPR-A.

Sabine grass is an aquatic grass that rarely occurs between the pendent grass and sedge zones

in lakes and ponds. This species is known from a few locations north and northeast of

Teshekpuk Lake, which would be protected from development under Alternative B as part of

the 213,000 acres unavailable for leasing under this alternative. Stipulated cinquefoil has been 

found at Umiat. This Asian species is found in sandy substrates, such as sandy meadows, and 

riverbank silts and sands other than dunes. This species would be protected by setbacks along 

rivers in the planning area and by the designation of the Colville River Special Area. Muir’s 

fleabane, Drummond’s bluebell, and Hartz’s bluegrass all occur in dry habitats associated with 

bluffs, floodplains, river terraces, sand dunes, rocky outcrops and fellfields. These habitats are 

the primary sources of gravel fill used during construction and development (NRC 2003) and 

could be impacted by development in these areas. 

Impacts to vegetation from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas activities, would 

likely be additive, except in those areas where the two types of activities overlapped. Impacts to 

vegetation from exploration and development activities would also be additive, except where 

development activities occurred in areas previously disturbed during exploration. In areas 

where two or more activities occurred, overall impacts would reflect those impacts associated 

with the first activity and any new impacts associated with later activities. 

4.4.6 Wetlands and Floodplains 

Because more acreage in the planning area would be open for leasing under Alternative B than 

under Alternative A, more wetlands and floodplains could be impacted by oil and gas activities 

under this alternative. However, ROPs and performance-based lease stipulations for 

Alternative B would mitigate impacts to wetlands and floodplains. Setbacks from rivers, 

streams, and fish-bearing lakes would be in the range of 1⁄4 to 3 miles under Alternative B. The 

main difference between these alternatives pertaining to wetlands is that Alternative B allows 

for drilling within and near Teshekpuk Lake, whereas Alternative A does not allow for drilling 

within or near the lake. This greatly increases the likelihood of exploration or development 

activities impacting wetlands and floodplains in the vicinity of this lake. Approximately 95% of 

the planning area would be considered wetlands, according to established criteria for 

determining wetland status. It is likely and therefore assumed that all ground-disturbing 

actions will be impacting wetlands for the purposes of calculating short and long-term impacts. 

4.4.6.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Activities not related to oil and gas exploration and development that could occur in the

planning area under Alternative B include aircraft, watercraft, OHV and snowmachine use, 

overland moves, collection and excavation for scientific research, hunting camps, recreational 

use of the area, and use of the area by local natives for subsistence. These activities, described 

in Alternative A, could occur throughout the planning area, and at the same frequency and 

4-285 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

intensity as under Alternative A, despite the increased availability of land for oil and gas 

leasing. There could be some increased use of OHVs in the planning area due to an increase in 

the amount of roads associated with development. However, additional impacts to wetlands and 

floodplains from this increase would likely be small. 

4.4.6.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

The following analysis is based on section 4.2.1.2, Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development Activities. See that section for a description of how estimated areas of

disturbance were calculated for each alternative. 

Effects of Disturbances 

Various activities associated with oil and gas exploration, development and production could

impact wetlands and floodplains in the planning area. These activities include seismic 

operations, exploration drilling, construction of ice roads and ice pads, summer tundra travel, 

gravel roads, gravel pads for pump stations, CPFs, and staging bases, airstrip and pipeline 

construction, and gravel mine sites. 

Exploration 

During oil exploration, various activities could cause impacts to wetlands and floodplains in the 

planning area. These activities include seismic operations, exploration drilling, and construction 

of ice roads, pads and airstrips. The types of impacts to wetlands and floodplains from

exploration activities were described in Alternative A. 

Under Alternative B, impacts to wetlands and floodplains from activities associated with oil and 

gas exploration would be greater than those that occur under Alternative A, because there

would be an additional 19 exploration and delineation wells drilled, which would increase the 

impacts of well cellar construction and the number and impacts of both ice pads and ice roads. 

Under Alternative B, the same scenario for seismic exploration is assumed as for Alternative A. 

Short-term vegetation disturbance from 2-D and 3-D operations is expected to total 108,000 

acres (2.3% of the 4.6 million acre planning area). Long-term disturbance is estimated to total 

153 acres. 

During the life of the plan, it is assumed that 97 exploration wells and 73 delineation wells, or a 

total of 170 wells, would be drilled from ice pads in the planning area under Alternative B. At 

six acres per pad, these would impact 1,020 acres of tundra, spread out over 50 years (114 acres 

more than Alternative A). Assuming that 4% (seven) of these would also involve an oversummer ice pad, an additional 42 acres of vegetation would be affected by ice pads. 

Under Alternative B, ice road construction would also increase in terms of total miles 

constructed because of an increase from five to six in number of total fields discovered. The total 

acreage of short term disturbance from ice roads over 50 years would be 18,672, about 3,030 

acres more than for Alternative A. Since vegetation recovery from ice road impacts is expected

within a few years (Yokel et al. in press), long-term disturbance from ice roads would be 

negligible. Although some evidence of crushed tussocks may still be apparent, new growth 

would preclude any exposed soils. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-286 

Alternative B: Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Ice airstrips are also used during exploratory drilling, and under Alternative B it is assumed 

that 30 ice airstrips would be constructed (10 more than Alternative A) covering 11 acres each 

for a total of 330 acres. These airstrips are commonly built on the grounded ice of large lakes, 

but if they were built over tundra they would result in impacts similar to ice roads. 

The construction of well cellars during exploration requires the digging of a hole that destroys 

vegetation on approximately 16 square feet (0.00037 acres) of ground. Thermokarst associated 

with the disruption of thermal regime in the surrounding soil may also change the vegetation 

type around the well cellar to a wetter vegetation type. The impacts from 170 wells could result 

in 0.06 acres of vegetation being destroyed under Alternative B. 

Development and Production 

During oil development and production, various activities could cause impacts to wetlands in 

the planning area. These activities include construction of gravel pads for pump stations, 

staging bases and CPFs, roads, airstrips, pipelines, excavation of material sites, summer tundra 

travel, and construction of ice roads. Impacts of ice roads were discussed previously under the

“Exploration” subheading and more thoroughly in Alternative A. 

Placement of Gravel Fill. Types of impacts to wetlands and floodplains from placement of

gravel fill were described in Alternative A. Construction of CPFs and associated satellite pads, 

roads, staging areas, and airstrips would result in the destruction of vegetation in the areas of 

gravel placement. Under Alternative B, six oil fields, six pump stations, and three staging bases 

would be developed, resulting in 3,064 acres of wetlands destroyed by gravel placement (346 

acres more than Alternative A). 

The increased facilities construction and use under Alternative B would result in a larger area 

impacted by dust than under Alternative A. Assuming a total of 250 miles of in-field gravel 

roads and 6 miles of airstrips, there is a potential for a total perimeter of 512 miles. Within 30 

feet of gravel fill, up to 1,862 acres of vegetation could be subject to smothering by dust and 

gravel, and between 30 and 150 feet, another 7,447 acres of altered vegetation for a total of 

9,309 acres that could be affected by a dust shadow out to a distance of 150 feet. In general, 

most changes in the plant community around gravel structures would occur within 164 feet of 

the structure (Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1983). If all effects were to occur within this 164 

foot zone, a total of 10,178 acres would be affected. 

Stream Crossings. Types of impacts to floodplains and stream crossings from installation of 

culverts, bridges or pipelines were described in Alternative A. An additional 20 miles of infield 

gravel roads and one additional runway, CPF, and two more production pads are expected

under Alternative B than under Alternative A. For this reason it is expected that more stream 

crossings will be needed, and the potential for constricting flows and creation of increased 

stream velocities, ice jams, ice impacts, scour and streambank erosion would be greater under 

Alternative B. However, ROP E-6 is protective of stream crossings by requiring crossings to be 

designed and constructed to maintain natural drainage and minimize adverse effects to natural 

stream flow. 

Material Sites. Types of impacts to wetlands and floodplains from material sites were 

described in Alternative A and are similar for all Alternatives. Gravel required for development

in the planning area could be mined from existing sites east of the planning area or could be 

extracted from new sites developed within the planning area. Investigations to identify gravel 

sources in the planning area have not been conducted, but presumably would be initiated if 

4-287 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

discoveries of recoverable oil or gas were made. Under Alternative B it is assumed that 13 

material sites, each affecting 50 acres, would be needed. This would cover a total area of 650 

acres, which is 100 acres more than estimated for Alternative A Excavation of the gravel mine 

and stockpiling of overburden would destroy wetlands and floodplains at these sites. ROP E-8 

minimizes impacts to wetlands and floodplains by placing material sites outside of floodplains, 

or within floodplains if water reservoirs can be utilized and fish habitat increased. 

Pipelines. Types of impacts to wetlands and floodplains from pipelines were described in 

Alternative A. Impacts under Alternative B from pipeline construction would be similar to 

those described for Alternative A. The total area disturbed by each VSM would be about 14 

square feet. About 6% of this area would be destroyed vegetation and subsequently replaced by 

the VSM, and the remaining portion would be potentially altered in terms of community type or

species composition. Overall, 0.03 acres of vegetation would be disturbed per pipeline mile. 

Under Alternative B, 250 miles of gathering lines and 162 miles of sales-oil pipelines would 

disturb up to 13 acres of vegetation through VSM placement (1 acre more than Alternative A). 

Effects of Spills. The greater amount of leasing, development, and production of oil that 

would occur under Alternative B, relative to Alternative A, would result in a greater number of 

small spills of crude and refined oil in the planning area. The chance of a large oil spill 

occurring would also be greater under Alternative B; however, it would still be a very rare 

event. 

Most oil spills cover less than 500 square feet (<0.01 acres), although a pressured aerial mist of 

1-4 bbls may cover up to 145 acres (Ott 1997). (Such a spill is a very low probability event, 

occurring less than once out of the total spills expected throughout the life of this Plan. Thus its 

magnitude is not apparent in the following acreages.) See section 4.3.5.2 under the vegetation 

section for a more thorough analysis of potential impacts to vegetation and wetlands from spills. 

If 11% of all oil spills would reach vegetation under Alternative B this would mean 228 of the 

2,070 crude and refined oil spills assumed to occur over the life of the plan would have more 

than a negligible effect on vegetation. This is about 27 more spills than the amount that would 

be impacted under Alternative A. Assuming the average spill would cover 0.1 acre, under 

Alternative B approximately 23 acres would be impacted substantially during the lifetime of 

development in the planning area. Overall, past spills on Alaska’s North Slope have resulted in 

minor ecological damage and ecosystems have shown good potential for recovery (Jorgenson

1997). 

Summer Tundra Travel. Types of impacts to wetlands from summer tundra travel were

described in Alternative A and are similar for all Alternatives. Given the potentially greater 

number of fields developed, impacts from summer tundra travel under Alternative B could also 

be greater than under Alternative A. Short-term, minor impacts are expected from limited

summer tundra travel using low ground pressure vehicles. ROP L-1 is designed to regulate and 

monitor summer travel. Summer travel would be permitted on a case-by-case basis if the 

applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use would have no more than minimal impacts to 

soils and vegetation. 

Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Alternative B may require removal of structures or rehabilitation of 3,716 acres (446 acres more 

than Alternative A) During abandonment activities, vegetation and wetlands would be impacted 

by dust fallout along roads, by ice roads and other off-road tundra travel associated with 

dismantling of pipelines and power lines, and by disturbance to vegetation adjacent to VSMs 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-288 

Alternative B: Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

and power line poles during their removal. The level of impact from these activities would be 

roughly the same as that during construction if gravel fill was removed; impacts would be less if 

the gravel were to be left in place. If roads and pads were left in place, and especially if cross 

drainage across roads was not maintained, water impoundment would occur, and could alter

plant communities as described for the construction period. It is also likely that the

unmaintained roads would have occasional washouts, where tundra vegetation would be 

covered with washed-out gravel. Roads and pads, if left in place, would likely need to be 

revegetated with plants native to gravel bars and ridges in the Arctic (i.e., different from the 

plant communities surrounding the facilities). Revegetation activities could take several years,

as initial attempts are not always successful. Removal of gravel from pads, roads, and airstrips 

could be mandated. Partial or complete removal of gravel can result in faster reestablishment of

native plant growth, although establishment can take many years (more than a decade). In 

addition, thaw subsidence is difficult to predict, and complete restoration to preexisting 

conditions is improbable. Lease Stipulation G-1 would provide for the removal of all oil and gas 

facilities at the time of field abandonment unless the AO determined that facilities should be 

left in place. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Development of commercial gas in the planning area would reflect the impacts described for 

soils, water, and vegetation and would be similar to that described for Alternative A. The same

length of buried gas pipelines is projected, as well as the same impacts from construction of a 

10- to 20-acre pad for a gas compressor station. Alternative B (as well as Alternatives C and D), 

which makes more lands available in ice-rich areas especially susceptible to thermokarst, 

subsidence and erosion, could have greater impacts from burying a gas pipeline. Placement of 

gas pipelines on VSMs, would reduce these impacts, though vegetation and soils would be 

destroyed at base of the VSMs, vegetation under aboveground pipelines would be impacted by 

shading, and ice roads that may be used during construction would have localized, short-term 

impacts on vegetation and during spring melting add somewhat saline water to any shallow 

tundra pools. 

4.4.6.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Many of the performance-based lease stipulations and ROPs associated with Alternative B 

would directly or indirectly limit potential impacts to vegetation in the planning area. ROPs A1 through A-7 relate to waste prevention, handling, disposal, spills, and public safety. They

ensure that waste materials associated with exploration and development activities would be

properly disposed of and would effectively minimize impacts to vegetation from spills and 

mishandling of materials. They would also provide for rapid cleanup of spills, decreasing the 

likelihood of impacts to vegetation. ROPs C-2 and C-3 would minimize impacts to vegetation

associated with overland moves and seismic work. 

Lease Stipulation D-1 would limit impacts to floodplains by preventing exploratory drilling in 

rivers, streams, and active floodplains. Lease Stipulation D-2 would effectively minimize surface

impacts from exploratory drilling by limiting activities to temporary structures such as ice pads, 

ice roads, ice airstrips and temporary platforms unless permanent structures were absolutely 

required. ROPs and Stipulations E-1 through E-6, E-8, and E-12 would effectively minimize 

impacts to vegetation by providing facility design and construction regulations that would limit 

the footprint of developments, provide protection from oil spills, provide setbacks that protect 

riparian and other high value habitats, and insure that habitat and resource issues were 

considered in the placement of facilities. Lease Stipulation G-1 would provide for the removal of 

4-289 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

all oil and gas facilities at the time of field abandonment unless the AO determined that 

facilities should be left in place. ROP I-1 would help be effective in minimizing resource conflicts 

by providing appropriate orientation programs and training for facilities workers. All of the “K” 

lease stipulations would also be effective by providing some protection for vegetation by 

providing for setbacks along the coast, rivers, lakes, and other high value habitat areas. 

Under Alternative B, development would result in more impacts to wetlands and floodplains 

than under Alternative A. The ROPs and performance-based lease stipulations associated with 

Alternative B are expected to be equally protective as those of the prescriptive stipulations in 

Alternative A. They would provide extensive protections to limit impacts, and would be effective 

in minimizing destruction of wetlands and floodplains. 

4.4.6.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative B, impacts to wetland and floodplains from activities other than oil and gas 

development would be similar to those under Alternative A and would include minor impacts 

from aircraft, watercraft, OHV and snowmachine use, overland moves, collection and excavation 

for scientific research, hunting camps, recreational use of the area, and use of the area by local 

natives for subsistence. The duration of these impacts would be short term, ranging up to 5 

months, and recovery would vary from one to several years. 

Impacts to wetlands and floodplains from oil and gas exploration would occur from seismic 

work, construction of well cellars during exploratory drilling, and the construction of ice roads, 

pads, and airstrips. Based on earlier studies, there should be no substantial, long-term impacts 

to vegetation from seismic lines, but camp move trails could substantially impact approximately 

153 acres after 8-9 years. Effects of well cellar construction would also be permanent, but would 

impact only one acre of vegetation. 

The effects of oil development and operation would include destruction of vegetation during 

construction of gravel pads, roads, airstrips, and staging areas; from excavation of material 

sites; and construction of VSMs. These impacts would be long-term and would impact about 

(3,064 + 650 + 13) or 3727 acres, (447 acres more than Alternative A) or 0.08% of the 4.6 million 

acre planning area. Wetland plant communities could also be altered by dust deposition, 

salinity of gravel fill used in construction, snow drifts, and blockage of or change to natural 

drainage patterns. These impacts would be also be long-term and would impact about 10,178 

acres, or 0.2% of the planning area. 

It is assumed that impacts to wetland communities would occur in proportion to their 

occurrence within the planning area. However, increased development in the area around

Teshekpuk Lake, which would be allowed under Alternative B, could disproportionately impact 

wetland vegetation classes. A higher percentage of wet vegetation communities occur in areas in 

the northern portion of the planning area. This area is also considered to have the highest 

potential for oil reserves, which would increase the likelihood that these areas would be 

developed under Alternative B. 

Impacts to vegetation from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas activities, would 

likely be additive, except in those areas where the two types of activities overlapped. Impacts to 

vegetation from exploration and development activities would also be additive, except where 

development activities occurred in areas previously disturbed during exploration. In areas 

where two or more activities occurred, overall impacts would reflect those impacts associated 

with the first activity and any new impacts associated with later activities. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-290 

Alternative B: Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.4.7 Fish 

4.4.7-a Freshwater and Anadromous/Amphidromous Fish 

4.4.7-a.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

It is expected that the frequency and intensity of most non-oil and gas activities occurring under 

Alternative B would be similar to those occurring under Alternative A. Ground camps in 

support of research may increase in association with the projected increase in oil and gas 

activity under Alternative B, and subsistence fishing could potentially occur in more areas due 

to increased access. However, additional impacts to fish from this increase would likely be 

small. 

4.4.7-a.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbances 

Effects from Seismic Surveys. Potential threats to overwintering fish from seismic surveys 

in the planning area would include 1) physical damage or acute mortality from acoustic energy 

pulses; 2) stress associated with acoustic energy pulses; and 3) physical damage to 

overwintering habitat caused by seismic vehicles. Given that overwintering habitat represents

only about 5% of the planning area, it is unlikely that seismic transmissions would occur 

directly over overwintering sites with any degree of regularity. Overall, any affects to 

overwintering fish caused by winter seismic surveys would be localized and would not be likely 

to have any measurable effect on fish populations within the planning area. 

Under Alternative B, seismic exploration using Vibroseis in the winter and airgun arrays in the 

summer would be allowed on Teshekpuk Lake. Impacts under this alternative would be 

identical to those described for Alternative A. 

Under Alternative B, ROP C-2(a) would correspond to Lease Stipulation 24(i, j) of Alternative A, 

allowing winter ground operations to begin only after the seasonal frost and snow cover are at 

sufficient depths to protect the tundra, and forcing these operations to cease with the beginning 

of the spring melt. The exact start and end dates for winter operations would be determined by 

the AO. While these lease stipulations were designed to protect underlying tundra and

vegetation, they would also offer some protection to fish overwintering in pools. 

Under Alternative B, ROP C-2(b) would be identical to Lease Stipulation 24(f) of Alternative A 

by stating that all winter activities must be conducted with low-ground-pressure vehicles. 

Required Operating Procedure C-4 would be identical to Lease Stipulation 24(e) of Alternative 

A, requiring that winter stream crossings be located in shallow riffle areas when possible to 

avoid additional freeze-down of deepwater pools harboring overwintering fish and invertebrates 

used by fish. 

Overall, the general level of protection provided to freshwater, anadromous, and amphidromous

fish and fish habitat by ROPs and lease stipulations would be effective and similar for both 

alternatives. The level of seismic activity would be slightly greater in Alternative B than under 

Alternative A, but it is expected that any impacts would still be localized. Therefore, it is not 

4-291 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

expected that seismic activities occurring under Alternative B would have a measurable effect 

on fish populations within and adjacent to the planning area. 

Effects from Water Demand. Most freshwater bodies less than six feet in depth typically 

freeze to the bottom. It has been estimated that by late winter ice cover can decrease available 

freshwater habitat in North Slope rivers and streams by approximately 97% (Craig 1989a). 

Overwintering areas are therefore limited to deep-water pools and channels in rivers and

streams, and to lakes deep enough to provide sufficient under-ice free water during winter. In

standing waters, 7 feet is considered the minimum depth for supporting overwintering fish (PAI 

2002). Moving waters may deter the thickening of ice, thereby providing overwintering habitat 

at shallower depths; areas within the Colville River Delta may adequately overwinter fish at 

depths of 5 feet. Because of the importance of overwintering area to Arctic fish, lease 

stipulations under all alternatives specifically regulate the winter withdrawal of water from 

lakes, rivers, and streams. 

The principal difference between Alternative B and Alternative A is that under Alternative A,

winter water withdrawal from fish-bearing lakes less than seven feet in depth would be 

prohibited, whereas under Alternative B, withdrawal from fish-bearing lakes (except where 

ninespine stickleback and/or Alaska blackfish are the only species present) between 5 and 7 feet 

in depth would be prohibited, but there would be no restrictions on withdrawing water from 

lakes less than 5 feet in depth. 

The only aspect of Alternative B that could decrease protection to freshwater fish, relative to

Alternative A, is the 5- to 7-foot provision that is species-specific for ninespine stickleback and 

Alaska blackfish. The eastern portion of the planning area and Colville River represent the 

eastern limit of the Alaska blackfish range in northern Alaska, and the presence of this species 

is occasional throughout the planning area (see section 3.3.4.2, Fish Species). Because of this

sparse occurrence, it is possible that Alaska blackfish populations could be negatively impacted. 

Conversely, ninespine stickleback are very abundant throughout the planning area and the loss 

of a few fish from a single overwintering site would have a minor effect the population. 

Under Alternative B, greater levels of water withdrawal would be expected, in conjunction with 

increased exploration and development activities, relative to Alternative A. However, careful 

adherence to lease stipulations and ROPs should help mitigate impacts to fish. Although 

Alternative B would offer slightly less protection to ninespine stickleback and Alaska blackfish 

than Alternative A, the net affect to these species would be minor. Therefore, winter water 

withdrawal would not be expected to have a measurable effect on fish populations in and

adjacent to the planning area. 

Effects from Exploratory Drilling. Drilling operations require large amounts of water for 

blending into drilling muds, and also produce large amounts of rock cuttings. If an exploratory 

well were to be abandoned, drilling muds and cuttings would be re-injected into the bore hole. If 

the well were to go into production, muds and cutting would be removed to an approved disposal 

site at Prudhoe Bay. Any chemical leaching into surrounding waters by cuttings temporarily 

being stored at the drill site could affect nearby fish habitat. 

Under Alternative B, Lease Stipulation D-1 would correspond to Lease Stipulation 28 of 

Alternative A. Both prohibit exploratory drilling in rivers and streams, as determined by the 

highest high-water mark, and in fish-bearing lakes unless the lessee demonstrates, on sitespecific basis, that biological impacts would be minor or there is no other feasible alternative. 

The number of exploratory wells would be greater under Alternative B than under Alternative 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-292 

Alternative B: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

A, but the prohibition of drilling in rivers and streams should minimize impacts to fish. In 

general, it is not expected that exploratory drilling would have a measurable effect on fish 

populations in and adjacent to the planning area under Alternative B. 

Effects from Gravel Extraction. In general, gravel extraction within the planning area 

would not likely have a substantially harmful effect on fish overwintering and spawning 

grounds, since those habitats represent only a small (less than 5%) portion of the planning area. 

However, if gravel mining activities were conducted in these sensitive areas, the localized

impacts could be substantial, possibly resulting in spawning failure and high mortalities of 

overwintering fish. Other detrimental affects that could occur during the open-water summer

season include the blocking and rerouting of stream channels; and increased silt concentrations 

resulting in reduced primary production, loss of invertebrate prey species, and disruption of 

feeding patterns for sight-dependent feeders (USDOI BLM 1989). Because gravel spawning 

areas are limited within the planning area, there may be an association between these sites and 

optimal gravel extraction sites, increasing the probability that spawning grounds could be 

impacted. 

Under Alternative B, ROP E-8 would correspond to Lease Stipulation 40 of Alternative A. Both 

are intended to effectively minimize the effects of gravel mining on fish by limiting gravel mine

sites within the active floodplain of any river, stream, or lake unless the action enhances fish 

habitat. The protection provided to fish and fish habitat under Alternative B would be 

equivalent to that provided under Alternative A. Gravel removal under either alternative is not

expected to have a measurable effect on fish populations in and adjacent to the planning area, 

and gravel removal under both alternatives could have a positive effect by creating new 

overwintering areas. 

Effects from Pad, Road, and Pipeline Construction. Improper placement and construction 

of drill pads, roadways, pipelines, bridges, and culverts could affect fish and fish habitat by 

eliminating, diverting, or otherwise impeding flow from small tributaries that connect rivers, 

streams, and lakes. Altering water flow characteristics could interfere with fish migrations to 

and from overwintering, spawning, and feeding grounds. Obstructions to fish movement are 

most common when culverts or low water crossings are not properly sized to allow for the 

passage of fish during these critical migration periods (Elliott 1982). Movement can be 

obstructed during periods of either high or low stream flow. Impacts from culverts can be longlived (beyond the construction phase) if design and placement are not adequate. Recent 

investigations into stream crossing structures in the North Slope Oilfields found a number of 

crossings had problems that likely impair or impede fish passage beyond the structures (Morris

and Winters 2004, 2007). Obstruction to stream and river flow and fish migrations may also 

occur if ice bridges are still in place once spring breakup begins. 

Under Alternative B, Lease Stipulation E-2 would correspond to Lease Stipulation 41 of 

Alternative A. Under Alternative A, however, construction of all permanent oil and gas 

facilities, roadways, airstrips, and pipelines would be prohibited within 500 feet of any active 

floodplain unless otherwise permitted by the AO (special habitat zones identified in Lease

Stipulation 39 have their own designated restrictions), while under Alternative B construction

would be prohibited within 500 feet of fish-bearing and 100 feet of non-fish-bearing water bodies 

(special habitat zones identified in the “K” lease stipulations have their own designated 

restrictions). Since the only difference between the two alternatives is the size of the buffer zone 

around water bodies that do not contain fish, both alternatives would afford similar protection

to fish and fish habitat. 

4-293 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Under Alternative B, ROP C-3 would be identical to Lease Stipulation 24(d) of Alternative A, 

which requires that ice bridges be removed or breached before spring breakup to maintain 

natural flow characteristics of the region. In addition, ROP E-6 would be identical to Lease 

Stipulation 42 of Alternative A, which states that bridges, rather than culverts, be used for road 

crossings on all major rivers, and that any culverts necessary on smaller streams be large 

enough to avoid restricting fish passage or affecting natural stream flow. 

Under Alternative B, ROP E-12 would correspond to Lease Stipulation 46 of Alternative A. Both 

require extensive ecological mapping of proposed development sites in order to access and

minimize impacts to sensitive wildlife and fish habitats. 

Under Alternative B, any increase in the number of pads, roads, and pipelines constructed,

relative to Alternative A, would depend on the amount of recoverable oil and gas reserves that 

would eventually be brought into production. Rigorous adherence to pre-development 

environmental assessment, structure siting, and construction codes should minimize impacts to 

fish. For this reason, as well as those outlined in section 4.3.7, Fish for Alternative A, 

construction and placement of drill pads, roadways, pipelines, bridges, and culverts would have 

only a minor effect on freshwater, anadromous, or amphidromous fish populations in and 

adjacent to the planning area. 

Effects from Summer Tundra Travel. In Alternative A, summer tundra travel is allowed in 

Northeast NPR-A only through use of the stipulation exception process (see stipulation 24i in 

the 1998 Northeast NPR-A ROD). Travel off of gravel pads is easiest in winter and generally 

environmentally preferable at that time, but some vehicle travel off of pads does occur in North

Slope oil fields during summer to accomplish specific tasks. The State of Alaska has approved

some low-ground-pressure vehicles for summer tundra travel and similar summer tundra travel 

may be anticipated to be part of oil development in northeast NPR-A. In Alternative B, 

Required Operating Procedure L-1 was crafted to address summer tundra travel with the 

following objective: “Protect stream banks and water quality; maintain populations of, and 

adequate habitat for birds, fish, and caribou and other terrestrial mammals; and support 

maintenance of subsistence activities.” Summer tundra travel is commonly associated with spill 

prevention and preparedness measures required in spill prevention plans and it is anticipated 

that these are the types of activities that would be permitted to travel off of gravel pads and 

roads during times other than those identified in ROP C-2a if required surveys and studies 

show that minimal impacts to the resources in the area would occur. 

The potential impacts on fish related to summer tundra travel include sedimentation and 

degraded water quality. If vehicles cross streams, increased sedimentation could occur from 

streambank damage and disturbance of the streambed, and small leaks from equipment (e.g.

fuel or mechanical fluids) could degrade water quality. However, stream crossings would likely 

be rare and only approved by the AO if the L-1 ROP objective can be met, which aims to protect 

stream banks and water quality. If a stream crossing was allowed, a short-lived sediment pulse 

from disturbing the streambed would have a very short-lived effect on the stream. Any 

accidental small leak from a vehicle would not have a discernible impact on fish. Because of 

protection to fish habitat provided by the L-1 ROP in Alternative B, summer tundra travel

would not have a measurable effect on freshwater, anadromous, or amphidromous fish 

populations within and adjacent to the planning area. 

Effects from Causeways. The construction of solid gravel causeways along the coast has long 

been a sensitive fisheries issue (USACE 1980, 1984). These structures, which can extend 

several miles out to sea, are used for offshore drilling, year-round seawater extraction, and as 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-294 

Alternative B: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

docking facilities for sea-born supply. Their solid construction enables them to withstand the 

immense pressures of shifting coastal ice in late winter and spring. They also have the potential 

to physically block fish moving along the shore and/or alter coastal circulation and mixing 

patterns such that hydrographic conditions becomes inhospitable for anadromous and 

amphidromous fishes. The nearshore coastal zone is a prime summer feeding ground for these 

species. Studies conducted at Prudhoe Bay have documented some instances in which 

causeways have indeed altered, impeded, and even completely blocked anadromous and 

amphidromous fish from migrating along the coast (Fechhelm 1999; Fechhelm et al. 1989, 

1999).Under Alternative B, Lease Stipulation E-3 would be virtually identical to Lease 

Stipulation 30 of Alternative A. Both prohibit the construction of causeways, docks, artificial 

gravel islands, and bottom-founded structures in river mouths and deltas, and artificial gravel 

islands and bottom-founded structures in active stream channels, unless otherwise approved by 

the AO on a site-specific basis. Any approved structures must be designed, sited, and 

constructed in a way to prevent substantial changes in nearshore hydrography, and must 

maintain free passage of marine, anadromous, and amphidromous fishes. Active monitoring at 

these structures could also be required. Given these restrictions, the future construction of a 

causeway or dock could have a minor effect on anadromous, and amphidromous fish populations 

under Alternative B. 

Effects from Waterflooding. As under Alternative A, oil fields in the northern portion of the

planning area would likely receive seawater from facilities already serving fields in the Prudhoe 

Bay/Kuparuk area under Alternative B. These facilities, which have been operational for years, 

and have been shown to have only a minor effect on fish migrating or foraging in the intake 

area. If seawater intake facilities were constructed in the future to enhance supply to oil fields 

in the planning area, it is assumed that the same design safeguards would be incorporated to 

prevent the entrainment and impingement of fish. Therefore, under Alternative B,

waterflooding would not be expected to have a measurable effect on anadromous and

amphidromous fish, regardless of any increase in exploration and development activities. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Water withdrawal and removal of bridges, culverts, and bridge approaches could have impacts 

on fish similar to those described for construction activities. Additional fish habitat could be 

created by allowing gravel pits to be colonized by fish from nearby streams. Because more 

infrastructure will be potentially developed under Alternative B, it is anticipated that the 

impacts of abandonment and rehabilitation will be greater under this alternative than under 

Alternative A. 

Effects of Spills 

Oil spills have been observed to have a range of effects on fish (Malins 1977; Hamilton et al. 

1979; Starr et al. 1981). The specific effect depends on the concentration of petroleum present, 

the length of exposure, and the stage of fish development involved (eggs, larva, and juveniles 

are most sensitive). If lethal concentrations are encountered (or sub-lethal concentrations over

a long enough period), fish mortality is likely to occur. However, mortality caused by a 

petroleum-related spill is seldom observed outside the laboratory environment. Most acutetoxicity values (96-hour lethal concentration for 50% of test organisms [LC50]) for fish generally

are on the order of 1 to 10 ppm. Concentrations measured under the slicks of oil spills at sea 

have been less than the acute values for fish and plankton. For example, concentrations of oil 

1.6 to 3.3 feet beneath a slick from the Tsesis spill (Kineman et al. 1980) ranged from 50 to 60 

parts-per-billion (ppb). Extensive sampling following the Exxon Valdez oil spill (about 260,000 

4-295 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

bbl in size) also found hydrocarbon levels that were well below those known to be toxic or to 

cause sub-lethal effects in plankton (Neff 1991). The low concentration of hydrocarbons in the 

water column following even a large oil spill at sea appears to be the primary reason for the lack 

of lethal effects on fish and plankton. 

Most of the ROPs and lease stipulations associated with Alternative B that are designed to 

prevent or otherwise deal with oil spills in the planning area are the same as the lease 

stipulations listed for Alternative A. Under Alternative B, these include ROPs A-2(d), A-3, A-4, 

A-6, A-7(a), and E-4. Under Alternative B, ROP A-5 would correspond to Lease Stipulations 15 

and 16 of Alternative A. Whereas Lease Stipulation 16 prohibits refueling within 500 feet of any 

water body or in any active flood plain (fueling of boats, float planes, and ski planes permitted), 

ROP A-5 prohibits refueling within 500 feet of fish-bearing and 100 feet of non-fish-bearing 

waterbodies (fueling of boats, float panes, and ski planes permitted). Small caches of boat or

plane fuel are permitted in the restricted areas under both alternatives. The buffer zone can be 

reduced from 500 to 100 feet if it can be demonstrated that those bodies do not contain fish. 

Both alternatives would mitigate impacts to surrounding fish and fish habitat. Lease 

Stipulation 15 of Alternative A prohibits the storage of fuel on any active floodplain, whereas 

that decision is left up to the AO under Alternative B. With proper safety features, impacts to 

fish and their habitat would be minimized under both alternatives. 

Under Alternative B, the volume of spills and expected amount of impact would increase 

proportionately (from Alternative A) with increased exploration and development. In 

Alternative B, the volume of oil from small and large spills is projected to be 12% more than the 

volume from spills estimated to occur under Alternative A. Given the small volume of oil 

typically involved in small spills, as well as the safety requirements for operations in the oil

field and stringent clean-up protocols, small oil spills associated with Alternative B would not 

likely have a measurable effect on freshwater, anadromous, or amphidromous fish populations 

in or adjacent to the planning area. Besides the effectiveness of the response, many independent 

factors will determine the probability that fish will be negatively impacted by an oil spill, 

including the quantity spilled, season, weather patterns, location (e.g. upland versus river 

channel), and proximity to sensitive habitat (see section 4.2.2.3, Fate and Behavior of 

Spilled Oil). If a large spill of crude oil occurred during the summer open-water period and 

within a major stream or river channel, this could potentially have an effect on freshwater, 

anadromous, or amphidromous fish populations in or adjacent to the planning area; in

particular, impacting subpopulations at the drainage level. A very large oil spill within a major 

stream or river channel during the summer would have an even more likely impact on

freshwater, anadromous, or amphidromous fish populations in or adjacent to the planning area. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Impacts of commercial gas development under Alternative B would be similar to that described 

for Alternative A. Winter construction of a buried gas pipeline by trenching through fish 

inhabited streams or portions of streams not frozen to the bottom would impact fish to some 

degree, depending on the volume of the overwintering habitat and the density of fish utilizing 

this habitat. Potential impacts to fish associated with maintenance of gas pipelines would be 

similar to those described for construction. Water withdrawals and changes to hydrology caused 

by ice roads could affect fish. Potential issues include losing access to suitable habitat, barriers 

to movement, or habitat degradation. These ice roads would be necessary during both natural 

gas exploration and construction phases. For example, ice roads would be used to reach 

exploration drilling sites and also used in trenching the pipeline route or construction of a 

compressor station. (ADNR, 2006b). If a buried gas pipeline ruptured and gas escaped to a 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-296 

Alternative B: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

fish-bearing waterbody, some fish in the immediate vicinity might be killed. Natural gas and 

condensates would be hazardous to any organisms exposed to high concentrations. In general, 

very few fish are likely to be affected by a pipeline rupture. 

While natural gas exploration and development may have notable localized impacts, it is not

likely to have a measurable effect on freshwater fish populations. 

4.4.7-a.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

As noted above, numerous performance-based lease stipulations and ROPs are proposed under 

Alternative B to protect fish and their habitats. As discussed, these lease stipulations and ROPs 

afford similar protection to fish as lease stipulations developed for Alternative A. 

4.4.7-a.4 Conclusion 

The potential impacts to freshwater, anadromous, and amphidromous fish from oil exploration 

and development activities within the planning area under Alternative B would be greater than 

potential impacts for Alternative A and include minor impacts to sensitive overwintering 

habitats from winter seismic activities; loss of overwintering habitat from water withdrawals; 

degradation or blockage of water bodies used as fish migratory corridors or feeding grounds 

resulting from the construction and placement of pipelines, pads, ice and gravel roadways, 

airstrips, and causeways; loss or degradation of habitat from gravel extraction; crude and

refined-oil spills; and loss or degradation of habitat from gravel structure erosion. 

Activities proposed under Alternative B should have only minor effects on fish and their 

habitats. By opening up additional lands near Teshekpuk Lake to leasing, fish in this lake and 

other deep-water lakes and streams would have a greater potential to be impacted by spills and 

habitat degradation, resulting in greater risks to fish under this alternative than Alternative A. 

Performance-based ROPs and lease stipulations developed for this alternative, however, would 

ensure the exploration and development activities are designed to effectively minimize impacts 

to fish habitats and that procedures are in place to clean up most spills before they can harm 

fish or their habitats. The threat of localized impacts affecting fish stocks would increase if they 

occurred in sensitive habitats. 

In general, impacts to fish from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas activities, would 

likely be additive, except in those areas where the two types of activities overlapped. Impacts to 

fish from exploration and development activities would also be additive, except where

development activities occurred in areas previously disturbed during exploration. However, once 

exploration and development/production ceased in an area, fish populations and habitat could 

recover, reducing overall effects in the planning area. Because of the larger disturbance area 

and potential for more oil and gas exploration and development activities, the potential for 

impacts to fish under this alternative would be about two times greater for oil and gas 

exploration activities, and four times greater for oil development activities, as compared to 

Alternative A. 

4-297 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.4.7-b Marine Fish 

4.4.7-b.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Most non-oil and gas ground activities would be quite limited in scope and duration. In addition, 

recreational and commercial fishermen do not target marine fish in the Beaufort Sea. Therefore,

it is not expected that non-oil and gas activities occurring under Alternative B would have a 

measurable effect on marine fish in the vicinity of the planning area. 

4.4.7-b.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbances 

Effects from Seismic Surveys. Seismic surveys would be conducted within the planning area 

during the winter months, from early December to mid-May, and possibly during the summer

on Teshekpuk Lake. Because marine fish and their habitat lie outside the planning area in 

winter and Teshekpuk Lake in summer, seismic activities associated with Alternative B would 

not be expected to have a measurable effect on marine fish populations. 

Effects from Water Demand. Water used in the building of drill pads, roads, and airstrips 

would likely be withdrawn from freshwater sources near the site of construction. These 

activities would have no effect on marine fish and their habitat. Water withdrawal for the 

purposes of waterflooding, which would have implications for the marine system, is discussed 

separately below under the “Effects from Waterflooding” subheading. 

Effects from Exploratory Drilling. Most exploratory drilling would be conducted within the 

planning area during the winter months, from early December to mid-April. Because marine 

fish and their habitat lie outside the planning area in winter, most exploratory activities 

associated with Alternative B would not be expected to have a measurable effect on marine fish 

populations. Exploratory drilling could also be conducted from current production pads or 

platforms within a lake body during summer in the TLCH Area, but impacts to marine fish 

would be minor. 

Effects from Gravel Extraction. It is doubtful that gravel extraction would be permitted 

along the coastal tidal zone. Small numbers of fourhorn sculpin and Arctic flounder could 

migrate upriver in summer, but any encounter with a gravel site would be a chance occurrence, 

and would involve only a minuscule segment of any population. Fourhorn sculpin and Arctic 

flounder regularly inhabit and forage in highly turbid coastal waters near river outfalls and 

plumes. Gravel extraction would not benefit fish populations by creating overwintering habitat, 

as it might for freshwater fish, since all marine fish overwinter at sea. 

Under Alternative B, ROP E-8 would correspond to Lease Stipulation 40 of Alternative A. Both 

are intended to effectively minimize the effects of gravel mining on fish by limiting gravel mine

sites within the active floodplain of any river, stream, or lake unless the AO determined that 

there was no other alternative or that the site would ultimately enhance fish habitat. 

Effects from Pad, Road, and Pipeline Construction. Pad, road, and pipeline construction

would largely be limited to freshwater habitat regions of the planning area, and would not 

establish a footprint in marine or coastal habitats. Under Alternative B, Lease Stipulation K-6 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-298 

Alternative B: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

requires that all permanent oil and gas facilities, including gravel pads, roads, airstrips, and 

pipelines established to support exploration and development activities, be located at least 3⁄4 

mile inland from the coastline to the extent practicable. The use of previously occupied coastal 

sites such as Camp Lonely and DEW-Line sites, or sites within 3⁄4 mile of the coastline if an 

exception is granted by the AO, is possible. Future exceptions could be the construction of

docking facilities along the coast, although, for the near future, sea borne re-supply would likely

involve the already operational docking facilities at West Dock. A similar level of protection for 

the coastline would not be provided under Alternative A. 

Required Operating Procedure E-12 requires extensive ecological mapping of proposed

development sites in order to access and minimize impacts to sensitive wildlife and fish

habitats. All coastal construction would be approached with environmental caution. This lease 

stipulation is similar to Lease Stipulation 46 for Alternative A. 

Effects from Causeways. The construction of solid gravel causeways along the coast is less of

an issue for marine fish than it is for anadromous and amphidromous fish. The major migration

for two of the most dominant species, fourhorn sculpin and Arctic flounder, is onshore soon after 

ice breakup. Once in coastal waters, these sedentary species do not undergo the extensive 

alongshore migrations up and down the coast that are characteristic of Arctic cisco and the 

amphidromous species. Potential blockage to alongshore movement is less critical. 

Under Alternative B, Lease Stipulation E-3 would provide restrictions on the use, design, and

monitoring of causeways that might be constructed along the coast in the future, although 

Lease Stipulation 30 of Alternative A entails greater protective and regulatory measures to

mitigate impacts to marine fish. 

Effects from Waterflooding. Under Alternative B, waterflooding would not be expected to

have a measurable effect on marine fish for the reasons given in Alternative A. 

Effects of Spills 

Hydrocarbon spills can impact marine fishes of any life history stage. Such impacts may include 

sublethal and/or lethal effects. The intensity of the effects upon a marine fish population or

assemblage of species is dependent on a suite of dynamic factors. The size of the spill does not 

necessarily directly relate to the number of individuals that could be impacted. 

The threat to marine fish from an oil spill is contingent upon the spill reaching coastal waters at 

volumes capable of affecting large nearshore areas. Because oil spills in the planning area are 

expected to be small, and given the stringent oil-spill-response safety requirements for 

operations on the oil field, there is a minor likelihood that an inland spill would reach 

coastal/marine waters of the planning area at volumes capable of causing a biologically 

important or measurable impact to marine fishes. 

Lease Stipulation K-6 requires that all permanent oil and gas facilities, including gravel pads, 

roads, airstrips, and pipelines, be located at least 3⁄4 mile inland from the coastline, to the extent 

practicable. Because oil spills in the planning area would likely be small, and given the 

stringent and effective oil-spill-response safety requirements for operations on the oil field as 

identified in ROPs A-2(d), A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7(a), and E-4, and the setback restrictions of

Lease Stipulation K-6, a major oil spill in the marine environment would be unlikely. 

4-299 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

The primary difference in the regulations of Alternative A and Alternative B is the way in 

which wastewater discharges may be disposed of in the marine environment. Under Alternative 

B, ROP A-7(a) allows for the disposal of these waters in the marine environment at the 

discretion of the AO, based on a case-by-case review of environmental factors and consistency 

with NPDES regulations. In comparison, Lease Stipulation 5(d) of Alternative A allows for a 

case-by-case approval for discharge into marine waters greater than 33 feet deep, but expressly 

forbids discharge into marine water shallower than 33 feet. Given that the AO would undertake

a rigorous environmental review and take the necessary precautionary measures to ensure the 

biological and environmental integrity of marine waters, marine fish should be equally 

protected under Alternative B and Alternative A. 

The number of spills that would occur under Alternative B is estimated to be four times greater 

than the number of spills predicted to occur under Alternative A, and these spills would be 

dispersed throughout the mainland planning area. Therefore, impacts from spills would be 

greater under Alternative B than Alternative A. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Marine fish populations are not expected to be affected by exploration, construction, or

maintenance activities associated with a gas development beyond what is expected to occur

during oil development. 

4.4.7-b.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

As noted above, prescriptive- and performance-based lease stipulations proposed under 

Alternative A and Alternative B offer similar protections to fish and their habitats. Lease 

Stipulation K-6 developed for Alternative B, however, specifically prohibits permanent oil and 

gas development within 3⁄4 mile inland from the coastline, unless the AO grants an exception; 

similar protection is not provided under Alternative A. Thus, greater protection is afforded

marine fish under Alternative B than Alternative A. 

4.4.7-b.4 Conclusion 

In general, marine fish of the Beaufort Sea are insulated from many potential environmental 

impacts associated with oil and gas development in the planning area. Most of the coastal tidal 

area of the planning area is shallow and lies within the winter landfast ice scour zone. Thus, 

the marine habitat and the fish occupying it are outside the planning area proper during winter

and would not be subject to disturbances associated with winter seismic surveys, exploration 

drilling, and water withdrawal. Although species like fourhorn sculpin and Arctic flounder may 

move upriver during summer, most members of these marine species remain in shallow coastal 

waters and would not be impacted by summer seismic surveys in Teshekpuk Lake or 

exploratory drilling in lakes in the TLCH Area. The bulk of the marine fish population would 

not be directly subject to the effects of river gravel extraction, pad, road, and pipeline

construction, sedimentation from gravel erosion, and the potential blockage of migratory 

corridors. 

Because marine species are abundant and widely distributed throughout the Beaufort Sea, it is

also highly unlikely that any point impact associated with oil and gas development in the 

planning area (the occurrence of which is unlikely) would have a substantial impact on these 

species at the population level. One exception might be a catastrophic oil spill that could cause 

sublethal genetic or physiological abnormalities that might be propagated through the broader 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-300 

Alternative B: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

population. However, given that oil spills in the planning area are expected to be small, and the 

stringent oil-spill-response safety requirements for operations on the oil field, such an event is

unlikely. 

Overall, it is not expected that oil exploration and development activities under Alternative B

would have a measurable effect on marine fish populations in or adjacent to the planning area. 

Implementation of Lease Stipulation K-6 would afford marine fish protection under Alternative 

B that would not be provided under Alternative A. Impacts to marine fish resources under 

Alternative B would be similar to, or slightly greater than, those that could occur under 

Alternative A. 

4.4.8 Birds 

This section discusses the potential effects to bird species, which are not threatened or

endangered, that could result from management action in the planning area under Alternative 

B. A discussion of effects to threatened and endangered bird species is given in section 4.4.10, 

Threatened and Endangered Species. Most of the activities that could potentially affect 

birds in the planning area would result from oil and gas exploration and development. Other 

activities that could potentially affect birds in the planning area include subsistence activities 

(including hunting, fishing, berry picking etc.), recreational use, activities associated with 

scientific surveys and research camps, clean up of old oil and gas exploration sites, and 

activities associated with government actions (e.g. clean up of abandoned well sites). These 

activities could affect tundra nesting birds by causing: 1) temporary or permanent habitat loss; 

2) various types of disturbance related to equipment and facility noise, vehicular and air traffic, 

and pedestrian activities, which could result in displacement from preferred foraging, staging, 

nesting and/or brood-rearing habitats or decreasing productivity and survival; 3) increased 

predation from predators attracted to areas of human activity; and 4) mortality resulting from 

collisions with vehicles or structures, or exposure to contaminants, including oil spills. 

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). 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 would be unavailable for 

oil and gas leasing, to provide for protection of wildlife and subsistence resources. 

4.4.8.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative B, activities not related to oil and gas exploration and development that 

could affect birds in the planning area would be the same as those described under Alternative 

A: private or commercial air traffic; aerial surveys to inventory wildlife or other resources; 

summer research camps; hazardous material or debris removal; subsistence hunting and 

fishing; and recreational camps and boating activity. As compared to Alternative A, impacts to 

birds from non-oil and gas activities could be more frequent, greater in extent, or longer in

duration under Alternative B. A greater number of individual animals would likely be exposed 

to human activities. Aircraft traffic would more often pass overhead of birds during flights to or 

from the camps and along aerial survey routes. The disturbance reactions of birds would likely

be brief, lasting for a few minutes to an hour. Some birds might avoid inventory survey and 

recreation camps during the 6 to 12 weeks of activities, while some birds (e.g. ravens) could be 

attracted to the camps. Lease stipulations and ROPs to protect waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, 

4-301 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

and other birds and their habitats would help to mitigate the potential effects of non-oil and gas 

activities on birds under Alternative B. 

4.4.8.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbances 

Exploration 

Most seismic surveys to collect geological data and exploration drilling activities would occur 

during the winter months when birds are mostly absent from the planning area. Under 

Alternative B, the types of effects of winter exploration activities on the bird species present

that would be in the planning area during the winter would be the same as those discussed 

under Alternative A. Although impacts associated with winter exploration would likely be 

minor under either alternative, there could be a slightly greater effect to birds under 

Alternative B because areas of greater bird habitat value would be available for exploration 

than under Alternative A, it is expected that the same number of seismic surveys will occur 

under all alternatives (see section 4.2.1.2). The direct effects of exploration would likely 

include the temporary displacement of a small number of birds (ptarmigan and gyrfalcons) from 

preferred winter feeding or roosting areas. 

During winter exploration activities, indirect impacts to birds could result from the construction

of ice-roads and ice-pads and the associated water withdrawal. The types of effects that could 

result from ice-road and ice-pad construction under Alternative B would be the same as those 

described under Alternative A, and would primarily involve the temporary alteration of tundra 

habitats. Water withdrawal for ice-road construction could also temporarily alter habitats 

adjacent to water source lakes, which could affect nesting or brood-rearing loons and waterfowl. 

Rolligons and track vehicles used during winter exploration could also temporarily affect tundra 

vegetation, resulting in minor impacts to tundra-nesting birds. A larger area would be available 

to oil and gas exploration activities under Alternative B, as compared to Alternative A.

Therefore, the potential impacts to birds resulting from exploratory activities would also likely

be greater under Alternative B. Primarily; there would likely be additional effects to birds in the 

areas surrounding the portion of the Goose Molting Area that would be open to leasing under 

Alternative B, but not under Alternative A. However, Lease Stipulation K-4 may mitigate some 

potential impacts in the Goose Molting Area by prohibiting water extraction and other oil and 

gas activities that could affect goose feeding habitat along lakeshore margins. Currently there is 

little known as to why geese use the Goose Molting Area in such large concentrations and

impacts to vegetation or impoundments and delayed drainage due to ice roads may have a 

negative effect on the habitat used by molting geese. 

The use of airguns for boat-based seismic work in Teshekpuk Lake during the summer could

temporarily displace loons and waterfowl from preferred feeding habitats while surveys were 

being conducted. Disturbance may result not only from airgun use but also from boat activity 

(Rodgers and Smith 1995). Because setbacks around the perimeter of the lake presumably 

would eliminate the potential for disturbance to birds nesting near the lakeshore, only birds 

using habitats in the open water of the lake would potentially be disturbed. Birds displaced by 

seismic activities would likely return to preferred habitats after the airgun arrays passed 

through the area. Effects of use of airguns on forage fish may include stress from fleeing 

behavior and physical damage or death (section 4.1.1 this document) potentially resulting in a 

reduction in the amount of prey available to foraging loons. Disturbance to birds near and 

nesting on the shoreline could result from support activities, such as use of helicopters to 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-302 

Alternative B: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

transport personnel and supplies. Disturbance related to support activities could result in 

permanent or temporary displacement from nesting, feeding, or brood-rearing habitats. 

Conducting surveys after the completion of the nesting and brood-rearing period would

eliminate the potential for nest abandonment and loss of productivity. 

Predators, such as glaucous gulls, ravens, and Arctic foxes, could be attracted to anthropogenic 

food sources associated with summer maintenance of exploratory drilling and seismic 

equipment or winter exploratory activities. Under Alternative B, the potential effects of 

increased predation would be mitigated by ROPs A-2 and E-9, and the overall effects to birds 

would likely be similar under Alternative A and Alternative B. Although Alternative A would 

not have a provision similar to ROP E-9, which requires the lessee to utilize the best available 

technology to prevent facilities from providing nesting, denning, or shelter sites for ravens, 

raptors, and foxes, this lease stipulation may not be particularly relevant to the temporary 

storage of exploratory drilling and seismic equipment. 

Oil and Gas Development 

Activities on Roads and Pads. Activities related to oil development and production in the 

planning area, such as vehicle, aircraft, pedestrian, and boat traffic; routine maintenance 

activities; heavy equipment use; and oil-spill clean-up activities could cause disturbances that 

would affect tundra-nesting birds. Under Alternative B, these types of disturbances to birds 

would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A. These disturbances could result in 

temporary displacement from preferred foraging, nesting, molting, staging and/or brood-rearing 

habitats; decreased nest attendance or nest abandonment; and increased energy expenditures 

that could affect physiological condition, rate of survival, and productivity of birds. The 

likelihood for impacts to tundra-nesting birds would depend on the location of the disturbance, 

the bird species and the number of individuals in the area, and the time of year. The greatest 

potential for impacts from disturbance would most likely occur in habitats with high bird 

concentrations, such as the Teshekpuk Lake Goose Molting Area, or if species with low or 

declining populations, such as buff-breasted sandpiper or yellow-billed loon, were disturbed. 

The potential for disturbance to birds from activities on roads and pads would likely be greater 

under Alternative B, as compared to Alternative A, because there are areas that support high 

bird concentrations in portions of the Goose Molting Area that would be available for oil and gas 

leasing under Alternative B, but not under Alternative A. The reduction in the amount of 

habitat protected under Alternative B, as compared to Alternative A, would likely increase the 

risk of disturbance to internationally significant populations of molting geese, particularly brant 

that use the Goose Molting Area. The reduction in protection under Alternative B could also 

affect white-fronted, lesser snow and Canada geese. Disturbance that resulted in a reduction in 

the breeding success of geese and other waterfowl could also impact the success of subsistence 

and sport hunters in Alaska, the lower 48 states, Canada, Russia, and Mexico. Disturbance 

effects could also impact shorebirds if development occurred in areas of high shorebird

concentration located north of Teshekpuk Lake. Lease Stipulation K-4, however, would help to 

mitigate potential disturbance to birds in the Goose Molting Area, by providing setbacks from 

goose molting lakes within which permanent oil and gas facilities would be prohibited. Lease 

Stipulation K-4 would also reduce impacts to goose molting lakes by preventing excessive water 

extraction activities; provide for protection of shoreline habitats adjacent to these lakes; and 

help mitigate disturbance near goose molting lakes from oil and gas activities by requiring 

features that would screen or shield human activity from the view of any goose molting lake, 

and by minimizing ground traffic from May 20 through August 20. Lease Stipulation K-4 would 

permit the construction of facilities, such as platforms, on lakes within 3⁄4 mile of the lake shore, 

4-303 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

which could increase disturbance to molting geese if platforms were constructed on lakes used 

by molting geese. Lease Stipulation K-6 would establish a 3⁄4-mile buffer inland from the coast, 

within which oil and gas facilities would be prohibited, to the extent practicable, to minimize 

hindrance or alteration of caribou movement within caribou coastal insect-relief areas. This 

lease stipulation could also help to reduce the potential impacts to waterfowl and their habitats 

in coastal areas. 

Under Alternative B, there could be disturbance to birds in a 5 to 6 mile wide band south and 

west of Teshekpuk Lake that would be open to surface activity under Alternative B, but closed

under Alternative A. Lease Stipulation K-5, designed to protect the Teshekpuk Lake Caribou 

Habitat Area, would help to mitigate potential disturbance effects to birds by placing limits on 

various types of oil and gas exploration and development activities that could occur on roads 

and pads from May 20 through August 20. 

Under Alternative A, no permanent oil and gas facilities would be permitted within 1⁄4 mile of 

the perimeter of any fish-bearing lake in the Deep Water Lakes Area south of Teshekpuk Lake. 

Under Alternative B, facilities would generally not be permitted within this buffer, but could be 

permitted, on a case by case basis, in consultation with Federal, state, and NSB regulatory and 

resource agencies. Permitting facilities within the 1⁄4-mile buffer of fish-bearing lakes in the 

Deep Water Lakes Area could result in disturbance to yellow-billed loons and waterfowl near 

the facilities and access roads. However, other bird groups could also be disturbed if facilities 

were located outside the 1⁄4-mile buffer. The extent of effects to birds from activities on roads and 

pads would depend on the species and numbers of individuals occurring in areas adjacent to the

development. Although Lease Stipulation K-2 has been designed primarily to provide mitigation 

for deepwater fish habitat, it would also be likely to reduce disturbance of birds using habitats 

near these lakes. 

Summer Tundra Travel. Alternative A allows summer tundra travel in Northeast NPR-A 

only through use of the stipulation exception process (see stipulation 24i in the 1998 Northeast 

NPR-A ROD). Travel off of gravel pads is easiest in winter and generally environmentally 

preferable at that time, some vehicle travel off of pads does occur in North Slope oil fields

during summer to accomplish specific tasks. The State of Alaska has approved some lowground-pressure vehicles for summer tundra travel and similar summer tundra travel may be 

anticipated to be part of oil development in northeast NPR-A. Alternative B contains Required

Operating Procedure L-1 which was crafted with the following objective “Protect stream banks 

and water quality;...maintain populations of, and adequate habitat for birds, fish, and caribou 

and other terrestrial mammals; and support maintenance of subsistence activities.” Summer 

tundra travel is commonly associated with spill prevention and preparedness measures 

required in spill prevention plans and it is anticipated that these are the types of activities that 

would be permitted to travel off of gravel pads and roads during times other than those

identified in ROP C-2a if required surveys and studies show that minimal impacts to the 

resources in the area would occur. The potential for disturbance to birds from summer tundra 

travel would likely be greater under Alternative B, as compared to Alternative A, because there

are areas that support high bird concentrations in portions of the Goose Molting Area that 

would be available for oil and gas leasing under Alternative B, but not under Alternative A. The 

reduction in the amount of habitat protected under Alternative B, as compared to Alternative A,

would likely increase the risk of disturbance to internationally significant populations of 

molting geese, particularly brant that use the Goose Molting Area. The additional areas 

available for leasing under Alternative B could also negatively affect white-fronted and Canada 

geese. Disturbance that resulted in a reduction in the breeding success of geese and other

waterfowl could also impact the success of subsistence and sport hunters in Alaska, the lower 48 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-304 

Alternative B: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

states, Canada, Russia, and Mexico. Disturbance effects could also impact shorebirds if 

development occurred in areas of high shorebird concentration located north of Teshekpuk 

Lake. 

Air Traffic. Both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters could be used to transport personnel,

supplies, and equipment to airstrips or staging areas during development and production

activities in the planning area. The types of disturbance effects to waterfowl and other bird 

groups from aircraft would be the same under Alternative B as those discussed under 

Alternative A, and could include displacement from preferred feeding habitats, temporary or 

permanent nest abandonment, and temporary or permanent displacement from staging, 

molting or brood-rearing areas. However, some birds could habituate to aircraft activity and 

either remain in habitats located near aircraft activities, or move to nearby habitats. This may 

not be the case for brant, as they apparently do not acclimate well to aircraft traffic (Derksen et 

al. 1992). Aircraft disturbance to brant may cause behavioral and physiological responses that 

could increase energy expenditures and reduce foraging time, which could increase the duration 

of the flightless period and susceptibility to predation. Birds could be displaced from optimal to 

sub-optimal habitats, causing birds to spend more time foraging to meet nutrient needs 

(Derksen et al. 1992). 

Compared to Alternative A, it is likely that there would be a greater amount of disturbance to 

birds from aircraft activity under Alternative B, as a greater amount of area would be available 

for oil and gas leasing in the Goose Molting Area, and from facilities in the portions of the 

Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area (where surface activity would be prohibited under 

Alternative A). Under the development scenario for Alternative B, the projected number of

flights per day may range from 50 to 90 depending on the phase of development. These numbers 

are based on the number of flights that occurred during the Alpine field development (USDOI 

BLM 2004C). The effects of aircraft disturbance would likely have moderate effects on 

waterfowl and shorebirds. Under Alternative B, Lease Stipulations K-3 through K-6 would 

provide setbacks from various habitats surrounding Teshekpuk Lake and along the coast that 

are considered important for fish, birds, and caribou. Within these setbacks, permanent oil and 

gas facilities would be prohibited, and other potentially disturbing activities, such as vehicular 

and air traffic, would be restricted. These lease stipulations would help to mitigate for potential 

aircraft disturbance, should oil and gas facilities be located within the Teshekpuk Lake Special 

Areas. However, if CPFs were located within the Teshekpuk Lake Special Areas, the level of 

aircraft disturbance would likely increase along flight corridors between oil production facilities 

and airfields and at airstrips located at these CPFs. 

If a CPF were located within the 1⁄4-mile buffer around lakes under Alternative B, there would 

likely be a greater amount of disturbance to waterfowl in the Deep Water Lakes Area than 

under Alternative A. The degree of effects to birds would depend on the number of birds present 

and which species of birds were using habitats near the facility. Although Lease Stipulation K-2 

was designed primarily to mitigate potential impacts to fish, this lease stipulation, which would 

provide for agency consultation prior to development within the 1⁄4-mile buffer, could also help 

reduce potential impacts to birds. 

Watercraft. Several types of watercraft could be used during the summer and fall to transport 

equipment and supplies and to conduct oil spill response training drills. Summer and fall barge 

traffic (up to 30 barges per year with each CPF requiring 1 or 2 seasons of barge traffic 

depending on size), with the potential to temporarily displace feeding, molting, brood-rearing 

and staging waterfowl, could occur in near shore and offshore waters of the planning area from

mid-July through October. These impacts would vary depending on the species of birds using 

4-305 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

the area and activity of those birds at the time of the disturbance but are likely be minor.

Displaced waterfowl would probably move to adjacent habitats or return to original habitats 

after the barges passed though the area, and barge traffic would not be expected to 

substantially impact waterfowl. It is well known (Avery et al. 1980, Springer and Dailey 1980, 

Day et al. 2003) that birds may be attracted to sources of light with the potential for the bird to 

strike a structure (building, barge, tower etc.) resulting in the possibility of mortality. There are 

documented accounts of waterfowl and seabirds being attracted to and colliding with ships in 

various light conditions (Dick and Donaldson 1978). Eiders in particular are thought to be 

susceptible to collision with human-made structures because they fly low over the water while 

migrating, fly rapidly when migrating, and are attracted to lights (Day at al. 2003 and 

references contained within). However, there is a short window of time during the fall when the 

planning area is dark and birds are present, thus the potential for collisions between staging 

waterfowl and barges working in the planning area is low. Effects of barge traffic would vary in 

intensity depending on the timing, location and duration of the traffic in areas of high bird

concentrations. Overall barge traffic in the Arctic Ocean is projected to increase due to the

observed longer open water season and retreat of sea-ice in the arctic. However, there is a short 

window of time during the fall when the planning area is dark and birds are present, thus the 

potential for collisions between staging waterfowl and barges working in the planning area is 

low. There would be a greater likelihood for disturbance to waterfowl under Alternative B than 

under Alternative A, because more area would be available for leasing under Alternative B 

including areas of high use by waterfowl. 

Oil spill response training activities using watercraft could be conducted on rivers and lakes 

several times during the summer. Disturbance from watercraft activity along rivers could affect 

birds such as ruddy turnstones, semipalmated plovers, and Baird’s sandpipers that use gravel

bars. The results of disturbance may include failure to nest or nest abandonment (Rodgers and 

Smith 1995). Under Alternative B, these activities would be more likely to disturb waterfowl 

than under Alternative A, because there would be a greater likelihood that facilities would be 

located in areas of high bird use within the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area. 

 Habitat Losses and Alteration 

Permanent Habitat Loss. Gravel mining and placement for the construction of oil field

infrastructure would have the greatest potential to result in the loss of tundra-nesting bird

habitat. Under Alternative B, it is estimated that there will be a need for six central processing 

facilities (90 acres each) in the planning area. In conjunction with these facilities there are other 

support structures, such as gravel production pads, gravel runways in-field gravel roads, 

several types of pipelines, and other associated structures, that will also cause surface 

disturbances. It is estimated that under Alternative B, there will be: 25 gravel production pads 

(10 acres each); 6 gravel runways (11 acres each); 250 miles of in-field gravel roads (7.75 

acres/mile); 250 miles of three-phase produced fluids (oil, gas, water) gathering lines; 162 miles 

of sales oil pipelines; 6 pump stations (20 acres each); 3 staging bases (50 acres each); and 13 

gravel pits (50 acres each). It is estimated that during the construction phase of these facilities 

that the total short term disturbance would be 4,965 acres. During the production phase it is 

estimated that the total long term disturbance would be 3,716 acres (Table 4.2-G). 

Tundra covered by gravel, as well as tundra associated with gravel mine sites, would be lost as 

nesting, brood-rearing, and foraging habitat for birds. The potential effects of habitat loss under 

any alternative would likely have moderate impacts to tundra-nesting birds and would depend 

on the location of the development, the types of habitat lost, and the level of bird use in the 

areas to be developed could potentially have greater impact on tundra-nesting birds than under 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-306 

Alternative B: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Alternative A because of the increased amount of habitat loss under Alternative B and because 

some areas of high bird use that are closed to development under Alternative A would be open 

to leasing under Alternative B. Permanent habitat loss under Alternative B would likely have 

less negative impact on birds than Alternatives C and D as greater amounts and more sensitive 

areas would be available for leasing under Alternatives C and D. 

Birds that use drier habitats may be more affected by habitat loss than those that use wet 

habitats because less dry habitat is available in the NPR-A. Loss of dry habitat could be 

especially important for buff-breasted sandpiper, which is a species of concern with low 

population numbers that uses dry habitats. In addition, under Alternative B, there would be an 

increased potential for birds to be affected by a functional loss of habitat in areas near roads 

and pads if development-related disturbances precluded birds from utilizing these habitats. 

Temporary Habitat Loss. In addition to permanent habitat loss, temporary loss of tundra 

habitat adjacent to gravel roads and pads could occur as a result of thermokarst, dust 

deposition, snow accumulation, and impoundment formation. Water withdrawal from lakes 

during ice-road construction could temporarily affect birds in adjacent habitats if the lakes did 

not have adequate recharge capabilities. Under Alternative B, the types of effects to birds 

resulting from temporary habitat loss would be the same as those discussed under Alternative 

A. As with permanent habitat loss, the degree of effects would depend on the location of gravel 

infrastructure and local use of adjacent habitats by bird populations. Temporary habitat loss 

under Alternative B could potentially have greater impact on tundra-nesting birds than under 

Alternative A because some areas of high bird use that are closed to development under 

Alternative A would be open to leasing under Alternative B.

 Mortality 

Bird mortality could also result from collisions with structures such as elevated pipelines, 

buildings, drilling rigs, towers, power lines if suspended, boats (including barges), or bridges. 

The potential for collisions with oil field structures or equipment is discussed under Alternative 

A. The magnitude of potential impacts to bird populations as a result of collisions in areas of oil 

and gas development will depend, among other variables, on the location and type of the 

structure, the species involved, the lighting regime employed and the weather conditions and

would likely impact birds at the level of the individual and not at a population level. There could 

be an increased risk of bird collision with offshore barge and vessel traffic under Alternative B 

(as compared to Alternative A), due to an increase in barge traffic necessary for transportation 

of materials for the greater potential of facilities construction in this alternative due to the 

greater area open to development. Under Alternative B, ROP E-10 would require illumination 

to prevent migrating waterfowl from colliding with drilling structures, production facilities, and 

other structures exceeding 20 feet in height, although the effectiveness of the stipulation is 

currently unknown. Although there is no similar lighting requirement under Alternative A, the 

potential risk of bird collisions with oil field infrastructure could still be greater under 

Alternative B, because the potential benefits of illumination of facilities may not be adequate to 

mitigate for the presence of facilities within or near areas of high bird use and the potential for 

greater development in high density bird areas is higher in Alternative B. 

Some predators, such as ravens, gulls, Arctic fox, and bears could be attracted to areas of 

human activity where anthropogenic sources of food and denning or nesting sites were present. 

The potential impacts of increased numbers of predators on birds are discussed under 

Alternative A. Increased predation pressure could have moderate impacts on tundra-nesting 

birds. Under Alternative B, the types of effects to bird populations would be the same as those 

4-307 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

discussed under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, there may be the potential for greater bird

mortality due to predation than under Alternative A if predators were attracted to development 

in areas of high bird use that are closed to leasing under Alternative A. Although both

alternatives have ROPs or lease stipulations in place to eliminate attraction of predators to

anthropogenic sources of food, Alternative B would require the lessee to use the best available 

technology to prevent facilities from providing nesting, denning, or shelter sites for ravens, 

raptors, or foxes. Still, it may be difficult to totally exclude ravens from nesting on oil field 

structures. There would be no equivalent lease stipulation under Alternative A. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

The impacts of abandonment and rehabilitation of oil fields on birds would be similar in many 

respects to those incurred by construction activity. Impact types would be the same for 

Alternative B as described in Alternative A. Alternative B would likely have a greater impact 

than Alternative A as more area would be available for oil and gas development in Alternative 

B, potentially resulting greater total area to be abandoned and subsequently rehabilitated. 

Effects of Spills 

Oil spills would have similar types of effects to tundra-nesting birds under Alternative A and 

Alternative B. However, there would be an increased risk of a contaminant spill occurring under 

Alternative B. The potential for an offshore spill would increase because there would be 

approximately 20% more barge traffic under Alternative B than Alternative A. Offshore spills 

would have the potential to spread through the action of wind and currents, and could affect 

molting waterfowl along the coastline or in Harrison and Smith bays, as well as shorebirds 

feeding in littoral habitats in the planning area. The risk of an onshore spill risk increases with 

increased volume of oil expected to be produced. The risk (or number of) large spills under 

Alternative B increases by about 15% (0.3 spill – see section 4.2.2 – Oil Spills) and the 

potential spill volume from large spills increases by 1,622 barrels compared to Alternative A. 

If development were to occur under Alternative B in areas of the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area 

that are unavailable to leasing under Alternative A, a pipeline leak or other spill on terrestrial 

habitats could affect greater numbers of waterfowl under Alternative B than under Alternative 

A because of the high concentration of nesting and molting waterfowl found in this area. Under 

Alternative B, Lease Stipulations K-1, K-3, K-4, and K-6 would provide setbacks from specified 

rivers, lakes, and the Beaufort Sea coast, within which permanent oil and gas facilities would be 

prohibited to help to mitigate potential effects of an oil spill on terrestrial habitats. Although 

Lease Stipulation K-2 was designed specifically to mitigate potential impacts to fish habitat, it 

could also help protect loon and waterfowl associated with lakes in the Deep Water Lakes Area. 

Oil entering a river or stream could potentially spread into delta or coastal areas, where 

impacts to birds could be more severe. Waterfowl along the shoreline or in marine habitats and

shorebirds in the littoral areas of the planning area could be impacted during the fall molting 

and staging period. Under Alternative B, the potential that an oil spill would enter a major 

river or stream would be minimized by Lease Stipulation K-1. This lease stipulation would 

provide setbacks of 1⁄2 to 3 miles from specified rivers, within which permanent oil and gas 

facilities would be prohibited, although pipelines would not necessarily be prohibited in some of 

these areas. Alternative A has lease stipulations with similar levels of protection. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-308 

Alternative B: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Commercial Gas Development 

The types of impacts on birds that natural gas development and production would cause would 

be the same as those caused by oil development described above, except that there would be no 

crude-oil spills and, if a gas pipeline is buried, there would be additional acreage disturbed with 

increased potential for impacts on bird habitat. Any effects on birds of natural gas development 

and production under Alternative B that are associated with previously constructed oil 

infrastructure, such as noise and visual disturbance from vehicles or construction activity, are 

expected to be temporary, nonlethal, and local, affecting a few individuals. As in the case with 

Alternative A, resident ptarmigan, gyrfalcons, snowy owls and ravens may be present in the 

area during construction activities associated with gas development; however, the impacts to 

these species will be slight, and migrant bird species will not be present during winter 

construction activities (ADNR, 2006b). Changes in vegetation community caused by burial of 

the pipeline could result in a loss of bird habitat. Any emergency repair of a buried pipeline 

that occurred in summer has the potential to disturb nesting, brood-rearing, feeding, staging or 

molting birds. Buried pipelines would not impact birds. Aboveground pipelines could present a 

collision hazard to low-flying birds. 

A natural gas well blowout occurring between May and October could affect birds that are 

nesting, rearing young, staging, or migrating. Some mortality could result from such an 

incident, although it is likely that a small number of individuals would be affected. A gas 

pipeline leak may also cause effects on birds through the presence of response personnel and

equipment. Such impacts to waterfowl would be more likely in Alternative B than in 

Alternative A, because Alternative B would make available for leasing and development the

important bird habitat north and east of Teshekpuk Lake. 

4.4.8.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

The primary reason for making 213,000 acres unavailable to leasing under Alternative B is to 

protect important habitat for caribou and molting geese, and medium to high-density 

concentrations of white-fronted goose which are found on 85% of this area (Map 3-13). However,

other bird species would also benefit from protection of this area. For example, medium to highdensity concentrations of pintails and shorebirds are found on 86 and 84% of this area, 

respectively (Maps 3-15 and 3-18). Approximately half the area contains medium to high 

densities of tundra swans and Pacific loons (Maps 3-9 and 3-12). 

Numerous lease stipulations and ROPs were developed to protect birds and their habitat within 

the planning area. These include the “A” ROPs, which would help lessen the impacts of solid, 

liquid, and hazardous wastes on birds or their habitats, and in reducing the potential for 

garbage to attract animals that may prey upon birds to exploration and development sites. The

“B” ROPs would help limit the impact of water withdrawals on lakes, or lake habitats, used by 

molting geese, while the “C” ROPs govern seismic ground operations during spring and summer 

to prevent seismic activity-related disturbance to geese during the nesting and molting periods.

ROP E-9 provides for the avoidance of human-caused increases in populations of predators of 

ground nesting birds. ROP E-10 requires structures to be lit in a manner which minimizes bird 

collisions and ROP E-11c provides means to reduce collisions between birds and above ground 

utility lines. Disturbances caused by aircraft are controlled within the Goose Molting Area and 

raptor sites under ROP “F.” Several of the “K” lease stipulations would be effective in protecting

birds and their habitats, including habitats associated with rivers and lakes, the Goose Molting 

Area, and Coastal Area. Lease Stipulation K-4 provides for a number of measures designed to 

reduce the effects of development on molting geese by establishing setbacks from lake 

4-309 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

shorelines within which construction of permanent oil and gas facilities would not be permitted, 

regulating water extraction from lakes, and minimizing or eliminating disturbance from aircraft 

during critical periods. However, this lease stipulation also allows construction of facilities, such 

as platforms on lakes, if these structures are located more than 3⁄4 mile from the shoreline.

Activities at offshore platforms could cause disturbance to molting geese. 

4.4.8.4 Conclusion 

Under all alternatives, this analysis shows that impacts birds from non-oil and gas activities 

would be minor. Under Alternative B, oil and gas leasing and exploration would be allowed 

anywhere in the planning area, with the exception of the 213,000-acre area northeast of 

Teshekpuk Lake. In addition, lease stipulations and ROPs would provide seasonal and spatial 

protection to certain environmentally sensitive areas, including Rivers Area, Deep Water Lakes, 

Goose Molting Area, Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area, Pik Dunes, Colville River Special 

Area, Coastal Area, and Teshekpuk Lake. The exposure of birds to oil and gas activities, and 

therefore the level of associated impact, would be greater under Alternative B than under 

Alternative A, given that leasing of lands adjacent to Teshekpuk Lake could occur and that the

overall scale of development would likely be greater under Alternative B. 

Under Alternative B, the types of disturbances related to vehicle, aircraft, pedestrian, and 

vessel traffic, routine maintenance activities, heavy equipment use, facility noise, and oil spill 

clean-up activities would be similar to those described under Alternative A. The potential for 

these disturbances to impact birds would be greater under Alternative B because a greater 

percentage of the planning area would be available for leasing, including portions of the area of 

high bird use in the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area. A greater overall level of development 

would likely occur under Alternative B as compared to Alternative A. The potential for habitat 

loss and alteration to affect tundra-nesting birds would be greater under Alternative B, as 

compared to Alternative A, as the amount of tundra habitat that would be lost to gravel 

infrastructure would be greater, and there would be a higher potential for infrastructure to be 

located in areas of high bird use in the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area. The potential for bird 

mortality resulting from collisions with vehicles or infrastructure and marine vessel traffic 

would be greater under Alternative B because the amount of infrastructure and barge traffic 

would be greater. The potential for an oil spill to impact tundra-nesting birds would also be 

greater under Alternative B, as compared to Alternative A, given the increased amount of 

infrastructure and development activity. Lease stipulations and ROPs established under 

Alternative B would help to mitigate potential impacts to tundra-nesting birds. Effectiveness of 

lease stipulations are unknown at this time but are presumed to be effective. 

In general, impacts to birds from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas activities, 

would likely be additive, except in those areas where the two types of activities overlapped.

Impacts to birds from exploration and development activities would also be additive. However, 

once exploration and development/production ceased in an area, bird populations could recover

from the effects of disturbance, reducing overall effects in the planning area. In areas where 

two or more activities occurred, overall impacts would reflect those impacts associated with the 

first activity and any new impacts associated with later activities. Because of the larger

disturbance area, and the potential for more oil and gas exploration and development activities, 

impacts to birds under this alternative would greater than those under Alternative A. Potential 

impacts may be greater for brant than for other species due to their apparent inability to 

habituate to some types of disturbance (Derksen et al. 1992), their decreasing population size, 

and the potential for as much as 30% of the Pacific flyway population to use the Teshekpuk 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-310 

Alternative B: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Lake molting area. Impacts could be even greater if oil and gas activities occurred in areas with

high bird concentrations, with high quality habitat, or used by species of concern. 

4.4.8.5 Potential New Mitigation Measures 

The potential mitigation measures for Alternatives B through D are essentially the same as 

those presented for Alternative A in section 4.3.8.5. In Alternative A, they are presented as 

potential new stipulations, consistent with the approach for protective measures in Alternative 

A. In Alternative B through D, they would be considered as potential new ROPs. They are

listed below in their ROP form. 

1) Colville River Special Area 

Potential Mitigation Measure (New ROP)

Objective: Prevent or minimize the loss of nesting habitat for cliff nesting raptors. 

Requirement/Standard

a. Removal of sand and/or gravel from cliffs shall be prohibited. 

b. Any extraction of sand and/or gravel from an active river or stream channel shall be 

prohibited unless preceded by a hydrological study that indicates no potential impact by the 

action to the integrity of the river bluffs. 

Potential Benefits and Residual/Unavoidable Impacts 

Prohibiting the removal of sand and gravel from cliffs in the Colville River Special Area will 

enhance existing protections to raptor nest sites in this Special Area. Preservation of cliffs 

would allow for the continued expansion of the breeding population of cliff nesting raptors in the 

Colville River Special Area by providing potential nest sites for all species of cliff nesting 

raptors. Prohibition of removal of sand and/or gravel from an active river or stream channel 

will negate to potential for subsequent erosion of downstream cliffs. Nest sites for cliff nesting

raptors are potentially population limiting and destruction of cliff nest sites caused by 

sand/gravel mining would accelerate the existing natural erosion of cliffs in the Special Area. 

Paleontological resources may indirectly benefit from this measure by providing protection to

the substrates that may contain these undiscovered resources. Water quality downstream of a 

gravel mining operation that occurs in the river bed would benefit from the prohibition of

mining in the stream bed and the subsequent erosion of downstream cliffs. Visual resources 

and recreation would benefit from this measure by virtue of an environment unchanged by 

human cause gravel mining and subsequent erosion of downstream cliffs. 

Construction costs may increase in some situations if gravel needs to be transported to the

construction site instead of mining of gravel near the site. 

2) Raptor Protection 

Potential Mitigation Measure (New ROP)

Objective: Prevent or minimize the loss of raptors due to electrocution by power lines.

Requirement/Standard

Comply with the most up to date suggested practices for raptor protection on power lines. Refer 

to the publication: Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the 

Art in 2006 Item #40-06-01-008 funded and produced by the Avian Power Line Interaction 

Committee and the California Energy Commission. 

4-311 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Potential Benefits and Residual/Unavoidable Impacts 

Requiring all power lines and poles to be designed and constructed in a manner which reflect 

raptor safe configurations will prevent death of raptors by electrocution. 

Additional cost may be incurred by the developer in order to provide raptor safe power lines and 

poles. 

4.4.9 Mammals 

4.4.9a Terrestrial Mammals 

4.4.9.a.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Impacts to mammals from non-oil and gas activities would be similar to those discussed under 

the Alternative A, but could be more frequent, greater in extent, or longer in duration. A greater 

number of individual animals would likely be exposed to human activities. Aircraft traffic would 

more often pass overhead of caribou and other terrestrial mammals during flights to or from the 

camps and along aerial survey routes. The disturbance reactions of caribou and other terrestrial 

mammals would likely be brief, lasting for a few minutes to an hour. Some terrestrial mammals 

might avoid inventory survey and recreation camps during the 6 to 12 weeks of activities, while

bears and foxes could be attracted to the camps. Impacts from recreation and overland moves

would be the same as under the Alternative A. Proposed lease stipulations and ROPs 

addressing land use authorizations for temporary facilities, overland moves, and recreation 

permits would effectively mitigate impacts from these activities on terrestrial mammals. 

4.4.9.a.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Under Alternative B, oil and gas leasing and exploration would be allowed throughout the 

planning area, with the exception of the 213,000-acre area northeast of Teshekpuk Lake. In 

addition, lease stipulations would provide seasonal and spatial protection to certain 

environmentally sensitive areas, including Rivers Area, Deep Water Lakes, Goose Molting Area,

Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area, Pik Dunes, Colville River Special Area, Coastal Area, 

and Teshekpuk Lake. The exposure of terrestrial mammals to oil and gas activities, and 

therefore the level of associated impact, would be greater under Alternative B than under the

Alternative A, given that leasing of lands adjacent to Teshekpuk Lake could occur and the 

overall scale of development would likely be greater under Alternative B. 

Effects of Disturbances 

Seismic. Impacts to terrestrial mammals would be nearly the same as those discussed under 

Alternative A, since it is assumed that the extent of terrestrial seismic operations would be the 

same under all alternatives. The only change is that seismic surveys on Teshekpuk Lake are 

considered more likely under Alternative B than in Alternative A. It is expected that the 

reactions of caribou and other terrestrial mammals to disturbance would be brief, although 

large numbers of wintering TLH caribou would likely be encountered, depending on the location 

of exploration activities (see Alternative A for a description of potential adverse impacts). Some 

caribou and other large mammals would likely be displaced from the general area of the seismic 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-312 

Alternative B: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

work. Some terrestrial mammals would avoid seismic camps, while others, such as foxes, could 

be attracted to the camps by food odors. The potential for disturbance to hibernating bears 

would remain, but bears are present at low density. Muskox and moose would most likely be 

present in their greatest numbers in the southern portion of the planning area. 

The use of airguns for seismic work in Teshekpuk Lake during the summer would likely cause 

only temporary displacement of terrestrial mammals near the lake. Displacement would occur 

primarily from the support activity associated with the surveys, such as helicopter flights to 

bring equipment to the lake. Once surveys were finished and the sources of disturbance had left 

the area, mammals would move likely back into the area around the lake. 

Exploratory Drilling. Under Alternative B, it is projected that the number of exploration and

delineation wells drilled (up to 170) would be intermediate between Alternative A and 

Alternative C. Impacts to terrestrial mammals would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative A, but somewhat greater in spatial extent, frequency, and magnitude. This would 

especially be so in the areas near Teshekpuk Lake where leasing would be excluded under 

Alternative A. Exploratory drilling would be conducted during the winter, when some mammal

species are less active or less often present, although wintering TLH caribou could be present in 

large numbers. Exploratory drilling could also occur from pads and platforms in lakes in the 

TLCH Area during summer, potentially disturbing mammals found near this activity. Moose,

muskox, and grizzly bears would generally experience a greater level of impacts than under 

Alternative A. 

The implementation of lease stipulations and ROPs would minimize impacts to terrestrial 

mammals. These lease stipulations and ROPs would include provisions to avoid known grizzly 

bear dens by 1⁄2 mile, methods to avoid attracting wildlife to food and garbage, provisions to 

protect stream banks from damage during overland moves, provisions to minimize the effect of 

low-lying aircraft on wildlife (particularly over caribou winter ranges), and provisions to 

minimize the disturbance and hindrance of caribou in the TLCH Area. 

Oil and Gas Development. Approximately 95% of the planning area would be made available 

for leasing under Alternative B. Leasing would be allowed throughout the planning area, with 

the exception of the 213,000-acre region northeast of Teshekpuk Lake. 

The primary effects of oil and gas development on terrestrial mammals would be similar to 

those outlined under Alternative A, and would result from construction of facilities such as 

roads and pipelines; motor vehicle traffic within the oil field(s) and on connecting roads; foot 

traffic near facilities and camps; aircraft traffic; crude-oil and fuel spills contaminating tundra, 

stream, and coastal habitats; and habitat alteration associated with gravel mining and 

construction. The greatest potential for impacts to caribou would be through disruption of

calving areas and interference in the movement of mosquito-harassed TLH caribou between 

insect-relief habitat and foraging areas. These impacts would likely be greater under

Alternative B than under Alternative A, given the larger development scenario that would

affect approximately 446 additional acres of habitat under long-term disturbance. Functional 

loss of habitat would be greater than the number of acres indicated as the actual development

footprint. Wolfe (2000) suggested that when caribou in the CAH avoided areas within 2.5 miles 

of roads and pipelines, the functional habitat loss increased from 2% (the immediate footprint of 

roads and gravel pads) to 29%. 

Construction of permanent roads within the planning area would increase access to the area 

and could increase public and subsistence hunting of terrestrial mammals if those roads were 

4-313 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

ever connected to villages or other road systems. Among ungulate species, caribou would be 

most impacted by increased access for hunting, but other species (moose in particular) may also 

be impacted depending on the location of permanent roads. The overall number of animals 

taken would be unlikely to increase dramatically since most hunting would be for subsistence, 

but roads could focus hunts in particular portions of the planning area. Hunting pressure and 

harvests have increased for many wildlife species near the TAPS since its construction, but 

have not produced adverse population effects (TAPSO 2001). It is unlikely that the more 

remote roads associated with oil and gas development in the planning area would have as great 

an effect on wildlife populations as occurred along the TAPS corridor. 

Caribou 

Although much of the construction associated with oil and gas development would occur 

primarily during winter, development would bring year-round facilities and activities to caribou 

range. If a field were developed in the area surrounding Teshekpuk Lake (excluding the portion 

unavailable to leasing), production pads, pipelines, within-field roads, and other facilities would 

be located within areas used by the TLH caribou for calving, insect relief, and wintering. A field 

development in the northern section of the planning area would also require a connector 

pipeline to link the oil field with facilities to the east. 

The types of impacts of field development on caribou would be similar to those outlined under 

Alternative A. However, given the greater possibility that a field would be developed within the 

calving, insect-relief, and wintering grounds of the TLH caribou, impacts to caribou could be 

greater under Alternative B than under Alternative A. Overall, the level of impact would be 

dependent on the specific location of any oil field—a field in the central or southern portion of

the planning area would not impact the TLH caribou calving grounds, although such a 

development could still affect migratory movements of TLH and WAH caribou as well as 

activities on their wintering ground. 

Development in the TLH caribou calving grounds could displace some calving animals within 

21⁄2 miles of roads. Movements of some cows and calves across roads would also likely be 

reduced, and cow caribou might avoid crossing the roads during the calving season. Some TLH 

caribou movements during the insect-relief season (late June to mid-August) would likely be 

affected by pipelines and road traffic. The most critical corridors for movement to the coastal 

insect-relief area are through the narrow areas between Teshekpuk Lake and the Kogru River

to the east and between the lake and Smith Bay to the northwest. These areas would be open to 

leasing under Alternative B. Caribou must pass through them to get to and from insect-relief 

areas. The area to the east of Teshekpuk Lake is a particular problem because nearly all of the 

parturient cows pass through this area either shortly before or after calving (Person et al., in

press). Any development that occurs on the limited amount of habitat that is used by caribou 

migrating through this corridor would likely affect caribou movements. Development in the 

corridors could result from oil finds in the area of the corridors or from a pipeline that would 

come from petroleum fields north of the lake. Under Alternative B, the region northeast of 

Teshekpuk Lake would be excluded from leasing. However, pipelines could be allowed in the 

excluded area as a result of technological limitations, economics, logistics, or other factors. The

result would be an increased potential for oil and gas development activities to affect caribou 

use of this corridor. Additionally, the area that would be excluded from leasing does not extend

to the coast, except near Cape Halkett, suggesting that there could be some development along

the coastline. While a set-back from the coast is stipulated (Lease Stipulation K-6), development 

in the coastal area would likely impact caribou use of insect-relief areas near the coast. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-314 

Alternative B: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Studies done over the last decade have indicated that TLH caribou show high fidelity to the

calving area near Teshekpuk Lake and that caribou that calve in the traditional calving area 

have much higher calving success than caribou found outside the area. Collared caribou that 

are found within the currently protected areas (as identified in 1998 ROD) during calving 

season have much higher calving success than caribou found outside the areas. In surveys 

conducted from 1994-2003, 155 of 171 (91%) TLH caribou that calved successfully calved within 

these protected areas. Of the 195 caribou cows that were found within the protected areas, 79% 

calved successfully. Of the 65 cows that were found outside the protected areas during calving 

season, 25% calved successfully (Carroll et al. 2005). 

If the TLH is partially displaced from its calving area, as the CAH has been, or if caribou are 

impeded from reaching the calving area, recent surveys indicate that calving success would 

most likely be reduced. While there have been no experiments conducted with the TLH to 

determine whether oil development in the calving area would displace caribou or affect the 

productivity of the herd, caribou behavior during 1997 and 2001 suggest oil development in the 

TCH calving area could impact caribou. During 1996-97, most of the herd migrated much 

farther south than usual and many cows arrived late to the calving area. Only 8 of 21 collared 

caribou were found in the calving area during calving time and 6 of these calved successfully. Of 

the other 13 collared cows, only one calved successfully for an overall successful calving 

percentage of 33%. In 2001, heavy snow and a late snow melt-off slowed the migration and only 

16 (44%) of 36 collared cows calved successfully. Calving success for collared cows that did 

make it back to the calving area in 2001 was much better (88%) than cows that did not make it 

back (10%). This suggests that if oil development takes place in such a way that it displaces 

caribou from the calving area or interferes with their ability to get to the calving area, it could 

have an effect on productivity and population numbers (Carroll 2003; Carroll et al. 2005). 

Although controversy exists over whether populations level effects for the CAH following 

displacement from portions of its calving range have been demonstrated (Cronin et al. 1998; 

Cameron et al. 2005), the most recent study of CAH productivity in the oil fields suggests that 

habitat quality in the calving area in one year may affect calf size at birth in the following year 

(Arthur and Del Vecchio 2006). Calf size at birth in turn influences calf size at the end of the 

first summer, which has consequences for survival through the following winter. 

The types of impacts of field development on caribou would be similar to those outlined under 

Alternative A. However, given the possibility that a field would be developed within the calving, 

insect-relief, and wintering grounds of the TLH, impacts to caribou could be greater under 

Alternative B than under Alternative A, with the exception that Alternative B would require a 

minimum pipeline height of 7’ as opposed to only 5’ for Alternative A. The WAH caribou could 

be exposed to oil development facilities in localized areas. Moose, muskoxen, grizzly bears, 

wolves, wolverines, foxes, and small mammals could be locally affected by activities associated 

with oil and gas exploration and development. Impacts to mammals would be similar to those 

discussed under Alternative A, but could be more frequent, greater in extent, or longer in

duration. A greater number of individual animals would likely be exposed to human activities. 

Aircraft traffic would more often pass over caribou and other terrestrial mammals during 

flights, and a greater amount of habitat would potentially be permanently lost. 

Traffic associated with hauling gravel from outside of the planning area could result in local 

disturbance and displacement of caribou within one to a few miles of the operations. A pipeline

linking oil fields in the planning area with facilities at the Alpine and Kuparuk oil fields would 

result in the disturbance and displacement of some caribou during winter construction, due to 

air traffic and to vehicle traffic along ice roads. It is expected that these disturbances would be 

4-315 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

short term (but see Alternative A’s discussion of potential effects of seismic operations) and

occur within about one to a few miles of the pipeline corridor. 

Moose 

Moose occur in low densities in the planning area during the summer and are concentrated in 

major drainages at the southern edge of the planning area in the winter (Map 3-26). Unless an 

oil field were to be developed in the southern portion of the planning area, development would 

be unlikely to impact moose. Under Alternative B, impacts to moose would be similar to those

discussed under Alternative A, because the probability of a development in the southern portion 

of the planning area would be the same or similar. 

If gravel were mined from the southern portion of the planning area, a temporary displacement 

and disturbance of moose could occur. Borrow pit operations could potentially destroy or

degrade about 50 acres of moose habitat for each gravel pit if gravel borrow operations occur in

the southern portion of the planning area. 

Muskox 

Muskoxen occur in low densities in the planning area, and they may not be present year-round

in all years. Potential effects of oil and gas development activities include displacement and 

disturbance of individual animals, direct habitat loss from gravel mining in river floodplains 

and at oil field facilities, and indirect habitat loss through reduced access caused by physical or 

behavioral barriers created by roads, pipelines, and other facilities. Under Alternative B, 

impacts would be similar to those under Alternative A, although they could be greater in

duration and area, given the larger overall development scenario. Impacts may be greater if 

development were to occur in the southern portion of the planning area. 

Grizzly Bears

Major sources of noise include construction of roads, installation of crude oil pipelines, pump 

stations, gravel mining, and drilling operations. These activities could disturb grizzly bears 

within a few miles of the noise sources. Industrial activities and human presence could also

cause potentially serious disturbances to denning bears. Under Alternative B, impacts to 

grizzly bears would be similar to those that would occur under Alternative A, although the 

extent and duration of impacts could be greater because of the larger overall development 

scenario, depending on the location of the field development. Grizzly bears are present at low 

densities in the northern portion of the planning area, but could be attracted to some activities. 

It is likely that the greatest number of bears would be encountered during development 

activities in the southern portion of the planning area, since the greatest amount of suitable 

habitat is located in this area. 

Wolves 

Under Alternative B, oil and gas development would have a minimal impact on wolves, similar 

to Alternative A. Potential effects to wolves would include short-term disturbance from air and 

surface traffic and human presence, and increased hunting and trapping pressure through

improved access or increased human presence associated with oil development. If caribou 

abundance were negatively affected by oil and gas development, wolf abundance could in turn 

be affected. However, wolves are not abundant in the planning area. 

Wolverines 

The potential effects of oil and gas development on wolverines under Alternative B are the same

as under other alternatives and could include disturbance from air and surface vehicle traffic, 

increased human presence, and habitat alteration. Because wolverines are considered a shy 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-316 

Alternative B: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

and secretive species, they could be sensitive to oil exploration and development activities and

abandon habitat areas near oil development. If caribou abundance was affected by oil 

development, wolverines could be affected in turn. Alteration of riparian habitats through 

gravel excavation or pipeline construction could affect wolverines, especially during the winter, 

when these habitats provide cover and important hunting areas. Wolverines are present at low

density in the planning area and sightings have been infrequent. Documented sightings and 

harvest locations suggest that wolverines could be encountered along rivers and in the vicinity 

of Teshekpuk Lake. Under Alternative B, some wolverines could be displaced in the vicinity of 

oil field facilities. Impacts under this alternative are likely to be similar to or slightly greater 

than those that would occur under Alternative A, given the larger overall development scenario. 

Foxes 

Under Alternative B, impacts to Arctic and red foxes would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative A, although they could be greater in duration and extent. Oil and gas development

activities could affect foxes by increasing the availability of food and shelter. An increase in the 

fox population associated with oil development could affect some prey of foxes (such as groundnesting birds and molting waterfowl) in the development area and over a region larger than the 

oil field itself (Burgess et al. 1993). 

Other Mammals 

Small rodents and their predators would be affected locally (i.e., through direct mortality of 

individuals or small groups of lemmings and voles, or through loss of habitat) along pipelines, 

gravel pads, and other facilities. Arctic ground squirrels sometimes den in gravel fill in the oil 

fields (Shideler and Hechtel 2000). The availability of suitable burrowing habitat could increase 

local densities of ground squirrels. Under Alternative B, impacts to small mammals would be 

similar to or slightly greater than those that would occur under the Alternative A, given the 

larger overall scale of the development scenario. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Abandonment and rehabilitation activities are expected to disturb and displace terrestrial 

mammals in a manner similar to that associated with construction. The intensity of the 

disturbance might be less than during construction, however, because it is possible that caribou, 

muskoxen, and other terrestrial mammals would have become habituated to road and air traffic 

over the course of construction and operation of the facilities. Some individuals could be killed 

by collisions with road traffic. If roads were left in place and maintained in useable condition 

upon abandonment, they could continue to provide improved access to hunting areas, with 

consequent hunting pressure on caribou and other subsistence species. Revegetation of the 

roads, pads, and the airstrip left in place would facilitate rehabilitation of habitat, but plant 

communities on these raised gravel structures would likely be different from those that prevail 

in adjacent areas and may include invasive species. Pads, roads, and airstrips could provide 

some insect-relief habitat for caribou, if left in place (Murphy and Lawhead 2000). If gravel fill

was removed and the pad revegetated with vegetation similar to the surrounding plant 

communities, caribou, and possibly other terrestrial mammals, would use the area. Foam 

insulating materials that could be used in pad construction could be broken up in the course of 

removal. If some of this foam escapes being cleaned up, it may be used by foxes as denning 

material. Depending on the material’s toxicity and the amount ingested by a fox, this could 

cause mortality, though the numbers of foxes killed would likely be very small. Overall, a 

greater amount of development is assumed under Alternative B than under Alternative A, 

providing a potential of greater impacts from abandonment and rehabilitation. However, they 

4-317 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

would likely be expressed over a longer time period resulting in no population level effects from 

these activities in either case. 

Effects of Spills 

Typical refined products that are spilled on the Alaska North Slope include aviation fuel, diesel 

fuel, engine oil, fuel oil, gasoline, grease, hydraulic oil, transformer oil, and transmission oil.

The extent of environmental impacts would depend upon the type and amount of material 

spilled, the location of the spill, and the effectiveness of the response. The majority of small 

spills would be contained on the gravel pad and would have no impact on terrestrial mammals 

or their habitat. 

The impacts of oil spills on terrestrial mammals are described under Alternative A (section 

4.3.9, Mammals). Compared to Alternative A, the risk of oil spills would be greater, but still 

small, under Alternative B, given the slightly greater estimate of spills. Activities occurring in 

the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake could increase the likelihood that a spill would reach the lake 

under Alternative B. Because most spills would be small and affect a small area, the majority 

of impacts to terrestrial mammals would result from disturbance associated with spill clean-up 

activities rather than direct oiling. 

Commercial Gas Development 

The types of impacts from gas development under Alternative B would be similar to, but 

potentially greater in magnitude, than those described for Alternative A, because under 

Alternative B more important caribou calving and insect relief area is made available for 

leasing. Buried pipelines would have no impact on caribou movement, though disturbance 

could occur during winter construction in approximately the same way as it would occur by 

construction of aboveground pipeline described above and, like in Alternative A, about 290 acres 

of habitat would be altered by change in vegetation along the buried pipeline route. The noise 

associated with a 10- to 20-acre compressor station may cause avoidance, but the pad’s raised 

surface may attract caribou seeking insect relief. 

If a gas pipeline was elevated on a set of VSMs separate from oil-pipeline bearing VSMs, 

caribou movement could be hindered. 

Construction and operation of gas facilities would likely impact other terrestrial mammals in a 

manner similar to and in like proportion to the impacts associated with oil development and in 

a way similar to that described for gas development impacts under Alternative A. 

In the event of a natural gas well blowout or pipeline rupture, there would be a short-term

release of gas (1 day) that could extend downwind for about 1 km and would quickly dissipate

once the blowout or leak was stopped. Terrestrial mammals in the immediate vicinity of the 

blowout could be killed. Natural gas and condensates that did not burn in the blowout would be 

hazardous to any terrestrial mammal exposed to high concentrations. Given the small area 

that would be exposed to the plume and the rapid dissipation of the gas, it is not likely that any 

animals other than individuals present in the immediate vicinity at the time of the blowout 

would be affected. The likelihood of caribou, moose, muskoxen, wolves, or grizzly bears being 

exposed to toxic amounts of gas and condensates is very low and (should it occur) would 

probably only affect a few individuals. Smaller, less mobile species with small home ranges, 

such as squirrels, voles, and lemmings may be affected in larger numbers. However, there 

would be no population level impacts on any species. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-318 

Alternative B: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.4.9.a.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Numerous lease stipulations and ROPs were developed to protect mammals. These include the 

“A” ROPs, which have been developed to reduce the potential for direct mortality due to oiling, 

ingestion of toxic materials, or contamination of habitat, prey species, and forage species, and to

reduce the attractiveness of industrial sites to predators that could result in elevated predator 

populations. Increased numbers of predators such as foxes may put personnel at risk, which 

could result in predator removal. 

Lease Stipulation D-1 would prohibit exploratory drilling in lakes, streams, lakebeds, and active 

floodplains unless impacts to wildlife were minimal, while Lease Stipulation D-2 would be 

effective in minimizing surface impacts from exploratory drilling by limiting exploratory drilling 

to temporary facilities such as ice pads, ice roads, ice airstrips, and temporary platforms, unless 

the lessee were to demonstrate that construction of permanent facilities was environmentally 

preferable. 

Required Operating Procedure E-1 would be effective in protecting wildlife resources by 

requiring that all roads be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated to create minimal 

environmental impacts, while ROP E-7 would require that pipelines and roads be designed to 

facilitate caribou passage by elevating all aboveground pipelines at least 7 feet above the 

ground providing better passage during winter when snow is on the ground, burying pipelines, 

or providing ramps to facilitate caribou movements. In addition, ROP E-7(c) would require that

a minimum distance of 500 feet separate pipelines and roads, when feasible. If fully 

implemented, these ROPs would be effective in reducing (but not eliminating) the impacts of oil 

development on caribou movements (Lawhead et al. 2006). Since caribou are sensitive to 

humans on foot and moving vehicles, there would be some negative effects on their ability to 

freely move through the area, regardless of how well the field was designed. 

Required Operating Procedure F-1 would minimize the effects of low-flying aircraft on 

terrestrial mammals by requiring an altitude of at least 1,000 feet AGL (except for takeoffs and 

landings) over caribou winter ranges, limiting the number of takeoffs and landings in support of 

operations, and requiring aircraft altitudes of at least 2,000 feet AGL (except for takeoffs and 

landings) over the TLCH Area from May 20 through August 20. Assuming that aircraft 

operators were aware of the potential effects of aircraft on wildlife and took the appropriate 

actions to minimize those effects, disturbance impacts to terrestrial mammals could be

effectively reduced. 

Lease Stipulations K-5 and K-6 would require that the operator minimize disturbance and 

hindrance of caribou, or alteration of caribou movements through portions of the TLCH Area 

and the Coastal Area that are essential for all season use, including calving and rearing, insect 

relief, and migration. These lease stipulations would require studies of caribou movement, 

would restrict exploratory drilling, would protect major land corridors, would require field 

design that takes caribou movements into account, and would require various ground and air 

traffic controls. 

4.4.9.a.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative B, oil and gas leasing and exploration would be allowed anywhere in the 

planning area, with the exception of the 213,000-acre area northeast of Teshekpuk Lake. In 

addition, lease stipulations and ROPs would provide seasonal and spatial protection to certain 

4-319 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

environmentally sensitive areas, including Rivers Area, Deep Water Lakes, Goose Molting Area,

Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area, Pik Dunes, Colville River Special Area, Coastal Area, 

and Teshekpuk Lake. The exposure of terrestrial mammals to oil and gas activities, and

therefore the level of associated impact, would be greater under Alternative B than under 

Alternative A, given that leasing of lands adjacent to Teshekpuk Lake could occur and that the

overall scale of development would likely be greater under Alternative B. 

Among the terrestrial mammal populations that could be affected by management actions 

under Alternative B are the TLH, WAH, and CAH caribou. Caribou could be exposed to 

helicopter traffic and other human activities associated with resource inventories, seismic 

operations, exploratory drilling, and pipeline construction. The TLH caribou movements within 

calving, insect-relief, and wintering areas could be disrupted by oil development activities. 

Although much of the construction associated with oil and gas development would occur 

primarily during winter, development would bring year-round facilities and activities into 

caribou range. If a field were developed in the area surrounding Teshekpuk Lake (excluding the 

portion unavailable to leasing), production pads, pipelines, within-field roads, and other 

facilities would be located within areas used by the TLH for calving, insect relief, migration, and 

wintering. A field development in the northern section of the planning area would also require a 

connector pipeline to link the oil field with facilities to the east. 

It is expected that impacts to terrestrial mammals in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake would be

greater under Alternative B than under Alternative A, particularly with respect to caribou 

calving and insect-relief habitat. Overall, impacts throughout the planning area would be 

greater under Alternative B, given the greater overall scale of the planned development. In 

general, impacts to mammals from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas activities, 

would likely be additive, except possibly in those areas where both types of activities occurred.

Impacts to mammals from exploration and development activities would also be additive, except 

possibly for habitat impacts where development occurred in habitats previously disturbed 

during exploration. In areas where two or more activities occurred, overall impacts would

reflect those impacts associated with the first activity and any new impacts associated with 

later activities. 

The approximately 213,000 acres that would be unavailable to leasing are important to caribou 

migrating between calving and insect-relief areas and the wintering grounds. In addition, lease 

stipulations and ROPs have been developed to further protect caribou found near Teshekpuk 

Lake and using coastal environs. Based on the amount of habitat with a potential to be 

affected, the potential for impacts to mammals under this alternative would be about 10% more 

than Alternative A. If oil and gas activities occurred in areas with an abundance of caribou or 

other mammals, or in areas with high quality habitat, impacts could be greater than those 

based strictly on number of acres of habitat impacted. 

4.4.9-b Marine Mammals 

4.4.9-b.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

The principal non-oil and gas activities occurring in the planning area would be aircraft traffic 

(both rotary- and fixed-wing) associated with surveys and wildlife studies; ground activities 

such as resource inventories, paleontological excavations and research, and recreational camps; 

overland traffic; and human foot traffic. Overland moves would occur during the winter on 

stable sea ice or frozen tundra, and could impact small numbers of seals. Most of the other nonChapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-320 

Alternative B: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

oil and gas activities would take place in summer and early fall (June-September) and could

only impact marine mammals if they occurred along the coast of the planning area. These types 

of activities would be either highly localized (worksite/camp) or transient (surveys and

inventories) could cause short-term (hours for a single event, or several days to 2-3 weeks if a 

camp or worksite is located immediately next to the coast in areas used by marine mammals) 

displacement or limited harassment of hauled-out seals. 

Overland moves would take place during the winter, and follow routes from Prudhoe Bay or 

Oliktok Point to Barrow or Nuiqsut. Overland routes would occur over stable sea-ice and over 

frozen tundra. Vehicle and sled trains could disturb denning ringed seals if the routes occurred 

over denning habitat in floating fast-ice, and could temporarily displace basking seals near the 

traffic route. Most over-ice routes are expected to be over land-fast ice and across shallow 

water (<10 feet). Ringed seals occur in very low densities in these shallower areas (~0.03 

seals/mi2) and do not appear to be significantly affected by construction and operation on sea ice 

roads (Moulton et al. 2005). 

Small fuel spills would likely occur in association with resource inventories and surveys, 

recreational activities, and overland moves. These spills would most likely involve aviation fuel 

and other light-fraction hydrocarbons fuels that would evaporate and disperse rapidly, and 

would be cleaned up immediately whenever possible. These small spills would not be expected 

to impact marine mammals in or near the planning area. 

The effects of non-oil and gas activities on marine mammals in the planning area should be 

localized and short term. 

4.4.9-b.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

The potential types of impacts under Alternative B are the same as Alternative A. The 

frequency, spatial extent, and magnitude (intensity and duration) of the impacts likely will vary 

between alternatives in relation to the total amount of area open to development, the location of 

the areas open, and the Lease Stipulation and Required Operating Procedures. Alternative B 

makes areas north of Teshekpuk Lake open to exploration and development that are closed

under Alternative A. It also results in a development scenario that estimates approximately 

12% (446 acres) more permanent disturbance than Alternative A. However, as noted, it is the 

change in areas open to development that is likely to have the most influence on the likelihood 

and severity of impacts to marine mammals. 

Effects of Disturbances 

Seismic 

Seismic exploration is expected to have the same potential for affect and likelihood to occur as 

under Alternative A. However, the 3⁄4 mile coastal buffer required by ROP K-4 would reduce the 

attractiveness of the Atigaru/Kogru area making the likelihood of seismic in these areas lower 

than under Alternative A. The low likelihood of seismic under this alternative combined with 

the expected very low density of seals in these shallow areas (Moulton et al. 2005) makes it 

unlikely that seals would be affected by seismic work. 

4-321 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Visual and Noise Disturbance 

Aircraft. The effects of aircraft disturbance would be similar to those described under the 

Alternative A, but could be greater in extent, given the greater number of pads and production

facilities expected under Alternative B. More importantly, because development would be 

allowed north of Teshekpuk Lake the number of aircraft that would regularly occur over areas 

that may be used by marine mammals would increase. Aircraft would generally fly at 1,000 feet 

AGL, minimizing the potential for disturbance to seals and most likely whales (Born et al. 1999, 

Patenaude et al. 2002, Richardson and Williams 2004, Moulton et al. 2005). 

Shipping. Under the development scenario for Alternative B, the projected levels of 

development and related activities could be affect 12% more area than under the Alternative A. 

The greater level of estimated development could result in a greater potential for disturbance to

marine mammals from increased barge traffic used to transport supplies and modules for 

development. It is expected that the difference in impacts from shipping among alternatives is 

proportional to the difference in number of vessel trips. Six to 12 sealifts 1-2 every 10 years, 

would be required to support development of the estimated CPFs, totaling 180 to 360 barges 

over an approximately 60 year period (approximately 20% more than estimated for Alternative 

A). In addition, it is possible that barges could be landed on the northern coast of the planning 

area, most likely at Lonely. In this scenario, increased barge traffic during the summer could 

result in more disturbance and displacement of whales and seals than under Alternative A 

because barges would be maneuvering off the coast and be in place for several days instead of 

transiting past. Although like Alternative A and B the displacement/disturbance is expected to

be localized in time (only occur within a short distance <1 mile for seals, 1-4 miles for whales) in 

time and short-term (hours or days). It is not expected that effects would levels that could 

result in substantial impacts to individual marine mammals or populations, although the 

fitness of some individuals could be impacted. 

Contaminant Spill 

The effects of a spill on marine mammals would be as described under the Alternative A. The 

likelihood of a spill reaching or occurring in areas used by marine mammals is higher due to the 

greater amount of development but is still very low. Although a greater area is open, Lease 

Stipulation K-4 places a 3⁄4 mile buffer along the entire coastline, including the area around

Atigaru Point, which is open under Alternative A. 

Collisions 

The likelihood of a vessel strike is influenced by the number of vessels traveling through an 

area over time. Speed probably has an influence on the likelihood of a collision and does 

increase the potential that a collision will result in sever injury or death (Laist et al. 2001). 

Alternative B would result in an estimated 20% more vessel traffic with a commiserate increase 

in the likelihood of a collision. Given the expected low rates of collisions (George et al. 1994), 

this change while moderate in percentage terms is likely a minor risk in actual number of 

animals injured or killed. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Impacts of abandonment and rehabilitation activities are expected to be similar to those for 

construction. Given the expense of transport vessel traffic is expected to be substantially lower 

than occurred during construction as large modules or other equipment may be moved to other 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-322 

Alternative B: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

development or stored at regional staging areas rather than moving it off the North Slope. The 

potential for impacts is expected to be proportionally higher compared to Alternative A. 

4.4.9-b.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Under Alternative B, performance-based lease stipulations and ROPs designed to mitigate 

impacts of oil and gas development on other resources would be implemented. 

Required Operating Procedures that address waste prevention, handling, disposal, and spills 

should be effective in minimizing impacts to marine mammals from development in the 

planning area. These include ROP A-7(b), which would prohibit the discharge of produced fluids

into the marine environment, where currents and water depths, in combination with other 

conditions, would be inadequate to prevent impacts to known biologically sensitive areas. 

Required Operating Procedure C-1 (b) would prohibit the cross-country use of heavy equipment 

and seismic activities within 1 mile of known or observed seal birthing lairs. This ROP would 

also require operators to consult with the USFWS or NOAA Fisheries Service before initiating 

activities in coastal habitat between October 30 and April 15. 

Lease Stipulation K-1(a) would require a 1-mile setback from the Colville River within the 

planning area. 

Lease Stipulation K-1(e) would prohibit permanent oil and gas surface facilities within 3 miles 

of Fish Creek. A 3-mile setback would be highly effective in minimizing the potential for oil and 

gas leasing and development activities to negatively impact beluga whales in Fish Creek. 

Lease Stipulation K-6 would prohibit the placement of permanent facilities within 3⁄4 mile of the 

coast, except where technological limitations, economics, logistics, or other factors necessitated

a structure. Under these circumstances, the use of a previously occupied site (Camp Lonely, 

Husky/USGS drill sites, and DEW-Line sites) would be considered. Prohibiting new permanent 

facilities within 3⁄4 mile of the coast should be effective in reducing the potential for disturbance 

to seals (spotted, ringed, and bearded) hauled out on beaches in summer, or hauled out on the 

ice during winter and spring. Lease Stipulation K-6 would also reduce the potential for 

disturbance to cetaceans that occur in nearshore habitats (gray whales and beluga whales) 

along the coast of the planning area. 

4.4.9-b.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative B, the effects of non-oil and gas activities on marine mammals, would be 

short term and/or localized, occurring within one mile of aircraft corridors, survey activities, 

recreational camps, and overland moves. 

Oil and gas leasing and development activities under Alternative B would likely cause a greater 

level of noise and disturbance, primarily near the Colville River Delta and inner Harrison Bay 

area than under the Alternative A. Effects should be localized (within 1 mile of aircraft 

corridors and activities) and short term (generally less than 1 year). Lease Stipulation K-6 

would minimize the potential for development to impact ringed seals, spotted seals, and beluga 

whales, in a small area in Harrison Bay south of Atigaru Point, where activities could occur 

under the Alternative A. While exploration could occur in this area under Alternative B, the 

effects of seismic exploration would be limited to short-term, localized disturbance to denning or 

hauled out ringed seals. 

4-323 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

A small number of ringed seals, spotted seals, and beluga whales could be affected by oil spills 

entering the Kogru River, Colville River, or drainages that empty into the Colville River, Fish 

Creek, or Judy Creek. The likelihood of such and event is small and not expected to occur. It is 

expected that any losses would be small. 

The effects of development under Alternative B are expected to be somewhat greater than those

under the Alternative A due to the greater amount of exploration and development projected to

occur under this alternative. However, these effects would be short term, with few impacts on 

marine mammal populations. Since nearly all exploration and development activity would occur 

onshore under all alternatives, the potential for impacts to marine mammal resources under 

Alternative B would be slightly greater than those that could occur under the Alternative A. 

4.4.10 Threatened and Endangered Species 

This section discusses the potential effects to bowhead whale, spectacled and Steller’s eiders, 

and polar bear which could result from management action in the planning area under 

Alternative B. Whales would be most affected by disturbance and oil spills. Most, but not all, 

activities that could potentially affect eiders and polar bears in the Planning Area would be 

associated with oil and gas exploration and development. Other activities that could occur in the 

planning area include subsistence hunting, recreational use, and activities associated with 

scientific survey and research camps. 

4.4.10-a Bowhead Whale 

4.4.10-a.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative B, effects to bowhead whale from non-oil and gas activities would be similar 

to those that would occur under Alternative A. Impacts from non-oil and gas activities would

have no or minor impacts on individual bowhead whales or bowhead whale populations. 

4.4.10-a.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbances 

The effects of oil and gas activities on bowhead whale would be similar in type but of somewhat 

greater magnitude under Alternative B than under Alternative A, given the greater area that is 

available for development. There would be an approximately 20% increase in barge traffic and a 

greater likelihood that barges would come ashore and be unloaded along the coast of the 

planning area. Because some areas north of Teshekpuk Lake would be open to oil and gas 

leasing and development, there is also a greater likelihood that regular aircraft operation over

marine waters would occur. As discussed under Alternative A the effects of those activities are 

expected to be limited to short term avoidance behavior, but more studies are required to assess

the consequences of eliciting this behavior. It is unknown if the he potential increase in these 

disturbance activities would result in an impact level that significantly reduces the fitness of

individual bowhead whales, although it is unlikely that population level effects would be 

detected. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-324 

Alternative B: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Contaminants 

There would be a greater potential for oil spills under Alternative B than under Alternative A, 

given the larger area available for development and higher levels of development activity that 

would occur under Alternative B. However, it would still be unlikely that spilled oil would reach 

bowhead whale habitat, unless development occurred along the coast. The potential for an 

accidental release of contaminants from barge traffic would increase slightly due to the 

estimated increase in number of barges, but this remains an unlikely event (although the 

probability of a spill occurring would increase as a result of 20% more barge traffic). 

The southward edge of the migration corridor could be deflected northward due to any vessel 

activity associated with containment and clean-up activities occurring during the fall migration. 

However, impacts to individual bowhead whales or the whale population would be minor, except 

in the case of a very large spill coincident with the fall migration, which is very unlikely. 

Collisions 

Alternative B is estimated to result in an approximate 20% increase in barge traffic over 

Alternative A. Development of all estimated facilities is not expected to occur concurrently but 

sequentially. The projected increase in barge traffic would not all occur in one year but would 

consist of 20% more sealifts than Alternative A spread over some period of time, likely 

separated by 5 to 10 years. The likelihood of a vessel strike is influenced by the number of 

vessels traveling through an area over time thus the likelihood of a collision is increased under 

Alternative B compared to Alternative A. However, given the expected low rates of collisions 

observed in the past (George et al. 1994), those expected based on the low rate of speed barges 

typically travel (Laist et al. 2001), and that barges usually are active only during the earlier 

portion of migration, this change, while moderate in percentage terms is likely a minor risk in 

actual number of whales injured or killed. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Impacts of abandonment and rehabilitation activities are expected to be similar to those for 

construction and moderately higher than under Alternative A. Effects could occur from aircraft, 

barges used to remove materials from the planning area and potential spills. 

Commercial Gas Development 

If natural gas development and production occur in the planning area, it is unlikely that 

bowhead whales would be affected other than temporary, nonlethal effects from marine vessels 

as described for traffic associated with oil development. 

4.4.10-a.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

There are no Stipulations or Required Operating Procedures specific to bowhead whales, but 

several would indirectly reduce the potential that any oil spill would reach marine waters. 

Lease stipulation K-1 requires no development setbacks from the banks of major rivers in the 

planning area. While this stipulation does not prohibit pipelines from crossing rivers,

development would be prohibited from within 1⁄2 to 3 miles from the banks. This should 

substantially reduce the potential for a large spill originating from pads or pipelines parallel to 

the river channel to reach the river and be transported from to marine waters. Lease 

4-325 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Stipulation K-4 requires a 3⁄4 mile set back from the coast which would have a similar effect as 

K-1, reducing the potential for a large spill to reach marine waters. 

4.4.10-a.4 Conclusion 

Alternative B is expected to result in approximate 12% more surface disturbance potentially 

distributed over a greater area of the planning area than Alternative A, with a commiserate 

increase in barge traffic, aircraft, and spill potential. Therefore there is a greater likelihood of 

impacts to bowhead whales, including behavioral displacement from high-density foraging 

areas, injury, and mortality from ships collisions and oils spills. However, a relatively small 

proportion of the population is projected to be affected by these impacts. In those years where 

bowheads occur in shallower waters during fall migration, the number affected could be higher,

but potential effects are not expected to be severe enough to lead to changes in the population 

unless a very large oil spill occurred in the marine environment. 

4.4.10-b Spectacled and Steller’s Eiders 

4.4.10-b.1 Activities Not Associated with Oil and Gas Development and 

Exploration 

Non-oil and gas activities that could affect spectacled and Steller’s eiders under Alternative B

would be the same as those listed under Alternative A—private or commercial air traffic, aerial 

surveys to inventory wildlife or other resources, summer research camps, hazardous material or

debris removal, subsistence hunting and fishing, and recreational camps and boating activity. 

Under Alternative B, a larger area is available for permanent oil and gas development than 

under Alternative A. However, the potential for non-oil and gas activities to disturb, displace, or 

cause mortality to eiders would likely be similar under the two alternatives. ROPs would

effectively mitigate some of the potential effects of non-oil and gas activities on these threatened

eider species. 

4.4.10-b.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Seismic 

The effects of seismic exploration on eiders is expected to be the same as under Alternative A as 

similar levels of seismic exploration are predicted for all alternatives (section 4.2.1.2).

Although under Alternative B seismic could be conducted on Teshekpuk Lake this would be 

done over-ice – if at all. 

Exploration 

Under Alternative B, the potential effects of ice-road and ice-pad construction would be similar 

to those described under Alternative A, and would involve the temporary alteration of tundra 

vegetation. Since a larger area would be available to oil and gas exploration activities under 

Alternative B than under Alternative A, the associated impacts to eiders would also potentially 

be greater under Alternative B. 

Predators, such as glaucous gulls and Arctic foxes, could be attracted to anthropogenic food 

sources associated with summer maintenance of exploratory drilling and seismic equipment or 

winter exploratory activities. Under Alternative B, the potential for increased predation of

eiders by predators attracted to development compared to Alternative A would be reduced by 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-326 

Alternative B: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

ROP A-2, although the relatively greater amount of exploration drilling would increase the 

likelihood of predator attraction under Alternative B. The typical short time period and

seasonality of exploration would reduce the likelihood that predators would discover any 

human-provided food source as well as reducing the likelihood of predators persisting in the

area because there would be no recurring anthropogenic food source. Furthermore, since 

exploration is primarily a winter activity, avian nest predators would not be present, except for 

possibly common ravens). 

Development and Production 

Activities related to oil development and production in the planning area, such as vehicle, 

aircraft, pedestrian, and boat traffic, routine maintenance activities, use of heavy equipment, 

oil-spill clean-up activities, and aerial surveys to inventory wildlife or other resources, could 

cause disturbances that would affect eiders. Under Alternative B, the types of disturbances to 

eiders would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A. These disturbances could 

result in temporary displacement from preferred foraging, nesting, or brood-rearing habitats, 

decreased nest attendance or nest abandonment, and increased energy expenditures that could

affect physiological condition and rate of survival or reproduction. The likelihood for impacts to 

eiders would depend on the location of the disturbance, the number of eiders in the area, and

the time of year. Under Alternative B, these impacts would likely be greater than those 

compared to Alternative A because of the greater area that is available for development under 

Alternative B compared to Alternative A. 

The potential for disturbance to threatened eiders from activities on roads and pads would 

likely be greater under Alternative B, as compared to Alternative A, because areas that support 

relatively high spectacled eider concentrations occur in portions of the Goose Molting Area that 

would be available for oil and gas leasing under Alternative B, but not under Alternative A, 

although the areas of highest eider densities would remain under the RSO area. 

Under Alternative B, as compared to Alternative A, there would be a greater potential for 

disturbance to eiders to occur within the 5 to 6 mile wide band south and west of Teshekpuk 

Lake that would be open to surface activity under Alternative B, but closed under Alternative A.

Lease Stipulation K-5, designed to protect the Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area, would 

also help reduce disturbance effects to eiders by placing limits on various types of activities on 

roads and pads between May 20 and August 20. 

Under Alternative B, there could also be a greater level of disturbance to eiders in the Deep

Water Lakes Area south of Teshekpuk Lake, than under Alternative A. Under Alternative A, 

no permanent oil and gas facilities would be permitted within 1⁄4 mile of the any fish-bearing 

lake. Under Alternative B, facilities would generally not be permitted within this buffer, but 

could be permitted, on a case by case basis, in consultation with Federal, state, and NSB 

regulatory and resource agencies. Permitting facilities within the 1⁄4-mile buffer of fish bearing 

lakes in the Deep Water Lakes Area could result in disturbance to eiders near the facilities and 

access roads. Although Lease Stipulation K-2 has been designed primarily to provide mitigation 

for deep-water fish habitat, it could also lessen impacts to eiders using habitats near these

lakes. 

Air Traffic 

The types of effects to eiders from aircraft would be the same under Alternative B as those that 

would occur under Alternative A, and could include displacement from preferred feeding 

4-327 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

habitats, temporary or permanent nest abandonment, and temporary or permanent 

displacement from molting or brood-rearing areas. However, some eiders could either remain in 

habitats located near aircraft activities or move to nearby habitats. Although there is evidence

that molting and staging geese are disturbed by aircraft (Jensen 1990, Ward et al. 1999) and 

pre-nesting eiders may respond to low flying (≤ 150 feet) aircraft (Balogh 1997). Evidence of

adverse impacts to eiders is equivocal. Johnson et al (2006) found no indication that spectacled 

eider nests with higher levels of overflights had reduced nest success compared to those with no

or less overflights. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that some level of effect may occur 

under certain circumstances. Repeated flushing of pre-nesting birds may reduce nesting 

success, more sensitive birds may not nest or be displaced to lower quality nesting habitat, and 

disturbance of molting eiders may result in greater rates of predation and reduced fitness with 

subsequent reduced migratory survival. None of these effects have been demonstrated, and 

would be very difficult to establish cause and effect relationships; however, here it is assumed 

that they are possible, but the magnitude (number of birds affected) and severity (likelihood of 

mortality/reduced recruitment) is unknown. 

A greater number of eiders could be affected by air traffic under Alternative B than A, even 

though a larger area would be available for oil and gas leasing in the Goose Molting Area, and 

facilities could be located in the portions of the Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area (where 

surface activity was prohibited under Alternative A), Lease Stipulations K-3 through K-6 would 

provide setbacks from various habitats surrounding Teshekpuk Lake and along the coast that 

are considered important for fish, birds, and caribou in the area. Within these setbacks, 

permanent oil and gas facilities would be prohibited, and other potentially disturbing activities, 

such as vehicular and air traffic, would be restricted. These lease stipulations would help to 

reduce potential aircraft disturbance to eiders, should oil and gas facilities be located within 

portions of the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area. However, if CPFs were located within the 

Teshekpuk Lake Special Area, the level of aircraft disturbance would likely increase along flight

corridors and near airstrips located at these CPFs. Flight restrictions under Lease Stipulations

K-4 and K-5 would be expected to also reduce the effects of aircraft in the Caribou Habitat 

Area/Goose Molting area. 

Watercraft 

Several types of watercraft could be used during the summer to transport equipment and 

supplies and to conduct oil spill response training drills. Summer barge traffic with the 

potential to temporarily displace molting eiders could occur in offshore waters of the planning 

area from mid-July through October. How eiders will react to boat traffic is unknown but the 

may react similarly to other waterfowl with short-term short-distance avoidance movements 

(Flint et al., 2003). Displaced eiders would probably move to adjacent habitats or return to 

original habitats after the barges passed though the area and barge traffic would not be 

expected to substantially impact molting eiders. There would be a greater likelihood for 

disturbance to molting eiders under Alternative B than under Alternative A because much of 

the area adjacent to the coast would be open for leasing under Alternative B but unavailable for 

oil and gas development under Alternative A. Therefore, it would be more likely that 

development would occur in portions of the Goose Molting Area, and that barge traffic would be

required near this area for transportation of equipment and supplies during oil field

construction and operation. 

Oil spill response training activities using watercraft could be conducted on rivers and lakes 

several times during the summer open-water season. Under Alternative B, these activities 

would be more likely to disturb eiders than under Alternative A, because there would be a 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-328 

Alternative B: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

greater likelihood that facilities would be located in areas of spectacled eider concentrations 

within the Goose Molting Area. 

Habitat Loss and Alteration 

Under the development scenario for Alternative B the gravel footprint for roads, pads, airstrips, 

staging areas and gravel extraction sites is estimated to be approximately 3,716 acres; 

approximately 12% more than under Alternative A. Loss of eider habitat would be greater 

under Alternative C and be permanent in the area occupied by the development footprint, and

eiders nesting in this area would be displaced to other areas. Their survival and future 

reproductive success would be dependent on the availability and quality of unoccupied habitat. 

If spectacled and Steller’s eider densities are assumed to be 2.0 and 0.02 birds per mi2 (640

acres per mi2) respectively (very high estimates based on aerial survey data; Larned et al. 2006; 

Ritchie and King 2003), up to 11.7 spectacled eiders and 0.1 Steller’s eider could be expected to 

be displaced by the gravel footprint over the life of the plan if all development occurred in high 

density areas. This estimate is likely overly-conservative as areas of “high high” density make 

up only a small proportion of the planning area even with the additional area north of 

Teshekpuk Lake being open under Alternative B (Map 3-33). 

Alternative B would open a portion of the area north of Teshekpuk Lake closed under

Alternative A. Average eider density over 15 years in area north of Teshekpuk Lake is 0.79/mi2 

This area also contains approximately 57% of the indicated population within the Northeast 

NPR-A planning area (FWS, unpublished data). When this area is included the average 

Northeast NPR-A spectacled eider density is 0.36 eiders/mi

2

. For comparison average spectacled

eider density in the entire Eider Breeding Survey Area is 0.57 eiders/mi

2 (Larned et al 2006). 

Steller’s eider densities are so low that estimates are not calculated from the Eider Breeding 

Survey (Larned et al. 2006), but they do occur within the planning area. 

However, under all alternatives, the potential effects of habitat loss would depend on the

location of the development, the types of habitat lost, and the level of eider use in the areas to be

developed. Without specific information on the locations of potential developments, the 

estimates of eiders potentially impacted should be seen as an index of comparison between 

alternatives, not an absolute value of birds affected. 

In addition to permanent habitat loss, temporary loss of tundra habitat adjacent to gravel roads 

and pads could occur as a result of thermokarst, dust deposition, snow accumulation, and 

impoundment formation. Under Alternative B, the types of effects to eiders resulting from 

temporary habitat loss would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A. As with 

permanent habitat loss, the degree of effects would depend on the location of gravel 

infrastructure and local use of adjacent habitats by eiders. However, impacts from the 

temporary loss of tundra habitat are projected to be greater under Alternative B than A because 

more areas with higher densities of eiders are available for oil and gas leasing. Lease 

stipulations and ROPs, particularly E-11, would help to mitigate potential effects of habitat loss 

to eiders. 

Mortality 

Eider mortality could result from collisions with vehicular traffic, buildings, elevated pipelines, 

towers, boats, or bridges. The potential for collisions with oil field structures or equipment has 

been discussed under Alternative A. Compared to Alternative A, there would be an increased 

4-329 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

risk that eiders would collide with offshore barge and vessel traffic under Alternative B, because 

of the greater potential number of barges and the possibility of barges coming ashore on the 

north coast of the planning area. Given that the highest concentrations of spectacled eiders in 

the planning area occur in this area, the siting of facilities within this area would increase the 

potential for eider mortality due to collisions with oil field structures or equipment, relative to 

Alternative A. Under Alternative B, ROP E-10 would require illumination to reduce the 

potential that migrating waterfowl would collide with drilling structures, production facilities, 

and other structures exceeding 20 feet in height. ROP E-11 would require that overhead lines 

and guywires be minimized and marked if it is not feasible or safe to bury them or place them in

cable trays attached to VSMs. Although there is no similar action under Alternative A, the 

potential risk of eider mortality from collisions with oil field infrastructure could still be greater 

under Alternative B because the potential benefits of illumination of facilities might not be 

adequate to mitigate for the presence of facilities within or near areas of high eider 

concentrations. 

Some predators, such as ravens, gulls, Arctic fox, and bears may be attracted to areas of human 

activity where they find anthropogenic sources of food and denning or nesting sites. The 

potential impacts of increased levels of predation on eiders resulting from increased numbers of 

predators that may be attracted to developed areas are discussed under Alternative A. The 

potential types of effects of increased predation to eiders under Alternative B would be the same 

as those discussed under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, impacts to eiders from predation 

are expected to be greater than impacts from Alternative A because more development is 

possible and more areas of high eider density are open for development. Although both

Alternative A and Alternative B have lease stipulations in place to eliminate attraction of

predators to anthropogenic sources of food, under Alternative B the lessee would be required to

use the best available technology to prevent facilities from providing nesting, denning, or 

shelter sites for ravens, raptors, or foxes. There is no equivalent lease stipulation under 

Alternative A. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Winter activities would cause little disturbance or displacement, because eiders are absent from 

the area during the winter. However, ice roads could cause impoundments of water that could 

reduce habitat for nesting birds; such impacts would only affect nesting in the summer 

following ice road use. However, these impacts should be very minor since most ice roads have 

melted prior to the time of nest initiation. Summer road and air traffic generated by 

abandonment and rehabilitation activities could cause disturbance, displacement, and mortality 

to eiders similar to, and at the same levels as, those described for traffic during construction 

and operations. If pads, roads, and airstrips were not revegetated, they would remain lost 

habitat for eiders. If they were revegetated without removing the gravel, the habitat would not 

return to its current utility. If gravel was removed, habitat similar to that currently existing in 

the area could be created and used by eiders, though the precise mix of habitat types would

likely not be the same as what was in the area prior to disturbance. The potential for adverse 

effects from abandonment and rehabilitation is greater under this alternative compared to 

Alternative A and proportional to the differences in construction effects between the two 

alternatives. 

Effects of Spills 

Oil spills would have similar types of effects to threatened eiders under Alternative A and 

Alternative B. However, there would be an increased risk of a contaminant spill occurring 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-330 

Alternative B: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

under Alternative B. The potential for an offshore spill would increase because there would be 

approximately 20% more barge traffic under Alternative B than Alternative A. The risk of an 

onshore spill risk increases with increased volume of oil expected to be produced. The risk (or 

number of) large spills under Alternative B increases by about 15% (0.3 spill – see section 4.2.2 

– Oil Spills) and the potential spill from large spills increases by 1,622 barrels compared to 

Alternative A. In addition, a pipeline leak or other spill in the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area 

could affect eiders under Alternative B; this area would be closed to leasing under Alternative 

A. Under Alternative B, Lease Stipulations K-1, K-2, K-3, K-4, and K-6 would provide setbacks 

ranging from approximate 0.25 mile to 3 miles from specified rivers, lakes, and the Beaufort Sea 

coast, within which permanent oil and gas facilities would be prohibited, to help reduce 

potential effects of an oil spill on eider habitats. 

Oil entering rivers or streams could potentially spread into delta or coastal areas, where 

impacts to eiders could be more severe. Under Alternative B, Lease Stipulation K-1 would help 

to reduce the likelihood that an oil spill would enter a major river or stream. This lease 

stipulation would provide setbacks of 1⁄2 to 3 miles from specified rivers, within which 

permanent oil and gas facilities would be prohibited, although pipelines could be permitted in 

some of these areas. Alternative A has similar lease stipulations, except that the 

Tingmiaksiqvik River is included under Alternative B, but not under Alternative A. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Gas development would have impacts on eiders similar to that described for oil development, 

except that there would be no impacts from oil spills. Any effects of natural gas development 

and production on spectacled and Steller’s eiders are expected to be limited to temporary, 

nonlethal effects, perhaps resulting in disturbance to a few birds. However, a natural gas well 

blowout occurring from June to September could affect eiders that are nesting, rearing young, 

staging, or migrating. Some mortality could result from such an incident, although it is likely 

that no more than a small number of individuals would be affected. Such impacts to eiders 

would be more likely in alternatives B, C, and D, which make important eider habitat available 

for leasing north and east of Teshekpuk Lake than Alternative A. 

4.4.10-b.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Lease stipulations and ROPs would help prevent spilled fuel, oil, or other toxic materials from 

reaching the marine environment, thereby minimizing the potential for effects to molting or 

staging eiders. These measures would also protect habitat and help to minimize disturbance to

eiders from oil and gas exploration and development activities. These measures should be 

equally, or more effective than the measures developed for Alternative A. 

Numerous lease stipulations and ROPs were developed to mitigate impacts to birds and their 

habitat within the planning area. These include the “A” ROPs, which would be effective in 

ensuring that solid, liquid, and hazardous wastes did not impact birds or their habitats, and in 

reducing the potential for garbage to attract animals that may prey upon birds to exploration 

and development sites. The “B” ROPs would be effective in ensuring that water withdrawals do 

not impact lakes, or lake habitats, used by molting geese or threatened eiders, while the “C” 

ROPs govern seismic ground operations during spring and summer to prevent seismic activityrelated disturbance to eiders during the nesting and molting periods. Disturbances caused by 

aircraft are controlled within the Goose Molting Area and raptor sites under ROP F and K-4 

and K-5. Several of the “K” lease stipulations would help lessen impacts to eiders and their 

habitats by placing buffers around rivers and lakes ranging from 1⁄4 mile around lake shores in 

4-331 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

the Goose Molting Area and deep water lakes (Stipulation K-4 and K-2 respectively) to1/2 mile 

to 3 miles around major rivers (Stipulation K-1). 

However, only ROP E-11 is specific to eiders. It requires pre-construction surveys for 3 years

which will assist in facility and infrastructure placement to avoid eiders. It also requires 

minimizing overhead lines and guywires. Transmission lines are required to be attached to

VSMs or buried off-pad and marking devices are required for guywires. These requirements 

substantially reduce the collision risk by limiting hard to detect overhead transmission wires 

and making guywires more visible. 

4.4.10-b.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative B, the types of disturbances related to vehicle, aircraft, pedestrian, and 

vessel traffic, routine maintenance activities, heavy equipment use, facility noise, and oil spill 

clean-up activities would be the same as those that would occur under Alternative A. The 

potential for these disturbances to impact spectacled and Steller’s eiders would be greater under 

Alternative B because a greater percentage of the planning area would be available for leasing, 

including portions of high eider use areas in the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area. 

Alternative B predicts the potential for 12% more direct impact (446 acres) to tundra than 

Alternative A. Because the location of development is unknown, this difference should be seen

as an index of likelihood of impact to eiders, not an absolute increase in impact. The potential 

for habitat loss and alteration to affect eiders would be greater under Alternative B than under 

Alternative A, In addition, there would be a greater potential for infrastructure to be located in 

areas of high eider use in the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area. The potential for eider mortality 

resulting from collisions with vehicles and/or infrastructure and marine vessel traffic would also 

be greater under this alternative than Alternative A. In general, impacts to eiders from non-oil 

and gas activities, and from oil and gas activities, would likely be additive. However, once 

exploration and development/production ceased in an area, bird populations and habitat could 

recover, reducing overall effects in the planning area. In areas where two or more activities 

occurred, overall impacts would reflect those impacts associated with the first activity and any 

new impacts associated with later activities. Because of the larger disturbance area, the 

potential for more oil and gas exploration and development activities, and increased barge 

traffic the potential for impacts to eiders under this alternative would be between 12 and 20% 

greater compared to Alternative A. 

4.4.10-c Polar Bears 

4.4.10-c.1 Activities Not Associated with Oil and Gas Development 

Subsistence hunting and disturbance of denning bears resulting from winter overland travel 

likely have the most effect on bears in planning area. There is no record of where bears are 

taken, so the how subsistence take impacts bears in or near the planning area is unknown, but 

on average 32 polar bears from the Southern Beaufort Sea stock are taken annually in Alaska 

(Angliss and Outlaw, 2005). Winter overland travel not in support of oil and gas is likely 

relatively rare in the planning area and unlikely to result in significant disturbance effects. 

Research activities and close passes (<1 mile) may cause abandonment of a den if they occur 

early in the season but do not appear to have significant effects later in the season (Amstrup, 

1993). 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-332 

Alternative B: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.4.10-c.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Seismic 

Under Alternative B, a small number of polar bears could be affected by seismic exploration 

occurring along the coast, although ROP C-1 would prohibit seismic activities within one mile of

known or suspected polar bear dens or seal birthing lairs. Since seismic effort is expected to be 

similar among alternatives, there should be no difference in potential impact. 

Exploration 

Under Alternative B, increased levels of exploratory drilling and development that could occur 

near the coast would increase the likelihood of displacing or attracting polar bears or causing 

den abandonment compared to Alternative A. Most polar bear dens near the planning area are 

off the coast, north of Teshekpuk Lake. The effects of exploration activities, including 

disturbance and potential spills, would depend on the scale and duration of the activity and 

could affect some polar bears. 

Development and Production 

Female polar bears denning within approximately 1 mile of construction activity could be 

disturbed by vehicle traffic and construction noise. If disturbance leads to premature 

abandonment of the den it could result in the potential death of cubs (Amstrup and Gardner, 

1994). The required set-backs under Lease Stipulation K-1 and K-4 from major rivers and the 

coastline respectively would reduce the likelihood of construction destroying potential den sites. 

However, under Alternative B, impacts of polar bears from oil and gas production would likely 

be greater than Alternative A. Polar bears could be attracted to drill sites by food odors and 

curiosity, increasing the potential for negative human-bear interactions, and the possible death 

of bears in defense of human life and property. However, under current rules, policy, and 

practice there has not been a Defense of Life and Property (DLP) taking reported in the Alaska 

oil fields (Schliebe et al. 2006). 

As under Alternative A, consultation between oil field developers and the USFWS would result 

in the use of nonlethal means of deterrence if necessary. 

Contaminant Spill 

Female polar bears select “bluffs” including river banks for denning habitat, thus they are more 

likely to be present in river drainages. Any spill that reached a river during late fall when polar 

bears are constructing dens, occurred in winter under ice, or in spring during broken ice periods 

could impact denning polar bears and their young if the spill was large enough to reach the den 

area in sufficient concentration. 

Spring or summer spills that reached marine waters would have the greatest likelihood of 

impacting polar bears or their prey. Spills during broken ice or in the lead system would have 

the largest potential for adverse effect. 

Polar bears are generally widely dispersed, thus any spill would be unlikely to affect more than 

one to three bears unless a very large spill occurred. 

4-333 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Effects would generally be the same as under construction and proportionally greater than 

Alternative A. Dismantling of equipment and modules and readying it for transport would most 

likely take place during summer. Transport of large or heavy material would be a winter 

activity and occur over ice roads. Any re-contouring or removal of gravel would primarily be 

done in the winter, although some summer activity may be necessary to finish. Any planting or 

monitoring would also be a summer activity. A combination of surface vehicles and aircraft 

would be required for transportation. The potential for large spills would be substantially 

reduced after shut-down. 

Commercial Gas Development 

If natural gas development and production occur in the coastal areas used by polar bears, 

potential impacts would include those described above for oil development, such as attraction to 

waste from the facilities, though there would be no oil spill impacts. Denning female bears may 

be encountered during winter construction or maintenance activities. Aroused female bears may 

abandon the den, potentially leaving cubs. Additionally, increased energy expenditure could 

negatively impact the cub survival. Because more lands near the coast would be available for 

oil and gas development under this alternative than in Alternative A and because more 

development is likely to occur, there is greater potential for impacts to polar bears than under

Alternative A. 

4.4.10-c.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

ROP A-1 would minimize the potential for food waste to attract polar bears and the need for 

deterrence or take. The ROP is similar to current practice within the Prudhoe oil fields which 

has resulted in few deterrence actions and no DLP takings since implemented (Schliebe et al.

2006). 

Required Operating Procedure C-1 would prohibit the cross-country use of heavy equipment and

seismic activities within 1 mile of known or observed polar bear dens or seal birthing lairs. This 

ROP would also require operators to consult with the USFWS before initiating activities in 

coastal habitat between October 30 and April 15. Letters of Authorization reinforce the ROP 

and may result in area specific restriction that would further reduce the likelihood of adverse

affect. 

The K-1 Lease Stipulation would require 0.5-3 mile setbacks from the major rivers the planning 

area. This is expected to reduce the potential for disturbing denning bears in these areas. 

Pipelines could still cross these areas so the likelihood of a spill from a transport pipeline 

entering a river would not be affected, but spills from accidents on pads or at compressor 

stations would be very unlikely to reach the river banks. 

Lease Stipulation K-6 would prohibit the placement of permanent facilities within 3⁄4 mile of the 

coast, except where technological limitations, economics, logistics, or other factors necessitated

a structure. Under these circumstances, the use of a previously occupied site (Camp Lonely, 

Husky/USGS drill sites, and DEW-Line sites) would be considered. The elimination of new 

permanent facilities within 3⁄4 mile of the coast should be effective in reducing the potential for 

disturbance to polar bears and their prey and is expected to reduce the potential for disturbance

(displacement or attraction) of polar bears along the coast. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-334 

Alternative B: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.4.10-c.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative B, ROPs and lease stipulations (as described under “Effectiveness of 

Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures”) would prohibit the construction of 

permanent structures within 3⁄4 of a mile of the coast, although exploration could occur in the 

area. The effects of exploration activities, including disturbance and spills, would be localized 

and would be unlikely to affect populations. Individual polar bears could be affected by 

exploration activities and seismic surveys in close proximity to polar bear dens and could cause

abandonment of maternity dens by polar bears. Avoidance requirements are expected to result 

in only a small number of dens being affected. 

Under Alternative B, impacts to polar bears and their habitat from oil and gas activities would 

be greater compared to Alternative A because a greater area would be available for leasing and 

development, and more area is expected to be converted to gravel. The partial opening of the 

area north of Teshekpuk Lake would allow development in areas where polar bears are most 

likely to occur; however, coastal buffer and river buffer requirements should reduce the 

potential for adverse effects. The ROPs and Stipulations combined with the relative low density 

of denning bears near the planning area make it unlikely that Alternative B would have a 

significant effect on polar bear populations. 

4.4.11 Cultural Resources 

4.4.11.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Aircraft and watercraft traffic, scientific investigations (e.g., archaeological and paleontological 

surveys and excavation), summer camps, hazardous and solid waste material removal and 

remediation, overland moves, and recreation could cause effects to cultural resources. The 

effects of these non-oil and gas activities on cultural resources under Alternative B would be the 

same as those occurring under Alternative A. There would be no difference in recreational use 

between Alternative A and Alternative B. However, a greater amount of scientific work could

occur in the planning area under Alternative B as well as other management activities by BLM, 

as a larger area would be made available for oil and gas development. As a result, there would 

be a greater likelihood of effects to cultural resources in the planning area under Alternative B 

than under Alternative A. 

4.4.11.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Under Alternative B, the amount of area available for exploration along a geological feature 

known as the Barrow Arch, which is anticipated to hold significant deposits of hydrocarbons, 

would be greater than under Alternative A as would the amount of land anticipated to receive 

surface impacts. This area is also a key subsistence resource area noted for caribou and birds, 

and may have a high number of undocumented archaeological and historical sites, in addition to 

the documented cultural resources in the area. The risk of damage to known and undocumented

cultural resources would increase with the greater level of activity in the region occurring under

Alternative B due to the additional approximately 387,000 acres being made available for 

leasing. 

4-335 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects of Disturbances 

Under Alternative B, the level of disturbance associated with oil and gas exploration and 

development activities in the planning area would be higher than Alternative A due to the 

greater acreage available for leasing. However, because most activities would occur during the 

winter months, the potential for effects to buried cultural resources would be minor. As 

discussed for Alternative A, the likelihood of surface disturbance affecting surface cultural 

resources would be minor because of their isolated occurrence and because of the variety of lease 

stipulations and ROPs that would govern oil and gas exploration activities. At staging sites

such as Camp Lonely and Inigok, where potentially ground-disturbing activities occur yearround, the greater intensity and duration of these activities occurring under Alternative B 

would likely have a greater risk of affecting known and undocumented cultural resources. 

Under Alternative B, the types of effects of possible disturbance would be the same as those

occurring under Alternative A. Efforts to supply necessary materials for construction of gravel 

pads, airfields, and roads at this scale could increase the likelihood of damage to known or

undocumented cultural resources in the planning area. The excavation of gravel material for 

the construction of the permanent facilities would be the primary source of potential effects to 

cultural resources. Pipelines would not have associated all-weather gravel roads or pads and 

would be constructed during the winter months from an ice road and pads. The only effects on 

cultural resources resulting from aboveground pipeline construction would be associated with 

the placement of VSMs, and would depend on the depth at which the VSMs were set. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

It is unlikely that cultural resources would be impacted by abandonment activities unless the 

facilities to be abandoned or removed during rehabilitation were themselves historic. 

Effects of Spills 

Under Alternative B, the effects of oil spills on cultural resources would be the same as those 

that would occur under Alternative A, though because there is an increased chance for more

spills and more spilt oil, there would be a corresponding marginal increase in the potential 

impacts to cultural resources. In the exploration stage, most spills would occur on an ice pad or 

ice road and during winter conditions. In such a case, the spill or subsequent spill cleanup 

would probably not alter or destroy buried cultural resources, but could affect surface cultural 

resources by covering these resources with oil or other spill material. Warm oil, however, could 

melt through the snow and ice and impact cultural resources buried near the surface. A spill 

occurring during the summer would have a greater potential to affect surface and subsurface 

cultural resource sites than a spill occurring during the winter because the effects of both the 

spill and subsequent cleanup would be greater. Oil spills on cultural resource sites would cause 

damage proportional to the extent of contamination, and could require data recovery

(excavation) as part of remediation and clean-up efforts as irreparable damage to some of the 

data could occur. Oil spills at cultural resource sites, either at the surface or buried, would 

make radiocarbon dating of that site problematic or impossible. The spilled oil would seep into

organic materials used for radiocarbon dating such as charcoal, bone, and wood and 

contaminate them so that their radiocarbon dates could be inaccurate. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-336 

Alternative B: Cultural Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Commercial Gas Development 

The types of impacts on cultural resources that natural gas development and production would 

cause would be the same as those caused by oil development described above, except that there 

would be no crude-oil spills, impact from creation of gravel pads would be increased for a 10- to 

20-acre pad for a pipeline compressor station, and if a gas pipeline is buried—the likely 

method—there would be additional acreage disturbed with increased potential for disturbance 

or destruction of cultural resources. As with Alternative A, it is anticipated that burying the 

pipeline would result in digging up approximately 162 miles of four feet wide and five feet deep 

trench (approximately 80 acres) and potential surface disturbance of 210 acres in areas adjacent 

to the trench from potential disturbance from machinery or placement of backfill. The risk to 

cultural resources would be reduced dramatically if gas pipelines are put on VSMs. 

4.4.11.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Under Alternative B, several lease stipulations and ROPs would minimize the effects of oil

exploration and development activities on cultural resources. Required Operating Procedure E13, which corresponds to Lease Stipulation 74 of Alternative A, calls for a survey of resources 

prior to any ground disturbing activity. Required Operating Procedure I-1, which corresponds to 

Lease Stipulation 63 of Alternative A, would be effective in reducing cultural and resource

conflicts through an orientation program for personnel that would teach the importance of not

disturbing archaeological resources, as well as sensitivity to community values, customs, and 

lifestyles. The “K” lease stipulations would require setbacks along rivers, streams, lakes, cabins, 

and the coast, providing effective protection to cultural resources in these areas. Lease 

Stipulations K-1, K-2, K-3 and K-7, which correspond to Lease Stipulations 24, 39, and 62 of 

Alternative A, would effectively minimize the loss of cultural resources through setbacks from 

certain rivers, lakes, and areas where concentrations of subsistence cabins and campsites occur.

Prior to any undertaking (i.e., ground-disturbing activities such as the construction of buried 

pipelines) on Federal lands, the NHPA would require that an archaeological resource survey be 

completed. If cultural resources were identified during such a survey, BLM guidelines and

policy would require that all impacts to these resources be mitigated to the satisfaction of the 

land manager and the State Historic Preservation Officer. 

4.4.11.4 Conclusion 

The probability of impacts would increase under this alternative as compared to Alternative A 

because of the increase in the amount of land that could be impacted. Effects to cultural 

resources from oil and gas activities could occur in leased areas of the planning area and would 

continue for the duration of operations through abandonment. Known cultural resources would 

not be affected, but the presence of undocumented cultural resources in the planning area 

cannot be discounted. Multiple sales over the available portions of the planning area increase 

the likelihood of effects to undocumented cultural resources. 

Approximately 2 to 3% of the planning area has been surveyed for cultural resources. The

distribution of known cultural sites does not reflect locational preference of prehistoric and

historic people, but rather indicates that only portions of the planning area (e.g., well sites, 

portions of the coast, the Colville River, the Ikpikpuk River, and the Teshekpuk Lake area) have 

been examined through some type of organized reconnaissance for the presence of cultural sites.

The TLUI sites generally cluster in these same areas with greater density on the lower 

Ikpikpuk River and associated drainages (NSB 1978, 2003). Activities that occur near these 

areas may have a greater likelihood of impacting cultural resources. 

4-337 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Cultural Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

In general, impacts to cultural resources from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas 

activities, would likely be additive, except in those areas where the two types of activities 

overlapped. Impacts to resources from exploration and development activities would also be

additive, except where development activities occurred in areas previously disturbed during 

exploration. In areas where two or more activities occurred, overall impacts would reflect those

impacts associated with the first activity and any new impacts associated with later activities. 

Because of the larger disturbance area and the potential for more oil and gas exploration and

development activities, potential impacts to cultural resources under this alternative would be 

greater for oil and gas exploration and development activities, as compared to Alternative A. 

Impacts could be greater, however, if oil and gas exploration and development activities occur in 

an area with a high concentration of cultural resources. These impacts would be effectively 

mitigated by lease stipulations and ROPs that prohibit oil and gas exploration and development 

in areas with a high likelihood of having cultural resources, enforcement of lease stipulations 

and ROPs that prohibit collection of artifacts and require training of workers regarding 

avoidance of effects on cultural resources, and compliance with all Federal laws, including the 

National Historic Preservation Act, requiring surveys for cultural resources in areas where 

ground-disturbing activities are proposed. 

4.4.12 Subsistence 

4.4.12.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative B, non-oil and gas-related activities requiring permits from the AO would be 

subject to the stipulations outlined in Appendix E as well as any other applicable Federal, state, 

and NSB regulations. Activities not associated with oil and gas exploration and development 

include: aircraft and watercraft use; research activities, including remote camps associated with 

research; overland moves; and recreation. All of these activities have the potential to affect 

subsistence use. See section 4.1 for a detailed description of the types of non-oil and gas 

activities that may occur in the planning area. 

Effects of Disturbances 

Aircraft Use. Under Alternative B, the opening of areas to the north and west of Teshekpuk 

Lake could increase the amount of aircraft use, especially with regard to surveying resources 

and conducting studies. The effects would be similar to those under Alternative A, however 

they would be greater in number, and could disturb subsistence harvesters in the area of the 

activity. Aircraft could divert migrating or insect-avoiding caribou, as well as seals, walrus, and 

whales from subsistence use areas. Subsistence users have repeatedly stated during scoping 

meetings that aircraft traffic reduces harvest access and success (Nukapigak 1998, 

Ahtuangaruak 2003, Kaigelak 2003, Olemaun 2003). 

Watercraft Use. Under Alternative B, the effects of watercraft on subsistence harvest 

patterns would be the same as those discussed under the Alternative A. 

Research Activities. As baseline data are gathered preparatory to further lease sales under 

Alternative B, scientific research (biological, archaeological, paleontological, and geological) and

data collection could increase as compared to Alternative A. The effects would be similar to 

those under Alternative A, however they would be longer in duration and greater in scope. 

Biological research and monitoring would increase to expand baseline data for future 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-338 

Alternative B: Cultural Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

monitoring of effects. Archaeological, paleontological, and geological activities involving 

personnel walking on tundra would have some short-term effects on subsistence species and 

possibly on harvest. The result of increased research and data collection would be temporary 

and localized diversion, deflection, or disturbance of subsistence species, including caribou, 

moose, grizzly bear, polar bear, wolf, wolverine, muskox, and spotted seals (USDOI BLM 2003). 

Therefore, there would be an increased likelihood that these activities would affect subsistence 

harvest success. Research activities would predominately take place in the summer months.

Aircraft-based biological surveys would have the greatest likelihood of affecting subsistence 

harvest patterns because they cover a large area, last a long time relative to other research 

activities, and are known to elicit responses from caribou and waterfowl. 

Recreation. Under Alternative B, more recreation could occur in the planning area in 

response to publicity, but it would likely be limited to summer use of river corridors and existing 

areas. The effects would be similar to those under the Alternative A, however there could be 

increases in user conflicts and greater effect to subsistence resources along highly utilized 

rivers, such as the Colville. Recreational users would likely frequent waterways used by 

subsistence hunters during the summer months, potentially causing resource user conflicts. 

The effects of these conflicts on subsistence harvest patterns would likely be localized and of 

short duration. Recreation would result in a temporary and local effect on subsistence species. 

Solid and Hazardous Waste Removal and Remediation. Solid and hazardous waste 

removal and remediation, such as monitoring of existing clean-up sites and aging infrastructure 

(e.g., wellheads), would be ongoing and independent of additional lease availability. As 

discussed under Alternative A, solid and hazardous waste removal and remediation activities 

would have localized effects that would last for the duration of the activity. The effect of solid

and hazardous waste removal and remediation on subsistence species under Alternative B 

would be similar to those that would occur under Alternative A. Over the short term, a localized 

deflection of subsistence species could occur. Long-term effects could include a decreased

potential for contamination of subsistence species with the cleanup of waste sites. Evaluation 

activities would have little effect on long-term harvest patterns. Site cleanup and remediation 

activities could temporarily divert or disturb caribou, muskox, and grizzly and polar bears, but 

would have little effect on long-term subsistence harvest patterns. 

Overland Moves. Under Alternative B, the number of overland moves would be comparable to 

those anticipated under Alternative A. Overland moves would occur only by permit and would 

be subject to lease stipulations and ROPs. Overall, the effects would be similar to those 

described under Alternative A, consisting of temporary and localized displacement of resources

from the authorized right-of-way. 

Conclusion 

The effects of non-oil and gas activities on subsistence species would be similar to those that 

would occur under Alternative A. Activities would be, in most cases, of limited duration and 

magnitude, and effects on subsistence would be limited to the immediate area of the activity. 

Under Alternative B, aircraft and watercraft traffic could increase during summer to support 

scientific research that would be required prior to expanding lease areas, resulting in an

increased impact to subsistence species through temporary and localized diversion, deflection, 

or disturbance of animals. 

As discussed under Alternative A, these activities could alter the availability of subsistence 

species in traditional harvest areas through direct interference with hunts. This direct 

4-339 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

interference could affect harvest patterns by causing a failed hunt, or by requiring hunters to

travel further for a successful harvest because the subsistence resources are more wary than 

normal following a disturbance or are deflected from traditional harvest areas following the 

presence of vehicles, vessels, and aircraft. Nuiqsut residents have noted that aircraft have 

diverted subsistence resources away from areas where hunters were actively pursuing them, 

directly interfering with harvests or causing harvests to fail (USDOI BLM 2004C). Increased 

travel distances would result in greater expenditures for fuel and equipment, as wear and tear 

on snowmobiles, outboards, and four-wheel vehicles would occur. 

4.4.12.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

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. 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 located northeast of Teshekpuk 

Lake would be unavailable for oil and gas leasing, to provide for protection of wildlife and 

subsistence resources. 

Effects of Disturbances 

Seismic Survey Activity. Under all alternatives, it is anticipated that five additional seismic 

surveys, three 2-D and two 3-D, would be conducted within the planning area in order to cover 

all gaps where seismic has not yet occurred. The three 2-D surveys are projected to potentially 

impact a total of 8,126 acres, which is the combined total of acres impacted by the survey and 

acres impacted by the camp train overland move. The two 3-D surveys are estimated to 

potentially impact a total of 99,870 acres, combined. It is also assumed that the surveys would 

occur in those areas currently not surveyed, namely Teshekpuk Lake, the area north of the lake, 

and the foothills region in the south. The effects of seismic exploration would be the same as 

those described under Alternative A (see section 4.3.12.2). 

Exploratory Drilling. Under Alternative B, it is estimated that 97 exploratory wells will be 

drilled in the planning area, with an additional 73 delineation wells drilled in subsequent years 

near wells that showed potential as oil producers. This is an increase of 11 exploration wells,

and 8 delineation wells from Alternative A. Wells that do not indicate the presence of 

hydrocarbons in developable quantities will be plugged and abandoned. Wells that show 

potential may be “suspended,” and capped with what is known as a “Christmas tree” at the 

surface. It is anticipated that at most, six drill rigs will be operating in the planning area in 

any given winter season, an increase of one rig under this alternative. 

Impacts as a result of exploratory drilling under Alternative B will be identical to those 

described under Alternative A; however, given the increase in proposed activity, the effects on 

subsistence use would be greater in magnitude, extent, and duration. In addition, the opening 

of a portion of the areas around Teshekpuk Lake to exploratory drilling increases the number of

necessary studies to be conducted prior to the winter drilling season. These studies include lake 

characterizations (volume and fish species present) for water withdrawal and cultural resource 

surveys along proposed access routes and at all drill pad locations. Staking surveys will also

need to be conducted by BLM at all permitted drill sites. All of these studies and surveys will 

be conducted in the summer, most likely with the use of helicopters for access. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-340 

Alternative B: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Stipulation K-5 specifies flight restrictions over caribou (over 1,000 ft AGL from Oct 1-May 1 in 

the TCH winter range; over 2,000 ft AGL from May 20-Aug 20 in the TLCHA) that must be 

followed unless doing so would endanger human life or violate safe flying practices. Despite the 

protection offered by Stipulation K-5, caribou utilizing the TLCHA could be affected by the 

increase in aircraft activity anticipated under Alternative B. Additionally, the area west of 

Teshekpuk Lake is utilized by subsistence fishers and caribou hunters from Barrow, and the 

Kogru River area east of Teshekpuk Lake is utilized by fishers and waterfowl hunters from 

Nuiqsut. Any activity in these areas has the potential to affect subsistence users and harvest 

patterns. For example, given the flight restrictions described above, companies may wait until 

after August 20 to conduct the necessary studies, resulting in a concentrated period of 

helicopter use during the fall. This is also the period of greatest harvest of caribou from the 

area west of Teshekpuk Lake by Barrow residents. As a result, this possible helicopter activity 

could result in user conflicts, and may lead to the abandonment of the harvest area. 

Development and Permanent Facilities. Under Alternative B, it is estimated that there 

will be a need for six central processing facilities (90 acres each) in the planning area. In 

conjunction with these facilities there are other support structures, such as gravel production 

pads, gravel runways in-field gravel roads, several types of pipelines, and other associated

structures, that will also cause surface disturbances. It is estimated that under Alternative B, 

there will be: 25 gravel production pads (10 acres each); 6 gravel runways (11 acres each); 250 

miles of in-field gravel roads (7.75 acres/mile); 250 miles of three-phase produced fluids (oil, gas,

water) gathering lines; 162 miles of sales oil pipelines; 6 pump stations (20 acres each); 3 

staging bases (50 acres each); and 13 gravel pits (50 acres each). It is estimated that during the 

construction phase of these facilities that the total disturbance would be 4,965 acres. 

Construction of the permanent facilities will primarily take place during the winter, using ice 

roads and pads in the area of development to move and stage machinery, supplies, personnel 

and housing. It is estimated that construction for a typical development would take a minimum 

of 3-6 years. During this construction phase, it is estimated that there would be an average of 

approximately 115-160 one-way aircraft flights per month during the winter, and 70-90 one-way 

operational flights per month during the summer. Construction activities could result in an 

economic boon to local communities, and could directly affect harvesters if they were hired by 

the companies. This increase in income could offset the increased cost of fuel needed to harvest 

displaced resources, but might also lead to a corresponding decrease in the amount of time a 

harvester could be out on the land depending on the work schedule (see sections 4.4.13.2 and 

4.4.18.2 for further discussion on economic impacts). 

Under Alternative B, oil and gas activities would occur over a wider area than under 

Alternative A and could inhibit subsistence users from harvesting in their traditional use areas

to a greater degree. Subsistence users tend to avoid areas of oil infrastructure and activity for 

the reasons noted under Alternative A. Hunters from Barrow and Atqasuk would be affected by 

development north and west of Teshekpuk Lake, where numerous subsistence camps, cabins, 

and ice cellars are located. As described under Alternative A, hunters avoid development areas, 

resulting in a shifting of subsistence use areas away from permanent facilities including 

pipelines and roads. Nuiqsut subsistence users have stated during scoping meetings and public 

testimony that air traffic reduces harvest success. Development within the areas north and west 

of Teshekpuk Lake would increase the amount of aircraft disturbance to subsistence species, as

compared to Alternative A. 

As discussed in section 3.4.2, Subsistence, Nuiqsut, Barrow, Atqasuk, and Anaktuvuk Pass 

depend on TLH caribou as a subsistence species. If oil and gas development activities such as 

the construction of permanent facilities were to deflect, divert, or reduce the TLH caribou 

4-341 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

population, harvest of caribou by area residents could be reduced until the caribou were able to 

habituate to the increased activity and infrastructure in the area. Oil and gas activities in the 

northeast portion of the planning area could affect Nuiqsut subsistence and activities, deflecting

migrating caribou away from traditional harvest locations, reducing harvest access and success. 

If TLH caribou were to move outside of their normal migration routes, Anaktuvuk Pass could 

suffer a shortage of caribou, its main subsistence resource, until the normal migration route was

resumed. A greater expenditure and risk on the part of the subsistence hunters from

Anaktuvuk Pass would be required. In the past, when the herd has failed to pass near the 

community, hunters had to fly to other locations in search of subsistence food, increasing 

community stress and the time necessary for harvest success, as well as reducing the connection 

with traditional areas (SRBA 2003b). 

Nuiqsut, Barrow, and Atqasuk subsistence users harvest wolves and wolverines in the planning 

area. These species could be displaced by further development in the area (Brower 1997). 

Alternative B would have a greater effect on subsistence caribou harvests than Alternative A 

because the areas of potential activity would be larger, the duration of oil and gas activity in the 

area (approximately 40 years) would be longer, and the geographical extent of possible

development (from the Colville River to the Ikpikpuk River) would be greater. 

Waterfowl could be affected by activity in newly opened areas during construction, development,

and production. Helicopter traffic and persons walking on tundra or gravel pads would be the 

most likely sources of disturbance to nesting and molting waterfowl (USDOI BLM and MMS 

2003). Increases in predator populations near developed areas could cause locally severe nesting 

failures (Burgess 2000, Johnson 2000b). However, these effects should be relatively minor, 

geographically widespread, and occur during the relatively brief period when these animals are 

present in the area. Some aspects of oil and gas development could create new habitat favorable 

to waterfowl survival, such as reclaimed gravel pits and water impoundments near roads 

(Johnson 2000a,b; McKendrick 2000; Ritchie and King 2000; Sedinger and Stickney 2000). A 

possible indirect effect of development in the Teshekpuk Lake area would be the placement of 

restrictions on harvests of waterfowl on the North Slope, the Y-K Delta areas, and along the 

Pacific Flyway (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998), in response to reduced waterfowl populations. 

These restrictions would reduce subsistence harvests. 

Subsistence fish harvests take place in all seasons, primarily in freshwater rivers and lakes. 

Nuiqsut’s primary harvest area for fish is located in the northeast quarter of the planning area, 

in the Colville River and its delta channels and near Fish and Judy creeks, where development 

is already in the planning stages. A loss or reduction in Nuiqsut’s fish harvest would be a 

hardship for the community, as fish provide approximately 30-40% of all subsistence harvest by 

weight in the community. Barrow residents harvest fish during caribou harvest activities along 

the coast and in the Teshekpuk Lake and Chipp and Ikpikpuk rivers areas. Atqasuk residents 

fish in several lakes near Teshekpuk Lake and in the Chipp and Ikpikpuk rivers. Under 

Alternative B, development activities could impact fish and caribou harvest patterns; however,

the lease stipulations and ROPs should be effective in protecting these resources to ensure 

subsistence harvests. Therefore, effects of Alternative B on subsistence fishing would not be

much greater than the Alternative A. 

As noted for Alternative A, oil and gas development could inhibit subsistence harvesters’ use of

the traditional harvest areas, which could reduce harvest success; increase the cost, effort, and 

risk involved with subsistence harvest; and increase the wear and tear on equipment for 

harvesting subsistence foods. The communities of Nuiqsut, Barrow and Atqasuk could all be 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-342 

Alternative B: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

directly affected by development activities in the opened portions of the TLCHA under 

Alternative B. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

During oil facility abandonment and rehabilitation activities, which include the removal of all 

equipment and facilities, and the plugging of all wells, subsistence resources and activities 

would be subject to impacts similar to those caused by construction as described under 

Alternative A (see section 4.3.12.2). Following the abandonment and rehabilitation, 

subsistence resources would be subject to fewer impacts. If the gravel roads and pads were left 

in place and remained serviceable, they could be used by residents to provide access to 

subsistence resources, possibly reducing hunting effort and time. 

Effects of Spills 

Under Alternative B, it is assumed that 2.513 large spills (e.g., greater than or equal to 500 

barrels of oil, but less than 120,000 barrels) consisting of an estimated total of 12,062 barrels of 

oil, could occur in the planning area. These spills would consist of unrefined crude oil from a 

pipeline, or possibly as much as 900 barrels of crude or diesel oil from a gravel pad facility. 

Small spills (e.g., less than 500 barrels) are currently the most frequently-occurring spill type on 

the North Slope, and primarily consist of the release of less than a barrel of aviation fuel, diesel 

fuel, engine lube oil, fuels oil, gasoline, grease, hydraulic oil, transformer oil and transmission 

oil. Under Alternative B it is estimated that a total of 596 small crude oil spills and 1,788 

refined oil spills could occur in the planning area. A very-large spill, defined as greater than 

120,000 barrels of oil, is considered extremely unlikely to occur within the lifetime of this plan. 

As discussed under Alternative A, the magnitude of the effects of a crude oil spill on subsistence 

resources would depend on the context of the spill, the area covered by spilled product, and the 

amount of time the product was in the environment before clean-up efforts commenced. Oil 

spills on snow or frozen tundra would be typically contained and cleaned up relatively quickly, 

regardless of the area covered. It might be impossible to completely clean oil spills that have 

spilled into waterways, especially during open water or broken ice conditions (USDOI BLM 

2003). As there would potentially be more oil and gas activity occurring over a larger area under 

Alternative B than under Alternative A, the likelihood that oil spills would affect subsistence 

species would be greater. 

Crude oil spills could affect caribou and waterfowl populations if the oil were on the ground and 

over a large area. This type of event has occurred even at natural seeps at Cape Simpson and

Fish Creek (Ebbley and Joesting 1943). It is likely that only a very large spill on land would 

have population level effects on terrestrial mammals and waterfowl. In the case of a small or 

large spill that did not enter waterways, the effects would be localized, although contamination 

could last several years (USDOI BLM 2003). Tundra vegetation could also be contaminated by 

oil spills, which could harm mammals eating the oiled vegetation or using it for nesting or 

bedding. 

If oil were to be spilled in waterways in large volumes, waterfowl, fish, and marine mammals 

could be fouled, contaminated, or killed. In the case of a large spill, the effects could spread 

beyond the immediate vicinity of the spill, depending on the season. For example, during ice 

breakup, sheet flow could carry oil over a vast area, which could include nearshore and offshore 

waters. Small and large spills would not necessarily be immediately toxic to fish, but could 

contaminate them for years even in cleaned habitats (USDOI BLM 2003). Waterfowl and 

4-343 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

marine mammal populations could be affected by the death of animals from hypothermia caused

by oiling, reactions to toxic components of spilled oil, and gastric distress resulting from 

attempts to clean themselves. In addition, scavengers feeding on their remains, such as foxes, 

could also be harmed. 

Large spills could affect subsistence patterns by reducing populations of subsistence species, 

contaminating subsistence species or their habitats, or rendering resources as unfit to eat. 

These effects could reduce the amount of subsistence foods harvested, cause changes in 

traditional diets, increase risks and wear and tear on equipment if users were required to travel

farther to obtain subsistence resources, and cause social stress due to the reduction or loss of 

preferred foods harvested in the traditional fashion. Effects on subsistence harvest patterns 

would be greater under Alternative B than under Alternative A, because oil and gas activity 

would likely occur over a larger area and the likelihood of an oil spill occurring would be 

greater. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Effects on subsistence resources and harvest patterns from natural gas development and 

production under Alternative B would occur in much the same way as effects would occur under

that alternative from oil development and production, though there would be no crude oil spills 

from gas production. Because Alternative B makes important subsistence resource habitat and 

subsistence use areas available for leasing and development, this alternative would likely result 

in greater impacts to subsistence than Alternative A. Winter burial of the pipeline would

potentially disrupt caribou and subsistence hunters, though once buried, a gas pipeline should

not have additional impacts on subsistence. If a natural gas well blowout occurred, the 

subsistence harvest of any species in the vicinity could be affected and, if an explosion and fire 

occurred, subsistence resources in the immediate vicinity could be killed. Natural gas and

condensates that did not burn in the blowout would be hazardous to any organism exposed in 

high concentrations. However, natural gas vapors and condensates would be dispersed very

rapidly from the blowout site (1 km downwind for about 1 day) and would affect only those

species in the immediate vicinity of the accident. While such an effect would be relatively short 

term and localized and likely would not measurably affect the regional population of any 

species, it could cause disruption to subsistence harvests in the area of the blowout. In addition, 

subsistence hunters, who already tend to avoid oil field infrastructure, may be even more likely 

to avoid gas fields for fear of a well blowout. 

Conclusion 

Under Alternative B, disturbances associated with oil and gas development would be the similar 

to those discussed under Alternative A. Areas that would be unavailable for year-round

occupation and development under Alternative A would become available, and could be affected

by oil and gas exploration activities. Should development proceed under Alternative B, the 

duration, severity, and extent of the effects of oil and gas development activities on subsistence 

species could be greater than under Alternative A, as there would be a larger area open for 

year-round occupation and development, which include ecologically sensitive areas. In addition, 

development in the area west and northwest of Teshekpuk Lake could affect subsistence users

from Barrow and Atqasuk who utilize camps and cabins there. The amount of habitat loss and 

degradation would be greater under Alternative B than under Alternative A. Oil and gas

activities could divert caribou and waterfowl from normal habitat areas and deflect these 

species from normal migration routes until they were able to habituate to activities and 

infrastructure changes in these areas. Caribou might prefer certain habitats during times of 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-344 

Alternative B: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

nutritional or energy stress deflecting or diverting caribou from normal migration routes could 

lead increased stress and mortality. Increases in fox populations associated with human 

activities could result in an increased risk for predation of molting geese. Changes in 

overwintering and seasonal fish habitat caused by oil development (e.g., turbidity, salinity 

changes, reduced dissolved oxygen, and possible spills) could harm fish populations. Some 

species, (e.g., wolves and wolverines) would avoid human activity, while others (e.g., bears and 

foxes) would be curious and could become nuisance animals. 

As discussed under Alternative A, these activities could alter the availability of subsistence 

species in traditional harvest areas through direct interference with hunts. This direct

interference could affect harvest patterns by causing a failed hunt, or by requiring hunters to

travel further for a successful harvest because the subsistence resources are more wary than 

normal following a disturbance or are deflected from traditional harvest areas following the 

presence of vehicles, vessels, and aircraft. Increased travel distances would result in greater 

expenditures for fuel and equipment, as wear and tear on snowmobiles, outboards, and fourwheel vehicles would occur. 

4.4.12.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

The performance-based lease stipulations and ROPs are intended to protect subsistence 

resources to the same extent, and potentially better, as the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD 

prescriptive lease stipulations under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, oil exploration and

development would be allowed over a wider area and in more sensitive areas and habitats than 

under Alternative A; however, ROPs (e.g., ROPs H-1 and H-2) would be effective in minimizing 

conflicts between subsistence uses and oil and gas-related activities. During scoping, 

subsistence users stated that the proposed revision to the 1998 Northeast IAP is a breach of 

faith and that opening up more areas in the planning area would have severe negative effects 

on subsistence users from Barrow and Nuiqsut (Ahmaogak 2003). 

Local municipal government and tribal governments generally have few paid staff and limited 

funding. Local government official and tribal leaders feel they are overtaxed when asked to 

provide meaningful input to BLM on permitted activities. These officials and leaders contend

that the change from the prescriptive lease stipulations in the 1998 IAP to performance-based 

ROPs and lease stipulations similar to those in the Northwest IAP/EIS ROD would place them 

in the position of having to defend subsistence interests, because compliance is now defined in 

terms of meeting a management objective rather than meeting an absolute prescriptive 

standard. To effectively respond, they would have to further stretch their existing capabilities to 

review and comment on increasingly numerous industry proposals and their impact on

subsistence. 

BLM holds that performance-based lease stipulations and ROPs would provide equivalent 

protection, while gaining flexibility for adaptive management. The flexibility of the new 

approach places greater reliance on on-going monitoring to insure that these procedures do in 

fact achieve equivalent protections. BLM is committed to directing the necessary resources to

this on-going monitoring requirement, including support for the continuing work of the 

Subsistence Advisory Panel to provide oversight, exchange information, and develop solutions 

for any emerging issues. 

4-345 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effectiveness on Subsistence Species 

Under Alternative B, several ROPs and lease stipulations would address subsistence species. 

Required Operating Procedures A-2 and A-8 would be effective in seeking to avoid humancaused changes in predator populations (i.e., avoid attracting wildlife to food and garbage). 

Required Operating Procedures A-4 to A-7 would be effective in minimizing the impact of 

contaminants (spills) on wildlife and the environment and to protect subsistence resources. 

Required Operating Procedures B-1 and B-2 would be effective in maintaining populations of 

and habitat for fish and invertebrates. 

Required Operating Procedure C-1 would be effective in protecting bear denning and birthing 

sites during overland moves. Required Operating Procedures C-2 to C-4 would be effective in 

protecting streams and prevent additional freeze down of deep-water pools harboring 

overwintering fish and invertebrates. Required Operating Procedure E-1 would be effective in 

protecting subsistence use and access to traditional subsistence fishing areas and minimize the 

effects of oil and gas development on fish resources. Required Operating Procedures and Lease 

Stipulations E-2, E-3, E-6, and E-8 would be effective in maintaining free passage of marine and 

anadromous fish and to protect fish habitat as well as subsistence use and access to traditional 

subsistence fishing. Required Operating Procedure E-7 would be effective in minimizing 

disruption of caribou movement and subsistence use by elevating pipelines to a minimum of 7 

feet as opposed to the 5-foot minimum in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD. Required Operating 

Procedure E-9 would be effective in minimizing human caused increases in populations of 

species that prey on ground nesting birds. Required Operating Procedure E-10 would be 

effective in preventing migrating waterfowl from striking oil and gas related facilities during 

low-light conditions. Required Operating Procedure E-11 would be effective in minimizing the 

take of species listed under the Endangered Species Act (e.g., spectacled and/or Steller’s eiders

and yellow-billed loons) and minimizing disturbance to other species caused by interaction with 

oil and gas facilities. 

Required Operating Procedure F-1 would be effective in minimizing the effects of low-flying 

aircraft on wildlife. Lease Stipulations K-1 and K-2 would be effective in minimizing the 

disruption of natural flow patterns; changes to water quality; changes to floodplain and riparian

areas; and loss of fish spawning, rearing, or overwintering habitat through setbacks along rivers 

and around lakes. Lease Stipulations K-3, K-5, K-6, and K-7 would be effective in protecting fish 

and wildlife habitat and minimizing disturbance of caribou and alteration of migration patterns 

in the Teshekpuk Lake region and in coastal areas. 

Effectiveness on Subsistence Harvest Patterns 

In general, the ROPs and lease stipulations seek to protect specific resources by establishing 

spatial buffer zones around facilities and infrastructure, scheduling disruptive activities for 

periods with the least potential for conflicts with other users, making efforts to include 

community residents in project planning, monitoring effects on subsistence resources, and 

minimizing interference of oil and gas exploration and development activities and structures

with subsistence resources and users. The effectiveness of these measures depends heavily on 

their ongoing implementation, enforcement, and local participation. Required Operating 

Procedure A-4 would be effective in minimizing the impact of contaminants (spills) on fish, 

wildlife, and the environment, and to protect subsistence activities and resources. Required 

Operating Procedure E-1 would be effective in protecting subsistence use and access to 

traditional subsistence hunting and fishing areas. Lease Stipulation E-3 would be effective in 

maintaining free passage of marine and anadromous fish and protect subsistence use and access 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-346 

Alternative B: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

to traditional subsistence hunting and fishing. Required Operating Procedure E-7 would be 

effective in minimizing the disruption of caribou movement and subsistence use by requiring 

that pipelines and roads be designed to allow the free movement of caribou and the safe and

unimpeded passage of subsistence hunters. Ground pipelines would be elevated a minimum of 7 

feet to facilitate wildlife passage and subsistence passage and access, ramps would be placed, 

after consultation with appropriate Federal, state, and NSB regulatory and resource 

management agencies, in areas where facilities or terrain funnel caribou movement, and 

pipelines and roads would be separated by 500 feet where possible. 

Required Operating Procedure F-1 would be effective in minimizing the effects of low-flying 

aircraft on wildlife, traditional subsistence activities, and local communities. This ROP is 

designed to minimize aircraft disturbance of caribou and bird populations and sensitive habitat 

areas, especially near known subsistence camps and cabins or during sensitive subsistence 

hunting periods (spring goose hunting and fall caribou and moose hunting). Required Operating 

procedures H-1 and H-2 are subsistence-specific mitigation procedures designed to provide 

opportunities for participation in planning and decision-making to prevent unreasonable 

conflicts between subsistence uses and oil and gas-related activities including seismic 

exploration. Required Operating Procedure H-2 would define potentially affected cabins or 

campsites and would provide for additional consultation requirements for geophysical 

exploration beyond those required in ROP H-1. Required Operating Procedure I-1 would require

the lessee to provide a cultural orientation program for all oil and gas workers to minimize 

cultural and resource conflicts with local inhabitants. Of special concern is aircraft use near

traditional subsistence cabins and campsites during spring goose and fall caribou and moose 

hunting. 

Lease Stipulations K-1 and K-2 would be effective in minimizing impacts to subsistence cabins 

and campsites and disruptions to subsistence activities by prohibiting permanent oil and gas 

facilities (e.g., gravel pads, roads and airstrips, and pipelines) through setbacks along/around 

the Colville, Ikpikpuk, Miguakiak, Kikiakrorak and Kogosukruk rivers, Fish and Judy creeks, 

and Deep Water Lakes areas. Lease Stipulation K-3 would be effective in protecting subsistence 

resources and access to the Teshekpuk Lake area by ensuring that there would not be

unreasonable conflicts with traditional subsistence uses and access or impacts to seasonally 

concentrated fish and wildlife resources. Lease Stipulation K-6 would be effective in minimizing 

impacts to subsistence activities in coastal areas through a setback of 3⁄4 of a mile from the 

coastline, to the extent practicable, as well as the use of previously occupied sites (e.g., Camp

Lonely, various Husky/USGS drill sites and DEW-Line sites). 

Some stipulations, such as Stipulations K-4 and K-5, serve to protect resources such as caribou 

and waterfowl by limiting the types of activities that can take place, and defining restrictions on 

activities, during certain times of the year. While these protections serve to ensure healthy 

populations, they also lead to periods of concentrated activity, usually in the fall months of 

August-October. This resulting period of concentrated activity is also the preferred time to

harvest caribou, namely, during the cool days of fall before the rut, when the caribou have the 

greatest fat supply. This leads to increased disruption to harvesters by aircraft, resulting in the 

low-level impact of frustration of the user, to the high-level impact of an overall reduction in 

harvest. 

4.4.12.4 Conclusion 

Most impacts associated with oil and gas activities under Alternative B would be localized and

would not substantially affect subsistence species, as long as the activities occurred outside of 

4-347 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

key habitat areas or migratory zones when animals were present. Under Alternative B, 213,000 

acres north of Teshekpuk Lake would remain unavailable for oil and gas leasing. However, 

areas that would be unavailable for year-round occupation and development under Alternative

A would become available under this alternative, and could be affected by oil and gas 

exploration activities, resulting in a greater likelihood of impacts to subsistence use. Should 

development proceed under Alternative B, the duration, severity, and extent of the effects of oil 

and gas development activities on subsistence species could be greater than under Alternative 

A, as there would be a larger area open for year-round occupation and development, which 

include ecologically sensitive areas. The amount of habitat loss and degradation would be

greater under Alternative B than under Alternative A. Permanent facilities associated with 

development, if located in key migration corridors or other areas essential to the viability of the 

population, could result in reduced harvests, and a reliance on other sources of food. The ROPs 

and lease stipulations discussed above would be effective in protecting subsistence species and

helping to resolve conflicts between the oil and gas industry and local residents. Even in the 

best case scenario of species protection, however, subsistence users would still be constrained by 

the presence of oil and gas facilities from harvesting subsistence resources, would question the 

health of those resources, and would tend to harvest resources at least 5 miles from areas of 

development, increasing the distance hunters must travel, and reducing the total harvest area 

available, with each new wave of development. As expressed in public scoping testimony, local 

residents are fearful for the future of subsistence hunting on the North Slope, their ability to 

carry on with traditional customs and ways, and their ability to be able to pass along these 

traditions to their children. 

4.4.13 Sociocultural Systems 

4.4.13.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative B, the effects of non-oil and gas activities on sociocultural patterns would be 

greater than under Alternative A. There would be a greater amount of scientific research and

data collection undertaken prior to lease sales and as part of Federal land management 

responsibilities. These research efforts and associated aircraft use could cause temporary and 

localized diversion or deflection of subsistence species for as long as the studies were under way. 

It is not expected that the amount of recreational and solid and hazardous waste removal and 

remediation would be greater under Alternative B, but more overland moves could be required 

to support scientific and other activities in the new areas available for leasing. Several families 

from Atqasuk, Barrow, and Nuiqsut use cabins, camps, caches, and other sites along the coast 

and inland to Teshekpuk Lake for subsistence activities. Use of this area helps maintain family 

connections and a feeling of relatedness and stability, which could be reduced by increased 

activity in the areas formerly closed to leasing. In general, effects from non-oil and gas 

activities under Alternative B would be temporary and localized, and would be unlikely to affect 

overall sociocultural patterns. 

4.4.13.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Oil and gas exploration, development, and production in the areas formerly unavailable for 

leasing north of Teshekpuk Lake and in areas outside the setbacks established in the lease 

stipulations and ROPs would require a seasonal network of ice roads, permanent gravel roads, 

runways, and pads, and a year-round corridor for pipelines and powerlines to each pad and 

production facility. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-348 

Alternative B: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects of Disturbances 

The kinds of impacts on sociocultural patterns from disturbances caused by oil and gas 

activities under Alternative B would be the similar to Alternative A, but would be greater in 

intensity, area, and duration. Increases in the amount of area available for leasing and 

exploration would have a corresponding increase in the effects to subsistence harvests as 

compared to those for Alternative A. The development proposed for the planning area would

require increased staging and overland travel during the winter and in summer would require 

increased use of aircraft for supplies, equipment, and crew changes, as compared to Alternative 

A. In all seasons, noise, lights, personnel, and traffic near oil and gas-related infrastructure 

could temporarily deflect or divert caribou in areas where activities are occurring; however, 

gravel pads could attract caribou during some seasons as insect-relief habitat. These effects 

could change the distribution, timing, and location of the caribou harvest, which could require 

increased effort and expenditure on the part of subsistence hunters, resulting in sociocultural 

consequences such as increased stress and a decreased sense of well-being. These problems are 

discussed in more detail in section 4.4.19. Oil and gas development could divert subsistence 

users from facilities at distances from 5 to more than 25 miles. Given the high gasoline costs on 

the North Slope, this would add additional cost to subsistence harvests. Increased fuel costs and 

wear and tear on equipment would increase the need for wage labor to support subsistence 

pursuits and reduce the time available to pursue subsistence activities, which would result in 

sociocultural consequences, such as increased stress and a decreased sense of well-being. 

Increases in the speed, range, and reliability of outboards and snowmobiles have facilitated the 

mixed subsistence and wage economy, but are unable to compensate for impacts to subsistence 

harvest activities from continued development and production activities in important 

subsistence harvest areas. 

As discussed under Alternative A, long-term change to sociocultural patterns would result from 

a weakening of traditional stabilizing institutions through prolonged stress and disruptive 

effects that could be exacerbated by activities occurring under this alternative. These changes 

are already occurring to some degree on the North Slope because of onshore oil and gas 

development, more dependence on a wage economy, higher levels of education, improved

technology, improved housing and community facilities, improved infrastructures, increased 

presence of non-Natives, increased travel outside of the North Slope, and increasing presence of 

television and the Internet. Data from other circumpolar Inuit populations suggest that 

continued modernization is associated with a trend toward displacement of sociocultural 

systems, including: a trend toward less time being spent conducting subsistence harvest 

activities; less subsistence consumption among younger generations; a greater focus on a cashbased economy, as opposed to the egalitarian sharing network; an increased importance on the 

nuclear family, as opposed to the more-traditional extended family structure (Curtis et al. 2005; 

Nobmann et al. 2005; Condon et al. 1995). North Slope Borough institutions, such as the school 

district that promotes the teaching of Iñupiat language and culture, the Arctic Eskimo Whaling 

Commission that negotiates with industry to protect Iñupiat subsistence whaling interests, the 

NSB Department of Wildlife Management, and other regional and village Native corporations 

and organizations, have been working vigorously and quite successfully at preventing the 

weakening of traditional Iñupiat cultural institutions and practices. Increased social 

interactions between oil-industry workers and Nuiqsut residents could be long term, but there 

is not expected to be a tendency toward displacement of Iñupiat social institutions. However, 

population changes in ethnicity, such as the influx of a large non-native population, could 

disrupt or displace existing sociocultural systems and cultural institutions. Small-scale changes

in population and employment are unlikely to disrupt sociocultural systems or displace existing

institutions (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998, 2003). 

4-349 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Sociocultural Systems 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Abandonment and rehabilitation activities would likely generate jobs for local residents for 

several years above the level that would exist during operations. However, after the production 

pads were shut down and termination activities were completed, jobs associated with them 

would cease. If local residents were to become substantially integrated into satellite operations 

and the community was to become substantially dependent on revenues associated with their 

operation, and if other oil fields were not active in the area to provide jobs and contribute 

economically to the local economy and government revenues, the community would face a time

of significant economic depression; other potential avenues for maintaining income at the 

standards established in the oil development era have not been identified. Subsistence 

resources would be subject to fewer impacts, which would potentially improve subsistence 

harvesting opportunities. 

Effects of Oil Spills 

The effects of oil spills would be the similar as discussed in Alternative A; however, under 

Alternative B there would be a greater likelihood that a spill event could occur with the 

potential to damage important habitats and subsistence use areas. Effects would vary in 

severity depending upon the timing and location of the spill event, but fish, waterfowl, and 

marine and terrestrial mammals could all be affected. An oil spill could result in contamination 

of subsistence resources and would be a threat to the health and lifeways of the affected

communities. If a large oil spill occurred in a traditional use area, then subsistence users would 

have to travel further to harvest uncontaminated resources, which would result in high effects 

to sociocultural patterns as long as the residents believed that the subsistence resources were 

contaminated. 

Activities associated with cleanup of an oil spill could have an effect on sociocultural systems. In 

the event that a large spill contacted and extensively oiled habitats, the presence of hundreds of 

humans, boats, and aircraft would increase the displacement of subsistence species and alter or

reduce access to subsistence species by subsistence hunters. Because it is expected that oil spills 

from activities would be small, chronic events and would normally be contained on the drill pad, 

effects from the spills themselves and potential disruptions from clean-up activities would be 

unlikely to cause excessive disturbance to sociocultural systems or the surrounding 

environment. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Effects on sociocultural systems under Alternative B and all other alternatives would be due to 

effects on subsistence harvest patterns, changes in employment and population, and effects on 

public health. In the event of natural gas development and production in the planning area, 

there could be an increase in employment and population in some North Slope communities and

subsistence use patterns and public health may be affected as described in sections 4.4.12 and 

4.4.19, respectively. The amount of employment and population change would probably differ 

among the alternatives in rough proportion to the amount of oil production and infrastructure

development that would occur under each alternative. 

4.4.13.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

The performance-based lease stipulations and ROPs proposed under Alternative B would

provide equivalent or greater setbacks from rivers and lakes than under Alternative A, but 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-350 

Alternative B: Sociocultural Systems 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

would allow drilling within lakes outside those setbacks. While Federal trust responsibilities 

would remain unchanged under all alternatives, during scoping, residents stated that the 

proposed lease stipulations and ROPs under Alternative B would be more permissive to lessees, 

and would diminish what local residents consider to be the BLM’s trust responsibilities in 

supporting and maintaining subsistence uses in the planning area. In their view, BLM would 

be shifting the responsibilities for enforcing the lease stipulations and ROPs to other local, state 

and Federal agencies (Ahmaogak 2003, Napageak 2003). 

The BLM perspective on the effectiveness of mitigation measures differs significantly. BLM 

proposes the new approach to mitigation measures in order to achieve equivalent protection as 

would occur under Alternative A, while providing greater flexibility. The prescriptive approach 

adopted in 1998 gained legitimacy and credibility through the extended consultation leading to 

the final decision, while the new approach proposed for Alternative B is not well known or 

understood, and some local residents doubt that the new approach would provide equivalent 

protection. The flexibility of the new approach places greater reliance on close, on-going 

monitoring to insure that modified procedures do in fact achieve equivalent protections. 

Required Operating Procedure I-1 would require the lessee to provide a cultural orientation 

program for all oil and gas workers involved in planning area activities in order to effectively 

minimize cultural and resource conflicts with local inhabitants. This orientation program, as it 

relates to subsistence pursuits and cultural concerns, would: 1) provide sufficient detail to notify 

personnel of applicable lease stipulations and ROPs, as well as inform them about specific types 

of environmental, social, traditional, and cultural concerns that relate to the region; (2) address 

the importance of not disturbing archaeological and biological resources and habitats, and 

provide guidance on how to avoid disturbance; 3) be designed to increase sensitivity and 

understanding of personnel to community values, customs, and lifestyles in areas where

personnel would be operating; 4) include information about avoidance of conflicts with 

subsistence, commercial fishing activities, and pertinent mitigation; and 5) include information 

for aircraft personnel concerning subsistence activities and areas and seasons that are 

particularly sensitive to disturbance by low flying aircraft (e.g., aircraft use near traditional 

subsistence cabins and campsites, flights during spring goose hunting and fall moose hunting 

seasons, and flights near North Slope communities). 

4-351 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Sociocultural Systems 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.4.13.4 Conclusion 

Despite the fact that 213,000 acres would be unavailable for leasing under this alternative, new 

lease sales in the areas formerly unavailable to leasing north and west of Teshekpuk Lake could 

cause societal stress in Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Atqasuk. Construction and operation of oil 

facilities could discourage families from using and maintaining traditional camps, cabins, and 

caches in the affected areas, which could affect social organization and cultural values in these

communities. Development in these areas would increase North Slope residents’ concerns about

encroachment and potential risks to subsistence resources in terms of access, availability, and 

contamination of caribou, fish, and waterfowl. Visits to traditional camps and cabins, and 

hunting and travel within the planning area, are vehicles for transmitting traditional and 

family history and knowledge to younger generations, and the discontinuation of such visits 

would decrease social cohesion in these communities. In addition, as harvests decrease, 

resources would no longer be available in amounts suitable for sharing, resulting in changes to

Iñupiat social organization and cultural values. 

4.4.14 Environmental Justice 

4.4.14.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

The non-oil and gas activities likely to occur in the planning area would primarily be transitory 

in nature, of short duration, and highly localized. They could temporarily divert, deflect, or

disturb subsistence species from their normal patterns. Non-oil and gas activities could alter 

the availability of subsistence species in traditional harvest areas, which could affect harvest 

patterns by requiring hunters to travel further in pursuit of resources. Increased travel 

distances would result in greater expenditures for fuel and equipment, and increased wear and 

tear on snowmobiles, outboards, and four-wheel vehicles, and could result in higher risk of 

accidents. Consequently, there could be an effect on the subsistence hunting activities of the 

local minority population as a result of non-oil and gas activities. As outlined in section 4.4.19, 

this could result in isolated problems of social pathology. Under Alternative B, these effects 

could be slightly greater than under Alternative A, but would still be minor, temporary, short 

term, and generally highly localized. 

4.4.14.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbance 

Under Alternative B, disturbances caused by oil and gas activities would be the similar as those 

discussed under Alternative A, but their effects on subsistence would be increased in 

magnitude, extent, and duration. Areas that would be unavailable for year-round occupation 

and development under Alternative A would be available for lease and year-round surface

occupation under Alternative B, and could be affected by oil and gas development. Development 

activity could last at least 30 years, following 8 to 12 years of permitting, planning, and oil 

deposit testing and delineation. This time frame would likely represent the duration of effects

for species unable to habituate to the oil and gas development activities. Public health effects 

relating to sociocultural and dietary change, as well as exposure to contaminants, could persist 

for considerably longer. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-352 

Alternative B: Sociocultural Systems 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Alternative B could have long-term effects on several terrestrial mammal species. In particular, 

effects on caribou herds would likely be greater than under Alternative A (section 4.3.9, 

Mammals). It is expected that effects on waterfowl harvested for subsistence would be more 

frequent and more widespread than under Alternative A, given the greater area available for 

petroleum leasing. Little or no effect on marine mammals would be expected from onshore

activities under Alternative B, but noise and disturbance associated with offshore barge and 

vessel traffic could impact bowhead whale migration patterns. There are concerns that, 

depending on the particular activity and, especially, the location of the activity, actions 

occurring under Alternative B, as under Alternative A, could cause local effects on fish 

populations. All of these effects would be experienced primarily by the subsistence dependent 

minority Iñupiat population. 

Under Alternative B, the possibility of public health impacts would be substantially increased 

compared with Alternative A, but overall less than under Alternative C. These impacts would

occur primarily through restriction in subsistence; influx of large numbers of outside workers;

new access routes to the community; sociocultural and economic change; altered employment; 

and contaminants. Diabetes, hypertension, and related metabolic disorders would be expected

to increase as subsistence is curtailed or as sociocultural changes lead to alterations in dietary 

patterns. Given that Alternative B involves substantially more development in and near 

particularly sensitive habitat and hunting and fishing areas than Alternative A, the risk of 

dietary change and the resultant increases in metabolic disorders would appear to be 

significantly greater. Cancer, lung disease, endocrine disruption, and neurodevelopmental 

delay are related to contaminants common to oil and gas development. Although at present no

evidence exists to conclusively link rates of any of these problems to local oil development, 

because of both the increased total emissions projected under this Alternative, and the location 

of operations within an important subsistence area, the risks of these problems may be

increased under Alternative B. Social pathology could result from the economic changes 

anticipated; from increasing access to drugs and alcohol; and from stress and maladaptive 

coping given the impacts to wider regions of important traditional use areas. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Activities associated with dismantling and removing of production pads and facilities could 

disproportionately impact Nuiqsut residents through disturbance, displacement, and mortality 

of subsistence resources, through subsistence users’ avoidance of areas undergoing 

dismantlement and removal, and through potential impacts to water and air quality, and noise. 

Once abandonment and rehabilitation was completed, Nuiqsut residents would be 

disproportionately impacted by the reduction in local and Native corporation revenues and by 

fewer local jobs and business opportunities. Since economic depression is associated with 

increased social pathology, this could result in increases in domestic violence, injury, drug and 

alcohol problems, and suicide. Local residents could benefit from a reduction in impacts on 

subsistence resources, compared to during construction and operation. 

Effects of Oil Spills 

As discussed elsewhere, the magnitude of effects of a crude oil spill on subsistence resources 

would depend on the context of the spill, the volume and area covered by spilled product, and 

the amount of time the product was released before clean-up efforts commenced. Tundra oil 

spills could affect small numbers of terrestrial mammals and waterfowl unable to avoid the spill 

area, but would be unlikely to have population level effects. Oil spills directly into a water body, 

particularly in difficult to contain conditions such as breakup or broken ice, could spread widely 

4-353 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Environmental Justice 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

and have effects on fish and waterfowl. In the nearshore environment, a large to very large spill, 

particularly during broken ice or storm conditions, could affect marine mammals including 

seals, and beluga and bowhead whales. Oil spills can also be associated with toxicological 

health effects in human populations, as outlined in section 4.4.19. Furthermore, if a large spill 

resulted in a substantial decrease in consumption of subsistence foods, food insecurity and

hunger as well as diabetes and related metabolic disorders could increase. 

The Iñupiat people consider contamination from oil spills in nearshore waters to be a

catastrophic possibility that would threaten their very existence, primarily because of the 

potential effects of spills on bowhead whales, which are a very important part of their culture in 

addition to being a favored food source (Brower 1976, Itta 2001). Potential effects on subsistence 

harvest patterns would be greater under Alternative B because oil and gas activity would 

potentially occur over a larger area in the planning area than under Alternative A, and there

would thus be a greater potential for oil spills. A major oil spill on the North Slope would result 

in effects that would impact Iñupiat subsistence users more than any other human group. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Environmental Justice impacts of gas development for Alternative B would be largely 

attributable to impacts to subsistence, sociocultural changes, and public health impacts and are 

described, respectively, in sections 4.4.12, 4.4.13, and 4.4.19. While impacts from an oil spill 

would not be a factor, it is possible that well blowouts or the fear of blowouts would increase

subsistence users’ avoidance of infrastructure. The proportional impacts among the 

alternatives would mirror that attributed to oil development, and therefore Alternative B would

likely create more impacts than Alternative A. 

4.4.14.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

The lease stipulations and ROPs for Alternative B would protect subsistence resources to the 

same extent as the lease stipulations under Alternative A. Required Operating Procedures H-1 

and H-2 would be highly effective in reducing conflicts between subsistence uses and oil and 

gas-related activities. 

4.4.14.4 Conclusion 

Several lease sales have already taken place in the planning area. Exploration programs, 

consisting of seismic testing and drilling using ice pads, are ongoing. Residents of Barrow, 

Nuiqsut, and Atqasuk have noted some effects from these activities on subsistence (SRBA 

2003a,b). One effect included the redistribution of caribou, wolves, and wolverines in response 

to seismic activity and cat trains operating in the NPR-A (SRBA 2003a, b). These effects would 

continue under Alternative B, and would be somewhat greater than under Alternative A. Most 

effects of disturbance would still be short term, but the extent and magnitude would likely 

increase. Effects from oil spills would depend greatly on the size, location, and season of the 

spill. Small spills on gravel pads would have little or no environmental justice effects. A major 

spill into a watercourse, on the other hand, could have long term serious effects on Iñupiat 

subsistence activities. While any major spill would have serious consequences, the worst, from 

an environmental justice standpoint, would be one that occurred in a key harvest area or near a 

community, particularly Nuiqsut or areas used by Barrow residents in the northwest portion of 

the planning area. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-354 

Alternative B: Environmental Justice 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

The anticipated activities under Alternative B could also have substantial health effects, as 

outlined above and discussed in detail in section 4.4.19. Because the population within and

near the planning area is primarily comprised of Iñupiat, any health effects that occur would 

disproportionately affect this minority population. 

4.4.15 Coastal Zone Management 

4.4.15.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative B, non-oil and gas activities would be subject to all applicable lease 

stipulations and ROPs, as well as any other Federal, state, or NSB regulations pertaining to the 

activities in question. These activities would be subject to permitting, and would include the 

activities noted in section 4.2.1.1, Activities Not Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration 

and Development, and evaluated for Alternative A in section 4.3.15.1, Coastal Zone 

Management. As non-oil and gas activities are normal occurrences under existing BLM 

management practices, they would, in most cases, be of limited duration and magnitude, and 

effects on neighboring uses, primarily subsistence resources and harvest patterns of nearby 

communities, would be limited to the immediate area of the activity. Activities would be 

consistent with ACMP standards. 

4.4.15.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

As described in section 4.3.15, Coastal Zone Management of this document, Section 

307(c)(3)(B) of the CZMA requires applicants to certify that each of their activities that affects 

any land use or water use in the coastal zone complies with, and would be implemented 

consistent with, the state’s coastal management program. In the following discussion, ACMP 

standards for uses and activities are used to evaluate activities and effects that would occur 

under Alternative B. Policies of the NSB CMP are assessed in conjunction with the most closely

associated statewide standard. 

This analysis is not a consistency determination pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act 

of 1972, as amended, nor should it be used as a local planning document. 

Effects of Exploration and Development Related to the Alaska Coastal Management 

Program 

Coastal Development (11 AAC 112.200) 

Water dependency is a prime criterion for development along the shoreline. The intent of this 

policy is to ensure that onshore developments and activities that could be placed inland would 

not displace activities that depend on shoreline locations, which include marine shores, 

lakeshores, and river waterfronts. Under Alternative B, almost the entire Beaufort Sea coast 

within the planning area would be open to leasing. Lease Stipulation K-6 would be highly 

effective in discouraging permanent oil and gas facilities within 3⁄4 mile of the coast, and other 

ROPs and lease stipulations would address sensitive issues areas along parts of the coast and

near deep-water lakes and major creeks and rivers. 

Other lease stipulations and ROPs in place under Alternative B would further reduce the 

potential for conflicts with this policy around lakes and rivers. Specifically, ROPs and lease 

4-355 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Environmental Justice 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

stipulations related to waste-prevention, handling, and disposal and spills; ice roads and water 

use; facility design and construction; abandonment; protections for subsistence and traditional 

use sites; and other activities restrictions would be effective in reducing conflicts, making 

Alternative B consistent with the statewide standard (see Table 2-2 in Chapter 2). 

 Natural Hazard Areas (11 AAC 112.210) 

This statewide standard permits coastal districts and state agencies to identify and designate 

areas in which natural hazards are known to exist that may present a threat to life or property.

Development in these areas would be prohibited until siting, design, and construction measures 

for minimizing property damage and protecting against the loss of life were provided. 

Flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, storm surges, ice 

formations, snow avalanches, erosion, permafrost, and beach processes in the planning area 

should be considered. Onshore development would be sited in areas of permafrost. Development 

in these areas would be required to maintain the natural permafrost insulation quality of 

existing soils and vegetation (NSB CMP 2.4.6[c] and NSBMC 19.70.050.L.3). Alternative B 

would be required to comply with the statewide standard. 

Coastal Access (11 AAC 112.220) 

Districts and state agencies shall ensure that projects maintain and, where appropriate, 

increase public access to, from, and along coastal water. It is expected that Alternative B would 

be consistent with this standard, although the larger leasing area along the Beaufort Coast 

could lead to some conflicts with access opportunities, as compared to Alternative A. 

Energy Facilities (11 AAC 112.230) 

The ACMP requires that decisions on the siting and approval of energy-related facilities be 

based, to the extent practicable, on 16 criteria within the energy facilities standard. Lease 

stipulations and ROPs (see Table 2-2 in Chapter 2) in place under Alternative B would be 

effective in reducing conflicts, making the alternative consistent with the statewide standard. 

Other criteria within this standard require that facilities be consolidated and sited in areas of 

least biological productivity, diversity, and vulnerability and where effluents and spills can be 

controlled or contained (11 AAC 112.230 (a) [3] and [14]). Under Alternative B, ROPs and lease 

stipulations would be effective in protecting biologically sensitive areas, although leasing would 

be permitted in coastal areas that would be off limits under Alternative A. The NSB CMP also 

requires that transportation facilities and utilities be consolidated to the maximum extent 

possible (NSB CMP 2.4.5.2[f] and NSBMC 19.70.050. K.6). 

Construction associated with energy-related facilities under Alternative B would also be 

required to comply with siting standards that apply to all types of development, which are 

discussed below under Habitats; Air, Land, and Water Quality; and Historic, Prehistoric, and 

Archeological Resources.

 Utility Routes and Facilities (11 AAC 112.240) and Transportation Routes and 

Facilities (11 AAC 112.280) 

These statewide standards require that routes for transportation and utilities be compatible 

with district programs and sited inland from shorelines and beaches. Utility routes and 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-356 

Alternative B: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

facilities along the coast must avoid, minimize, or mitigate alterations in drainage patterns, 

disruption in wildlife transit, and blockage of existing or traditional access. 

The NSB CMP contains several additional policies related to transportation and utilities that 

would be relevant to this analysis. All but one are best-effort policies, and are subject to some 

flexibility. Transportation development, including pipelines, which significantly obstructs 

wildlife migration, is subject to three conditions (NSB CMP 2.4.5.1[g] and NSBMC 

19.70.050.J.3.f). Interference with caribou movements would be temporary and brief under 

Alternative B; caribou migrations and overall distribution should not be affected. Lease 

stipulations and ROPs in place under Alternative B would be effective in reducing conflicts, 

making the alternative consistent with the statewide standard. 

Transportation facilities would be consolidated to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, 

there should be no conflict with either NSB CMP 2.4.5.1(i) (NSBMC 19.70.050.J.3.h), which 

discourages duplicative transportation corridors from resource-extraction sites, or NSB CMP 

2.4.5.2(f) (NSBMC 19.70.050.K.6), which requires consolidation of transportation facilities and 

utilities. Lease stipulations and ROPs required under Alternative B would be highly effective in

reducing conflicts, making this alternative consistent with the statewide standard. 

The NSB CMP 2.4.6(b) (NSBMC 19.70.050.L.2), under the category of Minimization of Negative 

Impacts, requires that alterations to water features associated with transportation and utilities 

be minimized, and that periods critical for fish migration be avoided. Lease Stipulation K-6, in 

particular, would be effective in ensuring compliance with this standard. 

Sand and Gravel Extraction (11 AAC 112.260) 

The ACMP statewide standards indicate sand and gravel may be extracted from coastal waters, 

intertidal areas, barrier islands, and spits if no practicable noncoastal alternative is available to 

meet the public need. Substantial alteration of shoreline dynamics is prohibited (NSB CMP 

2.4.5.1[j] and NSBMC 19.70.050.J.10). Constraints may be placed on extraction activities to 

lessen environmental degradation of coastal lands and waters (NSB CMP 2.4.5.2[a] and [d] and 

NSBMC 19.70.050.K.1 and 4). Substantially more gravel could be required under Alternative B 

than under Alternative A, but ROPs and lease stipulations (see Table 2-2 in Chapter 2) would 

place restrictions on gravel mining locations and thus effectively reduce conflicts to ensure 

compliance with this standard and the NSB policies. 

Subsistence (11 AAC 112.270) 

The statewide standard for subsistence indicates a project within a designated subsistence use

area must avoid or minimize impacts to subsistence uses of coastal resources. Subsistence uses

of coastal resources and maintenance of the subsistence way of life are primary concerns of the 

residents of the NSB. Under Alternative B, most of the Beaufort Sea coast would be open to

leasing. As a consequence, access to subsistence resources could be more limited than under 

Alternative A. Disturbances and oil spills associated with oil and gas activities would have 

short-term and localized impacts on the TLH caribou and other terrestrial mammals, fish, birds, 

and bowhead whales and other marine mammals. The impacts would result in more difficult 

and somewhat reduced success at subsistence harvests for Barrow, Atqasuk, and Nuiqsut 

hunters. Subsistence-hunter concerns about access to resources, resource disturbance, and 

resource contamination would be greater than for Alternative A. Lease stipulations would offer 

protection to subsistence resources and activities. Surface, air, and foot traffic near the oil fields

would be expected to increase more than under Alternative A and would potentially displace 

4-357 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

larger numbers of caribou, moose, muskox, grizzly bears, wolves, and wolverines. Roads and

pipelines would be constructed to provide for unimpeded wildlife crossings. Based on the 

analysis of disturbance effects on caribou, potential conflict with the subsistence policies would 

be greater under Alternative B than under Alternative A, although Alternative B would still 

comply with the statewide standard. 

Policy 2.4.3(d) (NSBMC 19.70.050.D) requires that development not preclude reasonable access 

to a subsistence resource. Onshore pipelines and construction activities could cause disruptions 

to subsistence caribou harvests from access and movement conflicts, but effects are expected to 

be short term. Where access is reduced or restricted, development can occur only if no feasible or 

prudent alternative is available, and is then subject to the conditions of best-effort policies. 

Conflict with these standards and policies would be somewhat greater under Alternative B than 

under Alternative A. 

Several important NSB CMP policies relate to effects on subsistence resources. The NSB CMP 

policy 2.4.3(a) (NSBMC 19.70.050.A) relates to extensive impacts to a subsistence resource that 

are likely and cannot be avoided or mitigated. In such an instance, development must not 

deplete subsistence resources below the subsistence needs of local residents of the NSB. Policy 

2.4.5.1(a) (NSBMC 19.70.050.J.3.a) addresses development that would likely result in 

substantially decreased productivity of subsistence resources or their ecosystems. Temporary 

reductions in subsistence resources and changes in subsistence resource-distribution patterns 

could occur as a result of disturbance from seismic surveys, aircraft and vessel traffic, drilling 

activities, and construction activities. 

The development scenario under Alternative B predicts that there would be an onshore pipeline 

for oil delivery to the TAPS and that a pipeline spill could potentially contaminate the Colville 

River. A spill entering the Colville River potentially could affect the subsistence harvest by 

reducing fish populations, disrupting subsistence-fishing activity, and curtailing the subsistence 

hunt by tainting resources or causing subsistence users to perceive them as tainted. The effects 

of estimated oil spills of different sizes and their impacts on subsistence uses are discussed in 

section 4.3.12. 

Conflict with policies to protect subsistence resources would be possible during the exploration, 

development, and production phases. Under Alternative B, ROPs and lease stipulations (see

Table 2-2 in Chapter 2) designed to protect subsistence resources, and to establish procedures

and advisory bodies to address subsistence concerns, would be effective in minimizing policy 

conflicts. Therefore, Alternative B would be consistent with the statewide standard. 

Habitats (11 AAC 112.300) 

The statewide standard for habitats contains management measures for nine habitat areas: 

offshore areas; estuaries; wetlands; tideflats; rocky islands and seacliffs; barrier islands and 

lagoons; exposed high-energy coasts; rivers, streams, and lakes (including associated floodplains 

and riparian management areas); and important upland habitat. The NSB CMP contains a 

district policy that reiterates the applicability of the statewide standard (NSB CMP 2.4.5.2[g] 

and NSBMC 19.70.050.K.7), plus several others that augment the overall policy or can be 

related to activities within a specific habitat. Under Alternative B, fewer sensitive habitat areas 

would be excluded from leasing than under Alternative A. However, applicable ROPs and lease

stipulations would provide effective protection for fish, birds, and terrestrial mammals, and 

their habitats. Therefore, conflicts with the ACMP standards would be minimized to the degree

possible, making activities under Alternative B consistent with the statewide standard. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-358 

Alternative B: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

The ACMP statewide standard for habitats in the coastal zone requires that habitats be 

managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts to habitat resources. This 

policy is supported by an NSB CMP enforceable policy requiring that development be located, 

designed, and maintained in a manner that prevents or minimizes impacts on fish and wildlife 

and their habitat, including water circulation and drainage patterns and coastal processes (NSB 

CMP 2.4.5.2[b] and NSBMC 19.70.050.K.2). In addition, vehicles, vessels, and aircraft that are 

likely to cause disturbance must avoid areas where species that are sensitive to noise or 

movement are concentrated, at times when such species are concentrated (NSB CMP 2.4.4[a] 

and NSBMC 19.70.050.I.1). Some disturbances associated with exploration and development 

would be mitigated by ROPs and lease stipulations placed on permits. Alternative B ROPs and 

lease stipulations would be effective in reducing potential conflicts, and the activities would be 

consistent with the statewide standard. 

Oil and gas development activities could affect several of the habitats identified in the statewide 

standard, including lagoons, wetlands, rivers, lakes, and streams. Therefore, onshoredevelopment activities would need to be designed and constructed to avoid, minimize, or

mitigate significant adverse effects. 

It is expected that caribou of the CAH and TLH would be disturbed and their movements 

delayed along the pipeline during periods of aircraft overflights, but that disturbances would 

not affect migrations or overall distribution. It is expected that surface, air, and foot traffic near 

the oil fields would be greater under Alternative B than under Alternative A and could displace 

some large mammals, though not enough to substantially affect North Slope populations. The 

NSB CMP policy 2.4.6(e) (NSBMC 19.70.050.L.5) emphasizes that roads and pipelines must 

provide for unimpeded wildlife crossing and provides a set of guidelines and an intent statement 

specifically to implement the policy. 

Rivers, lakes, and streams are managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse 

impacts to natural water flow; active floodplains; and natural vegetation within riparian 

management areas. Pipeline and road construction, including gravel extraction, could affect 

these waterways and would need to be conducted in a manner that would ensure the protection 

of riverine habitat and fish resources. Gravel extraction also is regulated under policies that are 

described in Section 11 AAC 112.260. The ROPs and lease stipulations (see Table 2-2 in Chapter 

2) in place under Alternative B would be effective in reducing conflicts, and would be consistent 

with the statewide standard. 

Air, Land, and Water Quality (11 AAC 112.310) 

The air, land, and water quality standard of the ACMP incorporates by reference all the 

statutes pertaining to, and regulations and procedures of, the ADEC. The NSB reiterates this 

standard in its district policies and emphasizes the need to comply with specific water and air 

quality regulations in several additional policies. North Slope Borough policies (NSB CMP 

2.4.4[k] and NSBMC 19.70.050.I.11) address water quality issues, and development must 

comply with the conditions of the best-effort policies (NSB CMP 2.4.5.1[e] and NSBMC 

19.70.050.J.3.d). Under Alternative B, there could be some short-term conflict with these 

policies due to potential oil spills, which would likely to be more frequent under Alternative B 

than under Alternative A. However, the ROPs and lease stipulations (see Table 2-2 in Chapter 

2) in place under Alternative B would be effective in reducing conflicts, and the alternative 

would be consistent with the statewide standards. 

4-359 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Some discharges and emissions would occur during exploration and development, and the NSB 

CMP policy 2.4.4(c) (NSBMC 19.70.050.I.3) requires that these emissions comply with all state 

and Federal regulations. 

Discharges of drilling muds, cuttings, and fluids are regulated closely. Formation water 

produced from the wells along with the oil is regulated by the USEPA. The Alaska Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission (AOGCC) has primacy for this program. Some wastes are disposed

through the annulus of producing wells, an activity that is exempt from the Underground 

Injection Control program. However, the AOGCC also regulates this practice for the State of 

Alaska. Surface disposal of drilling wastes would require a solid waste permit from ADEC. 

Because discharges of drilling muds, cuttings, and drilling fluids are closely regulated, no 

conflict is anticipated with the statewide standard or NSB CMP policy 2.4.4(d) (NSBMC 

19.70.050.I.4), which requires that industrial and commercial development be served by solid 

waste disposal facilities that meet state and Federal regulations. There would be no inherent 

conflict between the proposed activities of Alternative B and the ACMP water-quality 

provisions. 

Air quality also must conform to Federal and state standards (11 AAC 112.310, NSB CMP 

2.4.3[i] and 2.4.4[c], and NSBMC 19.70.050.H and I.3). The analysis of air quality effects under 

Alternative B in section 4.4.1, Air Quality, indicates that conformance is anticipated, and no

conflict between air quality and coastal policies should occur. 

Historic, Prehistoric, and Archaeological Resources (11 AAC 112.320) 

The ACMP statewide standard requires that coastal districts and appropriate state agencies

identify areas of the coast that are important to the study, understanding, or illustration of 

national, state, or local history or prehistory, including natural processes. 

The NSB developed additional policies to ensure protection of its heritage. The NSB CMP 

2.4.3(e) (NSBMC 19.70.050.E) requires that development that is likely to disturb cultural or 

historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places; sites eligible for inclusion in the 

National Register; or sites identified as important to the study, understanding, or illustration of 

national, state, or local history or prehistory shall 1) be required to avoid the sites, or 2) be 

required to consult with appropriate local, state and Federal agencies and survey and excavate 

the site prior to disturbance. The NSB CMP 2.4.3(g) (NSBMC 19.70.050.G) also requires that 

development not disturb newly discovered historic or cultural sites prior to archaeological 

investigation. It is likely that new cultural and paleontological sites would be discovered under 

Alternative B. No conflicts with these policies would be expected; however, ROPs and lease 

stipulations would be highly effective by requiring an inventory of traditional use sites prior to 

conducting any activities. Therefore, Alternative B would be consistent with the statewide 

standard. 

Traditional activities at cultural or historic sites also are protected under the NSB CMP 2.4.3(f) 

(NSBMC 19.70.050.F) and 2.4.5.2(h) (NSBMC 19.70.050.K.8). As noted in the discussion of

policies related to subsistence, the latter is a best-effort policy that requires protection for 

transportation to subsistence use areas as well as cultural use sites. No conflict with these 

policies would be expected. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-360 

Alternative B: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Land ownership would not be affected by abandonment and rehabilitation. Upon completion of 

abandonment and rehabilitation, land uses and management could return to as near the 

original condition as practicable. 

Effects of Spills 

Because of the interrelated nature of the ACMP and NSB CMP policies, the potential effects of 

spills were addressed with the effects of disturbances under each major policy area above. 

Discussion of oil spills, see section 4.2.2. 

4.4.15.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Lease stipulations and ROPs (see Table 2-2 in Chapter 2) referred to under each of the Coastal 

Zone Policy standards discussed above should be sufficient for Alternative B to achieve 

compliance with ACMP and NSB CMP policies and standards. While it is expected that there 

could be land use and CZMP conflicts over the life of the alternative development scenario, any 

such conflicts should be short term and subject to resolution. Conflicts, should they occur, would 

most likely result from oil and gas development activities interrupting subsistence activities, 

but the scale of development and enforcement of applicable lease stipulations and ROPs would 

be effective in minimizing the conflicts and quickly returning the development to compliance 

with policies and standards. 

4.4.15.4 Conclusion 

It is expected that disturbance and oil spills associated with oil and gas activities would cause 

short-term and localized impacts to the TLH caribou and other terrestrial fish, birds, mammals, 

and bowhead whales and other marine mammals. In general, impacts to subsistence and other 

coastal zone resources from non-oil and gas activities, and from exploration and development 

activities, would be additive, except where these activities occurred in areas previously 

disturbed during exploration or development. 

These impacts would likely be greater under Alternative B than under Alternative A, as would 

subsistence-hunter concerns about access to resources and resource contamination. The greater 

degree of impacts would result from opening additional area to leasing in caribou, waterfowl, 

and fishing areas, and because the expected level of development would be greater. Conflicts 

with ACMP and NSB CMP policies related to effects on subsistence resources resulting from 

periodic disturbance and oil spills would be possible, but no resource would become unavailable, 

undesirable for use, or experience overall population reductions. Implementation of ROPs and

lease stipulations would effectively ensure that Alternative B would comply with ACMP 

standards and NSB CMP enforceable policies. Combined oversight by BLM, the ADNR, and the 

NSB, under the guidance of their respective standards, would deal with any potential conflict 

that could arise between Alternative B and the policies addressed in this section. 

4-361 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.4.16 Recreational Resources 

4.4.16.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative B, impacts to recreation resources from on-the-ground management

activities such as archeological collection efforts, field camps, survey work, and overland moves

would be very similar to recreation effects from Alternative A. 

Temporary structures, vehicles, noise from generators, aircraft, human presence, and associated 

activity all would have some minimal short-term effects on the experience of solitude, 

naturalness, or primitive/unconfined recreation. As under Alternative A, the short-term impacts 

from Alternative B would be confined primarily to the activity site viewshed or noiseshed within 

approximately 1⁄2 mile in any direction of the activity (500 acres). All of the identified non-oil 

and gas activities would be transitory and short term; the likelihood of recreationists 

encountering them in any given location in the 4.6 million acre planning area would be small. If 

such activities were encountered, the recreation experience and opportunity for solitude on the 

North Slope would be diminished. Depending on the activity, there may be some increased

likelihood of an encounter with recreationists because of the propensity to concentrate on major 

rivers and coastal areas. 

A longer-lasting impact would be trails resulting from overland moves. These trails do not 

necessarily develop over the entire route of an overland move, but when they do they can be 

very detectable from the air for 2 to 5 years. They are typically more difficult to recognize from 

the ground. Vegetation can also be damaged along these trails from broken stems or the tops of

tussocks being scraped off. Current operating procedures make this an infrequent problem but 

one that can occur in conjunction with these trails. Because overland moves would be relatively 

constant from year to year and generally follow the same route(s), several thousand miles of 

intermittent trail in some phase of recovery would likely be visible from the air during any one 

summer season. Though still relatively short term in nature, the linear nature of these trails 

would emphasize the presence of man, which would reduce the sense of naturalness and

unconfined primitiveness to a small degree. 

Although there are no formal designations of wilderness or wild and scenic rivers in the 

planning area, and none are anticipated at this time, none of the identified non-oil and gas 

activities would diminish requisite wilderness and wild and scenic river characteristics 

sufficiently to preclude such designations in the future. 

4.4.16.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Exploration 

Under Alternative B, seismic work would occur throughout most of the planning area. This 

work would occur in winter using all-terrain ground vehicles supported by light aircraft. Mobile 

seismic camps would consist of a train of trailer sleds pulled by tractors. These moving camps 

and associated noise and activities would result in a short-term effect on the primitive setting of 

the planning area and a loss of solitude and naturalness. The effects would be confined

primarily to the activity site viewshed or noiseshed, or within approximately 1⁄2 mile in any 

direction. As many as five seismic operations could take place in a season, temporarily affecting 

approximately 2,500 acres. The potential effect on recreation opportunities and experience 

would be minimized by the fact that very little recreation takes place in the area. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-362 

Alternative B: Recreational Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

A longer lasting impact would be trails resulting from seismic survey operations. Unlike 

overland moves, seismic operations do not follow the same routes every year and the number of 

miles of survey line run can vary greatly from year to year. In some years, no surveys would 

occur. As with trails created by overland moves, these trails do not necessarily develop over the 

entire survey route; they would be visible for about 2 to 5 years. Because of the many variables 

involved, it is difficult to make a reliable estimate as to the number of miles of trail that would 

be visible during anyone summer season as a result of seismic operations. However, oil and gas 

scenarios state that approximately 250 miles (6,060 acres) of line would be surveyed using 2-D 

seismic methods, while approximately 10,560 miles (98,880 acres) of line could be surveyed 

annually using 3-D seismic methods, potentially resulting in several thousand miles of trails. 

Mobile camp trails could add another 840 miles (3,056 acres) of trails. Although some of the

camp train route could be outside of the planning area and could overlap survey line miles. 

Under Alternative B, the impacts from exploration would be the same as those under 

Alternative A. The number of exploration and delineation wells would be 170, and the number 

of drilling rigs would be six. Drilling would primarily occur over several winter seasons using 

ice pads, roads, and airstrips. Temporary on-site location of structures (e.g., drill rigs); noise 

from generators, vehicles, and aircraft; human presence; and associated activity all would have 

short-term impacts on solitude, naturalness, and primitive/unconfined recreation experiences. 

These impacts would be expected to be greatest within a 2-mile radius of the drill site, which is 

an area of approximately 8,000 acres per well site. Accordingly, under this alternative, there 

would be a temporary loss of solitude, naturalness, or primitive/unconfined recreation over an 

area of approximately 48,000 acres. This would be equivalent to about 1% of the planning area 

and the potential effect on recreation opportunities and experience would be further minimized 

by the fact that most drilling occurs during winter when very little recreation takes place in the 

area. 

In addition to the short-term impacts that result from ongoing exploratory drilling operations, 

an accumulating summer-season visual concern exists as a result of the greening of vegetation 

under vacated ice pads, airstrips, and roads. This direct impact to the area’s naturalness would 

be a result of the same conditions that create green trails, the greater availability of moisture 

and nutrients as ice or compacted snow melts. This greening of the vegetation does not 

necessarily develop wherever ice pads are constructed or snow is compacted but when it does, it

can be very noticeable from the air for 2 to 5 years and somewhat less noticeable from the 

ground. Another impact at these sites would be vegetation actually being damaged or broken, 

especially along the perimeter of a pad or edge of a road. Exploratory drilling operations and

ancilliary facilities i.e. 170 ice pads (6 acres each), 30 airstrips (11 acres each) and 6,162 miles of 

ice roads (3 acres/mile) would result in as many as 20,022 acres that would be in a various state 

of recovery from these impacts. 

Exploration wells that do not indicate the presence of hydrocarbons in developable quantities 

will be plugged and abandoned leaving nothing more than possibly a mound of dirt expected to 

be no larger than a square foot on the lands surface. Wells that show potential may be 

“suspended,” and capped with what is known as a “Christmas tree” at the surface, especially if 

the well might be used again for possible oil production. These are essentially permanent 

impacts (less than 6 feet high), but almost unnoticeable from several hundred feet away. 

4-363 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Recreational Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects of Development 

Up to 25 production pads, and 162 miles of pipeline that extend beyond the production area are 

anticipated under Alternative B. While the intensity of impacts would be greatest during actual 

construction and development of these facilities, remaining structures, human presence, and 

associated activity and noise all would have impacts on the experience of solitude, naturalness, 

and primitive/unconfined recreation opportunity during the life of the field. Because production 

could occur for 10-50 years, impacts would be long term. These long-term impacts are expected

to be greatest within 2 miles of a pad or staging area site (or an area of about 8,000 acres). 

There would be little if any pipeline associated on-the-ground activity, except during 

construction and repair. Long-term impacts to recreation values from pipelines would be

expected to be minimal beyond about 1⁄2 mile. This equates to about 640 acres per mile of 

pipeline. Under this alternative, there would be a long-term loss of solitude, naturalness, or 

primitive/unconfined recreation opportunity over an area of up to 303,680 acres (i.e., [8,000 

acres/pad x 25 pads] + [640 acres/mile x 162 miles of pipeline]). In addition, it is estimated that 

long-term surface (i.e. 2 miles from footprint of staging and CPFs) disturbance and consequently

impacts to primitive recreation from three staging areas (50 acres each) and six CPFs (90 acres 

each) including pads, roads, airstrips, gravel pits, and infield gathering pipelines and associated

infield gravel roads (250 miles) would impact 246,100 acres (i.e. [9,300 acres/staging area x 3 

staging areas] + [9,700 acres/CPF x 6 CPFs] + [640 acres/mile of road x 250 miles]). These 

impacts combined (549,780 acres), would be equivalent to about 12% of the planning area. 

Short-term, routine/daily inspection flights also would impact solitude and naturalness along 

the length of all pipelines as long as they are in use. The potential effect on recreation 

opportunities and experience would be greatest for development activities because it would 

entail year-round activity and would thus continue during the summer when most recreational 

activity in the planning area occurs. Therefore, the effects to recreation use would not be 

considered a great impact, because they would impact such a small portion of the planning area 

(11.9%) and because there is such a small amount of recreation use in the area. The actual 

effects would depend greatly on where development fields were located relative to major 

watercourses and the Beaufort Sea coast. 

Future potential for formal wilderness or wild and scenic-river designation would likely be 

reduced in limited areas near oil and gas development facilities, but most of the planning area 

would not be affected. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

While abandonment and rehabilitation activities occurred, small number of recreational users 

in the area of rehabilitation could have their wilderness experience diminished by noise, marred 

views, and disturbance to animals which they have come to observe (bird-watchers) or harvest 

(hunters). However, over the long term, these efforts would minimize and impacts to recreation

use would likewise be minimized. 

Effects of Spills 

Most spills would be confined to a pad. Spills not confined to a pad usually are confined to the 

area immediately around the pad or pipeline. Therefore, effects on solitude, naturalness, or 

primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities resulting from spills likely would be confined 

to the same area described above as impacted by the development. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-364 

Alternative B: Recreational Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

A large spill that would reach a river, especially the Colville River, and move rapidly 

downstream would have substantial short-term (and possibly long-term) impacts on recreation 

values. 

Effects to Wilderness and Wild and Scenic River Values 

None of the identified non-oil and gas activities would diminish requisite characteristics 

sufficiently to preclude wilderness or wild and scenic river designations in the future. 

Potential wilderness values of naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude and 

primitive, unconfined recreation experiences would be affected by long-term development of 

petroleum resources on as much as 11.9% of the planning area under Alternative B, about the 

same area that would be similarly affected by Alternative A. In addition, there could be 

portions of the area that were explored that would experience lesser residual effects that would 

reduce wilderness values. Despite the lost values, over 4 million acres (88%) of the planning 

area would likely retain substantial wilderness values. For perspective, the Wilderness Act 

specifies a minimum of 5,000 acres to qualify for wilderness consideration in most cases. 

The “outstandingly remarkable values” that support Wild and Scenic River eligibility for the 

Colville River include recreation, wildlife viewing, geology and archeology upstream from 

Umiat, and paleontology and wildlife from Umiat to Nuiqsut. Only a small portion of the 

Colville River would experience effects to these values from activities associated with 

Alternative B, primarily from an expected pipeline crossing of the river in an as yet

undetermined location. Specified buffer areas would provide substantial protection for the

Colville and other rivers, except in the area very near the pipeline crossing. Although pipeline 

crossings are discouraged in designated Wild and Scenic River areas, they are permissible, 

when unavoidable, if measures to minimize effects on the river’s outstandingly remarkable 

values are utilized. 

Wild and Scenic River designation is not planned or proposed for the Colville River, as noted in 

section 3.4.6.3, but the applicable lease stipulations and ROPs would preserve most, if not all, 

of the character and values that could qualify the river for designation in the future, if local and 

state political sentiments should ever determine designation to be favorable. A potential 

pipeline would not disrupt the requisite “free flowing” nature of the river and, to the degree

possible, it would be sited to avoid the areas specific to the “outstandingly remarkable values” 

noted above. Selection of a river crossing location for the pipeline would require a permit from 

BLM, which would afford an opportunity for more detailed review of effects on the Wild and

Scenic River eligibility of the Colville River. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Because a gas pipeline would likely be buried and because little recreation occurs in the 

planning area in the winter when construction would primarily occur, there would be very little 

impact to recreation from gas development. The exception might be if gas development 

prompted some development that would not occur if only oil could be developed. In those cases, 

impacts would be similar to those associated with oil development. Because Alternative B 

would make more lands available for leasing and development than Alternative A, it is more 

likely to create some impacts on recreation. 

4-365 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Recreational Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.4.16.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Although the lease stipulations and ROPs do not specifically address recreation activities and

there is no current intention to consider designation of wilderness or wild and scenic rivers in 

the planning area, many of the performance-based lease stipulations and ROPs required for 

development of Alternative B would serve to protect recreation values in the area. For example,

areas excluded from leasing and several ROPs and lease stipulations address protection of 

subsistence values and wildlife in the planning area. Also, surface activity and facility 

development restrictions serve to minimize potentially damaging activity in and near creeks, 

rivers and lakes. Since wildlife viewing, big game hunting and boating are major factors 

attracting recreationists to the planning area, these lease stipulations and ROPs associated 

with Alternative B also serve to protect and preserve recreation values. 

4.4.16.4 Conclusion 

There would be approximately 2,000 to 3,000 acres in temporary effects on recreation values 

from activities other than oil and gas exploration and development. Short-term (temporary) 

disturbance from ongoing oil and gas exploration activities would impact approximately 107,996 

acres. The “greening” of vegetation resulting from ice pads, roads, airstrips, and compacted 

snow would impact an additional 20,022 acres. Most of the combined 128,018 acres could be in 

a various state of recovery from the “greening” effect. Seismic operations would result in many 

hundreds to thousands of miles of trails. Short-term impacts such as trails and pads, 

disturbance from noise, aircraft and other on-going activities would not accumulate. 

Oil and gas development would result in the long-term loss of solitude, naturalness, or 

primitive/unconfined recreation opportunities over an area of approximately 549,780 acres (or 

11.9% of the planning area) for the life of production fields and pipelines. The area subject to

recreation impacts would be very similar to the impacts on recreation under Alternative A.

Lease stipulations to mitigate for these impacts would be similar for both alternatives. 

4.4.17 Visual Resources 

4.4.17.1 Activities Not Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative B, impacts to visual resources would result from on-the-ground management

activities, such as archaeological collection efforts, field camps, survey work, overland

movements, and hazardous and solid material removal and remediation activities and would be 

similar to Alternative A. The level of non oil and gas activity may increase under this

alternative, as a result of general increased interest in the area generated by the potential for 

more oil and gas development. 

Temporary structures (e.g., sleds, tents), vehicles (e.g., Rolligons, tractors), aircraft, human 

presence, and associated activities would have some minimal short-term impacts on visual 

resources or scenic quality by creating a contrast to the line, color, and texture of a primarily 

horizontal natural landscape. The colors of structures and equipment would contrast the white 

color of the snow-covered landscape and the various hues of greens and browns, and the smooth

texture of the facilities would contrast the varied textures of the windswept terrain and the 

irregular texture of vegetation. Non-oil and gas activities would need to occur within the 

Foreground-Middleground Zone of the viewshed in order to attract the attention of the casual 

observer. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-366 

Alternative B: Recreational Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

A longer-lasting impact would be trails, sometimes referred to as “green trails”, resulting from 

winter overland moves. Between 20 and 60 trains comprised of one to six vehicles and attached

sleds could engage in overland travel each year. These trails form when vehicles compact snow 

and dead vegetative material, resulting in a greater availability of moisture and nutrients for 

underlying vegetation the following growing season. Visible trails would not necessarily develop 

over the entire route of the overland move. Vegetation could be damaged along these trails and

the tops of tussocks could be scraped off, although current operating procedures would ensure

that such damage was an infrequent problem. Trails would be visible for about 2 to 5 years, but 

some trails may be visible for longer periods of time. However, because they visually modify 

existing vegetation, rather than introducing something foreign into the viewshed, trails would 

not produce much contrast to line, form, or texture. The color contrast would be minimal from 

ground view because of the natural variation in hue, and would be almost nonexistent from

more than a few hundred feet away. 

4.4.17.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Exploration 

Under Alternative B, impacts to visual resources from seismic surveys would be the same as 

Alternative A. The discussion is repeated here for convenience. 

Five seismic surveys would occur. Seismic work would occur in the winter using cat trains with 

low-ground-pressure vehicles supported by light aircraft. Seismic crews would be housed in 

mobile camps consisting of a train of trailer sleds pulled by tractors along different trails. These 

moving camps and associated activities would result in short-term impacts on visual resources 

and the scenic quality of the area by creating color contrast between the vehicles and trailers 

and the predominantly white background of the snow-covered landscape. These impacts would

be confined primarily to the activity-site viewshed. 

Trails resulting from seismic survey operations would result in a longer-lasting impact to visual 

resources. Unlike overland moves, seismic operations would not follow the same routes every

year, and the number of miles of survey line could vary greatly from year to year. In some years,

no surveys would occur. Like trails caused by overland moves, trails caused by seismic 

operations would not necessarily develop over the entire survey route, but where present would

be visible for about 2 to 5 years, but some trails may be visible for longer periods of time. 

Approximately 250 miles (6,060 acres) of lines would be surveyed using 2-D seismic surveys, 

while approximately 10,560 miles (98,880 acres) of lines could be surveyed during each 3-D 

seismic survey, potentially resulting in several thousand miles of trails. Mobile camp trails 

could add another 840 miles (3056 acres) of trails. Because trails visually modify existing 

vegetation, they would not produce much contrast to line, form, or texture. The color contrast 

would be minimal from ground view because of the natural variation in hue, and would be 

almost nonexistent from more than a few hundred feet away. 

Approximately 170 exploration and delineation wells would be drilled under this alternative, 19 

more than Alternative A but 40 less than Alternative C and 23 less than Alternative D. Given 

the limited number of drilling rigs available however, no more that six drilling rigs would likely 

be operating at any one time. Drill rigs (average height of 208 feet) would introduce strong 

vertical lines into a predominantly horizontal landscape. Because they are painted red, most 

drill rigs would also produce a strong visual contrast to the white background of the snowcovered landscape. Winter drilling requires lighting, which would create a visual contrast 

4-367 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Visual Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

against the dark night sky. Drill rigs, because of their height, could be seen and attract the 

attention of the casual observer if they were located within the Foreground-Middleground Zone

and Background Zone. 

In addition to the impacts that would result from ongoing exploratory drilling operations, the 

greening of vegetation under vacated ice pads, ice airstrips, and ice roads would cause impacts 

to visual resources during the summer. This greening of vegetation would be caused by the 

same conditions that create “green trails” — a greater availability of moisture and nutrients as 

ice or compacted snow melts. However, greening of vegetation would not necessarily occur 

everywhere ice facilities were constructed or snow was compacted. There would also be a “ring 

effect” around ice pads, ice airstrips, and ice roads caused by the death of vegetation adjacent to 

these snow and ice structures. Winter facilities inclusive of 170 ice pads (6 acres each), 30 

airstrips (11 acres each), and 6,162 miles of ice roads (3 acres per mile) would result in as many 

as 20,022 acres that would be in various states of recovery from greening and ring effects under 

Alternative B (16,768 acres in Alternative A; 23,463 acres in Alternative C; and 20,202 acres in 

Alternative D). Because greening and ring effects visually modify existing vegetation, they

would not produce much contrast to line, form, or texture. The color contrast would be minimal 

from ground view because of the natural variation in hue, and would be almost nonexistent 

from more that a few hundred feet away. 

Dry exploration wells would be cut off and plugged below ground level and temporally leave 

only a small area barren of vegetation while exploration wells with production potential would 

leave behind a marker pipe (also known as a Christmas tree), which would likely be less than 6 

feet tall and no larger than a square foot on the surface. This marker pipe would essentially be a 

permanent impact, but would be almost unnoticeable from several hundred feet. 

Effects of Development 

Production rigs (two with an average height of 208 feet) would introduce strong vertical lines 

into a predominantly horizontal landscape. Because they are painted red, most drill rigs would 

also introduce strong contrast to the natural browns landforms and greens of the vegetation. In 

addition, burn-off flares and general work lighting would contrast against the dark night sky. 

Drill rigs, because of their height and color, could be seen and dominate the attention of the 

casual observer if they were located within the Foreground-Middleground Zone and Background

Zone. 

It is estimated that long-term surface disturbance from three staging bases (50 acres each), six 

pump stations (20 acres each) and six CPFs (90 acres each) would impact 810 acres (650 acres 

in Alternative A; 970 acres in Alternative C; and 810 acres in Alternative D). These facilities 

would introduce strong vertical lines from buildings into the landscape of predominately soft 

horizontal lines. There would also be a visual contrast between the simple, regular form of the 

buildings and the complex, irregular forms of the vegetation. Colors of buildings and materials 

would be in contrast with the greens, browns, and blues of vegetation and water bodies. Some of 

the buildings could be up to three stories in height above the tundra, and would attract and 

dominate the view of the casual observer if located within the Foreground-Middleground Zone. 

Production pads (25 at 10 acres each),250 miles of infield roads (1,938 acres), six airstrips (11 

acres each), 13 gravel pits (50 acres each), and 250 miles of infield gathering pipelines (760 

acres) would impact 3,664 acres (2,818 acres in Alternative A; 4,649 acres in Alternative C; and 

4,538 acres in Alternative D). The gravel pads, airstrips and infield roads would generally be 

only 3 to 5 feet above the surrounding green tundra, and would be relatively unnoticeable 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-368 

Alternative B: Visual Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

beyond a few thousand feet. Infield gathering pipelines (4-10 inches in diameter) would

introduce shiny and smooth horizontal lines into a natural landscape. They would also 

introduce regularly spaced vertical supports into an irregular horizontal landscape, but would 

be associated with other facilities within the disturbance area. Disturbance associated with 

gravel sites from borrow pits or below ground bedrock would generally occur below the ground

surface, with only stockpiled materials being visible aboveground. While these sites could be 

large in size or footprint, very little material would remain as stockpile at any one time. Gravel 

mine sites from above ground bedrock locations may produce visual impacts if material is 

removed from rock outcrops within the area. This mining activity would change the form of the 

natural landscape and may be visible from the Foreground-Middleground Zone. 

It is anticipated that as many as 162 miles of sales oil and main pipelines, impacting up to 491 

acres (3 acres per mile) would be constructed under Alternative B (162 miles, 491 acres in 

Alternative A and D, and 182 miles, 551 acres in Alternative C). There would be no on-theground activities associated with sales oil and main pipelines, except during construction and

repair. Sales oil and main pipelines (12-20 inches diameter) would introduce shiny and smooth

horizontal lines into the naturally irregular brown and green landscape. They would also 

introduce regularly spaced vertical supports into an irregular horizontal landscape. All 

pipelines would be elevated at least seven feet above the surrounding tundra, but could be 

elevated as high as 20 feet above ground level. At these elevations, pipelines would attract and

dominate the attention of the casual observer if located within the Foreground-Middleground 

Zone and Background Zone. 

Other facilities associated with development would include bridges and communications towers. 

If located within the Foreground-Middleground Zone, bridges, because of their contrast with 

smooth water bodies, and communications towers, because of vertical height above the horizon,

would also be likely to attract the attention of a casual observer. 

Vehicle traffic on roads during construction and other production activities would create shortterm noticeable visual impacts through the creation of dust. Summer vehicle travel off gravel 

pads and roads would be very limited, but may cause changes color from the natural landscape 

by causing damage to vegetation and possibly the tundra mat. These changes would be limited 

to the Foreground-Middleground Zone. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

During abandonment and rehabilitation activities, vehicle traffic on roads would create shortterm noticeable visual impacts through the creation of dust. Gravel pads and roads may or may 

not be removed and may or may not be revegetated with native species or other appropriate 

vegetative materials. Once closure and abandonment activities, including revegetation are 

completed, the strong contrasts with the surrounding vegetation colors created by structures, 

such as pipelines and buildings, gravel pads, roads and airstrips would be eliminated. If gravel 

is not removed and not revegetated, long-term color contrasts would remain between the gravel 

areas and the surrounding natural vegetation. 

Effects of Spills 

Most small spills would be confined to a pad. Small spills not confined to a pad would usually be 

confined to the limited area immediately around the pad or pipeline, and usually impact less 

than five acres. With proper containment and clean-up, there would be no new visual impacts 

associated with small spills estimated to occur 2,070 times over the life of oil and gas activities 

4-369 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Visual Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

in the planning area under this alternative (1,792 in Alternative A; 2,503 in Alternative C; and 

2,287 in Alternative D). 

Large spills, estimated to occur about three times during the life of oil and gas activities in the 

planning area, would likely reach beyond the gravel pad and enter the environment. Impacts 

associated with visual resources would be to the surrounding vegetation and result in a contrast 

in color between the affected vegetation and soil, and the natural landscape. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Impacts to visual resources associated with surface disturbance and surface facilities for 

development and production of natural gas infrastructure would be similar to those described 

for oil development, though there would be no impacts from an oil spill. If natural gas 

production facilities are associated with existing oil infrastructure there would be some 

additional visual impacts associated with pipeline offset impacting additional acres if gas is 

transported on separate aboveground VSMs. If a gas pipeline is buried, there would be some 

change in line, color, and texture. These changes would result from the disturbance of irregular,

predominately green, rough vegetation to a more regular, brown, smooth area of soil as seen

within the Foreground–Middleground Zone. Facilities associated with a compressor station 

along a gas pipeline would introduce vertical, blocky, colored facilities similar to CPF structures 

into a predominately horizontal, green, irregular landscape and be visible within the 

Foreground-Middleground Zone and the Background Zone from some locations. These facilities 

would impact additional acres. It is anticipated that Alternative B would create more such 

impacts because it would make more lands available for leasing and gas development. 

4.4.17.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Although there are no ROPs and lease stipulations specific to visual resources, ROPs and lease 

stipulations designed to minimize impacts to solid and hazardous wastes; regulate overland 

moves, seismic work, and exploratory drilling; and regulate facility design, construction, and 

siting would reduce the visual impacts that would occur under Alternative B. In addition, 

approximately 213,000 acres would be unavailable for leasing and development, further 

protecting visual values around Teshekpuk Lake. Restricted Surface Occupancy (RSO) 

stipulations on approximately 977,000 acres will help reduce impacts to visual resources by 

restricting certain activities associated with exploration and oil and gas development (see Map

2-2). 

4.4.17.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative B, as many as 11,650 miles of seismic and camp lines will impact 107,996 

acres. This is the same as under Alternative A, C and D. Other temporary facilities such as ice 

roads, pads and airstrips, associated with exploratory drilling would impact up to 20,022 

additional acres. Most of the combined 128,018 acres could be in various states of recovery from 

greening and ring effects. It is anticipated that up to 412 miles of pipelines would be constructed 

under this alternative, creating surface disturbance of up to 1,251 acres. There could also be 

approximately 3,714 acres of disturbance associated with gravel pads, roads, gravel sites, pump 

stations, staging bases, and Central Processing Facilities. Visual impacts associated with this 

alternative would be approximately 2.9% of the planning area. Approximately 213,000 acres 

would be unavailable to leasing and development around Teshekpuk Lake while another 

977,000 acres would have Restricted Surface Occupancy stipulations. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-370 

Alternative B: Visual Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.4.18 Economy 

4.4.18.1 Activities Not Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Impacts of non-oil and gas activities are likely to be the same as those for Alternative A.

Recreational river rafting will occur in the planning area, primarily on the Colville River. BLM 

estimates (Table 4.2-A) up to 22 trips each made by 4 persons taking place each year. 

Employment generated by this activity would result from air taxi service and guide service. 

Neither of these services originate within the planning area. Air taxi services used for Colville 

River access originate in Bettles, Kotzebue, Fairbanks, and Coldfoot. Guides originate in 

Bettles, but may also originate from other locales in Alaska outside the North Slope, or may 

originate outside Alaska entirely.(Delaney 2007) Permitted commercial guided activities will 

result in fees to the Federal government. Operators or guides pay approximately $600 per year 

for BLM permits. BLM estimates their clients pay $1,200-$1,500 each for a trip. 

Other activities such as research or surveys, various ground activities, and aircraft use not

related to petroleum are shown in Table 4.2-A, Summary of Selected Non-Oil and Gas Related 

Management Activities. North Slope Borough residents may be employed in some of these 

activities, as will be other Alaskans and nonresidents. 

4.4.18.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

In Alternative B, activities will proceed in a manner and order similar to Alternative A. Peak 

production in this alternative is calculated at 73.5 million barrels in 2051, 2061, and 2071. Up 

to 6 central processing facilities will be in operation during the life of the fields. Ultimately, 

about 10% more wells will be drilled compared to Alternative A. The year 2021 initiates 

substantial production for this alternative (31.9 MM bbl). 

Revenues 

Bonus bids generated in leasing may total as much as $48.8 million. Approximately 370,000 

acres of previously unavailable land will be offered for lease. Exploration, development, and 

production activities are estimated to generate property tax revenue to the North Slope Borough 

of about $37 million early in the development of the operation. Other local, state, and Federal 

revenues are also anticipated to increase under this Alternative. The estimated 2045 royalty 

payments split equally by the State of Alaska and the Federal government is over $1 billion. 

State Taxes will be approximately $89 million, and federal income tax will be over $1 billion. In 

addition, $606 million in state severance taxes could be generated in 2045. These estimates are 

based upon average imported crude oil prices in 2005 dollars from the Annual Energy Outlook 

2007. 

Table 4.4-B. Alternative B Revenues (in millions of 2005 dollars) 

Alternative 

/Revenue 

Bonus 

Bids 

Royalty Property 

Tax 

State Tax Federal Tax Severence 

Tax 

Year 2021 2045 2021 2045 2021 2045 2021 2045 2021 2045 

B 48.8 325 1,193 37 192 31 90 347 1,015 165 606 

4-371 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Economy 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Employment 

In this alternative we expect 6 exploratory wells each year in five year increments as a lease is 

explored. Additional fields will also be delineated by exploratory wells ten to thirty years after 

initial activity. Therefore, long before exploratory drilling is complete, development wells, 

central processing facilities, roads, pipelines, airstrips, will be under construction. Direct 

employment will be higher than Alternative A, as high as 3300 by 2045 when three CPFs are 

operating, a fourth under construction, with wells and infrastructure being added. Indirect 

employment will mirror the increases in direct employment. 

Table 4.4-C. Potential Employment for selected years under Alternative B 

Tasks/Alternative Year Total 

Direct 

Total 

Indirect 

NSB 

Direct 

NSB 

Indirect 

Survey 2008-9 Same as A Same as A Same as A Same as A 

Exploratory well 

drilling 

2010-15 180-360 500-1000 12-24 8-16 

CPF, and 

infrastructure 

development 

2016 400-600 same as A same as A same as A 

CPF operation 

development well 

drilling, sale line 

construction 

2017 500-680 same as A same as A same as A 

Pad, development wells 

road, pipe, 3 CPFs in 

operation, CPF under 

construction 

2045 1600-3300 2000-4100 100-230 80-165 

Commercial Gas Development 

Natural gas development and production from the NPR-A would generate additional 

employment. Construction of pipelines would provide substantial numbers of construction jobs 

for the winter seasons of installation. It is likely that a portion of construction workers would 

reside in the NSB. Once in operation, gas development would not result in substantial 

increases in employment over that associated with oil production. However, if gas development

occurs as oil production is decreasing or ceasing, the addition or shift to gas production may 

prolong employment from planning area petroleum production. Development would generate

additional property taxes and royalty income for the NSB and State, more severance taxes for 

the state, and additional royalties for the Federal government. To the extent that industry is 

attracted to bid on leases for their gas rather than oil production potential, gas development 

opportunities could increase interest and bid amounts at lease sales within Northeast NPR-A, 

providing additional revenues for the Federal and state governments. Alternative B offers more 

land for oil and gas leasing than Alternative A, so it is anticipated to have more impact on 

employment and revenues than Alternative A. 

4.4.18.3 Conclusion 

Employment and some of the revenues generated by oils and gas exploration and development 

would be greater in Alternative B than under Alternative A. By 2045, approximately $192 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-372 

Alternative B: Economy 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

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 3,600 to 7,400 during 2045. The number of resident jobs generated 

would be 180 to 395 in the same year. The likelihood for disruptions to the harvest of 

subsistence resources and associated economic impacts would be greater than under Alternative 

A. 

4.4.19 Public Health 

4.4.19.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative B, activities such as baseline data collection, cataloguing of cultural 

resources, biological monitoring, and the potential for increased tourism because of interest

generated by leasing in the area could all lead to short term disturbances. It is not anticipated 

that these activities would be more frequent under Alternative B than under Alternative A. 

Thus, the health effects from activities not associated with oil and gas exploration and

development under Alternative B would be similar to those described under Alternative A. This 

type of disturbance could have health effects, but they would also be sporadic and limited to 

individuals or families. On an individual basis, these impacts could be highly significant. But 

because the activities not associated with oil and gas development are expected to be short term, 

localized, and sporadic, they would not be expected to result in overall population health 

changes. 

4.4.19.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbances 

The public health effects of Alternative B would be similar in nature, but greater in magnitude 

than those associated with Alternative A. Revenue to the NSB and state may be somewhat 

higher under Alternative B than the no action alternative, but the difference would likely be 

spread over many years of development, and thus are not expected to result in marked

differences in the annual revenue stream compared with Alternative A. Increases in the amount 

of area available for leasing and exploration would likely correspond with increases in the 

reduction of subsistence harvests as discussed in section 4.4.12. The development proposed for

the planning area would require increased staging and overland travel during the winter, and

in summer would require increased use of aircraft for supplies, equipment, and crew changes, as

compared to Alternative A. In turn, this would result in a relative increase in presence of oil 

industry personnel in the villages and subsistence areas. In all seasons, noise, lights, 

personnel, and traffic near oil and gas-related infrastructure could temporarily deflect or divert 

caribou in areas where activities are occurring; however, gravel pads could attract caribou 

during some seasons as insect-relief habitat. These effects could change the distribution, timing, 

and location of the caribou harvest, which could require increased effort and expenditure, travel 

time and risk on the part of subsistence hunters, resulting in sociocultural consequences such as

increased stress and a decreased sense of well-being. 

1. Diabetes Hypertension, and Associated Metabolic Disorders

As described in section 4.3.19, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension – collectively 

termed “metabolic disorders” here, would result if the proportion of the diet made up of 

4-373 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Economy 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

subsistence foods decreased significantly. Metabolic disorders are disproportionately common 

in AI/AN groups compared with the U.S. population. However, because of the high consumption 

of subsistence foods in communities depending on the planning area, rates of diabetes in the

North Slope Inupiat are among the lowest in the U.S., including among non-natives (Naylor et 

al 2003; Bjerregaard and Jorgensen 2004; Zinman; Murphy et al 1997; Young et al 1992; 

Bjerregaard, Young et al 2004). Hence subsistence constitutes the primary protection against 

these disorders, and any substantial decrease in subsistence harvest would place communities 

at higher risk. 

Under Alternative B, the most likely impacts to subsistence would be displacement of hunters; 

displacement of animals from traditional hunting areas as well as population decline resulting 

from activities in the planning area could also occur. The risk of these problems would be 

increased in Alternative B compared to Alternative A owing to leasing in a greater percentage of 

the region, including areas felt to be particularly ecologically sensitive. 

Modernization and acculturation pressures also tend to foster a shift toward a ‘western’ diet, 

and so the sociocultural effects outlined in section 4.4.13 could also contribute to a general 

decline in subsistence intake (Schraer and Bulkow 1993; Curtis, Kvernmo 2005; Nobman, Ponce 

et. Al 2005; Condon et al 1994). 

2. Food Insecurity and Hunger

As described in Alternative A, food insecurity and hunger are serious medical problems even 

before malnutrition or starvation set in. Impacts to subsistence resources – and the potential 

for impacts before they actually occur – would be greater under Alternative B than Alternative 

A. Both food insecurity and hunger would be likely to increase under alternative B if significant 

decreases in harvest success occur. In such a scenario, kinship and sharing networks could be 

stretched thin. Replacing subsistence foods with store bought foods would be both extremely

costly and far less nutritious; the expense of buying high-quality foods in remote Alaskan 

villages is often prohibitive (Bersamin, Luick et al 2006; Lamden, Receveur et al. 2006). To our 

knowledge, there are no cases of severe protein-calorie malnutrition or starvation in Alaska in 

recent years. This is likely because of the national and state programs such as food stamps and 

general assistance, as well as kinship and sharing networks, all of which provide a ‘safety net.’ 

Under Alternative B, it is not certain whether these programs would be enough to make up for 

harvest losses if impacts to subsistence were severe. Starvation is felt to be highly unlikely in 

view of national, state, and NSB support, but malnutrition could occur in the unlikely event of a

severe reduction in the availability of subsistence foods. . 

3. Social Pathology (assault, alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence, suicide, and 

homicide)

Social pathology would be more likely under Alternative B than under Alternative A, but would

be less likely overall than under Alternative C. Factors which would influence rates include the 

following. The influx of large numbers of workers and the chance that new roads could be built 

connecting the planning area with the road system (although roads are not anticipated) would 

effectively provide routes for more ready importation of illicit alcohol and drugs; this would also 

place a heavy burden on already taxed local law enforcement. Data shows that social pathology 

is related to access to alcohol in Alaska Native villages, and that VPSO support in villages can 

substantially improve well-being (Wood and Gruenewald 2006; ANTHC 2006; Chiu and Perez 

1998; Martin 2005). Perceived and actual threats to subsistence (which could be greater under 

Alternative B), coupled with the industrialization of highly valued subsistence lands, would be 

sources of increasing stress and tension, factors which would also tend to increase social 

pathology. This effect could be particularly severe if subsistence sharing networks were 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-374 

Alternative B: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

interrupted by the restriction of subsistence. Sociocultural change, or “acculturation,” is 

associated with intense contacts with outside social systems and cultures, such as would occur 

under this alternative with the influx of oil workers to from outside the region. Rapid

sociocultural change is well-established as a cause of social pathology and related health 

problems in Arctic Indigenous populations (Curtis, Kvernmo et al 2005; Bjerregaard 2001; 

Wexler 2006). These effects would likely be most intense in Nuiqsut, which lies between the 

road system and the planning area, but might be experienced by Anaktuvuk Pass, Wainwright, 

Atqasuk, and Barrow as well as development of the region expands. Interruption of sharing 

networks, if severe enough, could have effects on other villages as well. Stress produced by the 

loss of traditionally important hunting range, and the fear of curtailed ability to continue 

pursuing a subsistence way of life, frustration and feelings of disempowerment regarding land 

use planning and regulation and the development of important and highly valued subsistence 

areas, food insecurity, and the longer travel distances and more difficult hunting conditions 

produced by displacement of subsistence resources and hunters by oil infrastructure would all 

contribute to increases in stress and social pathology. Rosemary Ahtuangaruak, a former 

Mayor, community health aide, and physician’s assistant in Nuiqsut, described the link between

subsistence and social pathology: 

When our people can feed themselves, they're very happy. They don't care if they don't 

have a job as long as they're providing for their families, as long as they have the hope in 

their mind of the possibility to provide for their families. You take away that hope, and 

you're going to have many, many people that we lose to the ills of social ills. (Rosemary 

Ahtuangaruak, in MMS 2001).On the other hand, data from other populations has fairly 

consistently shown that economic development and increased employment generally 

have favorable impacts on rates of social pathology. Travis (1987) showed that in 

Inupiat communities, the increased risk of suicide caused by rapid modernization and 

acculturation is mitigated to some degree by economically favorable conditions. Haley 

(2004) found that strong preexisting economic systems helped a North Slope community 

cope with the rapid economic change brought by development. One study, however, 

found that in Inupiat communities, increased employment was not always associated 

with improved well-being, because of the tensions created between work and subsistence 

(Martin 2005). However, most North Slope residents tend to view employment 

opportunities as a positive, particularly if flexibility to allow continued active 

participation in subsistence can be built into the work schedule. 

Overall, the trend toward increases in social pathology would be most dependent on impacts to 

subsistence traditions, sharing networks, and the degree to which the proposed action results in 

illicit importation of drugs or alcohol. The stress associated with widespread community fears 

about the implications of leasing in this area is evident in community testimony, and will likely 

contribute to social pathology regardless of actual impacts from development in the region. 

Improved employment and income opportunity would offset these problems to some degree, but 

overall trends in social pathology would likely mirror the trends toward socio-cultural 

disruption as described in section 4.4.13. 

4. Injury

Under alternative B, injury rates could be higher than those anticipated under Alternative A. 

As summarized in section 3.4.10 injury is the second leading cause of death in the North Slope,

and the leading reason for non-obstetric hospitalization. Injury rates tend to parallel social 

pathology, reflecting alcohol-related injury, suicide, and rates of violence (ANTHC 2006, injury 

statistics). Under Alternative B, injury rates would tend to parallel the trend toward increased

social pathology described above. Additionally, the potential for displacement of hunters and 

4-375 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

subsistence resources could compound this problem, as longer and more difficult hunts would be 

associated with a higher risk for injury as well. 

The public safety system would face additional stresses coping with large numbers of oil 

workers entering communities and traveling through the region, making it difficult for 

communities to adequately enforce prohibition laws. Studies in the region have shown a strong

association between adequate VPSO support, effective prohibition laws, and decreased injury 

rates (Wood and Gruenewald 2006). 

5. Health Problems related to EPA Criteria Pollutants 

Airborne emissions produced by exploration and development under Alternative B are projected

to be modestly greater than under Alternative A (section 4.4.1). However, we estimate that 

the overall contribution of emissions to PSD class II requirements would be small. EPA Criteria 

Pollutants (NOx, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, ozone, lead, and CO) are associated with a range of acute

health effects, including exacerbation of chronic lung disease and asthma, increased risk of 

cardiac arrhythmias, exacerbation of atherosclerotic coronary artery disease, and excess overall 

mortality, particularly among vulnerable groups such as young children, elders, and people with 

chronic illnesses. According to the EPA, PM2.5 in particular is associated with “increased 

respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing, for 

example; decreased lung function; aggravated asthma; development of chronic bronchitis; 

irregular heartbeat; nonfatal heart attacks; and premature death in people with heart or lung 

disease” (EPA 2005). 

Current air quality assessments on the North Slope are based on scientific judgment and 

limited modeling. Both EPA and the State of Alaska have established legal limits for air 

pollution based on scientific evidence, known as Ambient Air Quality Standards, to protect 

public health, including the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and 

the elderly. However, according to EPA analysis and several independent studies, substantial 

health effects accrue at even levels below NAAQS standards, down to ambient levels (Ostro et al 

2006; USEPA 2006b). The health effects include higher overall mortality rates and higher loss 

of ‘quality adjusted life years,’ a measure which takes into account time lost from illness. From 

the standpoint of the North Slope population, one of the most important findings of these data is 

that the impacts fall disproportionately to vulnerable populations (elderly, very young, and 

people with chronic illnesses. Given the baseline health disparities described in section 3.4.10, 

then, North Slope communities would face substantial risk from increased particulate 

emissions, even if air quality continued to meet NAAQS standards. The state of Alaska, 

however, has not yet adopted a standard for PM2.5, for which the EPA established regulatory 

criteria more recently. The deadline for the state to adopt new PM2.5 standards is December 

2007. Consequently, there are no data available for PM2.5 levels on the North Slope. 

The NSB has expressed strong concern that the models used to predict air quality on the North

Slope have not been adequately validated, particularly in view of the arctic climate conditions. 

The NSB and AI-TC have further asserted that, because of the health disparities and 

vulnerabilities in North Slope villages (including the high prevalence of certain cancers and 

pulmonary disease, as described in section 3.4.10), it is critically important to establish a 

scientifically robust monitoring program to validate the current predictions. 

Under Alternative B, given that development would occur closer to actively used subsistence 

camps and hunting areas, the increased emissions compared with Alternative A may result in a

greater risk of exacerbation of chronic pulmonary disease, and cardiovascular and pulmonary 

mortality among vulnerable groups. However, occasional exposure to acute low air-quality 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-376 

Alternative B: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

events is more likely than chronic exposure to poor air quality. Due to the distance of potential 

development from most population centers, substantial reductions in village air quality is 

unlikely. 

6. Health Problems Related to Other Contaminants 

Under Alternative B, development could occur over much of the most important subsistence

range in the North Slope region. Emissions would be greater than under Alternative A because 

of the greater extent of exploration and development-related activities. Oil spills are another 

route through which contaminants could contact the human population, either directly or 

through pollution of air, water, and subsistence resources. North Slope residents have

expressed concern that development in the Teshekpuk Lake region would pose a particular 

danger because of its proximity to resources and popular hunting areas. 

Public health data support the link between contaminants produced by oil development, and the

risk of cancer, endocrine disruption, and cognitive disorders (Jacobsen et al 1996; Arctic 

Monitoring and Assessment Program 2003; Cone 2005). Data from other communities in which 

the “total petroleum hydrocarbons” concentrated in water (from air and waterborne sources) has

documented a correlation between proximity to oil and gas exploration and production and 

health outcomes, including cancer and miscarriages (San Sebastian, Armstrong 2001, 2002; 

Hurtig, San Sebastian 2002.) However, NSB and state monitoring to date has indicated that 

the subsistence food supply in the North Slope region as a whole is quite safe, and have 

concluded that the “benefits of a traditional food diet far outweigh relative risks posed by 

consumption of small amounts of contaminants in traditional foods” (Alaska Native Health 

Board, 1999). 

An accurate determination of specific HAP quantities and potential impacts is not feasible at 

this stage, given that particular site-specific development activities and pollution controls are

not yet able to be predicted. Furthermore, there are few direct data addressing water or air 

concentrations of many contaminants in the region, nor are there data regarding levels of these 

contaminants in the human population. HAP are a source of great concern for North Slope 

residents, who feel that their exposure to contaminants is likely to be significantly greater than 

the general population because of their extraordinarily high rates of consumption of fish and 

game which feed in the region. 

Thus, although data support the conclusion that the overall benefits of maintaining an active 

subsistence lifestyle, culture, and diet outweigh the unproven risks posed by North Slope 

contaminants, data are insufficient to allow accurate modeling of the public health risks under 

this alternative. The level of predicted development activity and the extent of reliance on

resources in the area, however, suggest that there is justification for concern, investigation, 

monitoring, and efforts to minimize potential routes of exposure. 

7. Infectious Disease 

As outlined in section 3.4.10, the prevalence of pulmonary disease is high; rates of HIV and

syphilis are substantially lower in the North Slope than in the Alaskan and U.S. general 

population (Alaska Department of Public Health 2002 and 2005); Chlamydia rates are much 

higher in Alaska Natives than non-Natives in Alaska – there are no north Slope-specific data 

available at this time (Alaska Department of Public Health 2006). In our discussions with 

health care providers in the region, many commented that the North Slope community appears 

particularly vulnerable to respiratory infections. This observation has been made in other 

coastal Alaska Native populations as well (Singleton, Bruden et al. 2006). 

4-377 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Under Alternative B, there would be a greater potential for transmission of infectious diseases 

than under alternative A, owing to a greater projected level of activity in the region, including 

greater influx of workers from outside the region (refer to section 4.4.18). Transmission of 

respiratory infectious would be of greatest concern to vulnerable members of the community, 

including people with chronic illnesses and elders. Under Alternative B, an influx of personnel 

from outside of Alaska – where HIV and syphilis rates are generally substantially higher – 

could expose villages to a significant risk of increased incidence of these diseases. The NSB 

health department has tried in the past to address this problem though sending boxes of 

condoms to oil camps near villages, but existing resources in the NSB have not allowed a more 

coordinated public health effort to study or monitor transmission rates, nor to develop a more 

detailed public health approach to prevention. Diarrheal illnesses, common in groups of 

workers living and working in small enclosed facilities such as oil camps, could also pose a 

threat if infection spread to the community. Permanent roads linking the planning area with 

the road system could be allowed under Alternative B. Although considered unlikely, if 

constructed, permanent roads could lead to increased travel to and from the planning area, and 

thus serve as another potential source of exposure to infectious diseases. 

8. Social Determinants of Health 

Alternative B would be associated with more impact on the social determinants of health than 

Alternative A. Adverse effects would come from greater impacts on subsistence and

sociocultural systems as described in sections 4.4.12 and 4.4.13, leading to stress and 

decreased social capital; there would be greater influx of non-Native employees through the 

villages (section 4.4.18), leading to acculturation stresses; there would be a tendency toward 

more problems of addiction, as described under “social pathology” above; if the increased

development activity anticipated under this scenario translates into increased income to local 

native corporations, there could be increases in relative income disparity within villages; and 

there would be feelings of frustration, loss, disempowerment, and anger over the 

industrialization of a region of special and unique importance to Inupiat culture. Referring to 

Table 4.3-D, these issues would impact social determinants including the social gradient, stress, 

social capital, and culture, income inequality, and environmental quality, all of which have welldocumented public health implications. 

There would be substantial benefits as well. Increases in employment and income would tend 

to benefit community well-being, particularly if local communities are able to work out adequate 

provisions for subsistence leave; income would also facilitate subsistence. As stated previously,

the funding for infrastructure, public safety, and public health, as well as employment in the 

NSB comes almost entirely from oil and gas development, and this alternative would offer 

greater revenue to continue these programs. 

Thus it is possible to identify both positive and adverse impacts to the social determinants of 

health from Alternative B. Given the central importance of subsistence to community wellbeing, if subsistence livelihoods are impacted such that communities are forced to substantially 

reduce their reliance on subsistence, it is likely that there would be an overall adverse impact 

on communities. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

The North Slope economy and citizens have become heavily dependent on revenue from oil and

gas development. Under Alternative B, revenue, employment, and income related to

development would be higher than under Alternative A (see section 4.4.18). This could lead to 

greater dependence on economic resources, and a shift in the balance of the “mixed wage workChapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-378 

Alternative B: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

subsistence” economy. After the termination of development, revenues to the NSB and local 

Native corporations could decline considerably. The rehabilitation work available may lead to a 

transient increase in employment, but this could be followed by a period of significant economic 

contraction, both because of decreasing NSB revenues and because of loss of direct jobs. As 

noted previously, economic depression and job loss are strongly associated with social pathology, 

which would likely increase during this period. It is possible that subsistence resources could 

become more readily accessible after a period of adjustment, but this must be viewed as highly 

speculative in view of the baseline of rapid ecosystem change. If this occurred, it would help 

offset effect of decreasing capital available for purchase and repair of hunting equipment and

fuel purchase. The decline of these revenues is likely to have profound effects. It is not at all 

clear whether people will be able to resume their pre-development way of life, whether 

subsistence resources will have become depleted, contaminated, or displaced, or how people will 

continue to support a lifestyle which depends heavily on modern technology. Viewed from the 

perspective of the social determinants of health, this period will have substantial implications 

for health given the large-scale economic and employment transition anticipated. Another 

concern would come from the potential leakage of contaminants from wells and dumpsites: 

residents have expressed concern that if the area is less stringently monitored after 

development ceases, contamination of rivers, lakes, and estuarine habitats could ensue and 

would be missed, with substantial implications for human health. 

Effects of Oil Spills 

Oil spills can affect human health in a number of ways. Direct contamination can produce 

toxicological effects; rashes and respiratory symptoms have been documented after acute

exposure (Lyons, Temple et al. 1999). Longer-term effects from contamination of subsistence 

resources by organic compounds such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons could lead to chronic

exposure-related illnesses such as cancer, birth defects, miscarriages, and endocrine disruption 

(AMAP 2002; San Sebastian, Armstrong et al. 2001, 2002). Social and psychological effects of 

large oil spills are also a significant source of morbidity. Residents in the vicinity of an oil spill 

have been shown to have higher rates of anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder 

(Palinkas, Petterson et al 1993; Lyons, Temple et al 1993). A large oil spill could result in a

significant decrease in subsistence activity, as was seen after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In 

turn, this would to marked changes in social organization, decreased social capital, decreased

consumption of subsistence foods, and an attendant increased risk of social pathology, injury, 

and diabetes and metabolic disorders (re. social capital and EVOS: Ritchie and Gill 2004). The 

magnitude of these problems would depend largely on the extent of the spill, and the degree to 

which it impacted local subsistence resources. Under Alternative B, the risk of a large spill is 

estimated to be mildly increased compared with Alternative A, raising the chance that some of 

these health problems could occur. 

4.4.19.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

When considering the effectiveness of stipulations and ROPs in mitigating public health effects, 

it must be recognized that because the Inupiat people continue to value this land deeply as a 

foundation of well-being and culture, any measure which contributes to minimizing the 

environmental impacts of development in the region can be seen as contributing positively 

toward overall health and well-being. On the other hand, North Slope residents and the North 

Slope Borough have expressed a great deal of concern that the new “adaptive management” 

strategy adopted in Alternatives B, C and D may result in considerable weakening of 

protections for the area, and well as creating a situation of perpetual flux and uncertainty as 

the increased flexibility offered under the new system creates the opportunity for important 

4-379 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

protections to be overridden by economic and industry concerns. Hence, from this perspective,

the entire adaptive management program may be seen as a significant stressor, with the 

attendant health problems as described in section 4.4.19.2 on social determinants of health 

above. 

ROPs A-1 though A-3 and A-5 establish standards for handling of waste and fuels, and through 

the environmental protection they afford would lessen the risk of environmental or subsistence 

resource contamination, thereby protecting health. ROP A-4 and E-4 would help with 

prevention and response to oil spills. To the extent that these measures prove effective in 

preventing contamination of the environment through oil spills, they would protect human 

health through preventing exposure to contaminants and protecting the availability and safety 

of subsistence resources. ROPs A-6 and A-7 establish restrictions on discharge of contaminants 

in waste from the development phase, and again, to the extent that they prevent environmental 

contamination would prevent contaminants from causing health problems through contact with

the human environment. ROP B-1 and B-2 and Stipulations D-1, E-1 through E-3, and E-6 

would help to protect fish habitat and subsistence fisheries. Stipulation D-2 would prevent

permanent facilities, thereby conserving habitat for subsistence resources, with the resultant 

effects. However, the standard only applies if it is economical not to build permanent facilities, 

hence offering a significant chance that a lessee will be able to build permanent facilities as 

needed, and weakening the protection offered. ROP E-1 would allow construction of permanent 

roads between the road system and the planning area, which could entail significant impacts on 

subsistence resources and, if the roads pass through or near local communities they could also 

create substantial social strain and social pathology. Road design is required to attempt to 

create minimal environmental impacts. ROP E-7 would attempt to minimize obstruction of 

caribou migration and subsistence hunters through raising pipelines a minimum of 7 ft. 

Stipulations K-I through K-8 establish protections in biologically sensitive areas, through such

methods as setbacks from lakes and rivers, RSO requirements, and limitations on where and 

when activities such as flights can occur. To the extent that these measures actually result in 

protection of the environment and subsistence resources in the planning area, they would

reduce the risk of metabolic disorders (because subsistence diets would be less impacted), social 

pathology (because there would be less disturbance to campsites, cabins, and hunters), injury

(both directly because subsistence resources might not be displaced as far, and indirectly, 

because maladaptive coping such as alcohol and drug abuse might be less). 

ROPs H-1 and H-2 would establish a consultation process to attempt to lessen conflicts between 

local inhabitants and industry over activities which might restrict subsistence or disturb 

residents in campsites and cabins in the area. To the extent that conflicts are successfully 

mediated through this measure, it would help prevent subsistence-related health problems and 

social pathology. However, it would also create a substantially increased burden on

communities, who would be called on frequently during the planning and development process 

to participate in consultation to protect their interests. The increased stress involved could lead 

to increased pathology. 

ROP I-1 establishes an orientation program designed to educate and inform industry employees

regarding the local environment, regulations, and culture of the Inupiat people. To the extent 

that a single annual orientation program is capable of changing human behavior, this ROP may 

be effective at minimizing cultural conflicts between Inupiat residents and oil workers. 

Overall, the extent to which the Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures for

Alternative B mitigate human health concerns will depend on the degree to which the flexibility 

they provide is enforced to protect the local environment; to the degree to which they prevent 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-380 

Alternative B: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

impacts to subsistence resource populations, displacement of subsistence resources, and 

displacement of hunters and their families; on the efficacy of controls on environmental 

contamination, on measures to reassure the community regarding their concerns about 

environmental contamination; and on the degree to which they prevent the adverse

consequences of sociocultural change and support the positive aspects associated with 

employment and economic opportunity. Overall, however, in the face of expanding 

development, particularly with the development of important subsistence areas, it is likely that 

there would be substantial unmitigated impacts to health and the social determinants of health. 

4.4.19.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative B, the possibility of public health impacts would be substantially increased 

compared with Alternative A, but overall less than under Alternative C. These impacts would

occur primarily through restriction in subsistence; influx of large numbers of outside workers;

new access routes to the community; sociocultural and economic change; altered employment; 

and contaminants. Diabetes, hypertension, and related metabolic disorders would be expected

to increase as subsistence is curtailed or as sociocultural changes lead to alterations in dietary 

patterns. Given that Alternative B involves substantially more development in and near 

particularly sensitive habitat and hunting and fishing areas than Alternative A, the risk of 

dietary change and the resultant increases in metabolic disorders would appear to be 

significantly greater. Cancer, lung disease, endocrine disruption, and neurodevelopmental 

delay are related to contaminants common to oil and gas development. Although at present no

evidence exists to conclusively link rates of any of these problems to local oil development, 

because of both the increased total emissions projected under this Alternative, and the location 

of operations within an important subsistence area, the risks of these problems may be

increased under Alternative B. Mitigation includes stipulations which regulate discharges, and 

permits to comply with ADEC and CAA provisions. Social pathology could result from the

economic changes anticipated; from increasing access to drugs and alcohol; and from stress and 

maladaptive coping given the impacts to wider regions of important traditional use areas. 

Required Operating Procedure I-1, which corresponds to Lease Stipulation 63 of Alternative A 

and which mandates a cultural orientation program, and stipulations and ROPs that protect 

subsistence resources would be partially effective, they could not offset the large-scale socioeconomic impacts discussed in the preceding sociocultural and public health sections. 

4.4.19.5 Potential New Mitigation Measures 

The potential mitigation measures for Alternatives B through D are essentially the same as 

those presented for Alternative A in section 4.3.19.5. In Alternative A, they are presented as 

potential new stipulations, consistent with the approach for protective measures in Alternative 

A. In Alternative B through D, they would be considered as potential new ROPs. They are

listed below in their ROP form. The benefits of these ROPs and the residual and unavoidable 

impacts for these potential mitigation measures for this alternative are similar to those 

described for Alternative A, and are described in comparison to those for Alternative A at the 

end of 4.4.19.5. 

1) Health Advisory Board 

Potential Mitigation Measure (New ROP)

Objective: Provide for consideration of public health impacts and mitigation of potential public 

health impacts when considering future major development proposals. 

4-381 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Requirement/Standard

The NSB or other North Slope-wide representative entity could lead the establishment of a 

body, which could be called the North Slope Health Advisory Board (HAB), with public health 

expertise and/or responsibility related to the North Slope. This body could 1.) offer advice to 

better coordinate and design public health research on the North Slope, and 2.) review major

development proposals and suggest health mitigations to proponents and permitting agencies,

including BLM. 

Upon establishment of a HAB, BLM would formally confer with the HAB as a primary source of 

public health advice on activities with potential impacts on public health. (BLM may also 

confer with other sources of recognized public health expertise). BLM would require lessees in

proposals for permanent facilities within the planning area to provide the HAB or any other 

source of recognized public health expertise identified by the AO an appropriate analysis of 

potential public health impacts of the proposal and means proposed to mitigate these impacts as 

part of their development plan. BLM would also analyze public health impacts and potential 

mitigation measures in any NEPA analysis examining such a proposal. 

2) Subsistence 

Potential Mitigation Measure (New ROP)

Objective: Avoid impacts to subsistence harvests.

Requirement/Standard

Initial Study: Before authorization of construction of permanent facilities, the lessee shall 

design and fund studies, in consultation with affected communities, to: a.) determine the 

historic and current use of resources dependent on proposed development area, and b.) the 

significance of the proposed development area to caribou and any other species important to 

subsistence food intake. The study is to serve as a basis for monitoring impacts to subsistence 

food harvest that may be caused by the lessee’s development. The lessee shall submit study 

proposals to the NSB for review and comment, including the adequacy of the area and timescale 

of the studies. The lessee is also advised to consult with the NSSI or relevant constituent 

members to reduce potential duplication of effort. Studies should be designed to address the 

potential confounding factors such as reporting inaccuracies common to harvest studies. 

Lessees are encouraged to cooperate or contract with local entities such as the NSB or ICAS to 

facilitate accuracy of the data collected. A proposed study design along with any comments 

received on the study from the NSB and other state and Federal agencies with relevant 

expertise on the study proposals shall be submitted to the AO. The design of the studies must 

meet the approval of the AO. The studies should cover a sufficient time such that, in 

conjunction with other studies, they provide reliable information about the importance of the 

proposed development area to subsistence harvests (generally will be presumed to be 

approximately 3 years in length). The results of the studies shall be submitted as part of permit 

applications and be used in the development NEPA analysis, including in proposing 

alternatives and mitigation. The AO may waive this requirement if, after considering comments 

by the NSB and relevant state and Federal agencies, he/she determines that either (1) the 

research duplicates other efforts, (2) the research will not benefit the communities that depend 

on the region for subsistence, or (3) the research will cause an undue burden on the 

community(ies) that depend on the region for subsistence. 

Continued Subsistence Monitoring: During construction, operation, and abandonment, the 

lessee shall, subject to the same waiver provisions applicable to the initial study, conduct 

studies of current subsistence use of the development area, the harvest of caribou and other

subsistence foods from the area, the trends in such use and harvests, and any impacts to 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-382 

Alternative B: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

caribou and other species important to subsistence food intake that would affect their 

availability for subsistence users. The AO may require/authorize changes in the design of the 

studies throughout the period, or terminate or suspend such studies if results warrant. 

Mitigation of Subsistence Impacts: If between the commencement of construction and approval 

of completion of abandonment measures, the AO determines that the lessee’s actions are 

causing or have caused a reduction in subsistence harvests, the AO may require changes in 

construction, operations, or abandonment activities. These changes may include restrictions on 

intensity and timing of activities, including temporary cessation of activities, and any and all 

other practicable measures that could reduce impacts. The restrictions, however, may not so 

restrict the lessee’s activities to preclude exercise of the rights of the lease. Continued 

subsistence monitoring will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of these mitigations. 

3) Public Health Monitoring 

Potential Mitigation Measure (New ROP)

Objective: Avoid adverse public health impacts. 

Requirement/Standard

In consultation with appropriate experts, including the NSB, lessee will fund the design and 

implementation of a public health monitoring study. The study will involve selection of a 

limited set of public health indicators, chosen for their ability to detect changes in health and 

social conditions, and routine monitoring of these indicators. The study shall include a 

minimum of three years of pre-development data and continue over the life of the development.

Results will be reported semiannually to the AO, who, with appropriate consultation with public 

health experts or the HAB (once established), will utilize this information to inform 

performance-based management decisions involving activities within the planning area. 

4) Control of Contaminant-related Health Risk 

Subsistence Food and Habitat monitoring 

Potential Mitigation Measure (New ROP)

Objective: Avoid substantial health risks to local human populations from ingestion of 

contaminated subsistence foods. 

Requirement/Standard

Initial Study: Before authorization of construction of permanent facilities, the lessee shall 

design and fund a baseline study to determine the level of contaminants, such as benzene, 

toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene, and PCBs, commonly associated with oil production, in 

subsistence food species and their habitat. The study should examine species and habitat 

potentially impacted by contaminants by the lessee’s proposed development. The lessee shall 

consult with relevant Federal, state, and NSB agencies. A proposed study design shall be 

submitted to the AO. The AO may consult with appropriate Federal and State agencies with 

regulatory authority over the release of such contaminants prior to approving the study design. 

The design of the study must meet the approval of the AO. The study should cover a sufficient 

time such that, in conjunction with other studies, they provide reliable information about the 

existing level of contaminants. The results of the studies shall be submitted as part of permit

applications and be used in the development EIS, including in proposing alternatives and 

mitigation. 

Continued Contaminant Monitoring: During construction, operation, and abandonment, the 

lessee shall conduct studies designed to detect any contamination of subsistence foods by the oil 

4-383 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

and gas development. These studies shall be subject to approval by the AO. The AO may 

require/authorize changes in the design of the studies throughout the period, or terminate or

suspend such studies if results warrant. 

Mitigation of Contaminant Impacts on Subsistence: If between the commencement of 

construction and approval of completion of abandonment measures, the AO determines that the 

lessee’s actions are causing or have caused levels of contaminants that pose a substantial health 

risk to subsistence resource users, the AO may require changes in construction, operations, or

abandonment activities. The AO will consult with appropriate Federal and State agencies with 

regulatory authority over the release of such contaminants. BLM may defer to these other

agencies, but may independently require mitigative actions. Continued contaminant 

monitoring will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of these mitigations. 

5) Air Quality Monitoring and Management 

Potential Mitigation Measure (New ROP)

Objective: Prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands and protect health.

Requirement/Standard

Prior to initiation of a NEPA analysis for an application to develop a CPF, production pad/well, 

airstrip, road, gas compressor station, or other potential air pollutant emission source, the 

lessee shall identify background air quality and meteorology data to be used in predicting 

potential future air quality conditions resulting from the proposed action and other Reasonably 

Foreseeable Future Actions. If these data can not be estimated, then in the case of a proposed

CPF or other facility with potentially large impacts on air quality, one year of on-site 

monitoring (subject to BLM review and approval) will be conducted to obtain such data. In 

addition, the lessee shall prepare (and submit for BLM approval) a complete list of reasonably 

foreseeable air pollutant emissions, including, but not limited to criteria and hazardous air 

pollutants. Depending on the levels of anticipated emissions, and potential for cumulative air 

quality impacts, the BLM may require complete direct/indirect/cumulative air quality modeling 

for the operation phase of the proposed facility. The modeling shall at a minimum compare

predicted impacts to all applicable local, state, and Federal air quality standards and 

increments, as well as other scientifically defensible significance thresholds (such as impacts to 

Air Quality Related Values, incremental cancer risks, etc.). Depending on the significance of the 

predicted impacts, a lessee proposing a CPF or other facility with potentially large impacts on 

air quality may be required to monitor air pollutant emissions and/or air quality impacts for at 

least one year of operation. Depending upon the initial monitoring results, the AO may also 

require additional monitoring. If monitoring indicates impacts would cause unnecessary or

undue degradation of the lands or fail to protect health (either directly or through use of 

subsistence resources), the AO could require changes in the lessee’s activities at any time to 

reduce such emissions, such as, but not limited to, use of cleaner-burning fuels or low-emission 

compressors. 

6) Public Safety and Infectious Disease 

Add the following subparagraphs to ROP I-1:

k. Include a module designed to ensure strict compliance with local and corporate drug and 

alcohol policies. This module should be offered to the NSB Health Department for review and 

comment. 

l. Include a module developed to train employees on how to prevent transmission of 

communicable diseases, including sexually transmitted diseases, to the local communities. This 

module should be offered to the NSB Health Department for review and comment. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-384 

Alternative B: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

7.) Oil Spills 

Potential Mitigation Measure (New ROP)

In the case of a spill of a size and under circumstances that indicate a potential for substantial 

impacts to subsistence resources, and upon the direction of the AO, lessee shall fund the 

institution of a scientific review panel to advise the AO regarding monitoring of the effects of 

the spill on populations of subsistence resources, harvesting of subsistence resources, and 

contaminant levels in subsistence resources. The AO will appoint members to the scientific 

review panel with expertise in biological and social sciences as well as in public health. The AO 

will determine what monitoring is to be required and how long such monitoring shall continue. 

The lessee shall fund all monitoring. The AO will establish requirements in consultation with 

other Federal, state, and local authorities with authority to require post-spill monitoring and 

remedial actions. 

Potential Benefits and Residual/Unavoidable Impacts 

Under Alternative B, these measures would have similar benefits in terms of the range of public 

health effects they address. Measures 1 and 3 would establish a framework to ensure that 

potential public health effects are adequately evaluated during the planning process, and 

establish a mechanism for ongoing monitoring of public health effects. Owing to the greater 

extent of development predicted under Alternative B, these measures would provide similar but 

greater overall benefits than those described under Alternative A. Because development would

be allowed over a greater region and within particularly important subsistence regions, 

however, there may also be greater residual overall health effects. Measure 2, Subsistence 

Harvest monitoring, would provide relatively greater benefit than that described under 

Alternative A, because of the greater potential for impacts to subsistence under Alternative B, 

but again with a potential for greater residual effects. Measure 4, Control of ContaminantRelated Health Risk, would provide protection for contaminant-related health problems as well 

as helping to reassure communities of the continued safety of subsistence resources. Because, 

under Alternative B, development would be allowed in critically important subsistence areas, 

this measure would provide relatively greater benefit than under Alternative A. Certainly

though, given the greater extent of development, there could also be greater residual impacts, 

including both contaminant-related health problems, and problems related to decreased

consumption of subsistence resources (including metabolic disorders and food insecurity, and 

social pathology and injury rates). Measures 6 and 7, through adding health concerns into 

required orientation programs for industry employees, would have equivalent benefits under 

Alternative B to those described under Alternative A. Owing to the slightly increased risk of oil

spills under Alternative B, measure 8 would offer proportionally greater protection. 

Potential Effects on Oil and Gas Development 

The expense of the above potential mitigation measures varies widely, from insignificant to 

potentially millions of dollars. To the extent that the potential mitigation measures would add 

expense to oil and gas activities, they could discourage leasing, exploration, and development of

oil and gas. 

4-385 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.5 ALTERNATIVE C 

4.5.1 Air Quality 

4.5.1.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Air quality impacts associated with these activities are the same as those associated with 

Alternative A, discussed in section 4.3.1.1. 

4.5.1.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

The Air Pollutant Emission Sources, Effects of Air Pollution, and Native Views on Air 

Emissions are the same as those associated with Alternative A, discussed in section 4.3.1.2. 

Air Pollutant Emissions 

Air pollutant emission estimates for Alternative C were based on the following information 

sources: 

1) Helicopter emissions were based on the Federal Aviation Administration’s Emissions and 

 Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS version 4.1) for a Bell 206 (Edwards, 2007); 

2) Emission estimates developed for the Alpine Satellite Development Plan (USDOI BLM, 

 2004c) for satellite well pad/access road construction, fixed wing aircraft flights, drilling rigs, 

 and specific production equipment (satellite heaters, field generator, and a CPF turbine); and 

3) Actual 2006 air pollutant emissions from the ConocoPhillips Alpine Production Facility 

(Poteet, 2007). 

These emission factors were adjusted for the following assumed activities under Alternative C: 

1) Helicopters: 5,000 one-hour flights per year; 

2) Exploration/Delineation: up to 144 fixed wing flights per year, 120 exploration wells and 90 

delineation wells, 8 drill rigs;

3) Construction: 3,395 fixed wing flights per year, 2 drill rigs, 4,649 acres of land disturbance; 

and 

4) Production: 672 fixed wing flights per year, 32 satellite well pads, 7 Central Production 

 Facilities, and 74 MMbbl peak annual oil production. 

Based on these emission factors and anticipated activity, the maximum annual emissions (in 

tons per year) by activity phase are presented in Table 4.5-A. 

Development and production activities can also produce fugitive dust emissions (primarily as 

PM10). Fugitive dust occurs primarily during the summer months due to driving on unpaved 

roads. Vehicles can also track out fine material from gravel mining operations in the winter and

summer months. Potential control measures include limiting vehicle speeds, and treating 

problematic road sections with surfactants or water. 

Well closure, abandonment and rehabilitation activities would emit air pollutants similarly to 

those during development (construction), since similar vehicles and other emission sources 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-386 

Alternative C: Air Quality 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

would be used. Because closure activity would not occur at a single location for any substantial 

length of time, the impact of air emissions at any single location would be minor and short term. 

Impacts could be minimized by leaving gravel on-site, limiting the amount of transport. Once 

reclamation is complete, production facilities would no longer impact North Slope air quality. 

In comparison, a site-specific air quality impact analysis was conducted for the off-shore Liberty 

Project (USDOI MMS, 2002), which would be somewhat smaller than a typical field that could 

be developed in the planning area, which demonstrated ambient air quality levels would be 

close to, but within applicable PSD Class II increments. The combined facility concentrations 

plus background were predicted to remain well within the ambient air-quality standards 

(between 2 and 30% of the standards). Because Alternative C facilities would have similar air 

emissions as those predicted for the Liberty Project, it is likely potential satellite well pads and 

central production facilities would have similar air quality impacts. the accuracy of 

determinations of specific air pollutant emissions and potential impacts is necessarily limited at 

this stage, given that particular site-specific development activities are not yet able to be 

predicted. 

Since CO2 has not been regulated as an air pollutant, potential CO2 emissions were not 

quantified for Alternative C. However, assuming an average 98% combustion efficiency, the CO

emissions reported in Table 4.5-A may be multiplied by 80 to estimate equivalent CO2 emissions 

(a maximum of 27 x 104 tons per year.) However, when compared to estimated worldwide 

emissions of CO2 (nearly 28 x 109 tons per year), Alternative C would contribute minuscule 

amounts of CO2 emissions to global levels. 

4.5.1.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

No air quality lease stipulations or ROPs were included for Alternative C. Potential air quality 

impacts from site-specific development activities would be limited based on air quality permits 

issued by the ADEC and EPA, including applicable control technologies. 

4.5.1.4 Conclusion 

Air quality impacts from Alternative C are likely to remain below applicable ambient air quality 

standards and increments, therefore no significant impact to air quality is expected. Air 

pollutant emissions associated with Alternative C are approximately 38 to 40% greater than 

Alternative A (No Action), and more than Alternatives B and D. Each new exploration or

development activity, or production area, would result in an additional air pollutant emissions. 

However, the accuracy of determinations of specific air pollutant emissions and potential 

impacts is necessarily limited at this stage, given that particular site-specific development 

activities are not yet able to be predicted. As exploration and development activities cease, or

production sites are shut-in, there would be a corresponding decrease in air emissions. 

4-387 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Air Quality 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Table 4.5-A. Alternative C Air Pollutant Emissions from Surface Activities 

(tons per year) 

Activity 

Phase 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

Nitrogen 

Oxides 

Particulate 

Matter 1 

Sulfur 

Dioxide 

Volatile 

Organic 

Compounds 

Helicopters 10 1 1 <1 <1 

Exploration/ 

Delineation 47 213 11 24 <1 

Construction 105 396 28 31 34 

Production 3,200 16,758 393 533 378 

Total 3,363 17,369 432 588 413 

Source: Archer, 2007 1 Combustion sources primarily emit PM2.5 while land disturbance primarily emits PM10. 

4.5.2 Paleontological Resources 

4.5.2.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative C, the types of non-oil and gas activities would be the same as those 

described for Alternative A; however, there would likely be an increase in the level of aircraft 

and survey activity associated with environmental studies and monitoring. Despite increased 

activity, the impact to paleontological resources, which are deeply buried, would still be minor. 

4.5.2.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Under Alternative C, the level of seismic activity is expected to be similar to that of Alternative 

D and Alternative B. While the types of impacts to paleontological resources would remain the 

same as for Alternative A, the increased level of seismic activity would increase the potential for 

impacts to occur. In the areas open to exploration under this alternative, the deeply buried

context of most paleontological remains generally precludes any major impact to the resource. 

Any impacts associated with the increased seismic activity are expected to be minor. 

Significant paleontological resources (primarily vertebrate fossils) are not ubiquitous in the 

planning area. These resources are exposed primarily through erosion (stream cuts, bluff faces, 

etc.), elsewhere they are usually deeply buried. As a result, the location of exposed material can 

be to some degree predicted and therefore avoided while the remainder is protected by its depth 

of burial. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-388 

Alternative C: Air Quality 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects of Disturbances 

Under Alternative C, the level of activity in the planning area would increase. However, 

because most of the activity would occur during the winter months, the potential for impacts to 

paleontological resources is extremely minor. The likelihood of impacting surface paleontological 

material also is minor due to their isolated and rare occurrence. 

The drilling as many as 210 exploration and delineation wells could occur under Alternative C, 

a nearly 50% increase over Alternative A. However, it is unlikely that more than eight drilling 

rigs would be operating at any one time. The drilling activity would occur over the span of 

many seasons, and drill pads, camp pads, roads, and airstrips made of ice and snow typically 

would be utilized. Permanent pads, roads, or airstrips could be constructed; therefore, ground

disturbance could occur and buried paleontological material could be impacted. The other 

substantial subsurface disturbance that would occur as a result of the actual drilling would be 

the making of the drill hole itself. Drilling the borehole could impact scientifically important 

paleontological material; however, the likelihood of that occurrence is small. 

Disturbance from production and service wells, drill pads, staging bases, airstrips, gravel pits, 

and mainline and gathering pipeline could occur under Alternative C. The amount of area 

impacted by these activities would be almost 50% more than Alternative A. Surface disturbance 

resulting from this work could impact as much as 4649 acres, but subsurface impacts associated 

with these activities would be minor. The primary impact to paleontological resources would 

result from the excavation of material for construction of the permanent facilities. It is 

anticipated that a pipeline would not have associated all-weather roads or pads and would be

constructed during the winter months from ice roads and/or pads. Therefore, the only

substantial impact resulting from pipeline construction would be associated with the placement

of VSMs. Depending on the depth at which the VSMs are set it is possible, but highly unlikely, 

that paleontological resources would be impacted. Overall, ground disturbance from 

development has a minor impact on paleontological resources. 

It is unlikely that paleontological resources would be impacted by abandonment activities, as 

these localities would have been previously examined for the presence of paleontological 

resources and have been disturbed by the previous construction and development activities. 

Effects of Spills 

Under Alternative C, the effects of spills on paleontological resources would be the same as 

discussed under Alternative A. If present, surface paleontological material could be impacted; 

however since the occurrence of paleontological remains is rare, the probability of an impact is 

very low. 

Commercial Gas Development 

The types of impacts on paleontological resources that natural gas development and production 

would cause would be similar to that described for Alternatives A and B, but larger because it is 

anticipated that approximately 20 miles more of buried pipeline would be built. Thus, it is 

anticipated that burying the pipeline would result in digging up approximately 182 miles of four 

feet wide and five feet deep trench (approximately 90 acres) and potential surface disturbance of 

240 acres in areas adjacent to the trench from potential disturbance from machinery or 

placement of backfill. 

4-389 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Paleontological Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.5.2.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

As discussed under Alternative B, the ROPs and lease stipulations under Alternative C would 

be highly effective in protecting known and previously unknown paleontological resources and 

preserving their research potential and, ensuring that impacts to paleontological resources 

would be minor. 

4.5.2.4 Conclusion 

The types of impacts to paleontological resources from activities not associated with oil and gas 

exploration and development would be similar in nature to what has been described previously. 

Based on the amount of surface area disturbance, the potential impacts to paleontological 

resources from oil and gas exploration and development could increase about 50% from levels 

associated with alternative A. Impacts could be greater if exploration and development 

occurred in an area with abundant paleontological resources. However, the ROPs and lease 

stipulations proposed to protect paleontological resources under this alternative would be highly 

effective. 

4.5.3 Soil Resources 

4.5.3.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Various types of activities not related to oil and gas leasing and development, including private 

or commercial air traffic, use of OHVs, recreational camps, paleontological and archaeological 

excavations, and overland moves could affect soil resources in the planning area under 

Alternative C. 

Under Alternative C, impacts associated with non-oil and gas activities would be similar to 

those described under Alternative A for all alternatives. These activities could occur throughout 

the planning area and would be little affected by the increased availability of land for oil and 

gas leasing. 

4.5.3.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

The following analysis is based on section 4.2.1.2, Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development Activities. See that section for a discussion of estimates and assumptions for 

development as well as a description of how estimated areas of disturbance were calculated for 

each alternative. 

During oil and gas exploration and development, various activities could cause impacts to soil 

resources in the planning area. These activities include seismic activities; construction and use 

of gravel pads, gravel roads, gravel airstrips, and pipelines; excavation of material sites; 

construction of ice roads and ice pads; and summer tundra travel. Impacts could also occur from 

oil spills and from removal of gravel pads and gravel roads during rehabilitation. These 

activities would impact soil productivity and could alter the moisture regime of tundra near the 

structure by changing natural drainage patterns and areas where snow accumulates. Types of 

impacts to soils from oil and gas activities in Alternative C would be similar to those described 

for Alternative A. Differences in the magnitude and area of impacts for Alternative C are 

described below. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-390 

Alternative C: Paleontological Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects of Disturbances 

Seismic Surveys. Effects to soils from seismic surveys would be the same as for Alternative A. 

Under all of the alternatives, it is projected that three 2-D and two 3-D surveys would be done 

to fill in gaps in existing surveys. 

Exploration. It is anticipated that under Alternative C there would be a greater number of 

exploration and delineation wells drilled than under the other alternatives. This could result in 

greater impacts to soils from the construction of both multi- and single-year ice pads. The area 

of soil directly impacted by a typical ice pad (500 feet by 500 feet) would be approximately 6 

acres. Under Alternative C, it is assumed that 120 exploration wells and 90 delineation wells, or 

a total of 210 wells, would be drilled from ice pads in the planning area. Impacts to soils could 

occur on approximately 1,260 acres (210 ice pads x 6 acres/ice pad) over a period of about 25 

years (Table 4.2-G). However, some of these wells could be located on Teshekpuk Lake,

reducing the total area of direct soil surface disturbance. 

Ice road construction, probably up to 50 miles per year impacting approximately 212 acres/year, 

could also be greater under Alternative C in terms of total miles constructed. For Alternative C, 

it is estimated that a total of 7,200 miles of ice road would be constructed during the life of the 

plan for exploration and development impacting approximately 22,000 acres (Table 4.2-G). In 

addition, approximately 40 miles of ice runway would be constructed impacting approximately 

440 acres. 

The construction of well cellars during exploration requires digging a hole that would impact 

approximately 16 square feet (0.0004 acres) of ground for each well. Total area disturbed by 

digging well cellars under Alternative C would be approximately 0.08 acres (210 wells x 0.0004 

acres per well). Thermokarst associated with the disruption of the thermal regime in the 

surrounding soil could occur around the well collar. 

Placement of Gravel Fill. Types of impacts to soils from placement of gravel fill would be 

similar to those in Alternative A. Construction of CPFs and associated satellite pads, staging 

areas, roads, and airstrips would result in the loss of soil productivity in the areas of gravel 

placement. However, more area could be covered with gravel due to the greater expected

number of facilities needed. Under Alternative C, 7 fields would be developed, resulting in 

approximately 3,850 acres of soil productivity lost by gravel placement (Table 4.2-G). 

Construction of gravel pads, roads, staging areas, and airstrips could alter the moisture regime

of tundra near the structure by changing natural drainage patterns and areas where snow 

accumulates. Snowdrifts caused by gravel structures would increase the wintertime soil surface 

temperature and increase thaw depth in soils near the structures. These impacts would be 

exacerbated by dust deposition and by the formation of impoundments. These factors could

combine to warm the soil, deepen thaw, and cause thermokarst adjacent to roads and other 

gravel structures (NRC 2003). In flat, thaw-lake plains on the North Slope, gravel construction 

can be anticipated to result in upslope water impoundment and thermokarst erosion equivalent 

to the area directly covered by gravel (Walker et. al. 1987). In this analysis, approximately

3,850 acres could be covered by gravel under Alternative C. Therefore, the total area of soils 

impacted by gravel fill under Alternative C is estimated at approximately 7,700 (2 x 3,850) 

acres. This area is somewhat greater than in the other alternatives. 

Material Sites. In this analysis, the likelihood of new gravel sites within the planning area 

would be somewhat greater under Alternative C than under the other alternatives (Table 4.2­

4-391 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

G). Gravel required for development in the planning area could be mined from existing sites 

east of the planning area or could be extracted from new sites developed within the planning 

area. Investigations to identify gravel sources in the planning area have not been conducted, but 

presumably would be initiated if discoveries of recoverable oil or gas were made. It is possible 

that 16 gravel mine sites would be necessary, resulting in a total of 800 acres impacted, 

depending on the actual number of sites required. Excavation of the gravel mine and

stockpiling of overburden would remove soil and impact soil productivity at these sites. 

Pipelines. Under Alternative C, given the potentially greater number of fields developed, 

impacts from pipeline construction would be greater than those described for the other 

alternatives. Pipelines on the North Slope are typically built on VSMs with a diameter of 12 

inches and a spacing of 150 VSMs/mile. Under Alternative C, approximately 502 miles of 

pipeline would be required resulting in short term disturbance to soils of approximately 1,523 

acres and a long term impact at VSM sites to a total of approximately 2 acres (Table 4.2-G). 

The extent of impacts associated with buried pipelines could also be greater under Alternative 

C, given the potentially greater number of fields developed. However, it is not possible to 

quantify how many more buried pipeline segments would be required under Alternative C than 

under the other alternatives. In areas where pipelines were buried, construction of a trench

would impact soil and temporary storage of overburden in adjacent areas would alter soil where 

temporary storage of the overburden occurred. The zone of impact would be approximately 12 

feet wide for the length of the buried segment, and the total area of impact would be 1.5 acres

per pipeline mile. Because pipeline burial under tundra has been the exception on the North 

Slope rather than the norm, it is expected that this activity would disturb only a small amount 

of area in the planning area. 

Effects of Oil and Gas Development on Permafrost 

Types of impacts to permafrost from oil and gas development would be the same as those

described in Alternative A. Under alternative C, more surface disturbance is expected from oil 

and gas activities as compared to the other alternatives (Table 4.2-G). Therefore, there would 

be more area of permafrost potentially affected. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Types of impacts from abandonment and rehabilitation would be the same as those described in 

Alternative A. Under alternative C, it is expected that more structures would be constructed for 

oil and gas activities as compared to the other alternatives (Table 4.2-G). Therefore, the 

amount of rehabilitation required, and impacts to soils from abandonment and rehabilitation, 

would be greater than under the other alternatives. 

Effects of Spills 

Under Alternative C, types of impacts to soils from spills would be the same as those described 

in Alternative A. However, potential impacts to soils from oil spills would be greater than the 

other alternatives as the estimated number of large and small spills is slightly greater (see 

section 4.2.2, Oil Spills). 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-392 

Alternative C: Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Summer Tundra Travel 

Under Alternatives B, C, and D some summer tundra travel would be permitted under specific 

circumstances. Although travel off of gravel pads is easiest in winter and generally 

environmentally preferable at that time, some vehicle travel off of pads does occur in North

Slope oil fields during the summer to accomplish specific tasks. The State of Alaska has 

approved some low-ground-pressure vehicles for summer tundra travel after July 15. Similar 

summer tundra travel may be anticipated to be part of oil production in Northeast NPR-A. 

Summer vehicle tundra travel is commonly associated with spill prevention and preparedness 

measures required in spill prevention plans. Each summer season, low-ground-pressure 

vehicles might be used to transport and place booms across streams downstream from pipelines. 

These booms are left in place through the summer to capture any oil that might spill from a 

pipeline and then would be retrieved, again probably using low-ground-pressure vehicles, before 

freeze-up. Pipeline inspections may also entail summer vehicle travel on the tundra. Finally, 

periodically spill response training may occur along and downstream from pipelines in summer. 

As a rule, summer tundra travel would not be permitted under Alternative A. Therefore, given 

the potentially greater number of fields developed and allowance of summer tundra travel 

under certain circumstances, impacts from summer tundra travel under Alternative C could be 

greater than in the other alternatives. Short-term, minor impacts to soils are expected from

limited summer tundra travel using low ground pressure vehicles. However, ROP L-1 is 

designed to regulate and monitor summer travel and minimize impacts to soils and vegetation. 

Summer travel would only be permitted on a case-by-case basis if the applicant can 

demonstrate that the proposed use would have no more than minimal impacts to soils and 

vegetation. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Under Alternative C, the types of impacts on soils that natural gas development and production 

would cause would be the same as those described for Alternatives A and B, but the extent of 

such impacts may be larger. If a gas pipeline is buried, there would be additional acreage of 

soils disrupted with reduced soil productivity. The estimated 182-mile-long gas pipeline would 

impact about 90 acres of soils directly through excavation of a 4-foot-wide trench and,

potentially, 240 acres through compaction, thermokarst, and other indirect effects. In addition, 

ice roads that may be associated with placement of the gas pipeline would have localized, shortterm impacts on soils, which would usually be limited to compression of the tundra under the 

ice roads and damage to the tops of tussocks in dryer soils. 

Soils thus disturbed in the ice-rich northern part of the planning area are more likely to 

experience thermal degradation and subsidence as a result. In this case, the soils would not be 

lost completely, but soil horizons as well as the thermal regime would be altered. Melting of ice 

in the soils would result and the filled area, normally mounded immediately after fill, would 

level over time as melt water migrates. Ponding, and potentially soil erosion, could occur if the 

trench surface subsides below the grade of the surrounding terrain over time. These impacts 

would be dramatically reduced if gas pipelines were put on VSMs. 

4.5.3.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Under Alternative C, the lease stipulations and ROPs that protect soil resources would be the 

same as those discussed for Alternative B. Many of the lease stipulations and ROPs, as 

4-393 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

discussed under Alternative B, would directly or indirectly limit potential impacts to soils in the 

planning area. These protections would be similar to those provided for Alternative A. 

4.1.1.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative C, the amount of soil area impacted from oil and gas exploration and

development would potentially exceed those of the other alternatives as additional highpotential oil and gas areas would be available for leasing. See Table 4.2-G for a comparison of 

estimated total surface area disturbed by alternative. Numerous technological advancements 

have been made during the decades of operations on the North Slope that have allowed current 

development activities to proceed with less environmental impact than previous operations 

(NRC 2003). However, some short-term disturbance and permanent long-term impacts to soils 

are inevitable. 

Impacts to soil from management actions under Alternative C would involve short-term 

disturbance over fairly large areas and long-term disturbance of relatively small areas. 

However, even though impacts in Alternative C cover more of the planning area than the other 

alternatives (Table 4.2-G), all areas of soil disturbance would be relatively small as a percentage 

of the entire planning area (see below). The duration of these impacts could range from one

year or less for minor disturbance of soil and vegetation to decades if the soil was destroyed or 

permafrost thawing was extensive. 

Under Alternative C, impacts to soils from activities other than oil and gas development would 

be similar to those of the other alternatives and would include minor impacts from activities 

such as aircraft landings, archaeological or paleontological excavations, camps, and overland 

moves. Recovery would vary from 1 year for minor disturbance of soil and vegetation to one or 

more decades in those areas where soil was excavated or permafrost thawing was extensive. 

Impacts from seismic activities would be the same for all alternatives. Short-term impacts 

could occur on approximately 8,100 acres (0.18 % of the planning area) of soil from 2-D seismic 

surveys and 100,000 acres (2.2 % of the planning area) of soil from 3-D surveys during a 25-year 

period (Table 4.2-F). 

Under Alternative C, approximately 1,500 acres could be impacted short-term by pipeline 

construction. Short-term impacts would also occur from temporary ice roads, ice pads, and ice 

runways. For Alternative C, it is estimated that a total of 7,200 miles of ice road would be 

constructed during the life of the plan for exploration and development impacting 

approximately 22,000 acres (Table 4.2-G). In addition, approximately 1,260 acres could be 

impacted by ice pads for exploration and delineation wells and 40 miles of ice runway would be 

constructed impacting approximately 440 acres. In total, potential short-term impacts to soils 

under Alternative C from exploration (excluding seismic activities) and development would be 

approximately 25,000 acres or 0.55% of the planning area. This is greater than the other

alternatives due to more surface disturbance expected from oil and gas activity. 

Oil and gas development and operation would affect soils by compacting and damaging soils 

under gravel pads, roads, and airstrips; and by excavating material sites and constructing 

VSMs. These impacts would be long-term. Long-term impacts would occur on an estimated

7,700 acres of soil from gravel structures for field and staging area development, and 800 acres 

from gravel extraction activities (Table 4.2-G). Therefore, these activities could result in longterm impacts to approximately 8,500 (7,700 + 800) acres or 0.18% of the planning area. This is 

approximately 2,500 more acres than under Alternative A and 1,700 more acres that 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-394 

Alternative C: Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Alternative B. The placement of pipelines underground could disturb an additional 1.5 acres per 

buried pipeline mile. 

Impacts associated with oil spills, the majority of which would be cleaned up immediately, could 

aversely affect soil resources for a few years to several decades depending on the quantity, 

location, and season of the spill. The potential for impacts from oil spills would be greater 

under Alternative C than under the other alternatives since more area would be available for 

development in an area with relatively high oil and gas potential, and the estimated number of 

large and small spills is slightly greater than in the other alternatives (see section 4.2.2, Oil 

Spills). 

Under Alternatives B, C, and D some summer tundra travel would be permitted under specific 

circumstances. Short-term, minor impacts are expected from limited summer tundra travel 

using low ground pressure vehicles. However, ROP L-1 is designed to regulate and monitor 

summer travel and minimize impacts to soils and vegetation. Summer travel would only be 

permitted on a case-by-case basis if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use would

have no more than minimal impacts to soils and vegetation. 

Impacts to soil resources from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas activities, would 

likely be additive in most cases, except in those areas where the two types of activities 

overlapped. In these areas the total actual impact could be less than the sum of both impacts 

because some of the activity would occur on areas already impacted. Impacts to soil resources

from exploration and development activities would also be additive, except where development 

activities occurred in areas previously disturbed during exploration. In areas where two or more

activities occurred, overall impacts would reflect those impacts associated with the first activity 

and any new impacts associated with later activities. 

Although all soil map units identified on Map 3-5 could be impacted during oil and gas 

exploration and development, soil associated with map units IQ6 and IQ21 (see section 3.2.7, 

Soil Resources and Map 3-5) would likely be most affected since they are located in the area 

having high oil potential. Lease stipulations and ROPs developed for Alternatives B and C 

would provide protection similar to or slightly greater than lease stipulations in Alternative A. 

4.5.4 Water Resources 

4.5.4-a Surface Water and Groundwater Resources 

An additional 211,000, 213,000 and 600,000 acres would be available for oil and gas leasing 

under this alternative as compared to the Alternative D, Alternative B, and Alternative A, 

respectively. Thus, impacts to water resources could be greater under this alternative if 

development occurs in areas closed to leasing under the other alternatives, or more areas are

explored and developed under this alternative than under the other alternatives. 

4.5.4-a.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Activities not related to oil and gas exploration and development that could occur in the

planning area under Alternative C include aircraft use, watercraft use, collection and 

excavation for scientific research, hunting camps, recreational use of the area, and use of the 

4-395 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

area by local natives for subsistence. These activities would be expected to occur at the same

frequency and intensity, or slightly greater, compared to other alternatives. All of these 

activities have the potential to impact water resources. However, all of these activities have also 

been ongoing for many years with minimal impact to water resources. 

4.5.4-a.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

The effects of oil and gas exploration and development under this alternative would be greater 

than all other Alternatives since the entire planning area would be open for leasing. The 

amount of acreage in the planning area potentially affected by oil and gas activities would be 

the largest under this alternative, and would be considerably larger than under Alternative A 

(approximately 600,000 more acres). Thus, the potential for impacts to water resources as a 

result of oil and gas activities would be the greatest under Alternative C. Drilling on and near 

Teshekpuk Lake greatly increases the risk for an oil spill in this fish-bearing lake. Therefore, 

Alternative C is less protective of water resources than all other Alternatives, particularly for 

Teshekpuk Lake. 

Effects of Exploration and Development 

Seismic activities and overland travel. Effects to water resources from seismic surveys 

would be the same as described for Alternative A unless seismic boats are used in Teshekpuk 

lake Under all of the alternatives, it is projected that three 2-D and two 3-D surveys would be 

done to fill in gaps in existing surveys and amount to the same level of impacts. 

Ice Road and Pad Construction. Types of impacts from ice road, pad, and airstrip 

construction would be the same as described under Alternative A. However, under Alternative 

C the potential impacts of ice roads on water resources would be greater than under other

alternatives because more of the planning area would be open for leasing, and more ice pad and 

road construction would be likely to occur. For Alternative C, it is estimated that a total of 

7,182 miles of ice road (21,763 acres), 210 exploration and delineation well ice pads (1,260 

acres), and 40 ice airstrips (440 acres) would be constructed during the estimated exploration 

and development scenario resulting in a total of 23,463 acres of short-term surface disturbance. 

Impacts to the tundra under this alternative should be minimal and limited mainly to the 

spring when the ice roads and pads would melt and add somewhat saline water to the shallow 

tundra pools. This impact would likely be temporary in nature since these ponds will be 

recharged by local snowmelt and runoff. 

Ice Road/Pad Water Use. Types of impacts from ice road/pad water use would be the same as 

described under Alternative A. Approximately 50 miles of ice road would be needed each year 

under all alternatives resulting in the use of approximately 75 million gallons (MG) of water per 

year (50 miles x 1.5 MG/mile). However, it is estimated that more water would be used over the 

life of the Plan than under Alternative A and B since more high oil and gas potential area would

be open for exploration and development and ice roads, pads, and airstrips constructed. 

Drilling & Camp Water Use. Types of impacts from drilling water use would be the same as 

described under Alternative A. Under Alternative C, water withdrawal from lakes for drilling 

water would be governed by the same lease stipulations and ROPs as those for ice roads and 

pads. Therefore, it is expected that impacts to surface water resources would be minor because 

of lease stipulations governing the amount of drawdown allowed in the lakes, and which lakes 

could be used as water sources. Because more of the planning area would be open to leasing 

under Alternative C, more lakes could potentially be impacted by water withdrawal during the 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-396 

Alternative C: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

winter months than under other alternatives. Lease Stipulations K-1 (Rivers Area) and K-2 

(Deep Water Lakes) would be protective of water resources in streams and fish-bearing lakes, 

but given the greater number of lakes, Alternative C could potentially have more impact on 

lakes, especially non-fish bearing lakes, than other alternatives. 

Snow Compaction. Types of impacts from snow compaction would be the same as those 

described under Alternative A. Because a greater number of lakes could potentially be affected 

by snow compaction under Alternative C, impacts to more lakes could occur than under other 

alternatives. Under all alternatives, snow compaction would be prohibited on fish-bearing lakes, 

except at ice road crossings. Therefore, this alternative would be protective of lakes and

streams. No impacts to ice thickness on fish-bearing lakes are expected as a result of oil and gas 

exploration and development activities. However, lakes without fish could be subject to impacts 

due to snow compaction if this activity were authorized by the AO. 

Drainage Disruption. Types of impacts from disruption of drainage patterns would be the

same as those described under Alternative A. Under Alternative C, drainages would be 

protected by ROPs and lease stipulations. These ROPs and lease stipulations require setbacks 

from specified rivers, require bridges rather than culverts for crossing major rivers, and require 

that culverts used for small drainages have ample capacity to handle the flow of the drainage 

during spring breakup to avoid ice jams. Thus, this alternative would minimize impacts to 

drainages from construction of permanent and temporary facilities related to crossing the 

drainage. Overall, impacts to drainages should be minor under this alternative as a result of 

these lease stipulations. 

However, because a greater portion of the planning area would be open to oil and gas leasing 

under Alternative C, there could potentially be more disruption of drainages than under the 

other alternatives. However, if the lease stipulations and ROPs listed for this alternative are 

followed, this potential increase in impacts should be minor. 

Channel Erosion and Sedimentation. Types of impacts from channel erosion and

sedimentation would be the same as those described under Alternative A. Lease stipulations

and ROPs developed for Alternative C to mitigate for disturbances to drainages, streams, and 

rivers by exploration and production activities would be similar to those developed for 

Alternative B. These lease stipulations and ROPs regulate bridges, culverts, winter crossings, 

removal of ice bridges, and any temporary facilities constructed near rivers. They also include 

setbacks for specified rivers. These ROPs and lease stipulations should mitigate impacts to 

stream channels. However, because more of the planning area would be open to oil and gas 

leasing under Alternative C, there would potentially be more channel erosion and 

sedimentation under this alternative than under all other Alternatives. If the lease stipulations 

and ROPs developed for this alternative were followed, this potential increased impact to 

stream channels should be minor. 

Gravel Removal. Types of impacts to water resources from gravel sites would be the same as 

those described under Alternative A. Under Alternative C, gravel mining sites would not be 

permitted in the active floodplain of a river, stream, or lake unless authorized by the AO. Gravel

mining sites would also to be kept to a minimum in the planning area, and, where possible, be 

designed so that fish and wildlife could use them after mining was completed. These measures 

would protect streams, rivers, and lakes and keep impacts to floodplains to a minimum.

However, because more of the planning area would be open to oil and gas leasing under 

Alternative C, there would potentially be more gravel removal under this alternative than 

under all other Alternatives. It is possible that 16 gravel mine sites could be necessary, 

4-397 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

impacting a total of 800 acres (see section 4.2.1.2, Table 4.2-G). Lease stipulations and ROPs

developed for Alternative C would be effective in reducing impacts to streams and lakes from 

gravel removal. 

Pipelines. Types of impacts from pipeline construction and operation would be the same as 

those described under Alternative A. However, under Alternative C more miles of pipeline 

could be constructed since more area of high oil and gas potential is open to development than 

under other alternatives. Under Alternative C, 502 miles of pipeline would be required 

resulting in short-term disturbance to soils of approximately 1,520 acres (See section 4.2.1.2, 

Table 4.2-G). However, ROPs and lease stipulations for Alternative C, such as construction 

during the winter, would prevent or minimize impacts to water resources. 

Commercial Gas Development 

If commercial gas is developed on the North Slope, impacts to water resources from gas 

development in the planning area would be similar to those from oil development but slightly 

larger than those of the other alternatives. Among the alternatives considered in this

Supplemental IAP/EIS, Alternative C, which is estimated to have approximately 12% more gas 

pipeline than the other alternatives, is likely to have the greatest impacts on water resources.

In addition, like Alternatives B and D, Alternative C would make more lands available in the 

ice-rich areas especially susceptible to thermokarst, subsidence and erosion, and thus could

have greater impacts from burying a gas pipeline. Potential impacts during burial of a gas 

pipeline could include temporary impoundments, diversions, and sedimentation. Buried gas 

lines also have potential thermokarst, subsidence, and erosion problems that could persist 

beyond the construction phase. If all work on the pipelines is done during winter, these impacts 

would be greatly reduced. Placement of the gas pipeline on VSMs would also obviate these

impacts associated with pipeline burial. 

4.5.4-b Surface Water and Groundwater Quality 

4.5.4-b.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Impacts under Alternative C would be expected to be similar to those described under

Alternative A. The only types of non-oil and gas activities in the planning area that are likely to

affect freshwater quality would be ongoing subsistence and recreational activities, primarily 

along rivers and lakes in the ACP, and use of lakes by floatplanes and watercraft. These 

activities have been ongoing for sometime, and impacts to freshwater quality appear to have 

been negligible. 

4.5.4-b.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Types of impacts from oil and gas exploration activities under Alternative C would be similar to

those described under Alternative A. The main difference between these alternatives 

pertaining to water resources is that Alternative C opens the entire planning area to

exploration and development, including the area within and near Teshekpuk Lake. This greatly 

increases the likelihood of exploration or development activities impacting water resources and

quality in the lake and areas to the north. 

Potential surface water quality impacts for oil and gas exploration and development fall into

three general source categories: accidental release of fuels and other substances (including oil 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-398 

Alternative C: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

spills), which could occur during both the construction and operation periods; reductions in 

dissolved oxygen and changes in ion concentrations in lakes used for water supply, which would 

occur mainly during construction but could also happen during operations; and 

increases in terrestrial erosion and sedimentation causing higher turbidity and suspended 

solids concentrations, which could occur during both the construction and operational periods. 

The following analysis is based on section 4.2.1.2, Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development Activities. See that section for a description of how estimated areas of

disturbance were calculated for each alternative. 

Effects of Exploration 

Exploration activities that could affect water quality within the planning area under all 

alternatives would be seismic surveys; ice-road and ice-pad construction; and drilling-fluid 

storage and disposal. Oil spills would predominantly be attributable to development activities; 

therefore, spills will be discussed under the analysis of development impacts. 

Seismic Activities and Overland Travel. Effects to water quality from seismic surveys 

would be the same as those described for Alternative A unless seismic boats are used in 

Teshekpuk Lake) Under all of the alternatives, it is projected that three 2-D and two 3-D 

surveys would be done to fill in gaps in existing surveys. 

Ice Road/Pad Water Use. Types of impacts from ice road/pad water use are the same as those 

described in Alternative A. Water use is expected to be greater than under the other 

alternatives. For Alternative C, it is estimated that a total of 7,200 miles of ice road would be 

constructed during the life of the plan impacting approximately 22,000 acres (See section 

4.2.1.2, Table 4.2-G). In addition, approximately 40 miles of ice runway would be constructed 

impacting approximately 440 acres. However, as discussed under Alternative A, studies in 

other areas of the North Slope have shown that water withdrawal from lakes for ice roads and 

pads has not measurably affected long-term water quality (Baker, 2002; Hinzman, 2006). 

Drilling Water Use and Drilling Fluids. Types of impacts from drilling water use would be 

the same as those described in Alternative A. However, more exploration wells would likely be 

needed under Alternative C. Under this alternative, it is assumed 210 exploration and 

delineation wells would be drilled from ice pads in the planning area. The preferred means of 

disposing of drilling wastes, including muds and cuttings, would be reinjection into wells, which 

would not cause impacts to surface water quality. Mud pits and surface discharge of exploration 

drilling muds and cuttings would be prohibited. Under this scenario, there likely would be a 

negligible impact to water quality from drilling fluids used in exploration. 

Effects of Development 

Development activities that could affect water quality in the planning area include spills; 

excavation of material sites; stream crossings; summer tundra travel; and construction of gravel 

roads, pads, and airstrips. 

Spills. The greatest risk to water quality from oil and gas activity in the planning area is the 

potential for spills, with impacts dependent upon the size, season and nature of the spill. 

Effects of spills would be similar to those described in Alternative A. Under Alternative C, 

however, the entire planning area would be open to exploration and development. Therefore,

potential impacts to water quality from oil spills could be larger than in other alternatives as 

the estimated number of large and small spills is greater (see section 4.2.2, Oil Spills). In 

4-399 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

addition, Alternative C allows for drilling within and near Teshekpuk Lake. This greatly

increases the likelihood of a spill impacting water resources and quality in this lake. 

As noted in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998), a small spill (less than 

4 bbls) reaching Teshekpuk Lake would likely have a minimal effect on water quality. Dissolved 

oxygen levels could be affected locally. Direct toxicity would be minimal because of the much 

greater dilution volume in Teshekpuk Lake than in the small ponds and lakes discussed earlier, 

and because of the relatively unrestricted movement of the slick and underlying water. The 

spreading of the spill over about 60 acres (0.03% of the lake surface) would have an adverse 

effect on water quality in this area of the lake. This effect would persist for a few weeks, until 

the slick was either cleaned up or the oil stranded on the shoreline. Similar effects would be

expected if an oil spill were to reach any of the lakes in the planning area. The effects on water 

quality if a large spill was released directly to surface water could be large and extensive, and 

the magnitude of the effects would depend on the speed of cleanup response teams and the local 

conditions affecting oil dispersion. The probability of this type of spill occurring is very small. 

Under Alternative C, more construction of gravel structures, gravel roads, ice roads and pads, 

and more drilling in environmentally sensitive areas, would be expected. Thus, potential for 

impacts to surface water quality would be greater under this alternative than under other 

alternatives. 

Gravel Structures. Types of impacts to water quality from construction of CPFs, gravel roads, 

pads, and airstrips, and staging areas would be similar to those described in Alternative A. 

However, under this alternative, it is estimated that 7 fields would be developed, resulting in 

direct impacts of approximately 3,850 acres impacted by gravel placement. It is anticipated that

gravel construction would result in indirect impacts of upslope water impoundment and 

thermokarst erosion equivalent to at least the same area as that directly covered by gravel, or 

about 3,850 acres for the development assumptions made under this alternative. This is greater 

than the other alternatives and would increase the potential for thermokarst erosion to result in 

water features with high turbidity and suspended-sediment concentrations. 

Gravel Removal. Types of impacts from development of gravel sites would be the same as 

those described in Alternative A. Under Alternative C it is possible that 16 gravel mine sites 

would be necessary, resulting in a total of 800 acres impacted, depending on the actual number 

of sites required. This is more area affected than estimated for the other alternatives. Therefore,

the potential is greater for impacting water quality locally by an increase in thermokarst and 

erosion at gravel extraction sites. ROP E-5 is designed to minimize the development footprint 

and would also minimize the amount of gravel and, therefore, gravel sites. ROP E-8 is designed

to minimize the impact of mineral materials mining activities on air, land, water, fish, and 

wildlife resources. It would require that sites are located outside the active floodplain and 

would encourage their use for reservoirs and sites for enhancing fish and wildlife habitat. 

These ROPs would minimize effects to water quality from material sites. 

Summer tundra travel. Given the potentially greater number of fields developed, impacts 

from summer tundra travel under Alternative C could also be greater than Alternatives B and

D. Short-term, minor impacts are expected from limited summer tundra travel using low 

ground pressure vehicles. ROP L-1 is designed to regulate and monitor summer travel. 

Summer travel would be permitted on a case-by-case basis if the applicant can demonstrate that 

the proposed use would have no more than short-term impacts to soils; vegetation; and, 

therefore, water quality. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-400 

Alternative C: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Stream Crossings. Types of impacts to water quality from stream crossings would be the 

same as those described in Alternative A. Under Alternative C, it is estimated that more roads 

(see section 4.2.1.2, Table 4.2-G) and, therefore, steam crossings could be necessary to reach 

additional areas of high oil and gas potential. The potential for constricting flows and creating 

increased stream velocities, ice jams, ice impacts, scour, and streambank erosion would be 

greater. However, Lease Stipulations 42, 43, and 44 provide guidance on the use of bridges and

culverts that would help ensure natural drainage pattern are maintained. 

Pipelines. Types of impacts from pipeline construction and operation would be the same as 

those described in Alternative A. Under Alternative C, given the potentially greater number of

fields developed, impacts from pipeline construction would be greater than those described for 

all other Alternatives. Under Alternative C, 502 miles of pipeline would be required resulting 

in short-term disturbance to soils of approximately 1,520 acres and a long-term impact at VSM 

sites of approximately two acres (see section 4.2.1.2, Table 4.2-G). 

The extent of impacts associated with buried pipeline could also be greater under Alternative C

given the potentially greater number of fields developed. Because pipeline burial under tundra 

has been the exception on the North Slope rather than the norm, it is expected that this activity 

would disturb only a small amount of area in the planning area. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Types of effects from abandonment and rehabilitation would be the same as those described in 

Alternative A. Under Alternative C, given the potentially greater number of fields developed, 

impacts from abandonment and rehabilitation would be greater than those described for other 

alternatives. See section 4.2.1.2, Table 4.2-G for a comparison of areas impacted by 

infrastructure that would need to be rehabilitated. Lease Stipulation G-1 could require removal 

and reclamation of the developed site(s) upon field abandonment, which would eventually result 

in restoration of the natural drainage. 

Commercial Gas Development 

If commercial gas is developed on the North Slope, impacts to water quality from gas 

development in the planning area would be similar to those from oil development, though would 

not include impacts from oil spills. Alternative C could result in slightly larger water quality 

impacts than those of the other alternatives. Among the alternatives considered in this 

Supplemental IAP/EIS, Alternative C, which is estimated to have approximately 12% more gas 

pipeline than the other alternatives, is likely to have the greatest impacts on water resources.

In addition, like Alternatives B and D, Alternative C would make more lands available in the 

ice-rich areas especially susceptible to thermokarst, subsidence and erosion, and thus could

have greater impacts from burying a gas pipeline. Potential impacts during burial of a gas 

pipeline could include temporary impoundments, diversions, and sedimentation. Buried gas 

lines also have potential thermokarst, subsidence, and erosion problems that could persist 

beyond the construction phase. If all work on the pipelines is done during winter, these impacts 

would be greatly reduced. Placement of the gas pipeline on VSMs would also obviate these

impacts associated with pipeline burial. 

4.5.4.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Under Alternative C, the lease stipulations and ROPs listed in Table 2-2 would potentially 

mitigate impacts to water resources because they would require setbacks from rivers and fish4-401 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

bearing lakes for oil and gas activities, place limits on the withdrawal of water from fish-bearing 

lakes, and regulate the construction of gravel roads, ice roads and pads, and pipelines. Also, oil 

spill prevention and response procedures would be required, as would oil spill clean-up 

procedures. Refueling would be regulated and thereby kept away from rivers and lakes, 

particularly fish-bearing lakes. The required snowpack would be present on the tundra before

seismic equipment would be allowed to make overland moves during winter. Drilling would not 

be allowed in streams, rivers, or fish-bearing lakes. 

Several lease stipulations and ROPs would protect water quality under Alternative C. Required 

Operating Procedures A-1 through A-7 would regulate garbage, wastewater, drilling wastes, 

fuel and chemical storage, fuel handling, and spill prevention and clean-up plans. Required 

Operating Procedure B-1 would prohibit water withdrawal from rivers during winter and ROP 

B-2 would regulate amounts of winter water withdrawals from lakes. Required Operating 

Procedures C-2 through C-4 would regulate overland moves, seismic work, ice-road

construction, and other heavy equipment travel during the winter to limit impacts to water 

resources. Lease Stipulation D-1 would limit exploratory drilling in shallow lakes, streams, and 

floodplains, but would allow exceptions if there was no feasible or prudent alternative. 

Required Operating Procedures and Lease Stipulations E-2, E-3, E-6, and E-8 would limit 

certain facility, structure, and gravel mine site design and construction impacts near lakes and 

rivers, but would allow exceptions if there was no feasible or prudent alternative. ROP E-5 is 

designed to minimize the development footprint and would also minimize the amount of gravel

and, therefore, gravel sites. ROP E-8 is designed to minimize the impact of mineral materials 

mining activities on air, land, water, fish, and wildlife resources. It would require that sites are 

located outside the active floodplain and would encourage their use for reservoirs and sites for

enhancing fish and wildlife habitat. These ROPs would minimize effects to water quality from 

material sites. Lease Stipulation G-1 could require removal and reclamation of the developed

site(s) upon field abandonment, which would eventually result in restoration of the natural 

drainage. Lease Stipulation K-1 would be equally effective as Alternative A Lease Stipulation 

39 in protecting aquatic, floodplain, and riparian areas adjacent to rivers identified as having 

critical aquatic and riparian habitat, except in certain large rivers. Lease Stipulation K-2 would 

be equally effective as Alternative A Lease Stipulation 39 in protecting aquatic and riparian 

areas adjacent to deepwater lakes, but would allow exceptions if there were no feasible or 

prudent alternatives. 

4.5.4.4 Conclusion 

Under all alternatives, this analysis shows that impacts to water resources from non-oil and gas 

activities would be minor. Most impacts from and oil and gas exploration would also be minor 

and short-term. Short-term impacts include water withdrawals from lakes for ice roads and 

pads. Seismic activities could result in thermokarst and erosion on approximately 153 acres 

during a 25-year period under all alternatives. 

Under Alternative C, the amount of area impacted from oil and gas exploration and

development would potentially exceed those of the other alternatives as additional highpotential oil and gas areas would be available for leasing. Therefore, potential impacts to water 

resources from development infrastructure such as CPFs, roads, pads, runways, pipelines,

pump stations, and staging bases, would also be greater (see section 4.2.1.2, Table 4.2-G, for a 

comparison of infrastructure by alternative). Long-term impacts from development of

infrastructure could have direct impacts of approximately 3,850 acres and indirect impacts of 

approximately 3,850 acres under Alternative C. Impacts could include disturbance of stream 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-402 

Alternative C: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

banks or shorelines and subsequent thawing of permafrost (thermokarst); and blockages of

natural channels and floodways which would disrupt drainage patterns. Excavation of material 

sites would also result in a loss of approximately 800 acres. Total long-term impacts would total 

8,500 acres. 

Under Alternative C, it is estimated that more roads and, therefore, steam crossings could be 

necessary to reach areas of high oil and gas potential. The potential for constricting flows and 

creating increased stream velocities, ice jams, ice impacts, scour, and streambank erosion would 

be greater. However, Lease Stipulations 42, 43, and 44 provide guidance on the use of bridges 

and culverts that would help ensure natural drainage pattern are maintained. 

The greatest risk to water quality from oil and gas activity in the planning area is the potential 

for spills. Under Alternative C, the estimated number and volume of large and small spills 

would be greater than those estimated for other alternatives since additional high oil potential 

areas would be available for development. In addition, there is greater potential for a spill from 

oil and gas activities to affect water quality in Teshekpuk Lake as the entire planning area, 

including the Lake, would be available for oil and gas leasing. 

Impacts to water resources from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas activities, 

would likely be additive, except in those areas where the two types of activities overlapped.

Impacts to water sources from exploration and development activities would also be additive, 

except where development activities occurred in areas previously disturbed during exploration. 

In areas where two or more activities occurred, overall impacts would reflect those impacts 

associated with the first activity and any new impacts associated with later activities. 

Numerous technological advancements have been made during the decades of operations on the

North Slope that have allowed current development activities to proceed with less 

environmental impact than previous operations (NRC 2003). While any surface-disturbing 

activity could affect water resources, the lease stipulations and ROPs under Alternative C 

would help mitigate impacts to these resources. 

4.5.5 Vegetation 

4.5.5.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative C, impacts associated with non-oil and gas activities would be similar to 

those described under Alternatives A and B. These activities could occur throughout the 

planning area, and at more or less the same frequency and intensity as under the other 

alternatives, despite the increased availability of land for oil and gas leasing. There could be 

some increased use of off-road vehicles in the planning area due to an increase in the amount of

roads associated with development. However, additional impacts to vegetation from this 

increase would likely be small. 

4-403 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.5.5.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbances 

Exploration 

Under Alternative C, types of impacts to vegetation from activities associated with oil and gas 

exploration would be similar to those that occur under other alternatives. There would be a 

greater number of exploration and delineation wells drilled, which would increase the impacts 

of well collar construction and the number and impacts of both ice pads and ice roads. 

Under Alternative C, the same scenario for seismic exploration is assumed as for the other 

alternatives. Short-term vegetation disturbance from 2-D and 3-D operations combined would 

total a maximum of 107,996 acres (2.3% of the 4.6 million acre planning area). Long-term

disturbance is estimated to total 153 acres. 

During the life of the plan, it is assumed that 120 exploration wells and 90 delineation wells, or 

a total of 210 wells, would be drilled from ice pads in the planning area under Alternative C. At 

six acres per pad, these would impact 1,260 acres of tundra, spread out over 50 years (39% more 

than Alternative A and 24% more than Alternative B). Assuming that 4% (nine) of these would

also involve an over-summer ice pad, an additional 54 acres of vegetation would be affected by 

ice pads (29% more than Alternative B). 

Under Alternative C, ice road construction would also increase in terms of total miles 

constructed because of an increase to seven in number of total fields discovered and an increase 

from 162 to 182 miles of sales-oil pipeline. The total short term disturbance from ice roads over 

50 years would be 21,763 acres, about 39% more than for Alternative A and 17% more than for 

Alternative B. Since vegetation recovery from ice road impacts is expected within a few years

(Yokel et al. in press), long-term disturbance from ice roads would be negligible. Although some

evidence of crushed tussocks may still be apparent, new growth would preclude any exposed 

soils. 

Ice airstrips are also used during exploratory drilling, and under Alternative C it is assumed 

that 40 ice airstrips would be constructed covering 11 acres each for a total of 440 acres (100% 

more than Alternative A and 33% more than Alternative B). These airstrips are commonly built

on the grounded ice of large lakes, but if they were built over tundra they would result in 

impacts similar to ice roads. 

The construction of well cellars during exploration requires the digging of a hole that destroys 

vegetation on approximately 16 square feet (0.0004 acres) of ground. Thermokarst associated 

with the disruption of thermal regime in the surrounding soil may also change the vegetation 

type around the well cellar to a wetter vegetation type. These impacts could result in 0.08 acres 

of vegetation being destroyed under Alternative C (39% more than Alternative A and 24% more 

than Alternative B). 

 Development 

During oil and gas development and production, various activities could cause impacts to 

vegetation in the planning area. These activities include construction and use of gravel pads, 

staging areas, roads, airstrips, and pipelines, excavation of material sites, and construction of 

ice roads and ice pads. Ice roads and pads are covered above. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-404 

Alternative C: Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Placement of Gravel Fill. Construction of CPFs and associated satellite pads, roads, staging 

areas, and airstrips would result in the destruction of vegetation in the areas of gravel 

placement. Under this alternative, seven CPFs and associated satellite pads, roads and 

airstrips, seven pump stations, and four staging bases would be developed, resulting in 3,847 

acres of vegetation destroyed by gravel placement (42% more than under Alternative A and 26% 

more than under Alternative B). 

The increased construction and use of facilities under Alternative C would result in a larger 

area impacted by dust than under the other alternatives. Assuming a total of 320 miles of infield gravel roads and 7 miles of airstrips, there is a potential for a total perimeter of 654 miles. 

Within 30 feet of gravel fill, up to 2,378 acres of vegetation could be subject to smothering by 

dust and gravel, and another 9,513 acres could be affected by a dust shadow. 

Construction of gravel pads, roads, and airstrips could alter the moisture regime of tundra near 

the structure by changing natural drainage patterns and areas where snow accumulates. 

Snowdrifts caused by gravel structures increase the wintertime soil surface temperature and

increase thaw depth in soils near the structures. These impacts are exacerbated by dust 

deposition (described above) and by the formation of impoundments (described below). These 

factors could combine to warm the soil, deepen thaw, and produce thermokarst adjacent to

roads and other gravel structures (NRC 2003). Additionally, these changes could alter the 

species composition of the plant community near gravel structures. In general, most changes in

the plant community around gravel structures would occur within 164 feet of the structure. If 

all effects were to occur within this zone, approximately 13,001 acres would be impacted under 

Alternative C (39% more than under Alternative A and 28% more than under Alternative B). 

Note that this area includes the 11,891 acres affected by dust above, and is not in addition to it. 

Material Sites. Gravel required for development in the planning area could be mined from

existing sites east of the planning area or could be extracted from new sites developed within 

the planning area. Investigations to identify gravel sources in the planning area have not been 

conducted, but presumably would be initiated if discoveries of recoverable oil or gas were made. 

Under Alternative C it is assumed that 16 material sites, each affecting 50 acres, would be 

needed. This would cover a total area of 800 acres (45% more than under Alternative A and 23% 

more than under Alternative B). Excavation of gravel and stockpiling of overburden would 

destroy vegetation at these sites. 

Pipelines. Under Alternative C, impacts from oil pipeline construction would be similar in 

nature to those described for the other alternatives. The total area disturbed by each VSM 

would be about 14 square feet. Overall, 0.03 acres of vegetation would be disturbed by VSMs per 

pipeline mile. Under Alternative C, 320 miles of gathering lines and 182 miles of sales-oil 

pipelines would disturb 15 acres of vegetation through VSM placement (about 25% more than 

under Alternative A and 20% more than under Alternative B). In addition, if commercial gas 

development occurred in the planning area, the impacts of gas pipelines would likely be the

similar to, but slightly larger than that described for the other alternatives because it is 

anticipated that 90 acres of vegetation would be destroyed by digging a four-foot-wide trench 

and an additional 240 acres impacted along the route through compaction by machinery or by 

stockpiling overburden. 

Summer Tundra Travel. On a case-by-case basis, BLM may permit low-ground-pressure 

vehicles to travel off of gravel pads and roads during periods other than when the ground is 

frozen and covered with snow. This is expected to be an uncommon occurrence, and if permitted 

4-405 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

at all it would likely be only during late summer to fall. Because of restrictions that would be 

placed on this activity, impacts to vegetation should be limited to the compression of standing 

vegetation, similar to what happens during winter following traffic by low-ground-pressure 

vehicles. 

Air Pollution. The potential for impacts to vegetation from air pollution would be slightly 

greater under Alternative C, given the potential for additional oil fields and processing 

facilities, as compared to the other alternatives. However, it is unlikely that impacts to 

vegetation from pollutants would substantially alter the plant communities in the planning 

area. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Under Alternative C, impacts to vegetation from abandonment and rehabilitation activities 

would be greater than under other alternatives, because there would be a greater extent of 

gravel fill to rehabilitate. During abandonment activities, vegetation and wetlands would be 

impacted by dust fallout along roads, by ice roads and other off-road tundra travel associated 

with dismantling of pipelines and power lines, and by disturbance to vegetation adjacent to

VSMs and power line poles during their removal. The level of impact from these activities would

be roughly the same as that during construction if gravel fill was removed; impacts would be 

less if the gravel were to be left in place. If roads and pads were left in place, and especially if 

cross drainage across roads was not maintained, water impoundment would occur, and could 

alter plant communities as described for the construction period. It is also likely that the 

unmaintained roads would have occasional washouts, where tundra vegetation would be 

covered with washed-out gravel. Roads and pads, if left in place, would likely need to be 

revegetated with plants native to gravel bars and ridges in the Arctic (i.e., different from the 

plant communities surrounding the facilities). Revegetation activities could take several years,

as initial attempts are not always successful. Removal of gravel from pads, roads, and airstrips 

could be mandated. Partial or complete removal of gravel can result in faster reestablishment of

native plant growth, although establishment can take many years (more than a decade). In 

addition, thaw subsidence is difficult to predict, and complete restoration to preexisting 

conditions is improbable. 

Effects of Spills 

The greater amount of leasing, development, and production of oil that would occur under 

Alternative C, relative to the other alternatives, would result in a greater number of small spills 

of crude and refined oil in the planning area. The chance of a large oil spill occurring would also 

be greater under Alternative C; however it would still be a rare event. 

Most oil spills cover less than 500 square feet (<0.01 acres), although a pressured aerial mist 

may cover up to 145 acres (Ott 1997). ). (Such a spill is a very low probability event, occurring 

less than once out of the total spills expected throughout the life of this Plan. Thus its 

magnitude is not apparent in the following acreages.) The average spill would cover 0.1 acre. If 

11% of all oil spills would reach vegetation during summer, under Alternative C this would 

mean 275 of the 2,503 crude and refined oil spills assumed to occur over the life of the plan 

would have more than a negligible effect on vegetation. Assuming the average spill would cover 

0.1 acre, under Alternative C approximately 27.5 acres would be impacted substantially during 

the lifetime of development in the planning area. This is about 39% more than the acreage 

impacted under Alternative A and 27% more than under Alternative B. Overall, past spills on 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-406 

Alternative C: Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Alaska’s North Slope have resulted in minor ecological damage and ecosystems have shown 

good potential for recovery (Jorgenson 1997). 

Commercial Gas Development 

The 182-mile-long buried gas pipeline projected for Alternative C (20 miles longer than in the 

other alternatives) would destroy or alter proportionately more vegetation than the other 

alternatives. It would destroy approximately 90 acres of vegetation directly through excavation 

of a 4-foot-wide trench and, potentially, alter 240 acres along an approximately 11-foot-wide 

strip where compaction and other indirect effects from use of machinery and temporary storage

of overburden would occur. Other impacts would be similar to those for the other alternatives,

including destruction of vegetation over 10 to 20 acres for a compressor station pad. 

4.5.5.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Alternative C would have the same lease stipulations and ROPs as those outlined under 

Alternative B. Under Alternative C, development in the planning area would result in greater 

impacts to vegetation and plant communities compared to other alternatives, due to the greater 

extent of gravel fill. The ROPs and lease stipulations associated with Alternative C would 

reduce impacts by minimizing destruction of vegetation and alteration of plant communities. 

4.5.5.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative C, impacts to vegetation from activities other than oil and gas development

would be similar to those under Alternatives A and B, and would include minor impacts from

aircraft landings, archaeological and paleontological excavations, camps, and overland moves.

The duration of these impacts would be short term ranging up to 5 months, and recovery would

vary from 1 to several years. 

As for other alternatives, impacts to vegetation from oil and gas exploration under Alternative 

C would occur from seismic work and construction of well cellars during exploratory drilling and 

the construction of ice roads and ice pads. The duration and recovery time for impacts 

associated with seismic work would be similar to those for overland moves and the same as for 

Alternatives A and B. Based on earlier studies, there should be no substantial, long-term 

impacts to vegetation from seismic lines, but camp move trails could substantially impact 

approximately 153 acres after 8-9 years. Effects of well cellar construction would also be 

permanent, but would impact only 1.3 acres of vegetation. 

Under Alternative C, the effects of oil and gas development and operation would include 

destruction of vegetation during construction of gravel pads (CPFs, satellite drill pads, pump 

stations, and staging bases), roads, airstrips, and staging areas; from excavation of material 

sites and burial of gas pipelines; and construction of VSMs. These impacts would be long-term 

and would impact about 4,649 acres, or 0.1% of the 4.6 million acre planning area (as compared 

to 0.07% under Alternative A or 0.08% under Alternative B). (An additional 90 acres would be 

destroyed through burial of gas pipelines). Plant communities could also be altered by dust 

deposition, salinity of gravel fill used in construction, snow drifts, and blockage of or change to

natural drainage patterns. These impacts would be also be long-term and would impact about 

13,001 acres, or 0.3% of the planning area (39% more than the amount of vegetation impacted 

under Alternative A, or 28% more than under Alternative B). 

4-407 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

It is assumed that impacts to vegetation types or communities would occur in proportion to

their occurrence within the planning area. However, increased development in the area around

Teshekpuk Lake, and across the 213,000 acres that would be off-limits to oil and gas leasing 

and development under Alternative B but would be open to leasing under Alternative C, could 

disproportionately impact wet vegetation classes compared to those alternatives. A higher 

percentage of wet vegetation communities occur in areas in the northern portion of the planning 

area. This area is also considered to have the highest potential for oil reserves, which would 

increase the likelihood that these areas would be developed under Alternative C. 

Under Alternative C, development would be unlikely to substantially affect any common plant 

species or communities. However, if development facilities were constructed in an area 

containing a population of a rare plant species, the impacts to that species could be severe. 

Three rare North Slope, plant species are known to occur in the planning area, and four other

rare species are known to occur on the North Slope but have not been documented in the 

Northeast NPR-A. Sabine grass is an aquatic grass that occurs between the pendent grass and 

sedge zones in lakes and ponds. This species is known from a few locations north and northeast 

of Teshekpuk Lake, which would be protected from development under Alternatives A and B,

and may be protected under Alternative D, but would not be protected under Alternative C.

Stipulated cinquefoil has been found at Umiat. This Asian species is found in sandy substrates, 

such as sandy meadows, and riverbank silts and sands other than dunes. This species would be

protected by setbacks along rivers in the planning area and by the designation of the Colville 

River Special Area. Muir’s fleabane, Drummond’s bluebell, and Hartz’s bluegrass all occur in 

dry habitats associated with bluffs, floodplains, river terraces, sand dunes, rocky outcrops and 

fellfields. These habitats are the primary sources of gravel fill used during construction and 

development (NRC 2003), and could be impacted by development in these areas. 

Impacts to vegetation from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas activities, would 

likely be additive, except in those areas where the two types of activities overlapped. Impacts to 

vegetation from exploration and development activities would also be additive, except where 

development activities occurred in areas previously disturbed during exploration. In areas 

where two or more activities occurred, overall impacts would reflect those impacts associated 

with the first activity and any new impacts associated with later activities. 

4.5.6 Wetlands and Floodplains 

An additional 211,000, 213,000 and 600,000 acres would be available for oil and gas leasing 

under this alternative as compared to the Alternative D, Alternative B, and Alternative A, 

respectively. Thus, impacts to wetlands and floodplains could be greater under this alternative 

if development occurs in areas closed to leasing under the other alternatives, or more areas are 

explored and developed under this alternative than under the other alternatives. However, 

ROPs and performance-based lease stipulations for Alternative C would limit impacts to 

wetlands and floodplains. Setbacks from rivers, streams, and fish-bearing lakes would be in the 

range of 1⁄4 to 3 miles under Alternative C. Approximately 95% of the planning area would be 

considered wetlands, according to established criteria for determining wetland status. It is 

likely and therefore assumed that all ground-disturbing actions will be impacting wetlands for 

the purposes of calculating short and long-term impacts. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-408 

Alternative C: Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.5.6.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Activities not related to oil and gas exploration and development that could occur in the

planning area under Alternative C include aircraft, watercraft, OHV and snowmachine use, 

overland moves, collection and excavation for scientific research, hunting camps, recreational 

use of the area, and use of the area by local natives for subsistence. These activities could occur 

throughout the planning area, and at the same frequency and intensity as under Alternative A, 

despite the increased availability of land for oil and gas leasing. There could be some increased 

use of OHVs in the planning area due to an increase in the amount of roads associated with 

development. However, additional impacts to wetlands and floodplains from this increase

would likely be small. 

4.5.6.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

The following analysis is based on section 4.2.1.2, Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development Activities. See that section for a description of how estimated areas of

disturbance were calculated for each alternative. 

Effects of Disturbances 

Various activities associated with oil and gas exploration, development and production could

impact wetlands and floodplains in the planning area. These activities include seismic 

operations, exploration drilling, construction of ice roads and ice pads, summer tundra travel, 

gravel roads, gravel pads for pump stations, CPFs, and staging bases, airstrip and pipeline 

construction, and gravel mine sites. 

Exploration 

During oil exploration, various activities could cause impacts to wetlands and floodplains in the 

planning area. These activities include seismic operations, exploration drilling, and 

construction of ice roads, pads and airstrips. The types of impacts to wetlands and floodplains 

from exploration activities were described in Alternative A and are similar to all Alternatives. 

Under Alternative C, impacts to wetlands and floodplains from activities associated with oil and 

gas exploration would be greater than those that occur under Alternative A , assuming an 

additional 61 exploration and delineation wells will be drilled, which would increase the impacts 

of well cellar construction and the number and impacts of both ice pads and ice roads. 

Under Alternative C, the same scenario for seismic exploration is assumed as for all 

Alternatives. Short-term vegetation disturbance from 2-D and 3-D operations is expected to 

total a maximum of 108,000 acres. Long-term disturbance is estimated to total 153 acres. 

During the life of the plan, it is assumed that 120 exploration wells and 90 delineation wells, or 

a total of 210 wells, would be drilled from ice pads in the planning area under Alternative C. At 

six acres per pad, these would impact 1,260 acres of tundra, spread out over 50 years. This 

compares with 906 and 1020 acres of impacts from Alternatives A and B, respectively. 

Assuming that 4% (nine) of these would also involve an over-summer ice pad, an additional 54 

acres of vegetation would be affected by ice pads. 

4-409 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Ice road construction would also increase in terms of total miles constructed because of an 

increase to seven in the number of total fields discovered and an increase from 162 to 182 miles 

of sales-oil pipeline. The total acreage of ice road over 50 years would be 21,763, assuming a 25­

foot width for ice roads. This compares with 15,642 and 18,672 acres of impacts from 

Alternatives A and B, respectively. This also represents the total short-term disturbance from

ice roads. Since vegetation recovery from ice road impacts is expected within a few years, it is 

assumed that long-term disturbance from ice roads would be negligible. 

Ice airstrips are also used during exploratory drilling, and under Alternative C it is assumed 

that 40 ice airstrips would be constructed (20 more than Alternative A, and 10 more than 

Alternative B) covering 11 acres each for a total of 440 acres. These airstrips are commonly

built on the grounded ice of large lakes, but if they were built over tundra they would result in 

impacts similar to ice roads. 

The construction of well cellars during exploration requires the digging of a hole that destroys 

vegetation on approximately 16 square feet (0.00037 acres) of ground per well. Thermokarst 

associated with the disruption of thermal regime in the surrounding soil may also change the 

vegetation type around the well cellar to a wetter vegetation type. The impacts from 210 wells

could result in 0.08 acres of vegetation being destroyed under Alternative C. 

Development and Production 

During oil development and production, various activities could cause impacts to wetlands in 

the planning area. These activities include construction of gravel pads for pump stations, 

staging bases and CPFs, roads, airstrips, pipelines, excavation of material sites, summer tundra 

travel, and construction of ice roads. Impacts of ice roads were discussed previously under the

“Exploration” subheading and more thoroughly in Alternative A. 

Placement of Gravel Fill. Types of impacts to wetlands and floodplains from placement of

gravel fill were described in Alternative A. Construction of CPFs and associated satellite pads, 

roads, staging areas, and airstrips would result in the destruction of vegetation in the areas of 

gravel placement. Under Alternative C, seven oil fields, seven pump stations, and four staging 

bases would be developed, resulting in 3,847 acres of wetlands destroyed by gravel placement. 

This compares with 2,718 and 3,064 acres of impacts from Alternatives A and B, respectively. 

The increased facilities construction and use under Alternative C would result in a larger area 

impacted by dust than under Alternative A. Assuming a total of 320 miles of in-field gravel 

roads and 7 miles of airstrips, there is a potential for a total perimeter of 654 miles. Within 30 

feet of gravel fill, up to 2,378 acres of vegetation could be subject to smothering by dust and 

gravel, and between 30 and 150 feet, another 9,513 acres of altered vegetation for a total of 

11,891 acres that could be affected by a dust shadow out to a distance of 150 feet. In general, 

most changes in the plant community around gravel structures would occur within 164 feet of 

the structure (Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1983). If all effects were to occur within this 164 

foot zone, a total of 13,001 acres would be affected. This compares with 9,343 and 10,178 acres 

of impacts from Alternatives A and B, respectively. 

Material Sites. Types of impacts to wetlands and floodplains from material sites were 

described in Alternative A. Gravel required for development in the planning area could be 

mined from existing sites east of the planning area or could be extracted from new sites 

developed within the planning area. Investigations to identify gravel sources in the planning 

area have not been conducted, but presumably would be initiated if discoveries of recoverable oil 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-410 

Alternative C: Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

or gas were made. Under Alternative C it is assumed that 16 material sites, each affecting 50 

acres, would be needed. This would cover a total area of 800 acres, compared to 550 and 650 

acres for Alternatives A and B, respectively. Excavation of the gravel mine and stockpiling of 

overburden would destroy wetlands and floodplains at these sites. ROP E-8 minimizes impacts 

to wetlands and floodplains by placing material sites outside of floodplains, or within floodplains 

if water reservoirs can be utilized and fish habitat increased. 

Pipelines. Types of impacts to wetlands and floodplains from pipelines were described in 

Alternative A. Impacts under Alternative C from pipeline construction would be similar to 

those described for Alternative A. The total area disturbed by each VSM would be about 14 

square feet or .00032 acres. About 6% of this area would be vegetation destroyed and replaced 

by the VSM, and the remaining portion would be potentially altered in terms of community type 

or species composition. Overall, 0.03 acres of vegetation would be disturbed per pipeline mile. 

Under Alternative C, 320 miles of gathering lines and 182 miles of sales-oil pipelines would 

disturb up to 15 acres of vegetation through VSM placement, compared to 12 and 13 acres for 

Alternatives A and B, respectively. 

Summer Tundra Travel. Types of impacts to wetlands from summer tundra travel were

described in Alternative A. Given the potentially greater number of fields developed, impacts 

from summer tundra travel under Alternative C could also be greater than under Alternative A.

Short-term, minor impacts are expected from limited summer tundra travel using low ground

pressure vehicles. ROP L-1 is designed to regulate and monitor summer travel. Summer travel 

would be permitted on a case-by-case basis if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed 

use would have no more than minimal impacts to soils and vegetation. 

Stream Crossings. Types of impacts to floodplains and stream crossings from installation of 

culverts, bridges or pipelines were described in Alternative A. An additional 90 miles of infield 

gravel roads and two additional airstrips, CPFs, and nine more production pads are expected

under Alternative C than under Alternative A. For this reason it is expected that more stream 

crossings will be needed, and the potential for constricting flows and creation of increased 

stream velocities, ice jams, ice impacts, scour and streambank erosion would be greater under 

Alternative C. However, ROP E-6 is protective of stream crossings by requiring crossings to be 

designed and constructed to maintain natural drainage and minimize adverse effects to natural 

stream flow. 

Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Alternative C may require removal of structures or rehabilitation of an additional 1,380 acres 

more than Alternative A and 934 acres more than Alternative B. During abandonment 

activities, vegetation and wetlands would be impacted by dust fallout along roads, by ice roads 

and other off-road tundra travel associated with dismantling of pipelines and power lines, and 

by disturbance to vegetation adjacent to VSMs and power line poles during their removal. The 

level of impact from these activities would be roughly the same as that during construction if 

gravel fill was removed; impacts would be less if the gravel were to be left in place. If roads and 

pads were left in place, and especially if cross drainage across roads was not maintained, water 

impoundment would occur, and could alter plant communities as described for the construction 

period. It is also likely that the unmaintained roads would have occasional washouts, where 

tundra vegetation would be covered with washed-out gravel. Roads and pads, if left in place, 

would likely need to be revegetated with plants native to gravel bars and ridges in the Arctic 

(i.e., different from the plant communities surrounding the facilities). Revegetation activities 

could take several years, as initial attempts are not always successful. Removal of gravel from 

4-411 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

pads, roads, and airstrips could be mandated. Partial or complete removal of gravel can result

in faster reestablishment of native plant growth, although establishment can take many years 

(more than a decade). In addition, thaw subsidence is difficult to predict, and complete

restoration to preexisting conditions is improbable. Lease Stipulation G-1 would provide for the 

removal of all oil and gas facilities at the time of field abandonment unless the AO determined 

that facilities should be left in place. 

Effects of Spills 

The greater amount of leasing, development, and production of oil that would occur under 

Alternative C, relative to Alternative A, would result in a greater number of small spills of 

crude and refined oil in the planning area. The chance of a large oil spill occurring would also 

be greater under Alternative C; however, it would still be a very rare event. 

Most oil spills cover less than 500 square feet (<0.01 acres), although a pressured aerial mist 

may cover up to 145 acres (Ott 1997). (Such a spill is a very low probability event, occurring less 

than once out of the total spills expected throughout the life of this Plan. Thus its magnitude is 

not apparent in the following acreages). See section 4.3.5.2 under the vegetation section for a

more thorough analysis of potential impacts to vegetation and wetlands from spills. If 11% of all 

oil spills would reach vegetation during summer under Alternative C this would mean 275 of 

the 2,503 spills assumed to occur over the life of the plan would have more than a negligible 

effect on vegetation. This compares with 197 and 228 spills assumed with Alternatives A and B, 

respectively. Assuming the average spill would cover 0.1 acre, under Alternative C 

approximately 27.5 acres would be impacted substantially during the lifetime of development in 

the planning area. Overall, past spills on Alaska’s North Slope have resulted in minor 

ecological damage and ecosystems have shown good potential for recovery (Jorgenson 1997). 

Commercial Gas Development 

Development of commercial gas in the planning area under Alternative C would reflect the 

impacts described for soils, water, and vegetation and would be similar, but greater than that 

described for the other alternatives. The greater length of buried gas pipelines (182 miles 

rather than 162 miles) projected in this alternative would be the primary reason for greater 

impacts, Alternative C (like Alternatives B and D) makes more lands available in ice-rich areas 

especially susceptible to thermokarst, subsidence and erosion, and thus could have greater 

impacts from burying a gas pipeline than Alternative A. Placement of gas pipelines on VSMs, 

would reduce these impacts, though vegetation and soils would be destroyed at base of the 

VSMs, vegetation under aboveground pipelines would be impacted by shading, and ice roads 

that may be used during construction would have localized, short-term impacts on vegetation 

and during spring melting add somewhat saline water to any shallow tundra pools. 

4.5.6.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Alternative C would have the same performance-based lease stipulations and ROPs as those 

outlined under Alternative B and be equally protective as those of the prescriptive stipulations 

in Alternative A. Development in the planning area under Alternative C would result in 

impacts to wetlands and floodplains greater than those from the other alternatives due to

greater amounts of gravel fill. The ROPs and lease stipulations associated with Alternative C 

would be effective in minimizing destruction of wetlands and floodplains. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-412 

Alternative C: Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.5.6.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative C, impacts to wetlands and floodplains from activities other than oil and gas 

development would be similar to those under Alternatives A and B, and would include minor 

impacts from aircraft, watercraft, OHV and snowmachine use, overland moves, collection and 

excavation for scientific research, hunting camps, recreational use of the area, and use of the 

area by local natives for subsistence. The duration of these impacts would be short term, 

ranging up to 5 months, and recovery would vary from one to several years. 

Under Alternative C, impacts to wetlands and floodplains from oil and gas exploration would be 

greater than the other alternatives and would involve seismic work, construction of well cellars 

during exploratory drilling, and the construction of ice roads, pads and airstrips. The duration 

and recovery time for impacts associated with seismic work would be similar to those for 

overland moves and the same as for Alternatives A and B. Based on earlier studies, there 

should be no substantial, long-term impacts to vegetation from seismic lines, but camp move

trails could substantially impact approximately 153 acres after 8-9 years. Effects of well cellar 

construction would also be permanent, but would impact only 0.08 acres of vegetation. 

The effects of oil development and operation under Alternative C would include destruction of 

wetlands during construction of gravel pads, roads, airstrips, and staging areas; from 

excavation of material sites; and construction of VSMs. These impacts would be long-term and

would impact about 4,649 acres, (compared to 3,270 and 3,716 acres impacted by Alternatives A

and B, respectively) or 0.1% of the 4.6 million acre planning area. Wetland plant communities

could also be altered by dust deposition, salinity of gravel fill used in construction, snow drifts, 

and blockage of or change to natural drainage patterns. These impacts would be also be longterm and would impact about 13,001 acres, (compared to 9,343 and 10,178 acres impacted by 

Alternatives A and B, respectively) or 0.3% of the planning area. 

It is assumed that impacts to wetlands and floodplains would occur in proportion to their 

occurrence within the planning area. However, increased development in the area around

Teshekpuk Lake, and across the 213,000 acres that would be off-limits to oil and gas leasing 

and development under Alternative B but would be open to leasing under Alternative C, could 

disproportionately impact wetlands since a higher percentage of wet vegetation communities 

occur in areas in the northern portion of the planning area. This area is also considered to have 

the highest potential for oil reserves, which would increase the likelihood that these areas 

would be developed under Alternative C. 

Impacts to wetlands and floodplains from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas 

activities, would likely be additive, except in those areas where the two types of activities 

overlapped. Impacts to wetlands from exploration and development activities would also be

additive, except where development activities occurred in areas previously disturbed during 

exploration. In areas where two or more activities occurred, overall impacts would reflect those

impacts associated with the first activity and any new impacts associated with later activities. 

4-413 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.5.7 Fish 

4.5.7-a Freshwater and Anadromous/Amphidromous Fish 

4.5.7-a.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

It is expected that the frequency and intensity of most non-oil and gas activities occurring under 

Alternative C would be similar to those occurring under Alternative B and Alternative A.

Ground camps in support of research may increase in association with the projected increase in 

oil and gas activity under Alternative C, and subsistence fishing could potentially occur in more 

areas due to increased access. However, additional impacts to fish from this increase would 

likely be small. 

4.5.7-a.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbances 

Effects from Seismic Surveys. Potential threats to overwintering fish from seismic surveys 

in the planning area would include 1) physical damage or acute mortality from acoustic energy 

pulses; 2) stress associated with acoustic energy pulses; and 3) physical damage to 

overwintering habitat caused by seismic vehicles. Given that overwintering habitat represents

only about 5% of the planning area, it is unlikely that seismic transmissions would occur 

directly over overwintering sites with any degree of regularity. Overall, any affects to 

overwintering fish caused by winter seismic surveys would be localized and would not be likely 

to have any measurable effect on fish populations within the planning area. 

Under Alternative C, seismic exploration in Teshekpuk Lake could occur during the summer 

open water period using airgun arrays and explosives (although the use of explosives is 

unlikely). Impacts from Vibroseis and airgun arrays under Alternative C would be identical to 

those described for other alternatives. 

Explosives, in comparison to airguns and Vibroseis, are generally more detrimental to fish 

(Wright and Hopky 1998). The received impulse depends on the mass of the charge, the depth of

the charge, the distance from the charge to fish, and the depth of the fish. The peak pressure

generated by an airgun array is less than that produced by a small charge of explosives. Most 

blast injuries to fish involve damage to air or gas-containing organs (Yelverton 1981), although 

damage to solid organs and other tissue has also been observed (Wright 1982). All of the species 

of fish present in Teshekpuk Lake have swim bladders and would be vulnerable to explosives. 

During exposure to shock waves, the swim bladder oscillates and may rupture, causing 

hemorrhages in nearby organs. In extreme cases, the oscillating swim bladder may rupture the 

body wall of the fish. The use of explosives in Teshekpuk Lake would likely result in the 

mortality of some fish present in the lake. The number of fish impacted would depend on the 

frequency and size of the charge used and the location of charges relative to fish in the lake. 

Juvenile fish would be more vulnerable to damage, as explosives have a greater impact on fish 

as body weight decreases (Yelverton et al. 1975). 

The level of seismic activity may be higher under Alternative C than under Alternative B and 

Alternative D, but any impacts would be localized. Therefore, seismic activities associated with 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-414 

Alternative C: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Alternative C are expected to be minor and not have a measurable effect on fish populations 

within and adjacent to the planning area. 

Effects from Water Demand. Most freshwater bodies less than 6 feet in depth typically 

freeze to the bottom. It has been estimated that by late winter, ice cover can decrease available 

freshwater habitat in North Slope rivers and streams by approximately 97% (Craig 1989b). 

Overwintering areas are therefore limited to deep-water pools and channels in rivers and

streams, and to lakes deep enough to provide sufficient under-ice free water during winter. In

standing waters, 7 feet is considered the minimum depth for supporting overwintering fish (PAI 

2002). Because of the importance of limited overwintering area to Arctic fish, ROPs and lease 

stipulations specifically regulate the winter withdrawal of water from lakes, rivers, and 

streams. Under Alternative C, the general level of protection to fish and fish habitat offered by 

ROPs and lease stipulations would be similar to those for the other alternatives. Under 

Alternative C, water withdrawal would increase proportionately to increased exploration and

development; however, careful adherence to ROPs and lease stipulations should offer adequate 

protection to fish. Winter water withdrawal associated with Alternative C should not have a 

measurable effect on freshwater, anadromous, or amphidromous fish populations within and 

adjacent to the planning area. 

Effects from Exploratory Drilling. Under Alternative C, the general level of protection to

fish and fish habitat offered by ROPs and lease stipulations would be similar to those developed 

for Alternative A and Alternative B. The number of exploratory wells could increase by about 

40% under Alternative C relative to Alternative A, but the prohibition of drilling in rivers and 

streams should mitigate some impacts to fish. Therefore, exploratory drilling activities 

associated with Alternative C should not have a measurable effect on freshwater, anadromous, 

or amphidromous fish populations within and adjacent to the planning area. 

Effects from Gravel Extraction. Under Alternative C, the general level of protection to fish 

and fish habitat offered by ROPs and lease stipulations would be less than that for Alternative 

A and Alternative B because more gravel extraction sites are anticipated under Alternative C. 

However, gravel extraction would not be expected to have a measurable effect on freshwater, 

anadromous, or amphidromous fish populations within and adjacent to the planning area under 

Alternative C, and could even enhance habitat. 

Effects from Pad, Road, and Pipeline Construction. Relative to Alternative A, a greater 

number of pads and roads, and pipelines would be constructed under Alternative C, and would 

be dependent on the amount of recoverable oil and gas reserves eventually brought into 

production. There would also be higher number of these features in comparison to Alternative 

B. Rigorous adherence to pre-development environmental assessment, structure siting, and 

construction codes should minimize some impacts to fish from construction and operationrelated impacts. Under Alternative C, impacts to fish and fish habitat offered by ROPs and 

lease stipulations would be nearly identical to that discussed under Alternative A and 

Alternative B. The construction and placement of drill pads, roadways, pipelines, bridges, and 

culverts under Alternative C should not have a measurable effect on freshwater, anadromous, 

or amphidromous fish populations within and adjacent to the planning area. 

Effects from Summer Tundra Travel. The use of low-ground-pressure vehicles for tundra 

travel during the summer may be necessary for pipeline inspection, maintenance, and spill 

prevention activities. Under Alternative C, the same protections would be provided for fish as in 

Alternative B (L-1 ROP), although the potential for an impact would be slightly higher because 

of the increased extent of pipeline. Summer tundra travel under Alternative C should not have 

4-415 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

a measurable effect on freshwater, anadromous, or amphidromous fish populations within and 

adjacent to the planning area. 

Effects from Causeways. Under Alternative C, the general level of protection to fish and fish 

habitat mitigated by ROPs and lease stipulations would be similar to that discussed under the 

Alternative B, but likely greater than Alternative A. The future construction of a causeway or

dock could have a minor effect on anadromous, and amphidromous fish populations under 

Alternative C. 

Effects from Waterflooding. Oil fields in the northern portion of the planning area would 

likely receive seawater from facilities already serving fields in the Prudhoe Bay/Kuparuk area 

under Alternative C. These facilities, which have been operational for years, have not been 

shown to have a serious effect on fish migrating or foraging in the intake area. If seawater 

intake facilities were constructed in the future to enhance supply to oil fields in the planning 

area, it is assumed that the same design safeguards would be incorporated to prevent the 

entrainment and impingement of fish. Under Alternative C, waterflooding would not be 

expected to have a measurable effect on anadromous and amphidromous fish. Nonetheless, 

under this alternative, it is projected that impacts to fish from seawater facilities would be 

greater than under other alternatives. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Water withdrawal and removal of bridges, culverts, and bridge approaches could have impacts 

on fish similar to those described for construction activities. Additional fish habitat could be 

created by allowing gravel pits to be colonized by fish from nearby streams. 

Effects of Spills 

Under Alternative C, the general level of protection to fish and fish habitat offered by ROPs and

lease stipulations would be nearly identical to those discussed under the other alternatives. 

Potential impacts are the same as those described under Alternative A. 

Under Alternative C, the volume of spills and expected amount of impact would increase 

proportionately (from Alternative A) with increased exploration and development. In 

Alternative C, the volume of oil from small and large spills is projected to be 39% more than the 

volume from spills estimated to occur under Alternative A. Given the small volume of oil 

typically involved in small spills, as well as the safety requirements for operations in the oil

field and stringent clean-up protocols, small oil spills associated with Alternative C would not 

likely have a measurable effect on freshwater, anadromous, or amphidromous fish populations 

in or adjacent to the planning area. Besides the effectiveness of the response, many 

independent factors will determine the probability that fish will be negatively impacted by an 

oil spill, including the quantity spilled, season, weather patterns, location (e.g. upland versus 

river channel), and proximity to sensitive habitat (see section 4.2.2.3, Fate and Behavior of 

Spilled Oil). If a large spill of crude oil occurred during the summer open-water period and 

within a major stream or river channel, this could potentially have an effect on freshwater, 

anadromous, or amphidromous fish populations in or adjacent to the planning area; in

particular, impacting subpopulations at the drainage level. A very large oil spill within a major 

stream or river channel during the summer would have an even more likely impact on

freshwater, anadromous, or amphidromous fish populations in or adjacent to the planning area. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-416 

Alternative C: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Commercial Gas Development 

Impacts of commercial gas development under Alternative C would be similar to those described 

for Alternatives A and B, though the potential for impacts would be about 12% higher because 

Alternative C could result in more buried gas pipeline. Winter construction of a buried gas 

pipeline by trenching through fish inhabited streams or portions of streams not frozen to the 

bottom would impact fish to some degree, depending on the volume of the overwintering habitat 

and the density of fish utilizing this habitat. Potential impacts to fish associated with

maintenance of gas pipelines would be similar to those described for construction. Water 

withdrawals and changes to hydrology caused by ice roads could affect fish. Potential issues 

include losing access to suitable habitat, barriers to movement, or habitat degradation. These 

ice roads would be necessary during both natural gas exploration and construction phases. For 

example, ice roads would be used to reach exploration drilling sites and also used in trenching 

the pipeline route or construction of a compressor station (ADNR, 2006b). If a buried gas

pipeline ruptured and gas escaped to a fish-bearing waterbody, some fish in the immediate

vicinity might be killed. Natural gas and condensates would be hazardous to any organisms 

exposed to high concentrations. In general, very few fish are likely to be affected by a pipeline 

rupture. 

While natural gas exploration and development may have notable localized impacts, it is not

likely to have a measurable effect on freshwater fish populations. 

4.5.7-a.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

The effectiveness of lease stipulations and ROPs in protecting freshwater, anadromous, and

amphidromous fish and fish habitat under Alternative C is identical to the effectiveness of those 

for Alternative B, and similar to those developed for Alternative D and for stipulations under 

Alternative A. 

4.5.7-a.3 Conclusion 

Activities proposed under Alternative C should have only minor effects on fish and their 

habitats. By opening up additional lands near Teshekpuk Lake to leasing, fish in this lake and 

other deep-water lakes and streams would have a greater potential to be impacted by spills and 

habitat degradation, resulting in greater risks to fish under this alternative than under the 

other alternatives. 

In general, impacts to fish from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas activities, would 

likely be additive, except in those areas where the two types of activities overlapped. Impacts to 

fish from exploration and development activities would also be additive, except where

development activities occurred in areas previously disturbed during exploration. However, once 

exploration and development/production cease in an area, fish populations and habitat could 

recover, reducing overall effects in the planning area. Surface disturbance and spill-related

impacts associated with Alternative C are projected to be greater than for Alternative A. 

Performance-based ROPs and lease stipulations developed for this alternative, however, would 

ensure the exploration and development activities are set back from fish habitats and that 

procedures are in place to clean up most spills before they can harm fish or their habitats. 

4-417 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.5.7-b Marine Fish 

4.5.7-b.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Most non-oil and gas activities, including recreational fishing, would be quite limited in scope 

and duration. In addition, recreational and commercial fishermen do not target marine fish in 

the Beaufort Sea. Therefore, it is not expected that non-oil and gas activities occurring under 

the Alternative C would have a measurable effect on marine fish in the vicinity of the planning 

area. 

4.5.7-b.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbances 

Effects from Seismic Surveys. Seismic surveys could be conducted within the planning area 

during the winter months, from early December to mid-May and on Teshekpuk Lake during the 

summer. Because marine fish and their habitat lie outside the planning area in winter and 

Teshekpuk Lake during the summer, seismic activities associated with Alternative C would not 

be expected to have a measurable effect on marine fish populations. 

Effects from Water Demand. Water used in the building of drill pads, roads, and airstrips 

would likely be withdrawn from freshwater sources proximal to the site of construction. These 

activities would have no effect on marine fish or their environment. Water withdrawal for the 

purposes of waterflooding, which would have implications for the marine system, is discussed 

separately below under the “Effects from Waterflooding” subheading. 

Effects from Exploratory Drilling. Most exploratory drilling would be conducted within the 

planning area during the winter months, from early December to mid-April. Because marine 

fish and their habitat lie outside the planning area in winter, most exploratory activities 

associated with Alternative C would not be expected to have a measurable effect on marine fish 

populations. Exploratory drilling could also be conducted from current production pads or 

platforms within a lake body during summer in the TLCH Area, but impacts to marine fish 

would be minor. 

Effects from Gravel Extraction. It is doubtful that gravel extraction would be permitted 

along the coastal tidal zone. Small numbers of fourhorn sculpin and Arctic flounder could 

migrate upriver in summer, but any encounter with a gravel site would be a chance occurrence, 

and would involve only a minor segment of any population. Fourhorn sculpin and Arctic 

flounder regularly inhabit and forage in highly turbid coastal waters near river outfalls and 

plumes. Gravel extraction would not benefit fish populations by creating overwintering habitat, 

as it might for freshwater fish, since all marine fish overwinter at sea. 

Effects from Pad, Road, and Pipeline Construction. Under Alternative C, a greater 

number of pads, roads, and pipelines associated with expanded exploration and development 

activities relative to Alternative A would occur, primarily inland rather than in coastal areas. 

The construction of pads, therefore, is not expected to have a measurable effect on marine fish 

populations within and adjacent to the planning area under Alternative C. Under Alternative 

C, the general level of protection to freshwater, anadromous, and amphidromous fish and fish 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-418 

Alternative C: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

habitat offered by ROPs and lease stipulations for this alternative would be nearly identical to 

those developed for Alternative A. 

Effects from Causeways. Under Alternative C, restrictions on the use, design, and monitoring

of causeways that might be constructed along the coast in the future would be nearly identical 

to those discussed under Alternative A. Any future construction of causeways or docks would

not be expected to have a measurable effect on marine fish populations within and adjacent to 

the planning area even if there were a greater level of activity associated with exploration and 

development, relative to the other alternatives. 

Effects from Waterflooding. Under Alternative C, waterflooding is not expected to have a 

measurable effect on marine fish, for the same reasons given above for anadromous and 

amphidromous fish, even if there were a greater level of activity associated with exploration and 

development, relative to the other alternatives. 

Effects of Spills 

The threat to marine fish from an oil spill is contingent upon the spill reaching coastal waters at 

volumes capable of affecting large nearshore areas. Because oil spills in the planning area are 

expected to be small, and given the stringent oil-spill-response safety requirements for 

operations on the oil field, there is a minor likelihood that an inland spill would reach 

coastal/marine waters of the planning area at volumes capable of causing a biologically 

measurable impacts to marine fishes. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Marine fish populations are not expected to be affected by exploration, construction, or

maintenance activities associated with a gas development beyond what is expected to occur

during oil development. 

4.5.7-b.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Under Alternative C, the general level of protection to fish and fish habitat offered by lease 

stipulations and ROPs would be identical to that discussed under Alternative B, and similar to 

that for Alternative D. Lease Stipulation K-6 specifically prohibits permanent oil and gas 

development within 3⁄4 mile inland from the coastline, unless the AO grants an exception. Thus, 

greater protection is afforded marine fish under the Alternative C than Alternative A. 

4.5.7-b.4 Conclusion 

In general, marine fishes of the Beaufort Sea are insulated from many potential environmental 

impacts associated with oil and gas development in the planning area. Most of the coastal tidal 

area of the planning area is shallow and lies within the winter landfast ice scour zone. Thus, the 

marine habitat and the fish occupying it are outside the planning area proper during winter and

would not be subject to disturbances associated with seismic surveys, exploration drilling, and 

water withdrawal. Although species like fourhorn sculpin and Arctic flounder may move 

upriver during summer, most members of these marine species remain in shallow coastal 

waters. The bulk of the population would not be directly subject to the effects of river gravel 

extraction; pad, road, and pipeline construction; sedimentation from gravel erosion; and the 

potential blockage of migratory corridors. 

4-419 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Because marine species are abundant and widely distributed throughout the Beaufort Sea, it is

also highly unlikely that any point impact associated with oil and gas development in the 

planning area (the occurrence of which is unlikely) could substantially affect these marine 

species at the population level. One exception might be a catastrophic oil spill that could cause 

sublethal genetic or physiological abnormalities that might be propagated through the broader 

population. However, given that oil spills in the planning area are expected to be small, and the 

stringent oil-spill-response safety requirements for operations on the oil field, such an event is 

unlikely. 

Overall, impacts to marine fish resources under Alternative C would be greater than those that 

would be expected to occur under Alternative A and Alternative B. 

4.5.8 Birds 

This section discusses the potential effects to birds that could result from management action in 

the planning area under Alternative C. A discussion of effects to threatened and endangered

bird species is given in section 4.5.10, Threatened and Endangered Species. Most of the 

activities that could potentially affect birds in the planning area would result from oil and gas 

exploration and development. Other activities that could potentially affect birds in the planning 

area include subsistence activities (including hunting, fishing, berry picking etc.), recreational 

use, activities associated with scientific surveys and research camps, clean up of old oil and gas 

exploration sites, and activities associated with government actions (e.g. clean up of abandoned 

well sites). These activities could affect tundra nesting birds by causing: 1) temporary or 

permanent habitat loss; 2) various types of disturbance related to equipment and facility noise, 

vehicular and air traffic, and pedestrian activities, which could result in displacement from 

preferred foraging, staging, nesting and/or brood-rearing habitats or decreasing productivity 

and survival; 3) increased predation from predators attracted to areas of human activity; and 4) 

mortality resulting from collisions with vehicles or structures, or exposure to contaminants, 

including oil spills. Alternative C makes 100% of the planning area’s 4.6 million acres available 

for oil and gas leasing (Map 2-3). It would utilize the same performance-based stipulations and 

ROPs developed for 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. 

4.5.8.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative C, activities not related to oil and gas exploration and development that 

could affect birds in the planning area would be the same as those described under the other

alternatives: private or commercial air traffic, aerial surveys to inventory wildlife or other 

resources, summer research camps, hazardous material or debris removal, subsistence hunting 

and fishing, and recreational camps and boating activity. Impacts to birds under Alternative C 

could be more frequent, greater in extent, or longer in duration than would occur under 

Alternative A. A greater number of individual animals would be exposed to human activities. 

Aircraft traffic would more often pass over birds during flights to or from the camps and along 

aerial survey routes. The disturbance reactions of birds would likely be brief, lasting for a few 

minutes to an hour. Some birds might avoid inventory survey and recreation camps during the 

6 to 12 weeks of activities, while ravens could be attracted to the camps. Lease stipulations to 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-420 

Alternative C: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

protect waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, and other birds and their habitats would help to mitigate 

the potential effects of non-oil and gas activities on birds under Alternative C. 

4.5.8.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbances 

Seismic Exploration 

Most seismic surveys to collect geological data and exploration drilling activities would occur 

during the winter months when most birds are not present in the planning area. Under 

Alternative C, the types of effects of winter exploration activities on the bird species that would

be present in the planning area would be the same as those discussed under the other 

alternatives. Although impacts associated with winter exploration would likely be minor under 

Alternatives A, B and C, there could be a greater effect to birds under Alternative C because 

areas of greater bird habitat value and use would be available for exploration than under 

Alternatives A or B, it is expected that the same number of seismic surveys will occur under all 

alternatives (see section 4.2.1.2). The direct effects of exploratory activities would likely 

include the temporary displacement of a small number of birds (e.g. ptarmigan) from preferred

winter feeding or roosting areas. 

During winter exploration activities, potential indirect impacts to birds could result from the 

construction of ice roads and ice pads and the associated water withdrawal. The types of effects

that could result from ice road and ice pad construction under Alternative C would be the same 

as those described under the other alternatives, and would primarily involve the temporary 

alteration of tundra habitats. Water withdrawal for ice road construction could also temporarily 

alter habitats adjacent to water source lakes, which could affect nesting or brood-rearing loons

and waterfowl. Rolligons and track vehicles used during winter exploration could also 

temporarily affect tundra vegetation, resulting in minor impacts to tundra habitat of nesting 

birds. A larger area would be available for oil and gas exploration activities under Alternative 

C, as compared to the other alternatives. Therefore, the potential impacts resulting from

exploratory activities would also be greater under Alternative C. Under Alternative C, moderate

effects to birds could occur in the Goose Molting Area, the entire area of which would be 

unavailable for oil and gas leasing under Alternative A and portions of which would be 

unavailable for leasing under Alternative B. However, Lease Stipulation K-4 may mitigate some 

potential impacts in the Goose Molting Area by prohibiting water extraction and other oil and 

gas activities that could affect goose feeding habitat along lakeshore margins. Currently there is 

little known as to why geese use the Goose Molting Area in such large concentrations and

impacts to vegetation or impoundments and delayed drainage due to ice roads may have a 

negative effect on the habitat used by molting geese. 

The use of airguns for boat-based seismic work in Teshekpuk Lake during the summer could

temporarily displace loons and waterfowl from preferred feeding habitats while surveys were 

being conducted. Disturbance may result not only from airgun use but also from boat activity 

(Rodgers and Smith 1995). Because setbacks around the perimeter of the lake presumably 

would eliminate the potential for disturbance to birds nesting near the lakeshore, only birds 

using habitats in the open water of the lake would potentially be disturbed. Birds displaced by 

seismic activities would likely return to preferred habitats after the airgun arrays passed 

through the area. Effects of use of airguns on forage fish may include stress from fleeing 

behavior and physical damage or death (section 4.1.1 this document) potentially resulting in a 

reduction in the amount of prey available to foraging loons. Disturbance to birds near and 

4-421 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

nesting on the shoreline could result from support activities, such as use of helicopters to 

transport personnel and supplies. Disturbance related to support activities could result in 

permanent or temporary displacement from nesting, feeding, or brood-rearing habitats. 

Conducting surveys after the completion of the nesting and brood-rearing period would

eliminate the potential for nest abandonment and loss of productivity. Although the use of

explosives for seismic surveys under Alternative C is highly unlikely, it would likely cause 

greater disturbance than described for seismic activities using airgun arrays. For example, the 

use of explosives could potentially cause bird mortality if diving birds were feeding near the 

charge. 

Predators, such as glaucous gulls, ravens, and Arctic foxes, could be attracted to anthropogenic 

food sources associated with summer maintenance of exploratory drilling and seismic 

equipment or winter exploratory activities. Increased levels of predation could have moderate 

impacts on tundra-nesting birds. Under Alternative C, ROPs A-2 and E-9 would help mitigate

the potential effects of increased predation, and the overall effect to birds would likely increase 

incrementally as the amount of exploratory activity increases under the four alternatives. 

However, it would likely be difficult to prevent ravens from nesting on oil field structures and 

increased levels of predation from ravens may be difficult to mitigate under any alternative. 

Oil and Gas Development 

Activities on Roads and Pads. Activities related to oil development and production in the 

planning area, such as vehicle, aircraft, pedestrian, and boat traffic, routine maintenance 

activities, heavy equipment use, and oil-spill clean-up activities, could cause disturbances that 

would affect tundra-nesting birds. Under Alternative C, the types of disturbances to birds would 

be the same as those discussed under the other alternatives. These disturbances could result in 

moderate impacts that could result in temporary or permanent displacement of birds from 

preferred foraging, nesting, and brood-rearing habitats; decreased nest attendance or nest 

abandonment; and increased energy expenditures that could affect physiological condition, rate 

of survival, and reproduction. The likelihood for impacts to tundra-nesting birds would depend 

on the location of the disturbance, the bird species and the number of individuals in the area, 

and the time of year. Impacts from disturbance would most likely occur in habitats with high 

bird concentrations, or if species with low population numbers or declining populations, such as 

the buff-breasted sandpiper or yellow-billed loon, were disturbed. 

The potential for disturbance to birds from activities on roads and pads would likely be greater 

under Alternative C, as compared to the other alternatives, because areas that support high 

bird concentrations occur in the Teshekpuk Lake Goose Molting Area and would be available for 

oil and gas leasing under Alternative C, but not under the other alternatives. This area is of 

international importance for molting brant and other geese, and the highest densities of nesting

shorebirds in the planning area occur in areas northeast and northwest of Teshekpuk Lake 

(Map 3-18). Disturbance that resulted in a reduction in the breeding success of geese and other 

waterfowl could impact the success of subsistence and sport hunters in Alaska, the lower 48 

states, Canada, Russia, and Mexico. Disturbance effects could impact shorebirds if development 

occurred in areas of high shorebird concentration located north of Teshekpuk Lake. Lease 

Stipulation K-4, however, would help to mitigate potential disturbance to birds in the Goose 

Molting Area by providing setbacks from lakes within which permanent oil and gas facilities 

would be prohibited. Lease Stipulation K-4 would also help limit impacts to goose molting lakes 

from excessive water extraction activities; provide for protection of shoreline habitats adjacent 

to these lakes; and protect the goose molting lakes from disturbance from oil and gas activities 

by requiring features that would screen or shield human activity from the view of any goose 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-422 

Alternative C: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

molting lake, and by minimizing ground traffic from May 20 through August 20. In addition, 

Lease Stipulation K-6 would establish a 3⁄4-mile buffer inland from the coast, within which oil 

and gas facilities would be prohibited, to the extent practicable, to minimize hindrance or 

alteration of caribou movement within caribou coastal insect-relief areas. This lease stipulation 

could also help to reduce the potential impacts to waterfowl habitats in coastal areas. Although 

these lease stipulations would be in place under the other alternatives, there would be a greater 

potential for disturbance to waterfowl and other birds under Alternative C because there would

be a larger area of high bird use in which activities could occur. 

Summer Tundra Travel. Alternative A allows summer tundra travel in Northeast NPR-A 

only through use of the stipulation exception process (see stipulation 24i in the 1998 Northeast 

NPR-A ROD). Travel off of gravel pads is easiest in winter and generally environmentally 

preferable at that time, some vehicle travel off of pads does occur in North Slope oil fields

during summer to accomplish specific tasks. The State of Alaska has approved some lowground-pressure vehicles for summer tundra travel and similar summer tundra travel may be 

anticipated to be part of oil development in northeast NPR-A. Alternative C contains Required

Operating Procedure L-1 which was crafted with the following objective “Protect stream banks 

and water quality;...maintain populations of, and adequate habitat for birds, fish, and caribou 

and other terrestrial mammals; and support maintenance of subsistence activities.” Summer 

tundra travel is commonly associated with spill prevention and preparedness measures 

required in spill prevention plans and it is anticipated that these are the types of activities that 

would be permitted to travel off of gravel pads and roads during times other than those

identified in ROP C-2a if required surveys and studies show that minimal impacts to the 

resources in the area would occur. The potential for disturbance to birds from summer tundra 

travel would likely be greater under Alternative C, as compared to Alternatives A and B, 

because there are greater areas that support high bird concentrations in portions of the Goose 

Molting Area that would be available for oil and gas leasing under Alternative C. The reduction 

in the amount of habitat protected under Alternative C, as compared to Alternative A and B,

would likely increase the risk of disturbance to internationally significant populations of 

molting geese, particularly brant that use the Goose Molting Area. The additional areas 

available for leasing under Alternative C could also negatively affect white-fronted, lesser snow 

and Canada geese. Disturbance that resulted in a reduction in the breeding success of geese and

other waterfowl could also impact the success of subsistence and sport hunters in Alaska, the 

lower 48 states, Canada, Russia, and Mexico. Disturbance effects could also impact shorebirds if 

development occurred in areas of high shorebird concentration located north of Teshekpuk 

Lake. 

Air-Traffic. Both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters could be used to transport personnel,

supplies, and equipment to airstrips or staging areas during development and production

activities in the planning area. The types of disturbance effects to waterfowl and other bird 

groups from aircraft would be the same under Alternative C as those discussed under the other 

alternatives. Aircraft disturbance could have moderate impacts on tundra-nesting birds or on 

molting geese that could include displacement from preferred feeding habitats, temporary or

permanent nest abandonment, and temporary or permanent displacement from molting and 

brood-rearing areas. However, some birds could acclimate to aircraft activity by either 

remaining in habitats located near aircraft activities, or by moving to nearby habitats. This may 

not be the case for brant, as they apparently do not habituate well to aircraft traffic (Derksen et 

al. 1992). 

Compared to the other alternatives, it is likely that there would be a greater amount of 

disturbance to birds under Alternative C, as aircraft traffic, including take-offs and landings, 

4-423 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

could occur in the entire Goose Molting Area, and facilities could be located in the portions of 

the Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area (where surface activity was prohibited under 

Alternative A). Under Alternative C, Lease Stipulations K-3 through K-6 would provide 

setbacks from various habitats surrounding Teshekpuk Lake and along the coast that are 

considered important for fish, birds, and caribou in the area. Within these setbacks, permanent 

oil and gas facilities would be prohibited, and other potentially disturbing activities, such as 

vehicular and air traffic, would be restricted. These lease stipulations would help to mitigate for 

potential aircraft disturbance should oil and gas facilities be located within the Goose Molting 

Area. However, the potential for disturbance would be greater under Alternative C than under 

the other alternatives, given the larger area available for oil and gas leasing. 

Watercraft. Several types of watercraft could be used during the summer to transport 

equipment and supplies and to conduct oil spill response training drills. Summer barge traffic 

[up to 30 barges per year with each CPF requiring 1 or 2 seasons of barge traffic depending on

size], with the potential to temporarily displace feeding, molting, brood-rearing and staging 

waterfowl, could occur in offshore or near shore waters of the planning area from mid-July 

through October. The impacts of disturbance from barge traffic would likely be minor and 

displaced waterfowl would probably move to adjacent habitats or return to original habitats 

after the barges passed though the area. It is well known (Avery, Springer and Dailey 1980) 

that birds may be attracted to sources of light with the potential for the bird to strike a 

structure (building, barge, tower etc.) resulting in the possibility of mortality. There are 

documented accounts of waterfowl and seabirds being attracted to and colliding with ships in 

various light conditions (Dick and Donaldson 1978). Eiders in particular are thought to be 

susceptible to collision with human-made structures because they fly low over the water while 

migrating, fly rapidly when migrating, and are attracted to lights (Day at al. 2003 and 

references contained within). However, there is a short window of time during the fall when the 

planning area is dark and birds are present, thus the potential for collisions between staging 

waterfowl and barges working in the planning area is low. There would be a greater likelihood 

for disturbance to molting waterfowl under Alternative C than under Alternative A and B 

because much of the area adjacent to the coast would be open for leasing under Alternative C, 

but unavailable for oil and gas development under Alternative A. There could also be a 

potential for more offshore vessel traffic under Alternative C, as compared to Alternative A and 

B, given the larger area that would be available for oil and gas leasing and development in the 

Goose Molting Area under Alternative C. It is likely that more development would occur in the 

Goose Molting Area under Alternative C, which would increase the likelihood that barge traffic 

would be required in the offshore waters of the planning area to transport equipment and

supplies necessary for development. 

Oil spill response training activities using watercraft could be conducted on rivers and lakes 

several times during the summer open-water season. Disturbance from watercraft activity along 

rivers could affect birds such as ruddy turnstones, semipalmated plovers, and Baird’s 

sandpipers that use gravel bars. The results of disturbance may include failure to nest or nest 

abandonment. Under Alternative C, these activities would be more likely to disturb waterfowl 

and other birds, than under Alternatives A and B, because there would be a greater likelihood 

that facilities would be located in areas of high bird use within the Teshekpuk Lake Special 

Area. Wildlife resource surveys would be conducted prior to development, and suitable areas for 

conducting spill response training, to minimize the potential disturbance to waterfowl, would be 

identified. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-424 

Alternative C: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Habitat Losses and Alteration 

Permanent Habitat Loss. Gravel mining and placement for the construction of oil field

infrastructure would have the greatest potential to result in the loss of tundra-nesting bird

habitat. During the construction of oil field roads and pads, tundra covered by gravel, as well as 

tundra associated with gravel mine sites, would be lost as nesting, brood-rearing, and foraging 

habitat for birds. Under Alternative C, it is estimated that there will be a need for seven central 

processing facilities (90 acres each) in the planning area. In conjunction with these facilities 

there are other support structures, such as gravel production pads, gravel runways in-field

gravel roads, several types of pipelines, and other associated structures, that will also cause 

surface disturbances. It is estimated that under Alternative C, there will be: 32 gravel 

production pads (10 acres each); 7 gravel runways (11 acres each); 320 miles of in-field gravel 

roads (7.75 acres/mile); 320 miles of three-phase produced fluids (oil, gas, water) gathering 

lines; 182 miles of sales oil pipelines; 7 pump stations (20 acres each);4 staging bases (50 acres 

each); and 16 gravel pits (50 acres each). It is estimated that during the construction phase of 

these facilities that the total short term disturbance would be 6,170 acres. During the 

production phase it is estimated that the total long term disturbance would be 4,649 acres 

(Table 4.2-G). 

The potential effects of habitat loss under any alternative would depend on the location of the 

development, the types of habitat lost, and the level of bird use in the areas to be developed.

Birds that use drier habitats may be more affected by habitat loss than those that use wet 

habitats because less dry habitat is available in the NPR-A. Loss of dry habitat could be 

especially important for buff-breasted sandpiper, which is a species of concern with low 

population numbers that uses dry habitats. The potential impacts of habitat loss to birds would 

be greater in magnitude under Alternative C because a greater amount of tundra would be 

covered by gravel placement, and because areas of high bird use north of Teshekpuk Lake that 

would be closed to leasing and development under Alternative A and Alternative B would be

open to development under Alternative C. In addition, compared to the other alternatives, 

under Alternative C there would be an increased potential for birds to be affected by a 

functional loss of habitat in areas near roads and pads if development-related disturbances

precluded birds from utilizing these habitats. The lease stipulations and ROPs, which would 

apply under Alternative C as well as the other alternatives, would help to mitigate the potential 

effects of habitat loss. 

Temporary Habitat Loss. Temporary loss of tundra habitat adjacent to gravel roads and 

pads could occur as a result of thermokarst, dust deposition, snow accumulation, and 

impoundment formation. Water withdrawal from lakes during ice-road construction could 

temporarily affect birds in adjacent habitats if the lakes did not have adequate recharge 

capabilities. Under Alternative C, the types of effects to birds resulting from temporary habitat 

loss would be the same as those discussed under the other alternatives. Under Alternative C, 

there would be a greater potential for temporary habitat loss to impact birds than under other 

alternatives because of the increased size of the development scenario under Alternative C, and

because areas of high bird use north of Teshekpuk Lake that would be closed to leasing and

development under Alternative A and Alternative B would be open to development under 

Alternative C. As with permanent habitat loss, the degree of effects would depend on the 

location of gravel infrastructure and local use of adjacent habitats by bird populations. Lease 

stipulations and ROPs that would apply under Alternative C would help to mitigate potential 

effects of habitat loss. 

4-425 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Mortality 

Bird mortality could also result from collisions with structures such as elevated pipelines, 

buildings, drilling rigs, towers, power lines if suspended, boats (including barges), or bridges. 

The potential for collisions with oil field structures or equipment is discussed under Alternative 

A. The magnitude of potential impacts to bird populations as a result of collisions in areas of oil 

and gas development will depend, among other variables, on the location and type of the 

structure, the species involved, the lighting regime employed and the weather conditions and

would likely impact birds at the level of the individual and not at a population level. There

would be an increased risk of bird collision with offshore barge and vessel traffic under 

Alternative C as compared to Alternatives A and B due to an increase in barge traffic necessary 

for transportation of materials for the greater potential of facilities construction in this 

alternative due to the greater area open to development. There could also be a greater potential 

for bird collisions with offshore vessel traffic under Alternative C than under the other 

alternatives, given the larger area available for development in the Goose Molting Area under 

Alternative C, which could increase the potential for development and associated vessel traffic 

in that area. Under Alternative C, ROP E-10 would require illumination to prevent migrating 

waterfowl from colliding with drilling structures, production facilities, and other structures 

exceeding 20 feet in height, although the effectiveness of the stipulation is currently unknown. 

Although there is no similar lighting requirement under Alternative A, the potential risk of bird

collisions with oil field infrastructure could still be greater under Alternative C, because the 

potential benefits of illumination of facilities may not be adequate to mitigate for the presence of 

facilities within or near areas of high bird use and the potential for greater development in high 

density bird areas is higher in Alternative C. Under Alternative C, ROP E-11c requires that 

power and communication lines be buried in roads or suspended on vertical members, to the 

extent practical and that support wires be clearly marked along their entire length to improve 

visibility to low flying birds. 

Under Alternative C, there may be the potential for greater bird mortality due to predation 

than under Alternatives A and B if predators were attracted to development in areas of high 

bird use that are closed to leasing under Alternatives A and B. Alternatives B and C would 

require the lessee to use the best available technology to prevent facilities from providing 

nesting, denning, or shelter sites for ravens, raptors, or foxes. Still, it may be difficult to totally 

exclude ravens from nesting on oil field structures. There would be no equivalent lease 

stipulation under Alternative A. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

The impacts of abandonment and rehabilitation of oil fields on birds would be similar in many 

respects to those incurred by construction activity. Impact types would be the same for 

Alternative C as described in Alternative A. Alternative C would likely have a greater impact 

than Alternative A or Alternative B as more area would be available for oil and gas 

development in Alternative C, potentially resulting greater total area to be abandoned and 

subsequently rehabilitated. 

Effects of Spills 

Oil spills would have similar types of effects to tundra-nesting birds under all alternatives. 

However, there would be an increased risk of a contaminant spill occurring under Alternative C. 

The potential for an offshore spill would increase because there would be approximately 40% 

more barge traffic under Alternative C than Alternative A. Offshore spills would have the 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-426 

Alternative C: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

potential to spread through the action of wind and currents, and could affect molting waterfowl 

along the coastline or in Harrison and Smith bays, as well as shorebirds feeding in littoral 

habitats of the planning area. The risk of an onshore spill risk increases with increased volume 

of oil expected to be produced. The risk (or number of) large spills under Alternative C 

increases by about 40% (slightly less than 1.0 spill – see section 4.2.2 – Oil Spills) and the 

potential spill volume from large spills increases by 4,142 barrels compared to Alternative A. 

In the remaining portion of the planning area, the potential for an oil spill to affect birds would 

be greatest under Alternative C, given that none of the Goose Molting Area would be excluded

from oil and gas leasing. Lease Stipulations K-1, K-3, K-4, and K-6, which would provide 

setbacks from specified rivers, lakes, and the Beaufort Sea coast within which permanent oil 

and gas facilities would be prohibited, would help to mitigate the potential effects of an oil spill 

on terrestrial habitats under Alternative C. If a facility was permitted, by the exception process, 

within the 1⁄4–mile buffer around fish-bearing lakes under Alternative C, there could be a 

slightly greater potential for an oil spill in the Deep Water Lakes Area to impact waterfowl. 

Lease Stipulation K-2 would require consultation with regulatory agencies prior to the 

construction of a permanent facility within the buffer zone. Although Lease Stipulation K-2 was 

designed specifically to mitigate potential impacts to fish habitat, it may also help protect loons 

and waterfowl associated with lakes in the Deep Water Lakes Area. 

Oil entering a river or stream could potentially spread into delta or coastal areas, where 

impacts to birds could be more severe. Waterfowl along the shoreline or in marine habitats and

shorebirds in the littoral areas of the planning area could be impacted during the fall molting 

and staging period. Under Alternative C (and alternatives B and D), the potential that an oil 

spill would enter a major river or stream would potentially be minimized by Lease Stipulation 

K-1. This lease stipulation would provide setbacks of 1⁄2 to 1 mile from specified rivers, within 

which permanent oil and gas facilities would be prohibited, although pipelines would not 

necessarily be prohibited in some of these areas. Alternative A has similar lease stipulations. 

Commercial Gas Development 

The types of impacts on birds that natural gas development and production would cause would 

be the same as those caused by oil development described above, except that there would be no 

crude-oil spills and, if a gas pipeline is buried, there would be additional acreage disturbed with 

increased potential for impacts on bird habitat. Any effects on birds of natural gas development 

and production under Alternative C that are associated with previously constructed oil 

infrastructure, such as noise and visual disturbance from vehicles or construction activity, are 

expected to be temporary, nonlethal, and local, affecting a few individuals. As in the case with 

Alternatives A and B, resident ptarmigan, gyrfalcons, snowy owls and ravens may be present in 

the area during construction activities associated with gas development; however, the impacts 

to these species will be slight, and migrant bird species will not be present during winter 

construction activities (ADNR, 2006b). Changes in vegetation community caused by burial of 

the pipeline could result in a loss of bird habitat, and would be more than the other alternatives,

because about 12% more habitat would be impacted under this alternative than the other 

alternatives, reflecting a proportionate increase in the projected length of buried gas pipelines. 

Any emergency repair of a buried pipeline that occurred in summer has the potential to disturb 

nesting, brood-rearing, feeding, staging or molting birds. Buried pipelines would not impact 

birds. Aboveground pipelines could present a collision hazard to low-flying birds. 

A natural gas well blowout occurring between May and October could affect birds that are 

nesting, rearing young, staging, or migrating. Some mortality could result from such an 

4-427 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

incident, although it is likely that a small number of individuals would be affected. A gas 

pipeline leak may also cause effects on birds through the presence of response personnel and

equipment. Such impacts to waterfowl would be more likely in Alternative C than the other 

alternatives because it would make available for leasing and development the largest proportion

of the important bird habitat north and east of Teshekpuk Lake. 

4.5.8.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Numerous ROPs and lease stipulations were developed for Alternative C to help mitigate 

impacts to birds and their habitat within the planning area. These include the “A” ROPs, which

would help lessen the impacts of that solid, liquid, and hazardous wastes on birds or their 

habitats, and in reducing the potential for garbage to attract animals that may prey upon birds 

to exploration and development sites. The “B” ROPs would help lessen the impact of water 

withdrawals upon lakes or lake habitats, used by molting geese, while the “C” ROPs govern 

seismic ground operations during spring and summer to help lessen the impact of seismic 

activity-related disturbance to geese during the nesting and molting periods. Disturbances 

caused by aircraft are controlled within the Goose Molting Area and raptor sites under ROP “F.”

Several of the “K” lease stipulations would be effective in helping to mitigate impacts to birds 

and their habitats, including habitats associated with rivers and lakes, the Goose Molting Area, 

and Coastal Area. Lease Stipulation K-4 provides for a number of effective measures designed

to reduce the effects of development on molting geese by establishing setbacks from lake 

shorelines within which construction of permanent oil and gas facilities would not be permitted, 

regulating water extraction from lakes, and minimizing or eliminating disturbance from aircraft 

during critical periods. However, this lease stipulation also allows construction of facilities, such 

as platforms on lakes, if these structures are located more than 3⁄4 mile from the shoreline.

Activities at offshore platforms could increase disturbance to molting geese. 

4.5.8.4 Conclusion 

Under all alternatives, this analysis shows that impacts to birds from non-oil and gas activities 

would be minor. Alternative C, oil and gas leasing and exploration would be allowed anywhere 

in the planning area. Lease stipulations and ROPs would provide seasonal and spatial 

protection to certain environmentally sensitive areas, including Rivers Area, Deep Water Lakes, 

Goose Molting Area, Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area, Pik Dunes, Colville River Special 

Area, Coastal Area, and Teshekpuk Lake. Effectiveness of lease stipulations are unknown at 

this time but are presumed to be effective. The exposure of birds to oil and gas activities, and

therefore the level of associated impact, would be greater under Alternative C than under 

Alternative A, given that leasing of lands adjacent to Teshekpuk Lake could occur and that the

overall scale of development would likely be greater under Alternative C. 

Under Alternative C, the types of disturbances related to vehicle, aircraft, pedestrian, and 

vessel traffic; routine maintenance activities, heavy equipment use, facility noise, and oil spill 

clean-up activities would be similar to those described for the other alternatives. In general, 

impacts to birds from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas activities, would likely be 

additive, except in those areas where the two types of activities overlapped. Impacts to birds 

from exploration and development activities would also be additive, except where development 

activities occurred in areas previously disturbed during exploration. However, once exploration 

and development/production ceased in an area, bird populations and habitat could recover, 

reducing overall effects in the planning area. In areas where two or more activities occurred, 

overall impacts would reflect those impacts associated with the first activity and any new 

impacts associated with later activities. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-428 

Alternative C: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Under Alternative C, types of impacts to birds would be similar to those discussed under the 

other alternatives, but would be greater in frequency and extent because of the high oil and gas 

potential of the northern portion of the planning area, and the potential for greater development 

to occur, including in areas currently off-limits to surface development activities. It is expected

that impacts to birds in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake, and throughout the northern portion of 

the planning area, would be greater under Alternative C, particularly with respect to molting 

waterfowl. Overall, impacts throughout the Planning Area would be greater under Alternative 

C than the other alternatives, given the greater overall scale of the assumed development 

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

occurred in areas with high bird concentrations, with high quality habitat, or used by species of 

concern. The potential for long term habitat loss and alteration to affect tundra-nesting birds 

would also be greater under Alternative C, as compared to the other alternatives. Under this 

alternative, the amount of tundra habitat that would be lost to gravel infrastructure would be 

greater, and there would be a higher potential for infrastructure to be located in areas of high 

bird use in the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area. The potential for bird mortality resulting from 

collisions with vehicles and/or infrastructure and marine vessel traffic, and for an oil spill to 

impact tundra-nesting birds, would also be greater under Alternative C, as compared to the 

other alternatives, given the increased amount of infrastructure and development activity. 

Lease stipulations and ROPs established for Alternative C would help to mitigate potential 

impacts to tundra-nesting birds. 

4.5.8.5 Potential New Mitigation Measures 

The potential mitigation measures for Alternatives B through D are essentially the same as 

those presented for Alternative A in section 4.3.8.5. In Alternative A, they are presented as 

potential new stipulations, consistent with the approach for protective measures in Alternative 

A. In Alternative B through D, they would be considered as potential new ROPs. They are

listed below in their ROP form. 

1) Colville River Special Area 

Potential Mitigation Measure (New ROP)

Objective: Prevent or minimize the loss of nesting habitat for cliff nesting raptors. 

Requirement/Standard

a. Removal of sand and/or gravel from cliffs shall be prohibited. 

b. Any extraction of sand and/or gravel from an active river or stream channel shall be 

prohibited unless preceded by a hydrological study that indicates no potential impact by the 

action to the integrity of the river bluffs. 

Potential Benefits and Residual/Unavoidable Impacts 

Prohibiting the removal of sand and gravel from cliffs in the Colville River Special Area will 

enhance existing protections to raptor nest sites in this Special Area. Preservation of cliffs 

would allow for the continued expansion of the breeding population of cliff nesting raptors in the 

Colville River Special Area by providing potential nest sites for all species of cliff nesting 

raptors. Prohibition of removal of sand and/or gravel from an active river or stream channel 

will negate to potential for subsequent erosion of downstream cliffs. Nest sites for cliff nesting

raptors are potentially population limiting and destruction of cliff nest sites caused by 

sand/gravel mining would accelerate the existing natural erosion of cliffs in the Special Area. 

4-429 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Paleontological resources may indirectly benefit from this measure by providing protection to

the substrates that may contain these undiscovered resources. Water quality downstream of a 

gravel mining operation that occurs in the river bed would benefit from the prohibition of

mining in the stream bed and the subsequent erosion of downstream cliffs. Visual resources 

and recreation would benefit from this measure by virtue of an environment unchanged by 

human cause gravel mining and subsequent erosion of downstream cliffs. 

Construction costs may increase in some situations if gravel needs to be transported to the

construction site instead of mining of gravel near the site. 

2) Raptor Protection 

Potential Mitigation Measure (New ROP)

Objective: Prevent or minimize the loss of raptors due to electrocution by power lines.

Requirement/Standard

Comply with the most up to date suggested practices for raptor protection on power lines. Refer 

to the publication: Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the 

Art in 2006 Item #40-06-01-008 funded and produced by the Avian Power Line Interaction 

Committee and the California Energy Commission. 

Potential Benefits and Residual/Unavoidable Impacts 

Requiring all power lines and poles to be designed and constructed in a manner which reflect 

raptor safe configurations will prevent death of raptors by electrocution. 

Additional cost may be incurred by the developer in order to provide raptor safe power lines and 

poles. 

4.5.9 Mammals 

4.5.9-a Terrestrial Mammals 

4.5.9-a.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Impacts to terrestrial mammals under Alternative C would be similar to those that would occur 

under the other alternatives, but could be more frequent, greater in extent, or longer in 

duration. A greater number of individual animals would be exposed to human activities. 

Aircraft traffic would more often pass over caribou and other terrestrial mammals during flights 

to or from the camps and along aerial survey routes. The disturbance reactions of caribou and 

other terrestrial mammals would likely be brief, lasting for a few minutes to an hour. Some 

terrestrial mammals might avoid inventory survey and recreation camps during the 6 to 12 

weeks of activities, while bears and foxes could be attracted to the camps. Impacts from 

recreation and overland moves would be the same as under Alternative A. Proposed lease 

stipulations and ROPs addressing land use authorizations for temporary facilities, overland 

moves, and recreation permits would effectively mitigate impacts from these activities on

terrestrial mammals. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-430 

Alternative C: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.5.9-a.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Under Alternative C, oil and gas leasing and exploration would be allowed throughout the 

planning area with no exclusions. Lease stipulations and ROPs would be in effect that would 

provide seasonal and spatial protection to certain environmentally sensitive areas, including 

Deep Water Lakes, Goose Molting Area, Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area, Pik Dunes, 

Colville River Special Area, Rivers Area, Coastal Area, and Teshekpuk Lake. Terrestrial 

mammals would be exposed to greater potential impacts under Alternative C compared to the 

other alternatives, given the leasing of all lands surrounding Teshekpuk Lake with less surface 

occupancy restrictions than under Alternative D. 

Effects of Disturbances 

Seismic. Impacts to terrestrial mammals under Alternative C would be nearly the same as 

those discussed under the other alternatives, since it is assumed that the extent of terrestrial 

seismic operations would be the same under all alternatives. The only change is that seismic 

surveys on Teshekpuk Lake itself are considered more likely under Alternative C than in other 

alternatives, which may cause some disturbance of terrestrial mammals in the vicinity of the 

lake. It is expected that the reactions of caribou and other terrestrial mammals to disturbance 

would be brief, although large numbers of wintering TLH caribou could be encountered, 

depending on the location. Some caribou and other large mammals would likely be displaced 

from the general area of the seismic work. Some terrestrial mammals would avoid seismic 

camps, while others, such as foxes, could be attracted to the camps by food odors. The potential 

for disturbance to hibernating grizzly bears would remain, but bears are present at low density. 

Muskox and moose would most likely be present in their greatest numbers in the southern 

portion of the planning area. 

The use of airguns for seismic work in Teshekpuk Lake during the summer would likely cause 

only temporary displacement of terrestrial mammals near the lake. Displacement would occur 

primarily from the support activity associated with the surveys, such as helicopter flights to 

bring equipment to the lake. Once surveys were finished and the sources of disturbance had left 

the area, mammals would likely move back into the area around the lake. 

Exploratory Drilling. Under Alternative C, it is projected that up to 120 exploration wells and 

90 delineation wells would be drilled. Impacts to terrestrial mammals would be greater in 

spatial extent, frequency and magnitude than those under the other alternatives, as more

exploration would occur, and especially in the area to the north of Teshekpuk Lake which is 

rated “high” for oil and gas potential and which would be excluded from drilling under 

Alternative A and Alternative B. Most exploratory drilling would be conducted during the 

winter when some mammal species are less active or less often present, although wintering 

TLH caribou could be present in large numbers. Exploratory drilling could also occur during 

summer from current production pads or platforms within lakes in the TLCH Area. If more

exploration activity occurred in the southern portion of the planning area moose, muskoxen, and

grizzly bears could experience a greater level of impacts than under the other alternatives. 

The implementation of ROPs and lease stipulations should ensure that exploratory drilling 

impacts to terrestrial mammals are minor. These ROPs and lease stipulations would include 

provisions to avoid known grizzly bear dens by 1⁄2 mile, methods to avoid attracting wildlife to 

food and garbage, provisions to protect stream banks from damage during overland moves,

provisions to minimize the effect of low-lying aircraft on wildlife (particularly over caribou 

4-431 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

winter ranges), and provisions to minimize the disturbance and hindrance of caribou in the 

TLCH Area. 

Oil and Gas Development. The entire planning area would be made available for leasing 

under Alternative C. The primary effects of oil and gas development on terrestrial mammals 

would be similar to those outlined under Alternative A, and would result from the construction 

of facilities such as roads and pipelines; motor vehicle traffic within the oil field(s) and on 

connecting roads; foot traffic near facilities and camps; aircraft traffic; crude-oil and fuel spills 

contaminating tundra, stream, and coastal habitats; and habitat alteration associated with 

gravel mining and construction. The greatest potential for impacts to caribou might be through 

disruption of calving areas and interference in the movement of insect-harassed TLH caribou 

between insect-relief habitat and foraging areas. These impacts would likely be greater under

Alternative C than under the other alternatives, given the larger development scenario that 

would affect approximately 1379 additional acres of habitat under long-term disturbance as 

compared to Alternative A and the availability for lease of the high potential lands in the 

northern portion of the planning area. 

Caribou 

Although much of the construction associated with oil and gas development would occur 

primarily during winter, development would bring year-round facilities and activities to caribou 

range. If a field were developed in the region surrounding Teshekpuk Lake, production pads, 

pipelines, within-field roads, and other facilities would be located within areas used by the TLH 

caribou for calving, insect relief, migration, and wintering. A field development in the northern 

section of the planning area would also require a connector pipeline to link the oil field with 

facilities to the east. 

The types of impacts of field development on caribou would be similar to those outlined under 

the other alternatives. However, given the greater possibility that a field would be developed 

within the calving, insect-relief, migration, and wintering grounds of the TLH caribou, impacts 

to caribou could be substantially greater and more likely under Alternative C, than under the 

other alternatives. Overall, the level of impact would be dependent on the specific location of 

any oil field. A field in the central or southern portion of the planning area would not impact the 

TLH caribou calving grounds, although such a development could still affect the migratory 

movements of TLH and WAH caribou, and their winter habitat. 

Development in the TLH caribou calving grounds could displace some calving animals within 

21⁄2 miles of roads (Cameron et al. 1981, 1983, 1992, 2002; Lawhead et al. 1997; Wolf 2000). 

Movements of some cows and calves across roads would also likely be reduced, and cow caribou 

might avoid crossing the roads during the calving season. Some TLH caribou movements during 

the insect-relief season (late June-August 15), including movements to coastal insect-relief 

habitats, could be affected by pipelines and road traffic, depending on facility placement and 

design. 

Traffic could result in local disturbance and displacement of caribou within one to a few miles of 

the disturbance. A pipeline linking oil fields in the planning area with facilities at the Alpine 

and Kuparuk River Unit oil fields would result in the disturbance and displacement of some 

caribou during winter construction, given vehicle traffic along ice roads and air traffic. It is 

expected that these disturbances would be short term and occur within about 1 mile of the

pipeline corridor. A connecting pipeline between a northern field development and the Alpine

and Kuparuk River Unit oil fields could impede caribou migrations. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-432 

Alternative C: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Construction of permanent roads could increase access to the area for public and subsistence 

hunting if they were connected to villages or existing road systems. Among ungulate species, 

caribou would be most affected by increased hunting pressure. However, other species (moose in

particular) may also be affected depending on the location of the roads. The overall number of 

animals taken is unlikely to increase dramatically since most hunting would be for subsistence 

use, but roads could focus hunts in particular portions of the planning area. Hunting pressure 

and harvests have increased for many wildlife species near the TAPS since its construction, but 

have not produced adverse population effects (TAPSO 2001). It is unlikely that the more remote 

roads associated with oil and gas development in the planning area would have as great an 

effect on wildlife populations as has occurred along the TAPS corridor. 

Moose 

Moose occur in low densities in the planning area during the summer and are concentrated in 

major drainages at the southern edge of the planning area in the winter. Unless an oil field

were to be developed in the southern portion of the planning area, development would be

unlikely to impact moose. Under Alternative C, impacts to moose would be similar to those that 

would occur under the other alternatives, because the probability of a development in the 

southern portion of the planning area would be the same or similar. 

If gravel were mined from the southern portion of the planning area, a temporary displacement 

and disturbance of moose could occur. Borrow pit operations could destroy or degrade about 50 

acres of moose habitat for each gravel pit. 

Muskox 

Muskoxen occur in low densities in the planning area, and they may not be present year-round

in all years. Potential effects of oil and gas development activities include displacement and

disturbance of individual animals, direct habitat loss from gravel mining in river floodplains 

and placement at oil field facilities, and indirect habitat loss through reduced access caused by 

physical or behavioral barriers created by roads, pipelines, and other facilities. Under 

Alternative C, impacts to muskoxen would be similar to those discussed under the other 

alternatives, although they could be greater in duration and spatial extent due to the larger 

overall development scenario. Impacts to muskoxen may be greater if development were to 

occur in the southern portion of the planning area. 

Grizzly Bears

Major sources of noise include construction of roads, installation of pipelines, gravel mining, and 

drilling operations. These activities could disturb grizzly bears within a few miles of the noise 

sources. Industrial activities and human presence could also cause potentially serious 

disturbances to denning bears. Under Alternative C, impacts would be similar to those that 

would occur under the other alternatives, although the extent and duration of the impacts could

be greater because of the larger overall development scenario, depending on the location of the 

field development. Grizzly bears are present in low numbers in the northern portion of the 

planning area, but may be attracted to development activities. It is likely that the greatest 

number of bears would be encountered during development in the southern portion of the 

planning area, since the greatest amount of suitable habitat is located in this area. 

Wolves 

Under Alternative C, oil and gas development would have a minimal impact on wolves, similar 

to Alternative A and Alternative B, but could be greater than the impact that would occur under 

these. Potential effects on wolves would include short-term disturbance from air and surface 

traffic and human presence, and increased hunting and trapping pressure through improved 

4-433 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

access or increased human presence associated with oil development. If caribou abundance were

negatively affected by oil and gas development, wolf abundance could in turn be affected. 

However, wolves are generally not abundant in the planning area. 

Wolverines 

Similar to the other alternatives, under Alternative C some wolverines could be displaced in the 

vicinity of oil field facilities. Impacts under this alternative are likely to be greater than those 

that would occur under the other alternatives, given the larger overall amount and extent of 

potential development in the planning area. 

Foxes 

Under Alternative C, impacts to foxes would be similar to those discussed under the other 

alternatives, although they could be greater in duration and extent. An increase in the fox

population associated with oil development, which could likely be greatest under Alternative C,

could affect some fox-prey species (such as ground-nesting birds and molting waterfowl) in the 

development area and over a region larger than the oil field itself (Burgess et al. 1993). 

Other Mammals 

Small rodents and their predators would be affected locally (i.e., through direct mortality of 

individuals or small groups of lemmings and voles, or through loss of habitat) along pipelines, 

gravel pads, and other facilities. Arctic ground squirrels sometimes den in gravel fill in the oil 

fields (Shideler and Hechtel 2000). The availability of suitable burrowing habitat could increase 

local densities of ground squirrels. Under Alternative C, impacts would be slightly greater than 

those that would occur under the other alternatives, given the larger overall scale of the 

development scenario. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Abandonment and rehabilitation activities are expected to disturb and displace terrestrial 

mammals in a manner similar to that associated with construction. The intensity of the 

disturbance might be less than during construction, however, because it is possible that caribou, 

muskoxen, and other terrestrial mammals would have become habituated to road and air traffic 

over the course of construction and operation of the facilities. Some individuals could be killed 

by collisions with road traffic. If roads were left in place and maintained in useable condition 

upon abandonment, they could continue to provide improved access to hunting areas, with 

consequent hunting pressure on caribou and other subsistence species. Revegetation of the 

roads, pads, and the airstrip left in place would facilitate rehabilitation of habitat, but plant 

communities on these raised gravel structures would likely be different from those that prevail 

in adjacent areas and may include invasive species. However, pads, roads, and airstrips, if left 

in place, could provide some insect-relief habitat for caribou (Murphy and Lawhead 2000). If 

gravel fill was removed and the pad revegetated with vegetation similar to the surrounding 

plant communities, caribou, and possibly other terrestrial mammals, would use the area. Foam 

insulating materials that could be used in pad construction could be broken up in the course of 

removal. If some of this foam escapes being cleaned up, it may be used by foxes as denning 

material. Depending on the material’s toxicity and the amount ingested by a fox, this could 

cause mortality, though the numbers of foxes killed would likely be very small. Overall, a 

greater amount of development is assumed under Alternative C than under Alternatives A or B, 

providing a potential of greater impacts from abandonment and rehabilitation. However, they 

would likely be expressed over a longer time period resulting in no population level effects from 

these activities in either case. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-434 

Alternative C: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects of Spills 

Typical refined products that are spilled on the Alaska North Slope include aviation fuel, diesel 

fuel, engine oil, fuel oil, gasoline, grease, hydraulic oil, transformer oil, and transmission oil.

The extent of environmental impacts would depend upon the type and amount of material 

spilled, the location of the spill, and the effectiveness of the response. The majority of small 

spills would be contained on the gravel pad and would have no impact on terrestrial mammals 

or their habitat. 

The impacts of oil spills on terrestrial mammals are described under Alternative A (section 

4.3.9, Mammals). Compared to the other three alternatives, the risk of oil spills could be 

greater under Alternative C, given the greater extent of development and the subsequently 

higher estimate of spills. Activities occurring in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake could increase

the likelihood that a spill would reach the lake under Alternative C. Because most spills would 

be small and affect a small area, the majority of impacts to terrestrial mammals would likely 

result from disturbance associated with spill clean-up activities, rather than from direct oiling. 

Commercial Gas Development 

The types of impacts from gas development under Alternative C would be similar to, but greater 

in magnitude, than the other alternative, both because under Alternative C more important 

caribou calving and insect relief area is made available for leasing than in any other alternative 

and because under this alternative the projection is for approximately 12% more miles of gas 

pipelines. As described for the other alternatives, buried pipelines would have no impact on

caribou movement, though disturbance could occur during winter construction in approximately 

the same way as it would occur by construction of aboveground pipeline. The noise associated

with a 10- to 20-acre compressor station may cause avoidance, but the pad’s raised surface may 

attract caribou seeking insect relief. 

If a gas pipeline was elevated on a set of VSMs separate from oil-pipeline bearing VSMs, 

caribou movement could be hindered. 

Construction and operation of gas facilities would likely impact other terrestrial mammals in a 

manner similar to and in like proportion, when comparing among alternatives, to the impacts 

associated with oil development. 

In the event of a natural gas well blowout or pipeline rupture, would be similar to that 

described for the other alternatives. Terrestrial mammals in the immediate vicinity of the

blowout could be killed. Given the small area that would be exposed to the plume and the rapid 

dissipation of the gas, it is not likely that any animals other than individuals present in the

immediate vicinity at the time of the blowout would be affected. The likelihood of caribou,

moose, muskoxen, wolves, or grizzly bears being exposed to toxic amounts of gas and

condensates is very low and (should it occur) would probably only affect a few individuals. 

Smaller, less mobile species with small home ranges, such as squirrels, voles, and lemmings 

may be affected in larger numbers. However, there would be no population level impacts on any 

species. 

4-435 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.5.9-a.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Alternative C would include the same lease stipulations and ROPs that were outlined under 

Alternative B (section 4.4.9.1, Terrestrial Mammals), and they would provide similar 

protection to terrestrial mammals as those developed for Alternative B. 

4.5.9-a.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative C, impacts to terrestrial mammals would be similar to those discussed under 

the other alternatives, but would be greater in frequency and extent because of the high oil and

gas potential of the northern portion of the planning area, and the potential for greater 

development to occur, including in areas currently off-limits to surface development activities. 

Impacts expected under Alternative C would be greater than those under the other alternatives,

given that all of the area north of Teshekpuk Lake would be available for development, except

those areas protected by lease stipulations and ROPs. There would be an increase in the 

likelihood of impacts to calving areas and migration routes leading to insect-relief habitat, as 

well as an increased likelihood of development occurring within insect-relief habitat. 

It is expected that impacts to terrestrial mammals in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake, and

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

particularly with respect to caribou calving and insect-relief habitat. Overall, impacts 

throughout the planning area would be greater under Alternative C than the other alternatives, 

given the greater overall scale of the assumed development activities. In general, impacts to 

mammals from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas activities, would likely be 

additive, except possibly in those areas where both types of activities occurred. Impacts to 

mammals from exploration and development activities would also be additive, except possibly 

for habitat impacts where development occurred in habitats previously disturbed during 

exploration. In areas where two or more activities occurred, overall impacts would reflect those

impacts associated with the first activity and any new impacts associated with later activities. 

Based on the amount of habitat with a potential to be affected, the potential for impacts to 

mammals under this alternative would be about 40% more than Alternative A. If oil and gas 

activities occurred in areas with an abundance of caribou or other mammals, or in areas with 

high quality habitat, impacts could be greater than those based strictly on number of acres of 

habitat impacted. 

4.5.9-b Marine Mammals 

4.5.9-b.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative C, impacts associated with non-oil and gas activities would be similar to 

those described under the Alternative A and Alternative B. Overland moves could disturb a few 

ringed seals if overland moves were to occur over floating, shore-fast ice. It is expected that 

small fuel spills would occur, but they would be small, and primarily terrestrial and unlikely to 

reach areas used by marine mammals. 

Small fuel spills could occur under Alternative C. However, these small spills would not be 

expected to negatively impact marine mammal populations in or near the planning area. Under

Alternative C, it is expected that the effects of non-oil and gas activities on marine mammals 

would be localized and short term with no or minor effects to marine mammal populations. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-436 

Alternative C: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.5.9-b.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbances 

The frequency, spatial extent, and magnitude (intensity and duration) of the impacts likely will

vary among alternatives in relation to the total amount of area open to development, the 

location of the areas open, and the Lease Stipulation and Required Operating Procedures.

Alternative C makes entire planning area open to exploration and development, although 

special restrictions under Lease Stipulation K-4 still apply within 3⁄4 mile from the coast line. 

The Alternative C development scenario estimates approximately 42% (1380 acres) more 

permanent disturbance than Alternative A and 25% (933 acres) more permanent disturbance 

than Alternative B. The increase in potential adverse effects is expected to be proportional to 

those difference between alternatives. With regards to marine mammals it is primarily the 

indirect effects of greater development−primarily vessel traffic−under Alternative C that 

separates its impact potential from the other Alternatives. Like Alternative B, opening the area 

north of Teshekpuk Lake creates a greater potential for adverse impacts to marine mammals 

compared to Alternative A although special restrictions under Lease Stipulation K-4 still apply 

within 3⁄4 mile from the coast line. 

Seismic 

Seismic exploration is expected to have the same potential for affect and likelihood to occur as 

under Alternative A. However, the 3⁄4 mile coastal buffer required by ROP K-4 would reduce the 

attractiveness of the Atigaru/Kogru area making the likelihood of seismic in these areas lower 

than under Alternative A. The low likelihood of seismic under this alternative combined with 

the expected very low density of seals in these shallow areas (Moulton et al. 2005) makes it 

unlikely that seals would be affected by seismic work. No effect to whales is anticipated. 

 Visual and Noise Disturbance 

Aircraft 

The effects of aircraft disturbance would be similar to those described under the previous 

Alternatives, but could be greater in extent, given the greater number of pads and production 

facilities expected under Alternative C. More importantly, because development would be 

allowed north of Teshekpuk Lake the number of aircraft that would regularly occur over areas 

that may be used by marine mammals would increase. However aircraft would generally fly at

1,000 feet AGL over water, minimizing the potential for disturbance to seals and most likely 

whales (Born et al. 1999, Patenaude et al. 2002, Richardson and Williams 2004, Moulton et al. 

2005). 

Shipping 

Under the development scenario for Alternative C, the projected levels of development and

related activities could be affect 42% more area than under the Alternative A and 20% more 

than Alternative B. The greater level of estimated development could result in a greater 

potential for disturbance to marine mammals from increased barge traffic used to transport 

supplies and modules for development. It is expected that the difference in impacts from

shipping among alternatives is proportional to the difference in number of vessel trips. Seven to 

14 sealifts, 1-2 every 10 years, would be required to support development of the estimated CPFs, 

totaling 210 to 420 barges over a period of approximately 70 years (approximately 40% more 

4-437 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

than estimated for Alternative A). It is assumed that development operations in the planning 

area would be staged out of the Prudhoe Bay or the Kuparuk River Unit facilities, with no dock 

or causeway constructed along the planning area coast. Materials and equipment would likely

be moved to staging areas in the planning area using trucks over ice roads in the winter 

months. Under this scenario, increased summer barge traffic could result in more (20% more 

than under Alternative B; 40% more under Alternative A) disturbance and displacement to

whales and seals, and local and short-term changes in marine mammal behavior, as barges and 

sealifts passed along the coast. However, it is possible that barges could be landed on the 

northern coast of the planning area, most likely at Lonely. In this scenario, increased barge 

traffic during the summer could result in more disturbance and displacement of whales and 

seals than under Alternative A because barges would be maneuvering off the coast and be in 

place for several days instead of transiting past. Although like Alternative A and B the 

displacement/disturbance is expected to be localized in time (only occur within a short distance 

<1 mile for seals, 1-4 miles for whales) in time and short-term (hours or days). It is not expected 

that effects would levels that could result in substantial impacts to individual marine mammals 

or populations, although the fitness of some individuals could be impacted. 

Contaminants 

The effects of a spill on marine mammals would be as described under the Alternative B. The 

likelihood of a spill reaching or occurring in areas used by marine mammals is higher due to the 

greater amount of development but is still very low. Although a greater area is open, Lease 

Stipulation K-4 places a 3⁄4 mile buffer along the entire coastline, including the area around

Atigaru Point, which is open under Alternative A. 

Collisions 

The likelihood of a vessel strike is influenced by the number of vessels traveling through an 

area over time. Speed probably has an influence on the likelihood of a collision and does 

increase the potential that a collision will result in sever injury or death (Laist et al. 2001). 

Alternative C would result in an estimated 20%-40% more vessel traffic than Alternative B and 

A respectively with a commiserate increase in the likelihood of a collision. Given the expected

low rates of collisions (George et al. 1994), this change while moderate in percentage terms is 

likely a minor risk in actual number of animals injured or killed. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Impacts of abandonment and rehabilitation activities are expected to be similar to those for 

construction. Given the expense of transport vessel traffic is expected to be substantially lower 

than occurred during construction as large modules or other equipment may be moved to other

development or stored at regional staging areas rather than moving it off the North Slope. The 

potential for impacts is expected to be proportionally greater compared to Alternative A and B. 

4.5.9-b.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Alternative C includes the same lease stipulations and ROPs as outlined under Alternative B. 

These ROPs and lease stipulations should provide similar levels of protection as those developed

for the Alternative A. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-438 

Alternative C: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.5.9-b.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative C, the effects of non-oil and gas activities on marine mammals, particularly 

ringed seals along the coast of the planning area, would be short term and localized, occurring

within one mile of aircraft corridors, survey activities, recreational camps, and overland moves. 

Oil and gas leasing and development activities would likely result in a greater level of noise and

disturbance, primarily near the Colville River Delta and inner Harrison Bay, than under the 

other alternatives because of the greater level of development. Effects should be localized

(within 1 mile of aircraft corridors and activities) and short term as individual sealifts would 

typically be completed in one season. Lease Stipulation K-6 would minimize the potential for 

development to impact ringed seals, spotted seals, and beluga whales in areas along the coast. 

While exploration could occur in this area under Alternative C, surface occupancy would 

generally not be allowed. The effects of seismic exploration would be limited to short-term, 

localized disturbance to denning or hauled out ringed seals. The effects of development under

Alternative C are expected to be short term, with few effects on marine mammal populations. 

A small number of ringed seals, spotted seals, beluga whales, and possibly harbour porpoise 

could be affected by oil spills entering the Kogru River, the Colville River, or drainages that 

empty into the Colville River, Fish Creek, or Judy Creek. The likelihood of such and event is 

small and not expected to occur. It is expected that any losses would be small. 

The effects of development under Alternative C are expected to be greater than those under the 

Alternative A and B due to the greater amount of exploration and development projected to 

occur under this alternative. However, these effects would be short term, with few impacts on 

marine mammals and no detectable impact on populations. Since nearly all exploration and 

development activity would occur onshore under all alternatives, the potential for impacts to 

marine mammal resources under Alternative C would be slightly greater than those that could 

occur under the Alternative B and moderately greater than those under Alternative A. 

4.5.10 Threatened and Endangered Species 

This section discusses the potential effects to bowhead whale, spectacled and Steller’s eiders, 

and polar bear which could result from management action in the planning area under 

Alternative C. Whales would be most affected by disturbance and oil spills. Most, but not all, 

activities that could potentially affect eiders and polar bears in the planning area would be 

associated with oil and gas exploration and development. Other activities that could occur in the 

planning area include subsistence hunting, recreational use, and activities associated with 

scientific survey and research camps. 

4.5.10-a Bowhead Whales 

4.5.10-a.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative C, the effects of non-oil and gas activities on bowhead whale would be similar 

to those that would occur under Alternative A, and would occur only when bowhead whales 

migrated exceptionally close to shore. It is not expected that non-oil and gas activities would 

have high impacts on individual bowhead whales or the population. 

4-439 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.5.10-a.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbances 

The effects of oil and gas activities on bowhead whale would be similar in type but of greater 

magnitude under Alternative C than under Alternative A, given the greater area that is 

available for development. There would be an approximately 40% and 20% increase in barge 

traffic compared to Alternatives A and B, respectively, and a greater likelihood that barges 

would come ashore and be unloaded along the coast of the planning area. Because the areas 

north of Teshekpuk Lake would be open and development could potentially occur there, a 

greater likelihood that regular aircraft operation over marine waters would occur is also 

expected. As discussed under Alternative A the effects of those activities are expected to be

limited to short-term avoidance behavior, but more studies are required to assess consequences 

of eliciting this behavior. It is unknown if the potential increase in these disturbance activities 

would result in an impact level that significantly reduces the fitness of individual bowhead 

whales, although it is unlikely that population level effects would be detected. 

Contaminants 

There would be a greater potential for oil spills under Alternative C than under Alternative A or 

B, given the larger area available for development and higher levels of development activity 

that would occur under Alternative C. However, it would still be unlikely that spilled oil would 

reach bowhead whale habitat. The potential for an accidental release of contaminants from 

barge traffic would increase slightly due to the estimated increase in number of barges but this 

remains an unlikely event (although the probability of a spill occurring would increase as a 

result of a 40% increase in barge traffic compared to Alternative A). 

The southward edge of the migration corridor could be deflected northward due to any vessel 

activity associated with containment and clean-up activities occurring during the fall migration. 

However, impacts to individual bowhead whales or the whale population would be minor, except 

in the case of a very large spill coincident with the fall migration, which is very unlikely. 

Collisions 

Alternative C is estimated to result in an approximate 40% increase in barge traffic over 

Alternative A. The projected increase in barge traffic would not all occur in one year but would 

consist of more sealifts than Alternative A or B spread over some period of time, likely 

separated by 10 years. The likelihood of a vessel strike is influenced by the number of vessels 

traveling through an area over time thus the likelihood of a collision is increased under 

Alternative C compared to Alternative A and B. However, given the expected low rates of 

collisions observed in the past (George et al. 1994), those expected based on the low rate of 

speed barges typically travel (Laist et al. 2001), and that barges usually are active only during 

the earlier portion of migration, this change, while moderate in percentage terms is likely a 

minor risk in actual number of whales injured or killed. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Impacts of abandonment and rehabilitation activities are expected to be similar to those for 

construction and higher than under Alternative A and Alternative B. Effects could occur from 

aircraft, barges used to transport equipment to remove materials from the planning area, and 

potential spills. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-440 

Alternative C: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Commercial Gas Development 

If natural gas development and production occur in the planning area, it is unlikely that 

bowhead whales would be affected other than temporary, nonlethal effects from marine vessels 

as described for traffic associated with oil development. 

4.5.10-a.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

There are no Stipulations or Required Operating Procedures specific to bowhead whales, but 

several would indirectly reduce the potential that any oil spill would reach marine waters. 

Lease stipulationK-1 requires no development setbacks from the banks of major rivers in the

planning area. While this stipulation does not prohibit pipelines from crossing rivers,

development would be prohibited from within 1⁄2 to 3 miles from the banks. This should 

substantially reduce the potential for a large spill originating from pads or pipelines parallel to 

the river channel to reach the river and be transported from to marine waters. Lease 

Stipulation K-4 requires a 3⁄4 mile set back from the coast which would have a similar effect as 

K-1, reducing the potential for a large spill to reach marine waters. 

4.5.10-a.4 Conclusion 

Alternative C is expected to result in approximate 42% more surface disturbance than

Alternative A and 25% more than Alternative B; potentially distributed over a greater area of 

the Planning Area than either Alternative A or B, with a commiserate increase in barge traffic, 

aircraft, and spill potential. Therefore there is a greater likelihood of impacts to bowhead 

whales, including behavioral displacement from high density foraging areas, injury, and 

mortality from ships and oil spills. However, displacements are expected to be short-term and 

spills unlikely and should they occur a relatively small proportion of the population is projected 

to be affected by these impacts. In those years where bowheads occur in shallower waters 

during fall migration the number affected could be higher, but potential effects are not expected

to be severe enough to lead to changes in the population unless a very large oil spill occurred in 

the marine environment. 

4.5.10-b Spectacled and Steller’s Eiders 

4.5.10-b.1 Activities Not Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Non-oil and gas activities that could affect spectacled and Steller’s eiders under Alternative C

would be the same as those listed under the other alternatives—private or commercial air 

traffic, aerial surveys to inventory wildlife or other resources, summer research camps, 

hazardous material or debris removal, subsistence hunting and fishing, and recreational camps 

and boating activity. Under Alternative C, a larger area would be available for permanent oil 

and gas facilities and development than under the other alternatives. However, the potential for

non-oil and gas activities to disturb, displace, or cause mortality would likely be similar under 

all four alternatives. Lease stipulations and ROPs would mitigate some of the potential effects 

of non-oil and gas activities. 

4-441 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.5.10-b.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Seismic 

The effects of seismic exploration on eiders is expected to be the same as under Alternative A as 

similar levels of seismic exploration are predicted for all alternatives (section 4.2.1.2).

Although as with Alternative B seismic could be conducted on Teshekpuk Lake it would be done

over-ice – if at all as seismic is projected to be infill in areas not already explored. 

Exploration 

Under Alternative C, the potential effects of ice-road and ice-pad construction would be greater 

than to those described under Alternative A and Alternative B, and would involve the 

temporary alteration of tundra vegetation, because a larger area would be available to oil and 

gas exploration activities under Alternative C than under Alternative A or B. Thus, the 

associated impacts to eiders could also potentially be greater under Alternative C. 

Predators, such as glaucous gulls and Arctic foxes, could be attracted to anthropogenic food 

sources associated with summer maintenance of exploratory drilling and seismic equipment or 

winter exploratory activities. As with the other Alternatives with the performance-based ROPs 

and Lease Stipulations the potential for increased predation of eiders by predators attracted to 

development would be reduced by ROP A-2, A, although the relatively greater amount of 

exploration drilling would increase the likelihood of predator attraction under Alternative C. 

The typical short time period and seasonality of exploration would reduce the likelihood that 

predators would discover any human provided food source as well as reducing the likelihood of 

predators persisting in the area because there would be no recurring anthropogenic food source. 

Furthermore, since exploration is primarily a winter activity, avian nest predators would not be 

present, except for possibly common ravens. 

Development and Production 

Activities related to oil development and production in the planning area, such as vehicle, 

aircraft, pedestrian, and boat traffic, routine maintenance activities, use of heavy equipment, 

oil-spill clean-up activities, and aerial surveys to inventory wildlife or other resources, could 

cause disturbances that would affect eiders. Under Alternative C, the types of disturbances to 

eiders would be the same as those discussed for the other Alternatives. These disturbances 

could result in temporary displacement from preferred foraging, nesting, or brood-rearing 

habitats, decreased nest attendance or nest abandonment, and increased energy expenditures 

that could affect physiological condition and rate of survival or reproduction. The likelihood for 

impacts to eiders would depend on the location of the disturbance, the number of eiders in the 

area, and the time of year. Under Alternative C, these impacts would likely be greater than 

those compared to the other alternatives because of the greater area that is available for 

development. 

The potential for disturbance to threatened eiders from activities on roads and pads would 

likely be greater under Alternative C, as compared to Alternative A or B, because areas that 

support relatively high spectacled eider concentrations would be available for oil and gas leasing 

under Alternative C, but not under Alternative A and only a small portion under Alternative B. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-442 

Alternative C: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Lease Stipulation K-5, designed to protect the Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area, would 

reduce disturbance effects to eiders by placing limits on various types of activities on roads and 

pads between May 20 and August 20. 

As with Alternative B, Alternative C could also result in a greater level of disturbance to eiders 

in the Deep Water Lakes Area south of Teshekpuk Lake, than under Alternative A. Under 

Alternative A, no permanent oil and gas facilities would be permitted within 1⁄4 mile of the any 

fish-bearing lake. Under Alternative B and C, facilities would generally not be permitted within 

this buffer, but could be permitted, on a case by case basis, in consultation with Federal, state, 

and NSB regulatory and resource agencies. Permitting facilities within the 1⁄4-mile buffer of fish 

bearing lakes in the Deep Water Lakes Area could result in disturbance to eiders near the 

facilities and access roads. Although Lease Stipulation K-2 has been designed primarily to 

provide mitigation for deep-water fish habitat, it could also provide protection for eiders using

habitats near these lakes. 

Air Traffic. The types of effects to eiders from aircraft would be the same as under other 

Alternatives and could include displacement from preferred feeding habitats, temporary or

permanent nest abandonment, and temporary or permanent displacement from molting or 

brood-rearing areas. However, some eiders could either remain in habitats located near aircraft 

activities or move to nearby habitats. Although there is evidence that molting and staging 

geese are disturbed by aircraft (Jensen 1990, Ward et al. 1999)and pre-nesting eiders may 

respond to low flying (≤ 150 feet) aircraft (Balogh 1997). Evidence of adverse impacts to eiders is 

equivocal. Johnson et al (2006) found no indication that spectacled eider nests with higher 

levels of overflights had reduced nest success compared to those with no or less overflights. 

However, their dataset is short-term and it is reasonable to assume that some level of effect 

may occur under certain circumstances. Repeated flushing of pre-nesting birds may reduce 

nesting success, more sensitive birds may not nest or be displaced to lower quality nesting 

habitat, and disturbance of molting eiders may result in greater rates of predation and reduced 

fitness with subsequent reduced migratory survival. None of these effects have been 

demonstrated, and would be very difficult to establish cause and effect relationships; however, 

here it is assumed that they are possible, but the magnitude (number of birds affected) and 

severity (likelihood of mortality/reduced recruitment) is unknown. 

A greater number of eiders could be affected by air traffic under Alternative C than A or B. 

Even though a larger area would be available for oil and gas leasing, and facilities could be 

located in areas where surface activity was prohibited under Alternative A and to a lesser 

extent restricted or prohibited under Alternative B, Lease Stipulations K-3 through K-6 would 

provide setbacks from various habitats surrounding Teshekpuk Lake and along the coast that 

are considered important for fish, birds, and caribou in the area. Within these setbacks, 

permanent oil and gas facilities would be prohibited, and other potentially disturbing activities, 

such as vehicular and air traffic, would be restricted. These lease stipulations would help to 

reduce potential aircraft disturbance to eiders, should oil and gas facilities be located within 

portions of the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area. However, if CPFs were located within the 

Teshekpuk Lake Special Area, the level of aircraft disturbance would likely increase along flight

corridors and near airstrips located at these CPFs. Flight restrictions under Lease Stipulations

K-4 and K-5 would be expected to also reduce the effects of aircraft in the Caribou Habitat 

Area/Goose Molting area. 

Watercraft. Several types of watercraft could be used during the summer to transport 

equipment and supplies, to conduct oil spill response training drills. Summer barge traffic with 

the potential to temporarily displace molting eiders could occur in offshore waters of the 

4-443 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

planning area from mid-July through October. How eiders will react to boat traffic is unknown 

but the may react similarly to other waterfowl with short-term short-distance avoidance 

movements (Flint et al. 2003). Displaced eiders would probably move to adjacent habitats or 

return to original habitats after the barges passed though the area and barge traffic would not 

be expected to substantially impact molting eiders. There would be a greater likelihood for 

disturbance to molting eiders under Alternative C than under Alternative A because much of 

the area adjacent to the coast would be open for leasing under Alternative C but unavailable for 

oil and gas development under Alternative A. Therefore, it would be more likely that 

development would occur in portions of the Goose Molting Area, and that barge traffic would be

required near this area for transportation of equipment and supplies during oil field

construction and operation. 

Oil spill response training activities using watercraft could be conducted on rivers and lakes 

several times during the summer open-water season. Under Alternative C, these activities 

would be more likely to disturb eiders than under Alternative A, because there would be a 

greater likelihood that facilities would be located in areas of spectacled eider concentrations 

within the Goose Molting Area. 

Habitat Loss and Alteration 

Under the development scenario for Alternative C the gravel footprint for roads, pads, airstrips, 

staging areas and gravel extraction sites is estimated to be approximately 4649 acres; 

approximately 42% more than under Alternative A and 25% more than Alternative B. Loss of 

eider habitat would be permanent in the area occupied by the development footprint, and eiders 

nesting in this area would be displaced to other areas. Their survival and future reproductive 

success would be dependent on the availability and quality of unoccupied habitat. 

If spectacled and Steller’s eider densities are assumed to be 2.0 and 0.02 birds per mi2 (640

acres per mi2) respectively (very high estimates based on aerial survey data; Larned et al. 2006; 

Ritchie and King 2003), up to 14.6 spectacled eiders and 0.2 Steller’s eider could be expected to 

be displaced by the gravel footprint over the life of the plan if all development occurred in high 

density areas. This estimate is likely overly-conservative as areas of “high high” density make 

up only a small proportion of the planning area even with the entire area north of Teshekpuk 

Lake being open under Alternative C (Map 3-33.). 

Alternative C would open the entire area north of Teshekpuk Lake. Average eider density over 

15 years in area north of Teshekpuk Lake is 0.79/mi2

. This area also contains approximately 

57% of the indicated population within the Northeast NPR-A planning area (FWS, unpublished 

data). When this area is included, the average Northeast NPR-A spectacled eider density is 

0.36 eiders/mi2

. For comparison average spectacled eider density in the entire Eider Breeding 

Survey Area is 0.57 eiders/mi2

 (Larned et al 2006). Steller’s eider densities are so low that 

estimates are not calculated from the Eider Breeding Survey (Larned et al. 2006) 

However, under all alternatives, the potential effects of habitat loss would depend on the

location of the development, the types of habitat lost, and the level of eider use in the areas to be

developed. Without specific information on the locations of potential developments, the 

estimates of eiders potentially impacted should be seen as an index of comparison between 

alternatives, not an absolute value of birds affected. 

In addition to permanent habitat loss, temporary loss of tundra habitat adjacent to gravel roads 

and pads could occur as a result of thermokarst, dust deposition, snow accumulation, and 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-444 

Alternative C: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

impoundment formation. Under Alternative C, the types of effects to eiders resulting from 

temporary habitat loss would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A. As with 

permanent habitat loss, the degree of effects would depend on the location of gravel 

infrastructure and local use of adjacent habitats by eiders. However, impacts from the 

temporary loss of habitat is projected to be greater under Alternative C than the other 

alternatives because more areas with higher densities of eiders are available of oil and gas 

leasing. Lease stipulations and ROPs would help to mitigate potential effects of habitat loss to 

eiders. 

Mortality 

Compared to the other alternatives, there would be an increased risk that eiders would collide 

with offshore barge and vessel traffic under Alternative C compared to the other alternatives, as 

more area would be available for development north and east of Teshekpuk Lake that could 

increase the potential for development in that area and the amount of associated vessel traffic 

in offshore areas. Drill rigs and other tall structures would be present for a longer period of 

time and would increase the potential for collisions over other alternatives. Given that the 

highest concentrations of spectacled eiders in the planning area occur in this area, the siting of 

facilities within this area would increase the potential for eider mortality due to collisions with 

oil field structures or equipment, relative to other alternatives. 

There would also be an increased risk of eider collisions with vehicles under Alternative C 

compared to the other alternatives because of the potential for road construction in the Goose

Molting Area. The overall risk of eider collision with development related facilities or equipment 

would be greater under Alternative D compared other alternatives. 

Some predators, such as ravens, gulls, Arctic fox, and bears may be attracted to areas of human 

activity where they find anthropogenic sources of food and denning or nesting sites. The 

potential impacts of increased levels of predation on eiders resulting from increased numbers of 

predators that may be attracted to developed areas are discussed under Alternative A. The 

potential types of effects of increased predation to eiders under Alternative C would be the same 

as those discussed under Alternative A. Under Alternative C, the impacts to eiders from

predation are expected to be greater compared to impacts from Alternatives A and B. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Winter activities would cause little disturbance or displacement, because eiders are absent from 

the area during the winter. However, ice roads could impound water and reduce habitat for 

nesting birds; such impacts would only affect nesting in the summer following ice road use. 

These impacts should be very minor, however, since most ice roads have melted prior to the 

time of nest initiation. Summer road and air traffic generated by abandonment and 

rehabilitation activities could cause disturbance, displacement, and mortality to eiders similar 

to, and at the same levels as, those described for traffic during construction and operations. If 

pads, roads, and airstrips were not revegetated, impacts to eider habitat would be permanent. 

If they were revegetated without removing the gravel, the habitat would not return to its 

historic use. If gravel was removed, habitat similar to that existing in the area could be created 

and used by eiders, although the habitat types would likely not be the same as what occurred in 

the area prior to disturbance. It is expected disturbance impacts to eiders from abandonment 

and rehabilitation of oil and gas facilities and supporting infrastructure would be greater under 

Alternative C than Alternatives A and B. 

4-445 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects of Spills 

Oil spills would have similar types of effects to eiders under all alternatives. However, there 

would be an increased risk of a contaminant spill occurring under Alternative C. The potential

for an offshore spill would increase because there would be approximately 40% more barge 

traffic under Alternative C than Alternative A. The risk of an onshore spill risk increases with 

increased volume of oil expected to be produced. The risk (or number of) large spills under 

Alternative C increases by about 40% (slightly less than 1.0 spill – see section 4.2.2 – Oil 

Spills) and the potential spill volume from large spills increases by 4,142 barrels compared to 

Alternative A. An offshore spill would have the potential to spread through the action of wind 

and currents and could affect molting eiders in Harrison and Smith bays. 

There could be an increased risk that an oil spill would occur and impact eiders in onshore 

habitats north and east of Teshekpuk under Alternative C, as compared to the other 

alternatives, as more of this area would be available for leasing under Alternative C. In the

remaining portion of the planning area, the potential effects of an oil spill to eiders would be 

similar under all alternatives, although densities of eiders are lower than north of Teshekpuk

Lake. Excluding the Goose Molting Habitat Area and Teshekpuk Lake Special Area, the areas 

available for leasing would be the same under all alternatives, and similar lease stipulations 

would apply. There would be a greater potential that an oil spill would occur and impact eiders 

in the Deep Water Lakes Area south of Teshekpuk Lake under the Alternatives B, C and D 

than Alternative A, as a facility could be permitted within the 1⁄4-mile buffer around fish-bearing 

lakes under the action alternatives. However, Lease Stipulation K-2, which would apply to the 

Alternatives B, C, and D would prohibit permanent facilities within 1⁄4 mile of fish-bearing lakes 

without prior consultation with regulatory agencies. 

Oil entering a river or stream could potentially spread into delta or coastal areas where impacts 

to threatened eiders could be more severe. Lease Stipulation K-1 would help reduce the 

likelihood that an oil spill would enter a major river or stream. This lease stipulation would 

provide setbacks of 1⁄2 to 3 miles from specified rivers, within which permanent oil and gas 

facilities would be prohibited, although pipelines could be permitted in some of these areas. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Gas development would have impacts on eiders similar to that described for oil development, 

except that there would be no impacts from oil spills. Any effects of natural gas development 

and production on spectacled and Steller’s eiders are expected to be limited to temporary, 

nonlethal effects, perhaps resulting in disturbance to a few birds. However, a natural gas well 

blowout occurring from June to September could affect eiders that are nesting, rearing young, 

staging, or migrating. Some mortality could result from such an incident, although it is likely 

that no more than a small number of individuals would be affected. Such impacts to eiders 

would be most likely in Alternative C, which make more important eider habitat available for 

leasing north and east of Teshekpuk Lake than any other alternative. 

4.5.10-b.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Lease stipulations and ROPs would help prevent spilled fuel, oil, or other toxic materials from 

reaching the marine environment, thereby minimizing the potential for effects to molting or 

staging eiders. These measures would also protect habitat and help to minimize disturbance to

eiders from oil and gas exploration and development activities. These measures should be 

equally, or more effective than the measures developed for Alternative A. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-446 

Alternative C: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Numerous lease stipulations and ROPs were developed to mitigate impacts to birds and their 

habitat within the planning area. These include the “A” ROPs, which would be effective in 

ensuring that solid, liquid, and hazardous wastes did not impact birds or their habitats, and in 

reducing the potential for garbage to attract animals that may prey upon birds to exploration 

and development sites. The “B” ROPs would be effective in ensuring that water withdrawals do 

not impact lakes, or lake habitats, used by molting geese or threatened eiders, while the “C” 

ROPs govern seismic ground operations during spring and summer to prevent seismic activityrelated disturbance to eiders during the nesting and molting periods. Disturbances caused by 

aircraft are controlled within the Goose Molting Area and raptor sites under ROP F and K-4 

and K-5. Several of the “K” lease stipulations would help lessen impacts to eiders and their 

habitats by placing buffers around rivers and lakes ranging from 1⁄4 mile around lake shores in

the Goose Molting Area and deep water lakes (Stipulation K-4 and K-2 respectively) to1/2 mile 

to 3 miles around major rivers (Stipulation K-1). 

However, only ROP E-11 is specific to eiders. It requires pre-construction surveys for 3 years

which will assist in facility and infrastructure placement to avoid eiders. It also requires 

minimizing overhead lines and guywires. Transmission lines are required to be attached to

VSMs or buried off-pad and marking devices are required for guywires. These requirements 

substantially reduce the collision risk by limiting hard to detect overhead transmission wires 

and making guywires more visible. 

4.5.10-b.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative C, the types of disturbances related to vehicle, aircraft, pedestrian, and 

vessel traffic, routine maintenance activities, heavy equipment use, facility noise, and oil spill 

clean-up activities would be similar to those that would occur under the other alternatives. The 

potential for these disturbances to impact spectacled and Steller’s eiders would be greater under 

Alternative C than the other alternatives, as the entire planning area would be available for 

leasing, and the overall level of development would be greater. The potential for habitat loss

and alteration to affect eiders would also be greater under Alternative C, as compared to the 

other alternatives, as the amount of tundra habitat that would to be lost to gravel

infrastructure could be greater, and there would be a greater potential for infrastructure to be 

located in areas of high eider use near Teshekpuk Lake. The potential for eider mortality 

resulting from collisions with vehicles and/or infrastructure and marine vessel traffic, or for an 

oil spill to impact threatened eiders, would be greater under Alternative C as compared to the 

other alternatives. In general, impacts to eiders from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil 

and gas activities, would likely be additive, except in those areas where the two types of

activities overlapped. Impacts to eiders from exploration and development activities would also

be additive, except where development activities occurred in areas previously disturbed during 

exploration. However, once exploration and development ceased in an area, eider populations 

and habitat could recover, reducing overall effects in the planning area. In areas where two or 

more activities occurred, overall impacts would reflect those impacts associated with the first 

activity and any new impacts associated with later activities. Because of the larger disturbance 

area, the potential for more oil and gas exploration and development activities, and increased

barge traffic the potential for impacts to eiders under this alternative would be approximately 

40% greater compared to Alternative A. 

4-447 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.5.10-c Polar Bears 

4.5.10-c.1 Activities Not Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Subsistence hunting and disturbance of denning bears resulting from winter overland travel 

likely have the most effect on bears in planning area. There is no record of where bears are 

taken, so the how subsistence take impacts bears in or near the planning area is unknown, but 

on average 32 polar bears from the Southern Beaufort Sea stock are taken annually in Alaska 

(Angliss and Outlaw 2005). Winter overland travel not in support of oil and gas is likely 

relatively rare in the planning area and unlikely to result in significant disturbance effects. 

Research activities and close passes (<1 mile) may cause abandonment of a den if they occur 

early in the season but do not appear to have significant effects later in the season (Amstrup 

1993). 

4.5.10-c.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Seismic 

Under Alternative C, a small number of polar bears could be affected by seismic exploration 

occurring along the coast, although ROP C-1 would prohibit seismic activities within 1 mile of 

known or suspected polar bear dens or seal birthing lairs. The impact of seismic activities on 

polar bears utilizing the coast for denning, foraging, or resting could potentially be greater 

under Alternative C compared to the other alternatives. 

Exploration 

Under Alternative C, increased levels of exploratory drilling and development that could occur 

near the coast would increase the likelihood of displacing or attracting polar bears or causing 

den abandonment compared to Alternative A. Most polar bear dens near the planning area are 

off the coast, north of Teshekpuk Lake. The effects of exploration activities, including 

disturbance and potential spills, would depend on the scale and duration of the activity but 

could affect some polar bears. 

Development and Production 

Female polar bears denning within approximately one mile of construction activity could be 

disturbed by vehicle traffic and construction noise. If disturbance leads to premature 

abandonment of the den it could result in the potential death of cubs (Amstrup and Gardner 

1994). The relatively greater amount of development anticipated under Alternative C increases 

the likelihood that activities associated with oil and gas could occur in the vicinity of denning 

polar bears, and that impacts to polar bears from oil and gas development and production would 

be greater than the other alternatives. However, the required set-backs under Lease 

Stipulation K-1 and K-4 from major rivers and the coastline respectively would reduce the 

likelihood of construction destroying potential den sites. Polar bears could be attracted to drill 

sites by food odors and curiosity, increasing the potential for negative human-bear interactions, 

and the possible death of bears in defense of human life and property. However, under current 

rules, policy, and practice there has not been a DLP taking reported in the Alaska oil fields

(Schliebe et al. 2006). 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-448 

Alternative C: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

As under other Alternatives, consultation between oil field developers and the USFWS would

result in the use of nonlethal means of deterrence if necessary. 

Contaminant Spill 

Female polar bears select “bluffs” including river banks for denning habitat, thus they are more 

likely to be present in river drainages. Any spill that reached a river during late fall when polar 

bears are constructing dens, occurred in winter under ice, or in spring during broken ice periods 

could impact denning polar bears and their young if the spill was large enough to reach the den 

area in sufficient concentration. The potential for a spill is increased under Alternative C 

compared to other Alternatives due to the greater amount of oil expected to be produced. 

Spring or summer spills that reached marine waters would have the greatest likelihood of 

impacting polar bears or their prey. Spills during broken ice or in the lead system would have 

the largest potential for an adverse impact on bears. 

Polar bears are generally widely dispersed, thus any spill would be unlikely to affect more than 

one to three bears unless a very large spill occurred. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Effects would generally be the same as under construction and therefore would be expected to 

be greater under this Alternative compared to the others. Dismantling of equipment and

modules and readying it for transport would most likely take place during summer. Transport 

of large or heavy material would be a winter activity and occur over ice roads. Any recontouring or removal of gravel would primarily be done in the winter, although some summer

activity may be necessary to finish. Any planting or monitoring would also be a summer 

activity. A combination of surface vehicles and aircraft would be required for transportation. 

The potential for large spills would be substantially reduced after shut-down. . 

Commercial Gas Development 

If natural gas development and production occur in the coastal areas used by polar bears, 

potential impacts would include those described above for oil development, such as attraction to 

waste from the facilities, though there would be no oil spill impacts. Denning female bears may 

be encountered during winter construction or maintenance activities. Aroused female bears may 

abandon the den, potentially leaving cubs. Additionally, increased energy expenditure could 

negatively impact the cub survival. Because more lands near the coast would be available for 

oil and gas development under this alternative than in Alternative A and because more 

development is likely to occur than under any of the alternatives, there is greater potential for 

impacts to polar bears under Alternative C than under any of the other alternatives. 

4.5.10-c.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Alternative C would include the same performance based ROPs and Stipulations as Alternative 

B and D. ROP A-1 would minimize the potential for food waste to attract polar bears and the 

need for deterrence or take. The ROP is similar to current practice within the Prudhoe oil fields

which has resulted in few deterrence actions and no DLP takings since implemented (Schliebe

et al. 2006). 

4-449 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Required Operating Procedure C-1 would prohibit the cross-country use of heavy equipment and

seismic activities within 1 mile of known or observed polar bear dens or seal birthing lairs. This 

ROP would also require operators to consult with the USFWS before initiating activities in 

coastal habitat between October 30 and April 15. Letters of Authorization reinforce the ROP 

and may result in area specific restriction that would further reduce the likelihood of adverse

affect. 

The K-1 Lease Stipulation would require 1-3 mile setbacks from the major rivers the planning 

area. This is expected to reduce the potential for disturbing denning bears in these areas. 

Pipelines could still cross these areas so the likelihood of a spill from a transport pipeline 

entering a river is possible, but spills from accidents on pads, parallel pipelines or at compressor 

stations would be very unlikely to reach the river banks. 

Lease Stipulation K-6 would prohibit the placement of permanent facilities within 3⁄4 mile of the 

coast, except where technological limitations, economics, logistics, or other factors necessitated

a structure. Under these circumstances, the use of a previously occupied site (Camp Lonely, 

Husky/USGS drill sites, and DEW-Line sites) would be considered. The elimination of new 

permanent facilities within 3⁄4 mile of the coast should be effective in reducing the potential for 

disturbance to polar bears and their prey and is expected to reduce the potential for disturbance

(displacement or attraction) of polar bears along the coast. 

4.5.10-c.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative C, ROPs and lease stipulations (as described under “Effectiveness of 

Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures”) would prohibit the construction of 

permanent structures within 3⁄4 of a mile of the coast, although exploration could occur in the 

area. The effects of exploration activities, including disturbance and spills, would be localized 

and would be unlikely to affect populations. Individual polar bears could be affected by 

exploration activities and seismic surveys in close proximity to polar bear dens and could cause

abandonment of maternity dens by polar bears. Avoidance requirements are expected to result 

in only a small number of dens being affected. 

Under Alternative C, impacts to polar bears and their habitat from oil and gas exploration and

development will be greater compared to the other alternatives, as a greater area would be 

affected under Alternative C than under the other alternatives. The opening of the area north 

of Teshekpuk Lake would allow development in areas where polar bears are most likely to 

occur; however, coastal buffer and river buffer requirements should reduce the potential for 

adverse effects. The ROPs and Stipulations combined with the relative low density of denning 

bears near the planning area make it unlikely that Alternative C would have a significant effect 

on polar bear populations. 

4.5.11 Cultural Resources 

4.5.11.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative C, the types of effects of non-oil and gas activities on cultural resources

would be the same as those discussed for Alternative A. Aircraft and watercraft traffic, scientific 

investigations (e.g., archaeological and paleontological surveys and excavations), summer 

camps, removal and remediation of hazardous and solid waste material, overland moves, and 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-450 

Alternative C: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

recreation could affect cultural resources. Aircraft use would be unlikely to directly affect 

cultural resources, but could have minor indirect effects on cultural resources by making sites 

more accessible to recreationists and other users as could watercraft. The amount and types of 

recreational use occurring under Alternative C would not differ from that occurring under the 

other alternatives. However, the amount of scientific work occurring in the planning area could 

be greater under Alternative C than the other alternatives, as a larger area would be opened up

to development. Other ground activities could also be more prevalent, relative to the other 

alternatives. Ground-disturbing activities, such as scientific camps and hazardous and solid 

waste material removal and remediation, would be monitored or surveyed for cultural resources 

before these activities occurred. 

4.5.11.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

It is worth noting that cultural resources are not as ubiquitous in the planning area. Surface 

cultural resources which are structures of some type can usually be visually detected and 

avoided, even when covered by snow. Surface cultural resources that are not structures would 

not be easily detected, but given their characteristics would typically be sufficiently protected 

from impacts by snow cover and frozen vegetation. One exception would be human skeletal 

remains that lie on the ground surface. Because seismic data gathering activity would primarily 

occur during the winter using low-ground-pressure vehicles (ROP C-2), it is unlikely that this 

activity would affect undocumented subsurface cultural resources. Ice roads and pads used for 

exploratory drilling would have the location examined for the presence of cultural resources 

prior to the onset of exploration activities. 

Effects of Disturbances 

Under Alternative C, the amount of area impacted, and level of oil and gas exploration and

development activities, would likely be greater than under any alternative because all lands in 

the planning area would be made available for leasing. However, because most surfacedisturbing activities would occur during the winter months, the potential for impacts to buried 

cultural resources would remain relatively small. Surface cultural resources would not likely be

affected because of their scattered occurrence, and because they would be protected by a variety 

of lease stipulations and ROPs governing oil and gas exploration activities. 

Under Alternative C, the types of effects of possible disturbance would be the same as those

occurring under Alternative A. Efforts to supply necessary materials for construction of gravel 

pads, airfields, and roads at this scale could increase the likelihood of damage to known or

undocumented cultural resources in the planning area. The excavation of material (e.g., gravel) 

for the construction of the permanent facilities would be the primary source of potential effects 

to cultural resources. Pipelines would not have associated all-weather gravel roads or pads and 

would be constructed during the winter months from an ice road and pads. Therefore, the only 

effect on cultural resources resulting from aboveground pipeline construction would be 

associated with the placement of VSMs, and would depend on the depth at which the VSMs 

were set. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

It is unlikely that cultural resources would be impacted by abandonment activities unless the 

facilities to be abandoned or removed during rehabilitation were themselves historic. 

4-451 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Cultural Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects of Spills 

Under Alternative C, the effects of oil spills on cultural resources would be the same as those 

that would occur under Alternative A, though because there is an increased chance for more

spills and more spilt oil, there would be a corresponding marginal increase in the potential 

impacts to cultural resources. In the exploration stage, most spills would occur on an ice pad or 

ice road and during winter conditions. In such a case, the spill or subsequent spill cleanup 

would probably not alter or destroy buried cultural resources, but could affect surface cultural 

resources by covering these resources with oil or other spill material. Warm oil, however, could 

melt through the snow and ice and impact cultural resources buried near the surface. A spill 

occurring during the summer would have a greater potential to affect surface and subsurface 

cultural resource sites than a spill occurring during the winter because the effects of both the 

spill and subsequent cleanup would be greater. Oil spills on cultural resource sites would cause 

damage proportional to the extent of contamination, and could require data recovery

(excavation) as part of remediation and clean-up efforts. However, irreparable damage to some 

of the data could occur. Oil spills at cultural resource sites, either surface or buried, could make 

radiocarbon dating of that site problematic or impossible. 

Commercial Gas Development 

The types of impacts on cultural resources that natural gas development and production would 

cause would be the same as those caused by oil development described above, except that there 

would be no crude-oil spills, impact from creation of gravel pads would be increased for a 10- to 

20-acre pad for a pipeline compressor station, and if a gas pipeline is buried—the likely 

method—there would be additional acreage disturbed with increased potential for disturbance 

or destruction of cultural resources. Impacts could be larger than for all other alternatives, 

because more buried gas pipelines are projected. It is anticipated that under Alternative C,

burying the pipeline would result in digging up approximately 182 miles of four feet wide and 

five feet deep trench (approximately 90 acres, compared to 80 acres for the other alternatives) 

and potential surface disturbance of 240 acres (compared to 210 acres for the other alternatives) 

in areas adjacent to the trench from potential disturbance from machinery or placement of 

backfill. The risk to cultural resources would be reduced dramatically if gas pipelines are put 

on VSMs. 

4.5.11.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Lease stipulations and ROPs identified for Alternative B would also apply to Alternative C and 

would effectively reduce the effects of oil exploration and development activities on cultural 

resources. Prior to any undertaking (i.e., ground-disturbing activities such as the construction of 

buried pipelines) on Federal lands, the NHPA would require that an archaeological resource

survey be completed. If cultural resources were identified during such a survey, BLM 

guidelines and policy would require that all impacts to these resources be mitigated to the 

satisfaction of the land manager and the SHPO. 

4.5.11.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative C, the overall potential effects on cultural resources from management 

activities other than oil and gas exploration and development would be as previously described. 

Overall, the probability of the occurrence of effects would be the largest among all the 

alternatives because by making all lands in the planning area available for leasing, Alternative 

C has the highest potential to affect the resources. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-452 

Alternative C: Cultural Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Approximately 2 to 3% of the planning area has been surveyed for cultural resources. The

distribution of known cultural sites does not reflect locational preference of prehistoric and

historic people, but rather indicates that only portions of the Planning Area (e.g., well sites, 

portions of the coast, the Colville River, the Ikpikpuk River, and the Teshekpuk Lake area) have 

been examined through some type of organized reconnaissance for the presence of cultural sites.

The TLUI sites generally cluster in these same areas with greater density on the lower 

Ikpikpuk River and associated drainages (NSB 1978, 2003). The density of cultural resource 

sites in the area north of Teshekpuk Lake is also presumed to be high, thus there is an

increased risk of inadvertent damage to these sites under Alternative C. Activities that occur 

near these areas may have a greater likelihood of impacting cultural resources. In the most

general terms, where surveys and inventories have been conducted, cultural sites have usually 

been found. Since surveys are required before any ground-disturbing activity can take place, the 

potential for impacts to cultural resources from oil and gas exploration and development 

activities under Alternative C would be low. 

In general, impacts to cultural resources from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas 

activities, would likely be additive, except in those areas where the two types of activities 

overlapped. Impacts to resources from exploration and development activities would also be

additive, except where development activities occurred in areas previously disturbed during 

exploration. In areas where two or more activities occurred, overall impacts would reflect those

impacts associated with the first activity and any new impacts associated with later activities. 

Because of the larger disturbance area, and the potential for more oil and gas exploration and

development activities, impacts to cultural resources under this alternative would be greater for

oil and gas exploration and development activities, as compared to the other alternatives. 

Impacts could be greater, too, if oil and gas exploration and development activities occur in an 

area with a high concentration of cultural resources. These impacts, however, would be 

effectively mitigated by lease stipulations and ROPs that prohibit oil and gas exploration and 

development in areas with a high likelihood of having cultural resources, enforcement of lease 

stipulations and ROPs that prohibit collection of artifacts and require training of workers 

regarding avoidance of effects on cultural resources, and compliance with all Federal laws, 

including the NHPA, requiring for cultural resources in areas where ground-disturbing 

activities are proposed. 

4.5.12 Subsistence 

4.5.12.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

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

leasing. It would utilize the same performance-based stipulations and ROPs developed for 

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. Under Alternative C, the effects of non-oil and gas activities would be similar to 

those that would occur under Alternatives A and B, but would be greater in extent, duration, 

and magnitude given that lease sales could occur in the entire planning area. 

4-453 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Cultural Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects of Disturbances 

Aircraft Use. Under Alternative C, there would be greater use of aircraft than under the other

alternatives, including air traffic necessary for sampling caribou and waterfowl in sensitive 

areas as part of wildlife monitoring. These activities could reduce subsistence harvests by 

diverting, deflecting, or disturbing subsistence species, such as migrating or insect-avoiding 

caribou, or seals, walrus, and whales. Given that a larger area would be open to leasing under 

Alternative C, these effects would occur over a larger area and for a longer duration than under 

the other alternatives. This could limit the availability of desirable subsistence use areas 

resulting in reduced subsistence harvest. It is possible that subsistence users would have to go

farther to harvest subsistence foods, and would spend more time in pursuit of subsistence 

species, incur increased fuel cost, and face an increased risk of equipment failure and meat 

spoilage. Nuiqsut subsistence users have frequently stated during scoping meetings that 

aircraft traffic reduces harvest access and success, an issue that could affect Atqasuk and 

Barrow hunters if leasing were to open to the north and west of Teshekpuk Lake. 

Watercraft Use. Under Alternative C, the effects of watercraft on subsistence harvest 

patterns would be the same as those discussed under the Alternative A. 

Research Activities. The amount of scientific research and data collection activity would 

likely be greater under Alternative C than under the other alternatives. Under Alternative C, 

the types of effects from scientific research and data collection on subsistence species would be 

similar to those discussed under Alternative A. However, given that the extent, frequency, and 

duration of research and data collection activities would be greater under Alternative C, the 

temporary and localized diversion, deflection, or disturbance of subsistence species associated 

with research would also be greater. Therefore, there would be a greater likelihood that these 

activities would affect the success of subsistence harvests. Research activities would 

predominantly take place during the summer months. Aircraft-based biological surveys would 

have the greatest likelihood of affecting subsistence harvest patterns because they cover large 

areas, last a long time relative to other research activities, and are known to elicit responses 

from caribou and waterfowl. Archaeological, paleontological, and geological activities, involving 

personnel walking on the tundra, would have some short-term effects on subsistence species. 

Research and data collection activities could divert, deflect, or disturb subsistence species, 

which could affect subsistence harvest patterns by causing a temporary and local reduction in 

resource availability at traditional use areas. 

Recreation. Similar to the other alternatives, recreational users would likely frequent 

waterways used by subsistence hunters during the summer months, potentially causing 

resource user conflicts. The effects of these conflicts on subsistence harvest patterns would

likely be localized and of short duration. Since the amount of recreation that would occur would

be more or less the same under all alternatives, effects to subsistence harvest patterns under 

Alternative C would be the same as those listed under Alternative A. 

Solid and Hazardous Waste Removal and Remediation. As discussed under Alternative 

A, solid and hazardous waste removal and remediation activities would have localized effects 

that would last for the duration of the activity. Solid and hazardous waste removal and 

remediation, which would involve monitoring of existing clean-up sites and aging infrastructure 

(e.g., wellheads), would be ongoing, independent of the amount of land open to leasing. 

Therefore, the effects of these activities would be the same under all alternatives. Site cleanup 

and remediation activities could temporarily divert or disturb caribou, muskox, and grizzly and 

polar bears, but would have little effect on long-term subsistence harvest patterns. Evaluation 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-454 

Alternative C: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

activities would have little effect on long-term harvest patterns. Over the long term, these 

activities could benefit subsistence species by reducing the potential for contamination of

subsistence species with the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. 

Overland Moves. Similar to Alternative A, overland moves would occur only by permit and 

would be subject to appropriate stipulations and ROPs. Stipulations and ROPs would mandate 

procedures to protect denned bears and minimize impacts to caribou. However, overland moves 

could temporarily deflect local subsistence species when they occur. Overall, the effects of 

overland moves on subsistence harvest patterns would likely be similar under all alternatives. 

Conclusion 

Under Alternative C, non-oil and gas activities could affect subsistence species, including 

caribou, waterfowl, muskox, moose, wolf, wolverine, and fox. These activities could divert or 

deflect subsistence species from normal harvest areas; reduce populations as a result of stress; 

cause a change in or loss of habitat and forage; or result in the contamination of, as well as the 

subsistence users’ perception of contamination of, subsistence species. Under Alternative C, the

effects of aircraft activity would be similar to those that would occur under Alternative A, except

that the frequency, extent, and duration of aircraft use would be greater. A greater level of 

aircraft activity could result in a greater amount of temporary and localized diversion,

deflection, or disturbance of subsistence animals, relative to Alternative A. 

4.5.12.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Allowing oil and gas activities to occur in areas that would not be available for leasing and yearround occupation under Alternatives A and B would increase the area potentially affected by 

these activities, increase the duration of those effects to approximately 40 years or longer, and 

spread those effects throughout the northern half of the Northeast NPR-A. This area was 

unavailable for leasing under the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD because it is a sensitive habitat 

that is important for calving caribou of the TLH and for molting, nesting, and fledgling 

waterfowl (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998). Under Alternative C, oil exploration would be ongoing 

and would involve seismic testing using low ground-pressure vehicle trains. A larger area would 

likely be exposed to drilling and temporary ice pads and roads than under both Alternatives A 

and B. Oil and gas activities would likely occur at a great magnitude and at more frequent 

intervals than under the other alternatives. 

Effects of Disturbances 

Aircraft Activity. Disturbance from aircraft activity related to oil development would 

potentially be greater under Alternative C compared to Alternative A. Twenty additional ice

airstrips, and 2 additional gravel airstrips, are anticipated under Alternative C when compared

to Alternative A. Activities related to aircraft use could disturb subsistence activities, which 

could in turn impact subsistence users. Some of these impacts include loss of money, loss of 

time, loss of subsistence food, increase cost in fuel, increased degradation on equipment,

increase stress and anxiety and increase risk of loss of life or serious injury. These impacts 

could lead to a greater need for emergency search and rescue responsibilities by local 

governments. 

Seismic Survey Activity. Under all alternatives, it is anticipated that five additional seismic 

surveys, three 2-D and two 3-D, would be conducted within the planning area in order to cover 

4-455 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

all gaps where seismic has not yet occurred. The three 2-D surveys are projected to potentially 

impact a total of 8,126 acres, which is the combined total of acres impacted by the survey and 

acres impacted by the camp train overland move. The two 3-D surveys are estimated to 

potentially impact a total of 99,870 acres, combined. It is also assumed that the surveys would 

occur in those areas currently not covered by 3-D surveys, which include the foothills area and

the area north and east of Teshekpuk Lake (see Figure 4.6). The effects of seismic exploration 

would be the same as those described under Alternative A (see section 4.3.12.2). 

Exploratory Drilling. Under Alternative C, it is estimated that 120 exploratory wells will be 

drilled in the planning area, with an additional 90 delineation wells drilled in subsequent years 

near wells that showed potential as oil producers. Wells that do not indicate the presence of 

hydrocarbons in developable quantities will be plugged and abandoned. Wells that show 

potential may be “suspended,” and capped with what is known as a “Christmas tree” at the 

surface. It is anticipated that, at most, 8 drill rigs will be operating in the planning area in any 

given winter season, an increase (relative to Alternative A) of 3 rigs under this alternative. 

Impacts as a result of exploratory drilling under Alternative C will be identical to those 

described under Alternative A; however, given the increase in proposed activity, the effects on 

subsistence use would be greater in magnitude, extent, and duration. In addition, opening the 

entire planning area to exploratory drilling increases the likelihood of subsistence user-conflicts 

with oil and gas activities. And, as discussed under Alternative B, the more anticipated activity, 

the greater the increase in conducting necessary studies prior to the winter drilling season (see 

section 4.4.12.2). Overall, Alternative C results in the greatest potential impact to subsistence 

use as a result of exploratory drilling. 

Development and Permanent Facilities. Under Alternative C, it is estimated that there 

will be a need for seven central processing facilities (90 acres each) in the planning area. In 

conjunction with these facilities there are other support structures, such as gravel production 

pads, gravel runways in-field gravel roads, several types of pipelines, and other associated

structures, that will also cause surface disturbances. It is estimated that under Alternative A, 

there will be: 32 gravel production pads (10 acres each); 7 gravel runways (11 acres each); 320 

miles of in-field gravel roads (7.75 acres/mile); 320 miles of three-phase produced fluids (oil, gas,

water) gathering lines; 182 miles of sales oil pipelines; 7 pump stations (20 acres each);4 staging 

bases (50 acres each); and 16 gravel pits (50 acres each). It is estimated that during the 

construction phase of these facilities that the total disturbance would be 6,170 acres. 

Construction of the permanent facilities will primarily take place during the winter, using ice 

roads and pads in the area of development to move and stage machinery, supplies, personnel 

and housing. It is estimated that construction for a typical development would take a minimum 

of 3-6 years. During this construction phase, it is estimated that there would be an average of 

approximately 115-160 one-way aircraft flights per month during the winter, and 70-90 one-way 

operational flights per month during the summer. Construction activities could result in an 

economic boon to local communities, and could directly affect harvesters if they were hired by 

the companies. This increase in income could offset the increased cost of fuel needed to harvest 

displaced resources, but might also lead to a corresponding decrease in the amount of time a 

harvester could be out on the land depending on the work schedule (see sections 4.4.13.2 and 

4.4.18.2 for further discussion on economic impacts). 

As compared to the other alternatives, the extent, severity, and duration of effects would likely 

be greater under Alternative C, given that a larger area would be open for year-round

occupation and development, which would include ecologically sensitive areas that would not be

open under the other alternatives. The amount of habitat loss and degradation would be greater 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-456 

Alternative C: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

under Alternative C than under the other alternatives. It is possible that there would be some

change in caribou and waterfowl populations and distribution because of oil and gas activity in 

this area, despite the protections granted by the lease stipulations and ROPs. Post-parturient 

caribou and calves could be deflected or diverted from preferred habitats in the vicinity of 

Teshekpuk Lake if development were to occur in that area (Murphy and Lawhead 2000). 

Migrating caribou could be delayed or deflected by vehicle and aircraft traffic, as well as other 

human activity, during development and construction; however, caribou would likely habituate 

to the new infrastructure and activity (except human presence) over time (Murphy and

Lawhead 2000; USDOI BLM 2003). 

Waterfowl could be temporarily displaced from nesting areas, but would adapt quickly to most 

new activities during development and construction (Johnson 2000a, b; Ritchie and King 2000; 

Sedinger and Stickney 2000). Fox populations tend to increase in response to development, as 

gravel pads, food waste, and other human activity provide favorable habitat and energy inputs 

for these species (Burgess 2000). These predatory scavengers in turn cache waterfowl eggs and 

feed on fledgling and molting birds, thus reducing their breeding success and in some cases

depleting local populations (Burgess 2000; Sedinger and Stickney 2000). 

Fish habitat should be protected adequately by lease stipulations and ROPs; however, 

development in freshwater lakes could cause changes in turbidity, salinity and dissolved oxygen

levels, possibly reducing fish populations in those lakes. Given the larger area available for

leasing, the effects of disturbance from oil and gas activities on subsistence species would be 

greater under Alternative C than under the other alternatives. 

The areas that would be newly available for leasing under Alternative C is an important caribou 

harvest area for Barrow. In addition, the communities of Barrow and Atqasuk fish in the 

vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake and along the Beaufort Sea coast between Atigaru Point and Smith 

Bay. As noted in Alternative A, Nuiqsut residents are already excluded from utilizing 

traditional use areas east of the Colville River and delta, and planned development could inhibit 

subsistence use of the northeast corner of the planning area. Oil and gas development further 

to the west and south could negate Nuiqsut’s strategy of using snowmachines and outboards to 

travel to more distant subsistence harvest locations and return in time to fulfill obligations in 

town. Alternative C would have a greater effect on subsistence harvest patterns than the other 

alternatives because of the increased area of potential activity, the longer duration of oil and 

gas activity in the area, and the greater extent of possible development. 

Conclusion 

Because Alternative C makes the entire planning area available for oil and gas leasing, the 

increased oil and gas activity that could occur over a wider area could inhibit subsistence users

from harvesting in their traditional use areas to a greater degree than under all other 

alternatives. Hunters from Barrow and Atqasuk would be directly affected by development 

north and west of Teshekpuk Lake, where numerous subsistence camps, cabins, and ice cellars 

are located. Until caribou became habituated to activity and infrastructure in the area, there 

could be reductions in subsistence harvest success or increased effort, time, risk, and expense 

involved in order to harvest adequate amounts of subsistence resources. Nuiqsut subsistence 

users would be affected by increased activity in the northeast portion of the planning area, and 

activity farther west could deflect migrating caribou away from other traditional harvest 

locations, reducing harvest access and success. If oil and gas activities were to divert or deflect 

the normal migration routes for the TLH caribou, Anaktuvuk Pass subsistence users could 

suffer a shortage of caribou, requiring greater expenditures and risk. In the past, when the 

4-457 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

herd has failed to pass near the community, hunters had to fly to more remote locations in 

search of subsistence food, increasing community stress and the time necessary for harvest 

success, as well as reducing the connection with traditional areas (SRBA 2003b). 

Under Alternative C, disturbances associated with oil and gas activities would be similar to 

those discussed under the Alternative A; however, the effects on subsistence resources would be 

greater in geographic extent and duration, as a greater amount of potentially sensitive habitats 

would be open to leasing. In addition, areas that would be off limits to development under 

Alternatives A and B would be open to leasing and could be affected by oil and gas development. 

As noted in Alternative A, oil and gas development could inhibit subsistence harvesters’ use of

the traditional harvest areas, which could reduce harvest success and increase associated costs, 

efforts, and risks. Of the alternatives discussed in this document, Alternative C has the 

greatest potential to impact subsistence use. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

During oil facility abandonment and rehabilitation activities, which include the removal of all 

equipment and facilities, and the plugging of all wells, subsistence resources and activities 

would be subject to impacts similar to those caused by construction as described under 

Alternative A (see section 4.3.12.2). Following the abandonment and rehabilitation, 

subsistence resources would be subject to fewer impacts. If the gravel roads and pads were left 

in place and remained serviceable, they could be used by residents to provide access to 

subsistence resources, possibly reducing hunting effort and time. 

Effects of Spills 

Under Alternative C, it is assumed that 3.038 large spills (e.g., greater than or equal to 500 

barrels of oil, but less than 120,000 barrels) consisting of an estimated 14,582 barrels of oil, 

could occur in the planning area. These spills would consist of unrefined crude oil from a 

pipeline, or possibly as much as 900 barrels of crude or diesel oil from a gravel pad facility. 

Small spills (e.g., less than 500 barrels) are currently the most frequently-occurring spill type on 

the North Slope, and primarily consist of the release of less than a barrel of aviation fuel, diesel 

fuel, engine lube oil, fuels oil, gasoline, grease, hydraulic oil, transformer oil and transmission 

oil. Under Alternative C it is estimated that a total of 721 small crude oil spills and 1,782 

refined oil spills could occur in the planning area. A very-large spill, defined as a spill greater 

than or equal to 120,000 barrels of oil, is considered extremely unlikely to occur within the 

lifetime of this plan. 

The risk of oil spills under Alternative C would be similar to that under Alternative A; however, 

a greater area of important caribou, waterfowl, and fish habitat would be subject to potential 

contamination by oil spills. The area surrounding Teshekpuk Lake and north to the Beaufort 

Sea, largely unavailable for leasing and/or year-round occupation under Alternative A and

partially unavailable under Alternative B, would be open for year-round development and 

operation under Alternative C. Subsistence users have stated that they prefer not to hunt in

industrial areas, and the communities of Barrow, Atqasuk, and Nuiqsut have harvested 

resources in the area to be opened under Alternative C. The communities of Barrow, Atqasuk, 

and Nuiqsut rely greatly on the TLH caribou for subsistence, and Wainwright and Anaktuvuk 

Pass utilize the herd to a lesser extent. Large oil spills could affect subsistence patterns by 

reducing populations of subsistence species, contaminating subsistence species or their habitats, 

resulting in the resource being unfit to eat or polluted. These effects could reduce the amount of 

subsistence foods harvested, cause changes in traditional diets, increase risks and wear and 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-458 

Alternative C: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

tear on equipment if users were required to travel farther to find more suitable resources, and 

cause social stress due to the reduction or loss of preferred foods harvested in the traditional 

fashion. Effects on subsistence harvest patterns would be greater under Alternative C than 

under the other alternatives because oil and gas activity would likely occur over a larger and

more ecologically sensitive area, and the likelihood of an oil spill occurring would be greater. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Effects on subsistence resources and harvest patterns from natural gas development and 

production under Alternative C would occur in much the same way as effects would occur under

that alternative from oil development and production, though there would be no crude oil spills 

from gas production. Because Alternative C makes more important subsistence resource habitat 

and subsistence use areas available for leasing and development than the other alternatives, it 

would likely result in the greatest amount of impacts to subsistence. Winter burial of the 

pipeline would potentially disrupt caribou and subsistence hunters, though once buried, a gas 

pipeline should not have additional impacts on subsistence. If a natural gas well blowout

occurred, the subsistence harvest of any species in the vicinity could be affected and, if an 

explosion and fire occurred, subsistence resources in the immediate vicinity could be killed. 

Natural gas and condensates that did not burn in the blowout would be hazardous to any 

organism exposed in high concentrations. However, natural gas vapors and condensates would 

be dispersed very rapidly from the blowout site (1 km downwind for about 1 day) and would 

affect only those species in the immediate vicinity of the accident. While such an effect would 

be relatively short term and localized and likely would not measurably affect the regional 

population of any species, it could cause disruption to subsistence harvests in the area of the 

blowout. In addition, subsistence hunters, who already tend to avoid oil field infrastructure, 

may be even more likely to avoid gas fields for fear of a well blowout. 

4.5.12.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

The performance-based lease stipulations and ROPs developed for Alternative B would also

apply to Alternative C (see section 4.4.12.3 for an assessment of the effectiveness of the ROPs 

and lease stipulations). Under Alternative C, no areas would be withdrawn from year-round 

occupation except the buffer zones around deepwater lakes, with the same exception clauses as 

the other alternatives. Under this alternative, oil exploration and development could occur over

a wider area, in more sensitive areas and habitats, and in lakes; however, ROPs and lease 

stipulations would be included (e.g., ROPs H-1 and H-2) to effectively reduce conflicts between

subsistence uses and oil and gas activities. As stated during scoping, subsistence users stated 

that the proposed revision to the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS is a breach of faith and that opening 

up more areas in the planning area would have negative effects on subsistence users from 

Barrow and Nuiqsut (Ahmaogak 2003). 

Local municipal government and tribal governments generally have few paid staff and limited 

funding. Local government official and tribal leaders feel they are overtaxed when asked to 

provide meaningful input to BLM on permitted activities. Many residents have stated during 

scoping that the change from the prescriptive lease stipulations in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS 

ROD to performance-based ROPs and lease stipulations places them in the position of having to

defend subsistence interests because compliance is now defined in terms of meeting a

management objective rather than meeting an absolute prescriptive standard. To effectively 

respond, they would have to further stretch their existing capabilities to review and comment 

on industry proposals and their impact on subsistence. 

4-459 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

BLM holds that performance-based lease stipulations and ROPs would provide equivalent 

protection, while gaining flexibility for adaptive management. The flexibility of the new 

approach places greater reliance on close, on-going monitoring to insure that these procedures

do in fact achieve equivalent protections. BLM is committed to directing the necessary

resources to this on-going monitoring requirement, including support for the continuing work of

the Subsistence Advisory Panel to provide oversight, exchange information, and develop

solutions for any emerging issues. 

4.5.12.4 Conclusion 

Most impacts associated with oil and gas activities under Alternative C would be localized and

would not substantially affect subsistence species, as long as the activities occurred outside of 

key habitat areas or migratory zones when animals were present. Permanent facilities 

associated with development, if located in key migration corridors or other areas essential to the

viability of the population, could result in reduced harvests, and a reliance on other sources of 

food. The ROPs and lease stipulations discussed above would be effective in protecting 

subsistence species and helping to resolve conflicts between the oil and gas industry and local 

residents. Even in the best case scenario of species protection, however, subsistence users 

would still be constrained by the presence of oil and gas facilities from harvesting subsistence 

resources, would question the health of those resources, and would tend to harvest resources at 

least 5 miles from areas of development, increasing the distance hunters must travel, and

reducing the total harvest area available, with each new wave of development. As expressed in

public scoping testimony, local residents are fearful for the future of subsistence hunting on the 

North Slope, their ability to carry on with traditional customs and ways, and their ability to be 

able to pass along these traditions to their children. Of the alternatives discussed in this 

document, Alternative C has the greatest potential to impact subsistence use. 

4.5.13 Sociocultural Systems 

4.5.13.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative C, the effects of non-oil and gas activities (e.g., aircraft and watercraft use, 

scientific research and data collection, recreation, overland moves, and solid and hazardous 

waste removal and remediation) on sociocultural systems would be greater than those expected 

to occur under the other alternatives. There would be a greater amount of scientific research

and data collection and associated aircraft use undertaken prior to lease sales and as part of 

Federal land management responsibilities under Alternative C, as additional lands were opened 

to leasing, which could cause temporary and localized diversion or deflection of subsistence 

species. It is not expected that the amount of recreation and solid and hazardous waste removal 

and remediation would be greater under Alternative C, as compared to the other alternatives,

but more overland moves could be required to support scientific and other activities in the 

additional areas available for leasing. Several families with members in Atqasuk, Barrow, and 

Nuiqsut use cabins, camps, caches, and other sites along the coast and inland to Teshekpuk 

Lake for subsistence activities. The use of these localities helps maintain family connections 

and a feeling of relatedness and stability, which could be reduced by increased activity in the 

areas formerly unavailable for leasing. In general, effects from non-oil and gas activities under 

Alternative C would be temporary and localized, and would be unlikely to affect overall 

sociocultural patterns. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-460 

Alternative C: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.5.13.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Oil and gas exploration, development, and production in the areas formerly unavailable for 

leasing north of Teshekpuk Lake, outside the setbacks established in the lease stipulations and 

ROPs, would require, a seasonal network of ice roads, permanent gravel roads, pads, and 

runways, and a year-round corridor for pipelines and powerlines to each pad and production

facility. 

Effects of Disturbances 

The effects on sociocultural patterns from disturbances caused by oil and gas activities under 

Alternative C would be the same as under Alternative A, but would be greater in intensity, as 

compared to the other alternatives (refer to Alternative A, section 4.3.13, for further discussion 

of effects). Increases in the amount of area available for leasing and exploration would have a 

corresponding increase in the effects to subsistence harvests as compared to those for 

Alternative A. 

The development proposed for the planning area would require staging and overland travel 

during the winter and in summer would require several aircraft for supplies, equipment, and 

crew changes. In all seasons, noise, lights, personnel, and traffic near oil and gas infrastructure 

could deflect or divert caribou in areas where activities were occurring; however, gravel pads 

could attract caribou during some seasons as insect-relief habitat. These effects could change 

the distribution, timing, and location of the caribou harvest, which could then require increased 

effort and expenditure on the part of subsistence hunters, resulting in increased stress and a 

decreased sense of well-being. Oil and gas development could divert subsistence users at 

distances from 5 to more than 25 miles from facilities. Given the high gasoline costs on the 

North Slope, this would add additional cost to subsistence harvests. Increased fuel costs and

wear and tear on equipment would increase the need for wage labor to support subsistence 

pursuits and reduce the time available to pursue subsistence activities, which would result in 

sociocultural consequences, such as increased stress and a decreased sense of well being. These 

problems are discussed in more detail in section 4.5.19. Increases in the speed, range, and 

reliability of outboards and snowmobiles have facilitated the mixed subsistence and wage 

economy, but are unable to compensate for impacts to subsistence activities from continued 

development and production activities in important subsistence harvest areas. 

As discussed under Alternative A, long-term change to sociocultural patterns would result from 

a weakening of traditional stabilizing institutions through prolonged stress and disruptive 

effects that could be exacerbated by activities occurring under this amendment. These changes 

are already occurring to some degree on the North Slope because of onshore oil and gas 

development, more dependence on a wage economy, higher levels of education, improved

technology, improved housing and community facilities, improved infrastructures, increased 

presence of non-Natives, increased travel outside of the North Slope, and increasing presence of 

television and the Internet. Data from other circumpolar Inuit populations suggest that 

continued modernization is associated with a trend toward displacement of sociocultural 

systems, including: a trend toward less time being spent conducting subsistence harvest 

activities; less subsistence consumption among younger generations; a greater focus on a cashbased economy, as opposed to the egalitarian sharing network; an increased importance on the 

nuclear family, as opposed to the more-traditional extended family structure (Curtis et al. 2005; 

Nobmann et al. 2005; Condon et al. 1995). North Slope Borough institutions, such as the school 

district that promotes the teaching of Iñupiat language and culture, the Arctic Eskimo Whaling 

Commission that negotiates with industry to protect Iñupiat subsistence whaling interests, the 

4-461 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Sociocultural Systems 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

NSB Department of Wildlife Management, and other regional and village Native corporations 

and organizations, have been working vigorously and quite successfully at preventing the 

weakening of traditional Iñupiat cultural institutions and practices. Increased social 

interactions between oil-industry workers and Nuiqsut residents could be long term, but there 

is not expected to be a tendency toward displacement of Iñupiat social institutions. However, 

population changes in ethnicity, such as the influx of a large non-native population, could 

disrupt or displace existing sociocultural systems and cultural institutions. Small-scale changes

in population and employment are unlikely to disrupt sociocultural systems or displace existing

institutions (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998, 2003). 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Abandonment and rehabilitation activities would likely generate jobs for local residents for 

several years above the level that would exist during operations. However, after the production 

pads were shut down and closure activities were completed, jobs associated with them would 

cease. If local residents were to become substantially integrated into satellite operations and the 

community was to become substantially dependent on revenues associated with their operation, 

and if other oil fields were not active in the area to provide jobs and contribute economically to 

the local economy and government revenues, the community would face a time of significant 

economic depression; other potential avenues for maintaining income at the standards 

established in the oil development era have not been identified. Subsistence resources would be 

subject to fewer impacts, potentially improving subsistence opportunities. 

Effects of Oil Spills 

The effects of oil spills would be the same as discussed in Alternative A; however, under 

Alternative C there would be a greater likelihood that widespread damage would occur in 

sensitive habitats, as sensitive habitats that would be closed to leasing under Alternatives A 

and B would be open to oil and gas activity under Alternative C. Dispersion and contamination 

of important subsistence resources in these highly sensitive habitats could occur in the unlikely 

event of a large or very large spill. Effects would vary in severity depending upon the timing 

and location (i.e., terrestrial, riverine, lacustrine, or marine) of the spill event, but fish, 

waterfowl, and marine and terrestrial mammals could all be affected. Such a spill could result 

in contamination of subsistence resources and threaten the health and lifeways of the affected

communities. If a large oil spill occurred in a traditional use area, then subsistence users would 

have to travel further to harvest uncontaminated resources, which would result in high effects 

to sociocultural patterns as long as the residents believed that the subsistence resources were 

contaminated. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Effects on sociocultural systems under Alternative C and all other alternatives would be due to 

effects on subsistence harvest patterns, changes in employment and population, and effects on 

public health. In the event of natural gas development and production in the planning area, 

there could be an increase in employment and population in some North Slope communities,

subsistence use patterns and public health may be affected as described in 4.5.12 and 4.5.19, 

respectively. The amount of employment and population change would probably differ among 

the alternatives in rough proportion to the amount of oil production and infrastructure 

development that would occur under each alternative; therefore, it is likely that the greatest 

amount of employment and population impacts would occur under Alternative C. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-462 

Alternative C: Sociocultural Systems 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.5.13.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

The performance-based lease stipulations and ROPs proposed under Alternative C are the same

as those proposed under Alternative B. As these mitigation measures have been in effect for 

only a short time in the Northwest NPR-A, their effectiveness cannot yet be empirically 

evaluated. The proposed performance-based lease stipulations and ROPs would provide 

equivalent or greater setbacks from rivers and lakes than under Alternative A. Other

protections would be similar to those developed for Alternative A. 

BLM proposes the new approach to mitigation measures in order to achieve equivalent 

protection as would occur under Alternative A, while providing greater flexibility. The 

prescriptive approach adopted in 1998 gained legitimacy and credibility through the extended 

consultation leading to the final decision, while the new approach proposed for Alternatives, B,

C and D is not well known or understood, and some local residents doubt that the new approach 

would provide equivalent protection. The flexibility of the new approach places greater reliance 

on on-going monitoring to insure that modified procedures do in fact achieve equivalent 

protections. 

4.5.13.4 Conclusion 

New lease sales in the areas north of Teshekpuk Lake, which would be unavailable for leasing 

under Alternative A, and to a lesser extent under Alternative B, could cause societal stress in 

Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Atqasuk. Construction and operation of oil facilities could discourage 

families from using and maintaining traditional camps, cabins, and caches in the affected areas, 

which could affect social organization and cultural values in these communities. Development in

these areas could increase North Slope residents’ concerns about encroachment; potential risks 

to subsistence resources in terms of access and availability; and contamination of caribou, fish, 

and waterfowl. Visits to traditional camps and cabins are a vehicle for transmitting traditional 

and family history and knowledge to younger generations, and the discontinuation of such visits 

would decrease social cohesion in these communities. In addition, as harvests decreased, 

resources would no longer be available in amounts suitable for sharing, resulting in changes in 

social organization and cultural values. 

4.5.14 Environmental Justice 

4.5.14.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

The non-oil and gas activities likely to occur in the planning area would primarily be transitory 

in nature, of short duration, and highly localized. They could temporarily divert, deflect, or

disturb subsistence species from their normal patterns. Non-oil and gas activities could alter 

the availability of subsistence species in traditional harvest areas, which could in turn affect 

harvest patterns by requiring hunters to travel further in pursuit of resources. Increased travel 

distances would result in greater expenditures for fuel and equipment, and increased wear and 

tear on snowmobiles, outboards, and four-wheel vehicles, and could result in a higher risk of 

accidents. Consequently, there could be an effect on the subsistence hunting activities of the 

local minority population as a result of non-oil and gas activities. Under Alternative C, these 

effects could be greater than under the other alternatives, but would still be minor, temporary, 

short term, and generally highly localized. As outlined in section 4.5.19, this could result in 

isolated problems of social pathology. 

4-463 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Sociocultural Systems 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.5.14.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbance 

Under Alternative C, allowing oil and gas activities in areas formerly unavailable for leasing 

and year-round occupation could increase the amount of area affected by these activities, 

increase the duration of those effects, and spread the effects throughout the northern half of the 

planning area. Disturbances caused by Alternative C would be the same as those discussed

under the other alternatives, but effects on subsistence caused by oil and gas development 

would be greater in magnitude, extent, and duration. For species unable to habituate to

disturbances associated with oil and gas development, effects could potentially last for more 

than 40 years. Public health effects relating to sociocultural and dietary change, as well as 

exposure to contaminants, could persist for considerably longer. 

Alternative C could have long-term effects on several terrestrial mammal species. In particular, 

effects on caribou herds would likely be greater than under the other alternatives. It is expected

that effects on waterfowl harvested for subsistence would be more frequent and more 

widespread than under the other alternatives, given the greater area available for petroleum 

leasing. Little or no effect on marine mammals would be expected from onshore activities under

Alternative C, but noise and disturbance associated with offshore barge and vessel traffic could 

impact bowhead whale migration patterns. There are concerns that, depending on the 

particular activity and, especially, the location of the activity, actions occurring under 

Alternative C, as under the other alternatives, could cause local effects on fish. It is believed 

that disruptions from Alternative C would affect caribou, waterfowl, and fish. All of these effects 

would be experienced primarily by the subsistence dependent minority Iñupiat population. 

Under Alternative C, the possibility of public health impacts would be greater than under the 

other alternatives. These impacts would occur primarily through restriction in subsistence; 

influx of large numbers of outside workers; new access routes to the community; sociocultural 

and economic change; altered employment; and contaminants. Diabetes, hypertension, and

related metabolic disorders would be expected to increase as subsistence is curtailed or as 

sociocultural changes lead to alterations in dietary patterns. Given that Alternative C involves 

the potential of development throughout the entire region, the risk of dietary change leading to

metabolic disorders and of food insecurity are both substantially higher. The risk of 

contaminant-based health problems would also be highest under Alternative C, owing to the 

increased total emissions projected, as well as the distribution of emissions sources throughout 

the subsistence range. Social pathology could result from the economic changes anticipated;

from increasing access to drugs and alcohol; and from stress and maladaptive coping given the 

impacts to wider regions of important traditional use areas. While measures such as 

Stipulation I-1, which mandates a cultural orientation program, it would not be expected to 

entirely offset the large-scale socio-economic impacts discussed in the sociocultural and public 

health sections. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Activities associated with dismantling and removing of production pads and facilities could 

disproportionately impact Nuiqsut residents through disturbance, displacement, and mortality 

of subsistence resources, through subsistence users’ avoidance of areas undergoing 

dismantlement and removal, and through potential impacts to water and air quality, and noise. 

Once abandonment and rehabilitation were completed, Nuiqsut residents would be 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-464 

Alternative C: Environmental Justice 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

disproportionately impacted by the reduction in local and Native corporation revenues and by 

fewer local jobs and business opportunities. Since economic depression is associated with 

increased social pathology, this could result in increases in domestic violence, injury, drug and 

alcohol problems, and suicide. Local residents could benefit from a reduction in impacts on 

subsistence resources, compared to during construction and operation. 

Effects of Oil Spills 

As discussed elsewhere, the magnitude of effects of a crude oil spill on subsistence resources 

would depend on the context of the spill, the volume and area covered by spilled product, and 

the amount of time the product was loose before clean-up efforts commenced. Tundra oil spills 

could affect small numbers of terrestrial mammals and waterfowl unable to avoid the spill area, 

but would be unlikely to have population level effects. Oil spills (any size) directly into a water 

body, particularly in difficult to contain conditions such as breakup or broken ice, could spread

widely and have long-term, population level effects on fish and waterfowl. In the nearshore 

environment, a large to very large spill, particularly during broken ice or storm conditions, 

could affect marine mammals including seals, and beluga and bowhead whales. Oil spills can 

also be associated with toxicological health effects in human populations, as outlined in section 

4.5.19. Furthermore, if a large spill resulted in a substantial decrease in consumption of 

subsistence foods, food insecurity and hunger as well as diabetes and related metabolic 

disorders could increase. 

As compared to the other alternatives, a greater area would be at risk for oil spill damage under 

Alternative C. The area surrounding Teshekpuk Lake and north to the Beaufort Sea, largely 

unavailable for lease and/or year-round occupation under Alternative A, would be open for yearround development and operation under Alternative C. Subsistence users have stated that they

prefer not to hunt in industrial areas, and the communities of Barrow, Atqasuk, and Nuiqsut 

have harvested resources in the area to be opened under Alternative C. 

The Iñupiat people consider contamination from oil spills in nearshore waters to be a

catastrophic possibility that would threaten their very existence, primarily because of the 

potential effects of spills on bowhead whales, which are a very important part of their culture in 

addition to being a favored food source (Brower 1976, Itta 2001). A major oil spill would result 

in effects that would impact Iñupiat subsistence users more than any other human group. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Environmental Justice impacts of gas development for Alternative C would be largely 

attributable to impacts to subsistence, sociocultural changes, and public health impacts and are 

described, respectively, in sections 4.5.12, 4.5.13, and 4.5.19. While impacts from an oil spill 

would not be a factor, it is possible that well blowouts or the fear of blowouts would increase

subsistence users’ avoidance of infrastructure. The proportional impacts among the 

alternatives would mirror that attributed to oil development, and therefore the largest impacts 

would likely result under Alternative C. 

4.5.14.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Alternative C would utilize performance-based ROPs and lease stipulations patterned after 

those developed for Alternative B. The lease stipulations and ROPs would be effective in 

reducing conflicts between subsistence uses and oil and gas activities. 

4-465 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Environmental Justice 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.5.13.4 Conclusion 

Several lease sales have already taken place in the planning area, and development in the

northeastern portion of the planning area is underway (USDOI BLM 2003a), albeit not on BLM 

lands. Exploration programs, consisting of seismic testing and drilling using ice pads, are 

ongoing. Residents of Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Atqasuk have noted some effects from these 

activities on subsistence (SRBA 2003a, b). One effect included the redistribution of caribou, 

wolves, and wolverines in response to seismic activity and cat trains operating in the NPR-A 

(SRBA 2003a, b). These effects would continue under Alternative C, and would be somewhat 

greater than under the other alternatives. Most effects of disturbance would be greater in

duration, extent, and magnitude. Effects from oil spills would depend greatly on the size, 

location, and season of the spill. Small spills on gravel pads would have little or no 

environmental justice effects. A major spill into a watercourse could have long-term, serious 

effects on Iñupiat subsistence activities. While any major spill would have serious consequences, 

the worst, from an environmental justice standpoint would be one that occurred in a key 

harvest area or near a community, particularly Nuiqsut or areas used by Barrow residents in 

the northwest portion of the planning area. 

The activities likely under Alternative C could also have substantial health effects, as outlined 

above and discussed in detail in section 4.5.19. Because the population within and near the 

planning area is primarily comprised of Iñupiat, any health effects that occur would 

disproportionately affect this minority population. 

4.5.15 Coastal Zone Management (Alternative C) 

4.5.15.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

As non-oil and gas activities are normal occurrences under existing BLM management 

practices, they would in most cases, be of limited duration and magnitude, and effects on 

neighboring uses primarily subsistence resources and harvest patterns of nearby communities 

would be limited to the immediate area of the activity. Activities would be consistent with 

ACMP standards. 

Under Alternative C, the effects of non-oil and gas activities on coastal resources would likely be 

slightly greater in duration, aerial extent, and, perhaps magnitude than those that would occur

under the other alternatives. Under Alternative C, aircraft and watercraft traffic could increase 

during the summer to support the increased scientific and other activity necessary prior to

expanding lease areas. This additional traffic could result in increased effects on subsistence

species and increased irritation of Native communities. 

There would be more scientific research and data collection under Alternative C compared with 

the other alternatives, pursuant to greater exploration and development activities. As a result, 

effects on subsistence activities would be greater. 

It is expected that the planning area would support similar amounts of recreation under 

Alternative C, compared to the other alternatives. 

Solid and hazardous waste removal and remediation activities, such as monitoring of existing 

clean-up sites and aging infrastructure (e.g., wellheads), would be ongoing, independent of 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-466 

Alternative C: Environmental Justice 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

additional lease availability. The effects of solid and hazardous waste removal and remediation 

under Alternative C would likely have the same effects as the other alternatives. 

Compared to the other alternatives, there could be a greater number of overland moves under

Alternative C in order to stage research camps and activities. Overland moves would be 

permitted, subject to the lease stipulations and ROPs, similar to the prior alternatives. 

4.5.15.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Alternative C would involve ground-impacting management actions similar to those addressed 

for the other alternatives, but on a larger scale. As described in section 4.3.15, Coastal Zone 

Management of this document, Section 307(c)(3)(B) of the CZMA requires applicants to certify 

that each of their activities that affects any land use or water use in the coastal zone complies 

with, and would be implemented consistent with, the state’s coastal program. In the following 

discussion, ACMP standards for uses and activities are used to evaluate activities and effects 

that would occur under Alternative C. Policies of the NSB CMP are assessed in conjunction with 

the most closely associated statewide standard. 

This analysis is not a consistency determination pursuant to the CZMA of 1972, as amended, 

nor should it be used as a local planning document. 

Effects of Exploration and Development Related to the Alaska Coastal Management 

Program 

 Coastal Development (11 AAC 112.200) 

Water dependency is a prime criterion for development along the shoreline. The intent of this 

policy is to ensure that onshore developments and activities that could be placed inland would 

not displace activities that depend on shoreline locations, which include marine shores, 

lakeshores, and river waterfronts. Under Alternative C, the entire Beaufort Sea coast within 

the planning area would be open to leasing. Lease Stipulation K-6 would be highly effective in 

discouraging permanent oil and gas facilities within 3⁄4 mile of the coast and other lease 

stipulations would address sensitive issues areas along parts of the coast and near deep water 

lakes and major creeks and rivers. 

Natural Hazard Areas (11 AAC 112.210) 

This statewide standard permits coastal districts and state agencies to identify and designate 

areas in which natural hazards are known to exist that may present a threat to life or property.

Development in these areas would be prohibited until siting, design, and construction measures 

for minimizing property damage and protecting against the loss of life were provided. 

Flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, storm surges, ice 

formations, snow avalanches, erosion, and beach processes in the planning area should be 

considered. Onshore development would be sited in areas of permafrost. Development in these 

areas would be required to maintain the natural permafrost insulation quality of existing soils 

and vegetation (NSB CMP 2.4.6[c] and NSBMC 19.70.050.L.3). Actions that occur under 

Alternative C would be required to comply with this standard. 

4-467 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Coastal Access (11 AAC 112.220) 

Districts and state agencies shall ensure that projects maintain and, where appropriate, 

increase public access to, from, and along coastal water. It is expected that Alternative C would 

be consistent with this standard, although, as under Alternative D and Alternative B, the larger 

leasing area along the Beaufort coast could result in some conflicts with access opportunities, as 

compared to Alternative A. 

Energy Facilities (11 AAC 112.230) 

The ACMP requires that decisions on the siting and approval of energy-related facilities be 

based, to the extent practicable, on 16 criteria within the energy facilities standard. Lease 

stipulations and ROPs in place under Alternative C would be effective in reducing conflicts, 

making the alternative consistent with the statewide standard. 

Other criteria within this standard require that facilities be consolidated and sited in areas of 

least biological productivity, diversity, and vulnerability and where effluents and spills can be 

controlled or contained (11 AAC 112.230 (a) [3] and [14]). Under Alternative C, ROPs and lease 

stipulations would be effective in protecting many biologically sensitive areas, although leasing 

would be permitted in the 213,000-acre goose molting and caribou habitat areas that would be 

off-limits under alternatives A and B. The NSB CMP also requires that transportation facilities 

and utilities be consolidated to the maximum extent possible (NSB CMP 2.4.5.2[f] and NSBMC 

19.70.050. K.6). 

Construction associated with energy-related facilities under Alternative C would also be 

required to comply with siting standards that apply to all types of development, which are 

discussed below under Habitats; Air, Land, and Water Quality; and Historic, Prehistoric, and 

Archeological Resources.

 Utility Routes and Facilities (11 AAC 112.240) and Transportation Routes and 

Facilities (11 AAC 112.280) 

These statewide standards require that routes for transportation and utilities be compatible 

with district programs and sited inland from shorelines and beaches. Utility routes and 

facilities along the coast must avoid, minimize, or mitigate alterations in drainage patterns, 

disruption in wildlife transit, and blockage of existing or traditional access. 

The NSB CMP contains several additional policies related to transportation and utilities that 

would be relevant to this analysis. All but one are best-effort policies, and are subject to some 

flexibility. Transportation development, including pipelines, which would significantly obstruct

wildlife migration, is subject to three conditions (NSB CMP 2.4.5.1[g] and NSBMC 

19.70.050.J.3.f). Interference with caribou movements would be short term under Alternative C; 

caribou migrations and overall distribution should not to be affected. Lease stipulations and 

ROPs in place under Alternative C would effectively reduce conflicts, making the alternative 

consistent with the statewide standard. 

Transportation and utility facilities would be consolidated to the maximum extent practicable. 

Therefore, there should be no conflict with either NSB CMP 2.4.5.1(i) (NSBMC 19.70.050.J.3.h), 

which discourages duplicative transportation corridors from resource-extraction sites, or NSB 

CMP 2.4.5.2(f) (NSBMC 19.70.050.K.6), which requires consolidation of transportation facilities 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-468 

Alternative C: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

and utilities. Lease stipulations and ROPs under Alternative C would effectively reduce 

conflicts, making this alternative consistent with the statewide standard. 

The NSB CMP 2.4.6(b) (NSBMC 19.70.050.L.2), under the category of Minimization of Negative 

Impacts, requires that alterations to water features associated with transportation and utilities 

be minimized, and that periods critical for fish migration be avoided. Lease Stipulation K-6, in 

particular, would be effective in ensuring compliance with this standard. 

Sand and Gravel Extraction (11 AAC 112.260) 

The ACMP statewide standards indicate sand and gravel may be extracted from coastal waters, 

intertidal areas, barrier islands, and spits when no practicable noncoastal alternative is 

available to meet the public need (6 AAC 80.110[b]). Substantial alteration of shoreline

dynamics is prohibited (NSB CMP 2.4.5.1[j] and NSBMC 19.70.050.J.3.i). Constraints may be 

placed on extraction activities to lessen environmental degradation of coastal lands and waters 

(NSB CMP 2.4.5.2[a] and [d] and NSBMC 19.70.050.K.1 and 4). Substantially more gravel could 

be required under Alternative C than under the other alternatives, but ROPs and lease 

stipulations (See Table 2-2 in Chapter 2) would be effective by placing restrictions on gravel 

mining locations and thus reducing conflicts to ensure compliance with this standard and the 

NSB policies. 

Subsistence (11 AAC 112.270) 

The statewide standard for subsistence indicates a project within a designated subsistence use

area must avoid or minimize impacts to subsistence uses of coastal resources. Subsistence uses

of coastal resources and maintenance of the subsistence way of life are primary concerns of the 

residents of the NSB. Under Alternative C, the entire Beaufort Sea coast would be open to 

leasing. As a consequence, access to subsistence resources could be more limited, leading to a 

reduction in subsistence hunting and resource use, relative to the other alternatives. 

Disturbances and oil spills associated with oil and gas activities would have short-term and 

localized impacts on the TLH caribou and other terrestrial mammals, fish, and birds, and 

bowhead whales and other marine mammals. The impacts would result in more difficult and 

somewhat reduced success at subsistence harvests for Barrow, Atqasuk and Nuiqsut hunters.

Subsistence-hunter concerns about access to resources, resource disturbance, and resource 

contamination would be greater than for the other alternatives. Lease stipulations would offer 

protection to subsistence resources and activities. Surface, air, and foot traffic near the oil fields

would be expected to increase more than under the other alternatives, and would potentially 

displace large numbers of caribou, moose, muskox, grizzly bears, wolves, and wolverines. Roads 

and pipelines would be constructed to provide for unimpeded wildlife crossings. Based on the 

analysis of disturbance from oil and gas activities on caribou, potential conflict with the 

subsistence policies would be greater under Alternative C than under the other alternatives. 

Although Alternative C would still comply with the statewide standard, the effects on 

subsistence resources and activities would depend to a great extent on the location(s) of well 

fields and facilities. For example, development in the caribou calving and insect-relief area 

north of Teshekpuk Lake would have a notably greater effect than would development in less 

sensitive areas. 

Policy 2.4.3(d) (NSBMC 19.70.050.D) requires that development not preclude reasonable access 

to a subsistence resource. Onshore pipelines and construction activities could cause disruptions 

to subsistence caribou harvests from access and movement conflicts, but effects are expected to 

be short term. Where access is reduced or restricted, development can occur only if no feasible or 

4-469 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

prudent alternative is available, and is then subject to the conditions of best-effort policies. 

Conflict with these standards and policies would be somewhat greater under Alternative C than 

under other alternatives. 

Several important NSB CMP policies relate to effects on subsistence resources. The NSB CMP 

policy 2.4.3(a) (NSBMC 19.70.050.A) relates to extensive impacts to a subsistence resource that 

are likely and cannot be avoided or mitigated. In such an instance, development must not 

deplete subsistence resources below the subsistence needs of local residents of the NSB. Policy 

2.4.5.1(a) (NSBMC 19.70.050.J.1) addresses development that would likely result in decreased 

productivity of subsistence resources or their ecosystems. Temporary reductions in subsistence 

resources and changes in subsistence resource-distribution patterns could occur as a result of 

disturbance from seismic surveys, aircraft and vessel traffic, drilling activities, and construction 

activities (offshore dredging, pipeline construction, structure placement and onshore pipelines, 

and construction of support bases, and roads). 

The Alternative C development scenario predicts that there would be an onshore pipeline for oil 

delivery to the TAPS and that a pipeline spill could potentially contaminate the Colville River. 

A spill entering the Colville River potentially could affect subsistence harvest by reducing fish 

populations, disrupting subsistence-fishing activity, and curtailing the subsistence hunt by 

tainting resources or causing subsistence users to perceive them as tainted (section 4.5.12, 

Subsistence). However, the number of sizable oil spills estimated for Alternative C would still 

be small. It is anticipated that the potential for effects from spills and associated clean-up 

activities would be greater under Alternative C than under the other alternatives, but that the 

impact on subsistence resources and harvest patterns would be minor. 

Conflict with these policies would be possible during the exploration, development, and 

production phases but would more likely during development and production. Under 

Alternative C, ROPs and lease stipulations designed to protect subsistence resources and to

establish procedures and advisory bodies to address subsistence concerns would effectively 

minimize policy conflicts. Therefore, Alternative C should be consistent with the statewide 

standard. 

Habitats (11 AAC 112.300) 

The statewide standard for habitats contains management measures specific to nine areas: 

offshore areas; estuaries; wetlands; tideflats; rocky islands and seacliffs; barrier islands and 

lagoons; exposed high-energy coasts; rivers, streams, and lakes (including associated floodplains 

and riparian management areas); and important upland habitat. The NSB CMP contains a 

district policy that reiterates the applicability of the statewide standard (NSB CMP 2.4.5.2[g] 

and NSBMC 19.70.050.K.7), plus several others that augment the overall policy or can be 

related to activities within a specific habitat. Under Alternative C, no sensitive habitat areas in 

the planning area would be excluded from leasing, in contrast to Alternative A, which would 

exclude 600,000 acres, Alternative B, which would exclude 213,000 acres, or Alternative D, 

which would defer leasing on approximately 211,000 acres (Teshekpuk Lake) from oil and gas 

leasing. However, applicable ROPs and lease stipulations (See Table 2-2 in Chapter 2) would 

provide effective protection for birds, terrestrial mammals, and fish and their habitats. 

Therefore, conflicts with the ACMP standards would be minimized to the extent practicable, 

and activities under Alternative C would be consistent with the statewide standard. 

The ACMP statewide standard for habitats in the coastal zone requires that habitats be 

managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts to habitat resources. This 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-470 

Alternative C: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

policy is supported by an NSB CMP policy requiring that development be located, designed, and 

maintained in a manner that prevents substantial impacts on fish and wildlife and their 

habitat, including water circulation and drainage patterns and coastal processes (NSB CMP 

2.4.5.2[b] and NSBMC 19.70.050.K.2). In addition, vehicles, vessels, and aircraft that are likely 

to cause significant disturbance must avoid areas where species that are sensitive to noise or 

movement are concentrated, at times when such species are concentrated (NSB CMP 2.4.4 [a] 

and NSBMC 19.70.050.I.1). Some disturbances associated with exploration and development 

would be mitigated by lease stipulations placed on permits. Alternative C ROPs and lease

stipulations would effectively reduce potential conflicts, and the activities would be consistent 

with the statewide standard, assuming the AO would be cognizant of the NSB requirements 

when determining the appropriate requirements of the performance-based lease stipulations 

and ROPs. 

Oil and gas development activities could affect several of the habitats identified in the statewide 

standard, including lagoons, wetlands, rivers, lakes, and streams. Therefore, onshoredevelopment activities would need to be designed and constructed to avoid, minimize, or

mitigate significant adverse effects. 

It is expected the caribou of the CAH and TLH would be disturbed and their movements 

delayed along the pipeline during periods of aircraft overflights, but that disturbances would 

not affect migrations or overall distribution. It is expected that surface, air, and foot traffic near 

the oil fields would be greater under Alternative C than under the other alternatives, and could

displace some large mammals, though not enough to substantially affect North Slope 

populations. The NSB CMP policy 2.4.6(e) (NSBMC 19.70.050.L.5) emphasizes that roads and 

pipelines must provide for unimpeded wildlife crossing and provides a set of guidelines and an 

intent statement specifically to implement the policy. 

Rivers, lakes, and streams are managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse 

impacts to natural water flow; active floodplains; and natural vegetation within riparian 

management areas. Pipeline and road construction, including gravel extraction, could affect 

these waterways and would need to be conducted in a manner that would ensure the protection 

of riverine habitat and fish resources. Gravel extraction also is regulated under policies that are 

described in Section 11 AAC 112.260. The ROPs and lease stipulations in place under

Alternative C would effectively reduce conflicts, and would be consistent with the statewide 

standard. 

Air, Land, and Water Quality (11 AAC 112.310) 

The air, land, and water quality standard of the ACMP incorporates by reference all the 

statutes pertaining to, and regulations and procedures of, the ADEC. The NSB reiterates this 

standard in its district policies and emphasizes the need to comply with specific water and air 

quality regulations in several additional policies. The NSB policies (NSB CMP 2.4.4[k] and 

NSBMC 19.70.050.I.11) address water quality issues; development must comply with the 

conditions of the best-effort policies (NSB CMP 2.4.5.1[e] and NSBMC 19.70.050.J.3.d). Under 

Alternative C, there could be some short-term conflict with these policies due to potential oil 

spills, which would likely be more frequent under Alternative C than under the other 

alternatives. However, the ROPs and lease stipulations (See Table 2-2 in Chapter 2) in place 

under Alternative C would effectively reduce conflicts, and the alternative would be consistent 

with the statewide standards. 

4-471 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Some discharges and emissions would occur during exploration and development, and the NSB 

CMP policy 2.4.4(c) (NSBMC 19.70.050.I.3) requires that these emissions comply with all state 

and Federal regulations, which is consistent with the statewide standard. 

Discharges of muds, cuttings, and drilling fluids are regulated closely. Formation water 

produced from the wells along with the oil is regulated by the USEPA. The Alaska Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission has primacy for this program. Some wastes are disposed through the 

annulus of producing wells, an activity is exempt from the Underground Injection Control 

program. However, the AOGCC also regulates this practice for the State of Alaska. Surface 

disposal of drilling wastes would require a solid waste permit from ADEC. 

Because discharges of muds, cuttings, and drilling fluids are closely regulated, no conflict is 

anticipated with the statewide standard or NSB CMP policy 2.4.4(d) (NSBMC 19.70.050.I.4), 

which requires that industrial and commercial development be served by solid waste disposal 

facilities that meet state and Federal regulations. There would be no inherent conflict between 

the proposed activities of Alternative C and the ACMP water-quality provisions. 

Air quality also must conform to Federal and state standards (11 AAC 112.310, NSB CMP 

2.4.3[i] and 2.4.4[c], and NSBMC 19.70.050.H and I.3). The analysis of air quality effects under 

Alternative C in section 4.5.1, Air Quality indicates that conformance is anticipated, and no

conflict between air quality and coastal policies should occur. 

Historic, Prehistoric, and Archaeological Resources (11 AAC 112.320) 

The ACMP statewide standard requires that coastal districts and appropriate state agencies

identify areas of the coast that are important to the study, understanding, or illustration of 

national, state, or local history or prehistory, including natural processes. 

The NSB developed additional policies to ensure protection of its heritage. The NSB CMP 

2.4.3(e) (NSBMC 19.70.050.E) requires that development that is likely to disturb cultural or 

historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places; sites eligible for inclusion in the 

National Register; or sites identified as important to the study, understanding, or illustration of 

national, state, or local history or prehistory shall 1) be required to avoid the sites; or 2) be 

required to consult with appropriate local, state and Federal agencies and survey and excavate 

the site prior to disturbance. The NSB CMP 2.4.3(g) (NSBMC 19.70.050.G) also requires that 

development not disturb newly discovered historic or cultural sites prior to an archaeological 

investigation. It is likely that new cultural and paleontological sites would be discovered under 

Alternative C. No conflicts with these policies would be expected, however, since lease 

stipulations and ROPs would require an inventory of traditional use sites prior to conducting 

any activities. Therefore, Alternative C would be consistent with the statewide standard. 

Traditional activities at cultural or historic sites also are protected under the NSB CMP 2.4.3(f) 

(NSBMC 19.70.050.F) and 2.4.5.2(h) (NSBMC 19.70.050.K.8). As noted in the discussion of

policies related to subsistence, the latter is a best-effort policy that requires protection for 

transportation to subsistence use areas as well as cultural use sites. No conflict with these 

policies would be expected. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-472 

Alternative C: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Land ownership would not be affected by abandonment and rehabilitation. Upon completion of 

abandonment and rehabilitation, land uses and management could return to as near the 

original condition as practicable. 

Effects of Spills 

Because of the interrelated nature of the ACMP and NSB CMP policies, the potential effects of 

spills were addressed with the effects of disturbances under each major policy area above. 

It is expected that disturbances and oil spills associated with oil and gas activities would cause 

short-term and localized impacts from disturbance and oil spills to the TLH caribou and other 

terrestrial mammals, fish, and birds, and bowhead whales and other marine mammals. These 

impacts would likely be greater under Alternative C than under the other alternatives, as would

subsistence hunter concerns about access to resources and resource contamination. The greater 

degree of impacts would result from opening additional area to leasing in caribou, waterfowl, 

and fishing areas, and because the expected level of development would be higher. Conflicts 

with ACMP and NSB CMP policies related to effects on subsistence resources resulting from 

periodic disturbance and oil spills would be possible, but no resource would become unavailable, 

undesirable for use, or experience overall population reductions. Implementation of ROPs and

lease stipulations would therefore ensure that Alternative C would comply with coastal 

management policies and standards of the ACMP and NSB CMP. Combined oversight by the

BLM, the ADNR, and the NSB, under the guidance of their respective standards, would be 

sufficient to deal with any potential conflict that could arise between Alternative C and the 

policies addressed in this section. 

4.5.15.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Lease stipulations and ROPs referred to under each of the Coastal Zone Policy standards 

discussed above should be sufficient for Alternative C to achieve compliance with ACMP and

NSB CMP policies and standards. While it is expected that there could be land use and CZM 

policy conflicts over the life of the alternative development scenario, any such conflicts should be 

short term and subject to resolution. Conflicts, should they occur, would most likely result from 

oil and gas development activities interrupting subsistence activities, but enforcement of 

applicable lease stipulations and ROPs would be effective in minimizing the conflicts and 

quickly return the development to compliance with policies and standards. 

4.5.15.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative C, conflicts could occur with specific statewide standards and NSB CMP 

policies related to potential user conflicts between development activities and access to

subsistence resources. Conflicts are possible with the NSB CMP policy related to effects on 

subsistence resources resulting from periodic disturbance and oil spills, but no resource would 

become unavailable, undesirable for use, or experience significant overall population reductions. 

These effects would occur in the unlikely event of spilled oil contacting subsistence resources 

and habitats and the activities associated with oil-spill cleanup. However, the ROPs and lease 

stipulations in place would be effective in reducing conflicts, and Alternative C would be 

consistent with ACMP standards. 

4-473 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

In summary, it is expected that effects to terrestrial mammals would occur, but that there 

would not be high impacts to populations. Small numbers of terrestrial mammals would be lost

due to the increase of small, chronic crude oil and fuel spills, but populations would be expected 

to recover within 1 year. Arctic fish populations would experience minor effects. Disturbance 

and displacement effects and oil-spills risks would be expected for birds. Bowhead whales would 

be expected to experience short-term, non-lethal effects. Effects to seals and polar bears would 

be short term and localized, with no substantial effects to populations. 

Because these effects would be spread over several decades, the biological analyses expect 

moderate overall effects on resource populations. Therefore, effects on subsistence harvest 

patterns in the communities of Barrow, Atqasuk, Anaktuvuk Pass, and Nuiqsut as a result of 

impacts from disturbance and oil spills should be moderate, and would not make any 

subsistence resource unavailable or undesirable for use, nor would overall population reductions 

be expected. 

4.5.16 Recreational Resources 

4.5.16.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative C, impacts to recreation resources from on-the-ground management

activities such as archeological collection efforts, field camps, survey work, and overland moves

would be very similar to those that would occur under Alternative A. 

Temporary structures, vehicles, noise from generators, aircraft, human presence, and associated 

activity would all have minimal short-term effects on the experience of solitude, naturalness, or

primitive/unconfined recreation in the planning area. As under other alternatives, these shortterm impacts would be confined primarily to the activity site viewshed or noiseshed within 

approximately 1⁄2 mile in any direction of the activity (500 acres). Approximately 2,000 to 3,000

acres would be affected at a time. All of the identified non-oil and gas activities would be 

transitory and short term; the likelihood of recreationists encountering them in any given 

location in the 4.6 million acre planning area would be small. If such activities were 

encountered, the recreation experience and opportunity for solitude on the North Slope would be

diminished somewhat. Depending on the activity, there may be some increased likelihood of an 

encounter with recreationists because of the propensity to concentrate on major rivers and

coastal areas. 

A longer-lasting impact would be trails resulting from overland moves. These trails are created 

by vehicles compacting snow and dead vegetative matter that in turn results in the greater 

availability of moisture and nutrients for underlying vegetation the following growing season. 

These trails do not necessarily develop over the entire route of an overland move, but when they 

do they can be very detectable from the air for 2 to 5 years. They usually are difficult to 

recognize from the ground. Another impact along these trails that has occurred in the past is 

vegetation actually being damaged or broken or the tops of tussocks being scraped off. Current 

operating procedures make this an infrequent problem, but one that can occur in conjunction 

with these trails. Because overland moves would be relatively constant from year to year and 

generally follow the same route(s), several hundred to several thousand miles of intermittent 

trail in some phase of recovery (attributable to overland moves) could be visible from the air 

during any one summer season. Though still relatively short term in nature, the linear nature 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-474 

Alternative C: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

of these trails would emphasize the presence of man, which would reduce the sense of 

naturalness and unconfined primitiveness to a small degree. 

Although there are no formal designations of wilderness or wild and scenic rivers in the 

planning area, and none are anticipated at this time, none of the identified non-oil and gas 

activities would diminish requisite wilderness and wild and scenic river characteristics 

sufficiently to preclude such designations in the future. 

4.5.16.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Exploration 

Under Alternative C, seismic work would occur throughout most of the planning area. This 

work would occur in winter using all-terrain ground vehicles supported by light aircraft. Mobile 

seismic camps would consist of a train of trailer sleds pulled by tractors. These moving camps 

and associated noise and activities would result in a short-term effect on the primitive setting of 

the planning area and a loss of solitude and naturalness. The effects would be confined 

primarily to the activity site viewshed or noiseshed, or within approximately 1⁄2 mile in any 

direction. As many as five seismic operations could take place in a season, temporarily affecting 

approximately 2,500 acres. The potential effect on recreation opportunities and experience 

would be minimized by the fact that very little recreation takes place in the area. 

A longer lasting impact would be trails resulting from seismic survey operations. Unlike 

overland moves, seismic operations do not follow the same routes every year and the number of 

miles of survey line run can vary greatly from year to year. In some years, no surveys would 

occur. As with trails created by overland moves, these trails do not necessarily develop over the 

entire survey route; they would be visible for about 2 to 5 years. However, oil and gas scenarios 

state that approximately 250 miles (6,060 acres) of line would be surveyed using 2-D seismic 

methods, while approximately 10,560 miles (98,880 acres) of line could be surveyed annually 

using 3-D seismic methods, potentially resulting in several thousand miles of trails. Mobile 

camp trails could add another 840 miles (3,056 acres) of trails. Although some of the camp train 

route could be outside of the planning area and could overlap survey line miles. The number of 

miles of trail visible would decline as this phase of exploration slows. Though relatively short 

term in nature, the linear nature of these trails would emphasize the presence of man, which 

would reduce the sense of naturalness and unconfined primitiveness to a small degree. 

Approximately 210 exploration and delineation wells are anticipated under Alternative C. 

However, due to the limited number of drill rigs available, it is anticipated that no more than 

eight wells would be drilled at any one time. Drilling would occur over several seasons, 

primarily using ice pads, roads, and airstrips. Temporary on-site location of structures (e.g.,

drill rigs); noise from sources such as generators, vehicles, aircraft; human presence; and 

associated activity would all have short-term impacts on solitude, naturalness, and 

primitive/unconfined recreation experiences. Effects would be expected to be greatest within a 

2-mile radius of the drill site, or an area of approximately 8,000 acres per site. Accordingly,

under Alternative C, there would be a temporary loss of solitude, naturalness, or 

primitive/unconfined recreation over an area of approximately 64,000 acres during any given 

year, which would be equivalent to about 1.4% of the planning area. The potential effects on 

recreation opportunities and experience would be minor. 

In addition to the short-term impacts that result from ongoing exploratory drilling operations, 

an accumulating summer-season visual concern exists as a result of the greening of vegetation 

4-475 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Recreational Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

under vacated ice pads, airstrips, and roads. This direct impact to the area’s naturalness would 

be a result of the same conditions that create green trails, the greater availability of moisture 

and nutrients as ice or compacted snow melts. This greening of the vegetation does not 

necessarily develop wherever ice pads are constructed or snow is compacted but when it does, it

can be very noticeable from the air for 2 to 5 years and somewhat less noticeable from the 

ground. Another impact at these sites would be vegetation actually being damaged or broken, 

especially along the perimeter of a pad or edge of a road. Exploratory drilling operations and

ancilliary facilities i.e. 210 ice pads (6 acres each), 40 airstrips (11 acres each) and 7,182 miles of 

ice roads (3 acres/mile) would result in as many as 23,463 acres that would be in a various state 

of recovery from these impacts. 

Exploration wells that do not indicate the presence of hydrocarbons in developable quantities 

will be plugged and abandoned leaving nothing more than possibly a mound of dirt expected to 

be no larger than a square foot on the lands surface. Wells that show potential may be 

“suspended,” and capped with what is known as a “Christmas tree” at the surface, especially if 

the well might be used again for possible oil production. These are essentially a permanent 

impacts (less than 6 feet high), but almost unnoticeable from several hundred feet away. 

Effects of Development 

Up to 37 production pads, and 182 miles of pipeline that extend beyond the production area are 

anticipated under Alternative C. While the intensity of impacts would be greatest during actual 

construction and development of these facilities, remaining structures, human presence, and 

associated activity and noise all would have impacts on the experience of solitude, naturalness, 

and primitive/unconfined recreation opportunity during the life of the field. Because production 

could occur for 10-50 years, impacts would be long term. These long-term impacts are expected

to be greatest within 2 miles of a pad or staging area site (or an area of about 8,000 acres). 

There would be little if any pipeline associated on-the-ground activity, except during 

construction and repair. Long-term impacts to recreation values from pipelines would be

expected to be minimal beyond about 1⁄2 mile. This equates to about 640 acres per mile of 

pipeline. Under this alternative, there would be a long-term loss of solitude, naturalness, or 

primitive/unconfined recreation opportunity over an area of up to 412,480 acres (i.e., [8,000 

acres/pad x 37 pads] + [640 acres/mile x 182 miles of pipeline]). In addition, it is estimated that 

long-term surface (i.e. 2 miles from footprint of staging and CPFs) disturbance and consequently

impacts to primitive recreation from four staging areas (50 acres each) and seven CPFs (90 

acres each) including pads, roads, airstrips, gravel pits, and infield gathering pipelines and 

associated infield gravel roads (370 miles) would impact 341,900 acres (i.e. [9,300 acres/staging 

area x 4 staging areas] + [9,700 acres/CPF x 7 CPFs] + [640 acres/mile of road x 370 miles]). 

These impacts combined (754,380 acres), would be equivalent to about 16.4% of the planning 

area. Short-term, routine/daily inspection flights also would impact solitude and naturalness 

along the length of all pipelines as long as they are in use. The potential effect on recreation 

opportunities and experience would be greatest for development activities because it would 

entail year-round activity and would thus continue during the summer when most recreational 

activity in the planning area occurs. Therefore, the effects to recreation use would not be 

considered a great impact, because they would impact such a small portion of the planning area 

(16.4%) and because there is such a small amount of recreation use in the area. The actual 

effects would depend greatly on where development fields were located relative to major 

watercourses and the Beaufort Sea coast. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-476 

Alternative C: Recreational Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

While abandonment and rehabilitation activities occurred, small number of recreational users 

in the area of rehabilitation could have their wilderness experience diminished by noise, marred 

views, and disturbance to animals which they have come to observe (bird-watchers) or harvest 

(hunters). However, over the long term, these efforts would minimize and impacts to recreation

use would likewise be minimized. 

Effects of Spills 

Most spills would be confined to a pad. Spills not confined to a pad usually are confined to the 

area immediately around the pad or pipeline. Therefore, effects on solitude, naturalness, or 

primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities resulting from spills likely would be confined 

to the same area described above as impacted by the development. 

A large spill that would reach a river, especially the Colville River, and move rapidly 

downstream would have substantial short-term (and possibly long-term) impacts on recreation 

values. 

Effects to Wilderness and Wild and Scenic River Values 

None of the identified non-oil and gas activities would diminish requisite characteristics 

sufficiently to prevent wilderness or wild and scenic river designations in major portions of the 

planning area in the future. 

Potential wilderness values of naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude and 

primitive, unconfined recreation experiences would be affected by long-term development of 

petroleum resources on as much as 16.4% of the planning area under Alternative C, about 3% to 

4% greater than that similarly affected under Alternative A and B. In addition, portions of the 

area could be explored, resulting in lesser residual effects that would reduce wilderness values. 

Despite the lost values, over 3.9 million acres, almost 84%, of the planning area, would likely 

retain substantial wilderness values. 

The “outstandingly remarkable values” that support Wild and Scenic River eligibility for the 

Colville River include recreation, wildlife viewing, geology, and archeology upstream from 

Umiat, and paleontology and wildlife from Umiat to Nuiqsut. Only a small portion of the 

Colville River would experience effects to these values from activities associated with 

Alternative C, primarily from an expected pipeline crossing of the river in an as yet

undetermined location. Specified buffer areas would provide substantial protection for the

Colville and other rivers, except in the area very near the pipeline crossing. Although pipeline 

crossings are discouraged in designated Wild and Scenic River areas, they are permissible, 

when unavoidable, if measures to minimize effects on the river’s outstandingly remarkable 

values are utilized. 

Wild and Scenic River designation is not planned or proposed for the Colville River, as noted in 

section 3.4.6.3, but the applicable lease stipulations and ROPs would preserve most, if not all, 

of the character and values that could qualify the river for designation in the future, if local and 

state political sentiments should ever determine designation to be favorable. A potential 

pipeline would not disrupt the requisite “free flowing” nature of the river and, to the degree

possible, it would be sited to avoid the areas specific to the “outstandingly remarkable values” 

noted above. Selection of a river crossing location for the pipeline would require a permit from 

4-477 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Recreational Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

BLM, which would afford an opportunity for more detailed review of effects on the Wild and

Scenic River eligibility of the Colville River. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Because a gas pipeline would likely be buried and because little recreation occurs in the 

planning area in the winter when construction would primarily occur, there would be very little 

impact to recreation from gas development. The exception might be if gas development 

prompted some development that would not occur if only oil could be developed. In those cases, 

impacts would be similar to those associated with oil development. Because more land would be 

available for such development under Alternative C than under the other alternatives, it is most 

likely to impact recreation. 

4.5.16.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Although the lease stipulations and ROPs do not specifically address recreation activities, and

there is no intent by BLM to consider designation of wilderness or wild and scenic rivers in the 

planning area, many of the performance-based lease stipulations and ROPs required for 

development under Alternative C would serve to protect recreation values in the area. For 

example, certain areas would be excluded from leasing or surface development, and several 

ROPs and lease stipulations address protection of subsistence values and wildlife in the 

planning area. Surface activity and facility development restrictions would help to minimize 

potentially damaging activity in and near creeks, rivers, and lakes. Since wildlife viewing, big 

game hunting, and boating are the primary activities that attract recreationists to the planning 

area, these lease stipulations and ROPs would also help protect and preserve recreation values. 

4.5.16.4 Conclusion 

There would be approximately 2,000 to 3,000 acres in temporary effects on recreation values 

from activities other than oil and gas exploration and development. Short-term (temporary) 

disturbance from ongoing oil and gas exploration activities would impact approximately 107,996 

acres. This is the same as under Alternative A. The “greening” of vegetation resulting from ice 

pads, roads, airstrips, and compacted snow would impact an additional 23,463 acres. Most of 

the combined 131,459 acres could be in a various state of recovery from the “greening” effect. 

Seismic operations would result in temporary impacts to recreation use over many hundreds of 

miles of trails and noise and other disturbance produced by seismic operations. Short-term 

impacts such as green trails and pads, disturbance from noise, aircraft and other on-going 

activities would not accumulate. 

Oil and gas development would result in the long-term loss of solitude, naturalness, or 

primitive/unconfined recreation opportunities over an area of approximately 754,380 acres (or 

16.4% of the planning area) for the life of production fields and pipelines. The area subject to

recreation impacts would be approximately 180,400 acres greater than the impacts on 

recreation under Alternative A. Lease stipulations to mitigate for these impacts would be 

similar for both alternatives. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-478 

Alternative C: Recreational Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.5.17 Visual Resources 

4.5.17.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative C, impacts to visual resources would result from on-the-ground management

activities, such as archaeological collection efforts, field camps, survey work, overland

movements, and hazardous and solid material removal and remediation activities and would be 

similar to Alternative A. The level of non oil and gas activity may increase under this

alternative, as a result of general increased interest in the area generated by the potential of 

more oil and gas development. 

Temporary structures (e.g., sleds, tents), vehicles (e.g., Rolligons, tractors), aircraft, human 

presence, and associated activities would have some minimal short-term impacts on visual 

resources or scenic quality by creating a contrast to the line, color, and texture of a primarily 

horizontal natural landscape. The colors of structures and equipment would contrast the white 

color of the snow-covered landscape and the various hues of greens and browns, and the smooth

texture of the facilities would contrast the varied textures of the windswept terrain and the 

irregular texture of vegetation. Non-oil and gas activities would need to occur within the 

Foreground-Middleground Zone of the viewshed in order to attract the attention of the casual 

observer. 

A longer-lasting impact would be trails, sometimes referred to as “green trails”, resulting from 

winter overland moves. Between 20 and 60 trains comprised of one to six vehicles and attached

sleds could engage in overland travel each year. These trails form when vehicles compact snow 

and dead vegetative material, resulting in a greater availability of moisture and nutrients for 

underlying vegetation the following growing season. Visible trails would not necessarily develop 

over the entire route of the overland move. Vegetation could be damaged along these trails and

the tops of tussocks could be scraped off, although current operating procedures would ensure

that such damage was an infrequent problem. Trails would be visible for about 2 to 5 years, but 

some trails may be visible for longer periods of time. However, because they visually modify 

existing vegetation, rather than introducing something foreign into the viewshed, trails would 

not produce much contrast to line, form, or texture. The color contrast would be minimal from 

ground view because of the natural variation in hue, and would be almost nonexistent from

more that a few hundred feet away. 

4.5.17.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Exploration 

Under Alternative C, impacts to visual resources from seismic surveys would be the same as 

Alternative A. The discussion is repeated here for convenience. 

Five seismic surveys would occur. Seismic work would occur in the winter using cat trains with 

low-ground-pressure vehicles supported by light aircraft. Seismic crews would be housed in 

mobile camps consisting of a train of trailer sleds pulled by tractors along different trails. These 

moving camps and associated activities would result in short-term impacts on visual resources 

and the scenic quality of the area by creating color contrast between the vehicles and trailers 

and the predominantly white background of the snow-covered landscape. These impacts would

be confined primarily to the activity-site viewshed. 

4-479 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Visual Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Trails resulting from seismic survey operations would result in a longer-lasting impact to visual 

resources. Unlike overland moves, seismic operations would not follow the same routes every

year, and the number of miles of survey line could vary greatly from year to year. In some years,

no surveys would occur. Like trails caused by overland moves, trails caused by seismic 

operations would not necessarily develop over the entire survey route, but where present would

be visible for about 2 to 5 years, but some trails may be visible for longer periods of time. 

Approximately 250 miles (6,060 acres) of lines would be surveyed using 2-D seismic surveys, 

while approximately 10,560 miles (98,880 acres) of lines could be surveyed during each 3-D 

seismic survey, potentially resulting in several thousand miles of trails. Mobile camp trails 

could add another 840 miles (3,056 acres) of trails. Because trails visually modify existing 

vegetation, they would not produce much contrast to line, form, or texture. The color contrast 

would be minimal from ground view because of the natural variation in hue, and would be 

almost nonexistent from more than a few hundred feet away. 

Approximately 210 exploration and delineation wells would be drilled under this alternative, 59 

more than under Alternative A and 40 more than Alternative B, and 17 more than Alternative 

D. Given the limited number of drilling rigs available, however, no more than eight drilling rigs 

would likely be operating at any one time. Drill rigs (average height of 208 feet) would introduce 

strong vertical lines into a predominantly horizontal landscape. Because they are painted red, 

most drill rigs would also produce a strong visual contrast to the white background of the snowcovered landscape. Winter drilling requires lighting, which would create a visual contrast 

against the dark night sky. Drill rigs, because of their height, could be seen and attract the 

attention of the casual observer if they were located within the Foreground-Middleground Zone

and Background Zone. 

In addition to the impacts that would result from ongoing exploratory drilling operations, the 

greening of vegetation under vacated ice pads, ice airstrips, and ice roads would cause impacts 

to visual resources during the summer. This greening of vegetation would be caused by the 

same conditions that create “green trails” — a greater availability of moisture and nutrients as 

ice or compacted snow melts. However, greening of vegetation would not necessarily occur 

everywhere ice facilities were constructed or snow was compacted. There would also be a “ring 

effect” around ice pads, ice airstrips, and ice roads caused by the death of vegetation adjacent to 

these snow and ice structures. Winter facilities inclusive of 210 ice pads (6 acres each), 40 

airstrips (11 acres each), and 7,182 miles of ice roads (3 acres per mile) would result in as many 

as 23,463 acres that would be in various states of recovery from greening and ring effects under 

Alternative C (16,768 acres in Alternative A; 20,022 acres in Alternative B; and 20,202 acres in 

Alternative D). Because greening and ring effects visually modify existing vegetation, they

would not produce much contrast to line, form, or texture. The color contrast would be minimal 

from ground view because of the natural variation in hue, and would be almost nonexistent 

from more that a few hundred feet away. 

Dry exploration wells would be cut off and plugged below ground level and temporally leave 

only a small area barren of vegetation while exploration wells with production potential would 

leave behind a marker pipe (also known as a Christmas tree), which would likely be less than 

six feet tall and no larger than a square foot on the surface. This marker pipe would essentially 

be a permanent impact, but would be almost unnoticeable from a distance of several hundred 

feet. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-480 

Alternative C: Visual Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects of Development 

Production rigs (two with an average height of 208 feet) would introduce strong vertical lines 

into a predominantly horizontal landscape. Because they are painted red, most drill rigs would 

also introduce strong contrast to the natural browns landforms and greens of the vegetation. In 

addition, burn-off flares and general work lighting would contrast against the dark night sky. 

Drill rigs, because of their height and color, could be seen and dominate the attention of the 

casual observer if they were located within the Foreground-Middleground Zone and Background

Zone. 

It is estimated that long-term surface disturbance from four staging bases (50 acres each), seven 

pump stations (20 acres each) and seven CPFs (90 acres each) would impact 970 acres (650 

acres in Alternative A; 810 acres in Alternative B; and 810 acres in Alternative D). These 

facilities would introduce strong vertical lines from buildings into the landscape of 

predominately soft horizontal lines. There would also be a visual contrast between the simple, 

regular form of the buildings and the complex, irregular forms of the vegetation. Colors of 

buildings and materials would be in contrast with the greens, browns, and blues of vegetation 

and water bodies. Some of the buildings could be up to three stories in height above the tundra, 

and would attract and dominate the view of the casual observer if located within the 

Foreground-Middleground Zone. 

Production pads (32 at 10 acres each), 320 miles of infield roads (2,480 acres), seven airstrips 

(11 acres each), 16 gravel pits (50 acres each), and 320 miles of infield gathering pipelines (972 

acres) would impact 4,649 acres (2,818 acres in Alternative A; 3,664 acres in Alternative B; and 

4,538 acres in Alternative D). The gravel pads, airstrips and infield roads would generally be 

only 3 to 5 feet above the surrounding green tundra, and would be relatively unnoticeable 

beyond a few thousand feet. Infield gathering pipelines (4-10 inches in diameter) would

introduce shiny and smooth horizontal lines into a natural landscape but would be associated 

with other facilities within the disturbance area. Disturbance associated with gravel sites from 

borrow pits or below ground bedrock would generally occur below the ground surface, with only 

stockpiled materials being visible aboveground. While these sites could be large in size or 

footprint, very little material would remain as stockpile at any one time. Gravel mine sites from

above ground bedrock locations may produce visual impacts if material is removed from rock

outcrops within the planning area. This mining activity would change the form of the natural 

landscape and may be visible from the Foreground-Middlegound Zone. 

It is anticipated that as many as 182 miles of sales oil and main pipelines, impacting up to 551 

acres (3 acres per mile), would be constructed under this alternative (162 miles, 491 acres in 

Alternative A, B and D). There would be no on-the-ground activity associated with sales oil and 

main pipelines, except during construction and repair. Sales oil and main pipelines (12-20 

inches diameter) would introduce shiny and smooth horizontal lines into the naturally irregular 

brown and green landscape. They would also introduce regularly spaced vertical supports into 

an irregular horizontal landscape. All pipelines would be elevated at least seven feet above the 

surrounding tundra, but could be elevated as high as 20 feet above ground level. At these 

elevations, pipelines would attract and dominate the attention of the casual observer if located

within the Foreground-Middleground Zone and Background Zone. 

Other facilities associated with development would include bridges and communications towers. 

If located within the Foreground-Middleground Zone, bridges, because of their contrast with 

smooth water bodies, and communications towers, because of vertical height above the horizon,

would also be likely to attract the attention of a casual observer. 

4-481 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Visual Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Vehicle traffic on roads during construction and other production activities would create shortterm noticeable visual impacts through the creation of dust. Summer vehicle travel off gravel 

pads and roads would be very limited, but may cause changes color from the natural landscape 

by causing damage to vegetation and possibly the tundra mat. These changes would be limited 

to the Foreground-Middleground Zone. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

During abandonment and rehabilitation activities, vehicle traffic on roads would create shortterm noticeable visual impacts through the creation of dust. Gravel pads and roads may or may 

not be removed and may or may not be revegetated with native species or other appropriate 

vegetative materials. Once closure and abandonment activities, including revegetation are 

completed, the strong contrasts with the surrounding vegetation colors created by structures, 

such as pipelines and buildings, gravel pads, roads and airstrips, would be eliminated. If gravel 

is not removed and not revegetated, long-term color contrasts would remain between the gravel 

areas and the surrounding natural vegetation. 

Effects of Spills 

Most small spills would be confined to a pad. Small spills not confined to a pad would usually be 

confined to the limited area immediately around the pad or pipeline, and usually impact less 

than five acres. With proper containment and clean-up, there would be no new visual impacts 

associated with small spills estimated to occur 2,503 times over the life of oil and gas activities 

in the planning areaunder this alternative (1,792 in Alternative A; 2,070 in Alternative B; and 

2,287 in Alternative D). 

Large spills, estimated to occur three or four times during the life of oil and gas activities in the 

planning area, would likely reach beyond the gravel pad and enter the environment. Impacts 

associated with visual resources would be to the surrounding vegetation and result in a contrast 

in color between the affected vegetation and soil, and the natural landscape. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Impacts to visual resources associated with surface disturbance and surface facilities for 

development and production of natural gas infrastructure would be similar to those described 

for oil development, though there would be no impacts from an oil spill. If natural gas

production facilities are associated with existing oil infrastructure there would be some 

additional visual impacts associated with pipeline offset impacting additional acres if gas is 

transported on separate aboveground VSMs. If a gas pipeline is buried—considered the more 

likely scenario—there would be some change in line, color, and texture. These changes would 

result from the disturbance of irregular, predominately green, rough vegetation to a more

regular, brown, smooth area of soil as seen within the Foreground–Middleground Zone. 

Facilities associated with a compressor station along a gas pipeline would introduce vertical, 

blocky, colored facilities similar to CPF structures into a predominately horizontal, green, 

irregular landscape and be visible within the Foreground-Middleground Zone and the 

Background Zone from some locations. These facilities would impact additional acres. 

Alternative C would make more lands available for leasing and gas development than the other 

alternatives and is estimated to have approximately 20 miles more gas pipelines, thus it is 

likely to impact visual resources more than the other alternatives. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-482 

Alternative C: Visual Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.5.17.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Although there are no ROPs or lease stipulations specific to visual resources, ROPs and lease 

stipulations designed to minimize impacts to solid and hazardous wastes; regulate overland 

moves, seismic work, and exploratory drilling; and regulate facility design, construction, and 

siting would reduce the visual impacts that would occur under Alternative C. No acres would be 

unavailable for leasing and development. However, Restricted Surface Occupancy (RSO) 

stipulations on approximately 1,113,000 acres will help reduce impacts to visual resources by 

restricting certain activities associated with exploration and oil and gas development (see Map

2-3). 

4.5.17.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative C, as many as 11,650 miles of seismic and camp lines will impact 107,996 

acres. This is the same as under Alternative A, B and D. Other facilities such as ice roads, pads 

and airstrips, associated with exploratory drilling would impact up to 23,463 additional acres. 

Most of the combined 131,459 acres could be in various states of recovery from greening and 

ring effects. It is anticipated that up to 502 miles of pipelines would be constructed under this 

alternative, creating surface disturbance of up to 1,523 acres. There could also be approximately 

4,647 acres of disturbance associated with gravel pads, roads, gravel sites, pump stations, 

staging bases, and Central Processing Facilities. Visual impacts associated with this alternative 

would be approximately 3.0% of the planning area. Approximately 1,113,000 acres would have 

Restricted Surface Occupancy stipulations. 

4.5.18 Economy 

4.5.18.1 Activities Not Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Impacts of non-oil and gas activities are likely to be the same as those for Alternatives A and B.

Recreational river rafting will occur in the planning area, primarily on the Colville River. BLM 

estimates (Table 4.2-A) up to 22 trips each made by four persons taking place each year. 

Employment generated by this activity would result from air taxi service and guide service. 

Neither of these services originate within the planning area. Air taxi services used for Colville 

River access originate in Bettles, Kotzebue, Fairbanks, and Coldfoot. Guides originate in 

Bettles, but may also originate from other locales in Alaska outside the North Slope, or may 

originate outside Alaska entirely (Delaney 2007). Permitted commercial guided activities will 

result in fees to the Federal government. Operators or guides pay approximately $600 per year 

for BLM permits. BLM estimates their clients pay $1,200-$1,500 each for a trip. 

Other activities such as research or surveys, various ground activities, and aircraft use not

related to petroleum are shown in Table 4.2-A, Summary of Selected Non-Oil and Gas Related 

Management Activities. North Slope Borough residents may be employed in some of these 

activities, as will be other Alaskans and nonresidents. 

4.5.18.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

In Alternative C, activities will begin and proceed in a manner and order similar to Alternative 

A. The construction, operation, and servicing of facilities associated with oil and gas activities 

4-483 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Visual Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

would also result in increased property tax revenues. Peak production in this alternative is 

calculated at 70.0 million barrels in 2041, followed by 73.5 million barrels in 2051, 2061, and 

2071, and 2081. By these dates, up to 7 central processing facilities will be in operation. In this 

case, up to 40% more exploration and delineation wells than Alternative A may be drilled as all 

fields are developed. The year 2021 initiates substantial production for this alternative as well 

(31.9 MM bbl). 

Revenues 

Bonus bids of as much as $77.1 million dollars may result from offers on 584,000 acres of 

previously unavailable land. Exploration, development, and production activities are estimated

to generate property tax revenue to the North Slope Borough of about $43 million in 2021, while 

capital costs will be depreciated as operation continues, lowering property tax over the life of 

the operation. Other local, state, and Federal revenues are also anticipated to increase under 

this alternative. The estimated 2045 royalty payments split equally by the State of Alaska and 

the Federal government exceed $1 billion. State Taxes will be approximately $90 million, and 

Federal income tax will be over $1 billion. In addition, $606 million in state severance taxes 

could be generated in 2045. These estimates are based upon average imported crude oil prices in 

2005 dollars from the Annual Energy Outlook 2007. 

Table 4.5-B Alternative C Revenues (in millions of 2005 dollars) 

Alternative 

/Revenue 

Bonus 

Bids 

Royalty Property 

Tax 

State Tax Federal Tax Severence 

Tax 

Year 2021 2045 2021 2045 2021 2045 2021 2045 2021 2045 

C 77.1 325 1,193 43 241 28 90 325 1,023 165 606 

Employment 

In this alternative we expect 8 exploratory wells each year in four year increments as a lease is 

explored. Additional fields will also be delineated by exploratory wells ten to thirty years initial 

activity. Direct employment will be higher than Alternatives A or B, as high as 3400 by 2045 

when three CPFs are operating, a fourth under construction, with wells and infrastructure 

being added. Over the life of all fields, this alternative potentially offers the most employment,

as the total numbers of wells, CPFs, staging bases, are highest. Increased indirect employment

will result from added capital investment over the life of all fields in this alternative. 

Table 4.5-C. Potential Employment for selected years under Alternative C 

Tasks/Alternative Year Total 

Direct 

Total 

Indirect 

NSB 

Direct 

NSB 

Indirect 

Survey 2008-9 Same as A Same as A Same as A Same as A 

Exploratory well drilling 2010-15 240-480 700-1,400 17-34 12-24 

CPF, and infrastructure 

development 

2016 500-800 630-1,000 35-56 24-39 

CPF operation 

development well drilling, 

sale line construction 

2017 500-680 Same as A same as A Same as A 

Pad, development wells 

road, pipe, 3 CPFs in 

operation, CPF under 

construction 

2045 1,700-3,400 2,100-4,200 110-240 85-200 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-484 

Alternative C: Economy 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Commercial Gas Development 

Natural gas development and production from the NPR-A would generate additional 

employment. Construction of pipelines would provide substantial numbers of construction jobs 

for the winter seasons of installation. It is likely that a portion of construction workers would 

reside in the NSB. Once in operation, gas development would not result in substantial 

increases in employment over that associated with oil production. However, if gas development

occurs as oil production is decreasing or ceasing, the addition or shift to gas production may 

prolong employment from planning area petroleum production. Development would generate

additional property taxes and royalty income for the NSB and State, more severance taxes for 

the state, and additional royalties for the Federal government. To the extent that industry is 

attracted to bid on leases for their gas rather than oil production potential, gas development 

opportunities could increase interest and bid amounts at lease sales within Northeast NPR-A, 

providing additional revenues for the Federal and state governments. Alternative C offers more 

land for oil and gas leasing than the other alternatives, so it is anticipated to have the most 

impact on employment and revenues. 

4.5.18.3 Conclusion 

The revenues and employment generated by oil and gas exploration and development under

Alternative C would be greater than under the Alternative A and slighter greater than under 

Alternatives B and D. Approximately $241 million would be generated in 2045 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 be 3,800 to 7,600 during 2045. The 

number of resident jobs generated would be higher than the number generated under 

Alternative B, 195 to 440 in the same year. The likelihood for disruptions to the harvest of 

subsistence resources and associated economic impacts would be greater than under the other

alternatives. 

4.5.19 Public Health 

4.5.19.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative C, the effects of non-oil and gas activities and the potential for increased

tourism because of interest generated by leasing in the area could all lead to short term 

disturbances. It is not anticipated that these activities would be substantially more frequent

under Alternative C than under Alternative A. Thus, the health effects from activities not 

associated with oil and gas exploration and development under Alternative C would be similar 

to those described under Alternative A and B. In general these effects would be temporary and

localized. On an individual basis, such events could be highly significant. But because the 

activities not associated with oil and gas development are expected to be short term, localized, 

and sporadic, they would not be expected to result in overall population health changes. 

4.5.19.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbances 

Under Alternative C, the public health effects would be similar in nature, but generally greater 

in magnitude than those anticipated under the other alternatives. Revenue to the NSB and 

state would be substantially higher under Alternative C than Alternative A. But since the 

4-485 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Economy 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

entire planning area would be available for leasing, including highly sensitive subsistence 

habitat on and around Teshekpuk Lake, subsistence and sociocultural impacts would be 

substantially higher. Hunters from Barrow and Atqasuk would be directly affected by 

development north and west of Teshekpuk Lake, where numerous subsistence camps, cabins, 

and ice cellars are located. There could be reductions in subsistence harvest success or increased 

effort, time, risk, and expense involved in order to harvest adequate amounts of subsistence

resources. Nuiqsut subsistence users could be affected by increased activity in the northeast 

portion of the planning area as the Alpine Satellite Development proceeds, and activity farther 

west could deflect migrating caribou away from other traditional harvest locations, reducing 

harvest access and success. If oil and gas activities were to divert or deflect the normal 

migration routes for the TLH caribou, Anaktuvuk Pass subsistence users could suffer a 

shortage of caribou, their main subsistence resource. A greater expenditure and risk on the part 

of the subsistence hunters from Anaktuvuk Pass would be required. In the past, when the herd 

has failed to pass near the community, hunters had to fly to more remote locations in search of 

subsistence food, increasing community stress and the time necessary for harvest success, as 

well as reducing the connection with traditional areas (SRBA 2003b). The development

proposed for the planning area would require increased staging and overland travel during the 

winter as well. In summer, there would be increased use of aircraft for supplies, equipment, 

and crew changes, as compared to the other alternatives. In turn, this would result in an 

increase in presence of oil industry personnel in the villages and subsistence areas. 

1. Diabetes Hypertension, and Associated Metabolic Disorders 

As described in section 4.3.19, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension – collectively 

termed “metabolic disorders” here, would result if subsistence were displaced from its current 

contribution to the diet. These disorders are among the primary risk factors for cardiovascular, 

cerebrovascular, and chronic renal disease. Metabolic disorders are disproportionately common 

in AI/AN groups compared with the U.S. population. However, because of the high consumption 

of subsistence foods in communities depending on the planning area, rates of diabetes in the

North Slope Inupiat are among the lowest in the U.S., including among non-natives (Naylor et 

al 2003; Bjerregaard and Jorgensen 2004; Zinman; Murphy et al 1997; Young et al 1992; 

Bjerregaard, Young et al 2004). 

Under Alternative C, impacts to subsistence would be greater than under the other

alternatives. With development occurring throughout the region, there would a significantly 

higher chance of subsistence impacts leading to dietary change. Furthermore, the 

modernization and acculturation pressures described under section 4.5.13 would tend to foster 

a shift toward a ‘western’ diet (Schraer and Bulkow 1993; Curtis, Kvernmo 2005; Nobman, 

Ponce et. Al 2005; Condon et al 1994). Since both sociocultural effects and impacts to 

subsistence are expected to be greater under Alternative C, we would anticipate a stronger 

trend toward diabetes and related metabolic disorders than in the other alternatives. Increased 

employment would provide income for subsistence equipment, but this benefit would be offset 

by the difficulty of balancing work schedules with subsistence activities. 

2. Food Insecurity and Hunger

As described in Alternative A, food insecurity and hunger are considered to be severe health 

problems even before malnutrition or starvation occur. Because it involves the entire planning 

area and includes critically important subsistence areas, Alternative C would be associated with 

the highest probability of food insecurity and hunger among all the alternatives. Both food 

insecurity and hunger would be likely to increase under Alternative C if significant decreases in 

harvest success occur. The difficulty of replacing subsistence with store-bought foods is 

apparent when considering the estimated dollar value of harvested resources as reported above. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-486 

Alternative C: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

To our knowledge, there are no cases of severe protein-calorie malnutrition or starvation in 

Alaska in recent years. This is likely because of the national and state programs such as food

stamps and general assistance, as well as kinship and sharing networks, all of which provide a 

‘safety net.’ Under Alternative C, it is not certain whether these programs would be enough to

make up for harvest losses if impacts to subsistence were severe. Starvation is felt to be highly 

unlikely in view of national, state, and NSB support, but malnutrition could occur in the 

unlikely event of a severe reduction in the availability of subsistence foods. 

3. Social Pathology 

Social pathology would be higher under Alternative C than the other alternatives (refer to more

complete analysis of this problem in section 4.3.19). The workforce is anticipated to increase 

substantially compared with Alternative A; this would be associated with increased flux of 

workers through the villages near the planning area, leading to greater acculturation and social 

stresses, as summarized in section 4.5.13, as well as the potential for increased illicit drug and 

alcohol sales. The possible construction of permanent roads linking the planning area with the 

Alaskan road system, though very unlikely, would add to this problem. Public health studies 

have documented the general associations between modernization, acculturation stresses in 

circumpolar Inuit communities, and social pathology (Curtis T, Kvernmo S et al 2005; 

Bjerregaard 2001; Shepard and Rode 1996; Travis R 1984). 

Stress produced by the loss of traditionally important hunting range, and the fear of curtailed 

ability to continue pursuing a subsistence way of life, food insecurity, and the longer travel 

distances and more difficult hunting conditions produced by displacement of subsistence 

resources and hunters by oil infrastructure would also contribute to increases in social 

pathology, which could become pervasive if impacts were enough to seriously curtail subsistence 

and undermine kinship and sharing networks. These effects would likely be most intense in

Nuiqsut, which lies between the road system and the planning area, but might be experienced 

by Anaktuvuk Pass, Wainwright, Atqasuk, and Barrow as well as development of the region

expands. Interruption of sharing networks, if severe enough, could have effects on other 

villages as well. Stress produced by the loss of traditionally important hunting range, and the 

fear of curtailed ability to continue pursuing a subsistence way of life, food insecurity, and the 

longer travel distances and more difficult hunting conditions produced by displacement of 

subsistence resources and hunters by oil infrastructure would all contribute to increases in 

social pathology. Rosemary Ahtuangaruak, a former Mayor, community health aide, and 

physician’s assistant in Nuiqsut, described the link between subsistence and social pathology: 

When our people can feed themselves, they're very happy. They don't care if they don't have a 

job as long as they're providing for their families, as long as they have the hope in their mind of 

the possibility to provide for their families. You take away that hope, and you're going to have 

many, many people that we lose to the ills of social ills (Rosemary Ahtuangaruak, in MMS 

2001). 

On the other hand, data from other populations has fairly consistently shown that economic 

development and increased employment generally have favorable impacts on rates of social 

pathology. Travis (1987) showed that in Inupiat communities, the increased risk of suicide 

caused by rapid modernization and acculturation is mitigated to some degree by economically 

favorable conditions. Haley (2004) found that strong preexisting economic systems helped a 

North Slope community cope with the rapid economic change brought by development. One

study, however, found that in Inupiat communities, increased employment was not always 

associated with improved well-being, because of the tensions created between work and

subsistence (Martin 2005). However, most North Slope residents tend to view employment 

4-487 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

opportunities as a positive, particularly if flexibility to allow continued active participation in 

subsistence can be built into the work schedule. 

Overall, the trend toward increases in social pathology would be most dependent on impacts to 

subsistence traditions, sharing networks, and the degree to which the proposed action results in 

illicit importation of drugs or alcohol. The stress associated with widespread community fears 

about the implications of leasing in this area is evident in community testimony, and will likely 

contribute to social pathology regardless of actual impacts from development in the region. 

Improved employment and income opportunity would offset these problems to some degree, but 

overall trends in social pathology would likely mirror the trends toward socio-cultural 

disruption as described in section 4.5.13. 

4. Injury

Injury rates tend to parallel social pathology, reflecting alcohol-related injury, suicide, and rates 

of violence (ANTHC 2006, injury statistics). Under Alternative C, injury rates would tend to 

parallel the increased social pathology described above. Additionally, the potential for 

displacement of hunters and subsistence resources could compound this problem, as longer and 

more difficult hunts would be associated with a higher risk for injury as well. 

The public safety system would face additional stresses coping with large numbers of oil 

workers entering communities and traveling through the region, making it difficult for 

communities to adequately enforce prohibition laws. Studies in the region have shown a strong

association between adequate VPSO support, effective prohibition laws, and decreased injury 

rates (Wood and Gruenewald 2006). 

5. Health Problems related to EPA Criteria Pollutants 

Airborne emissions produced by exploration and development under Alternative C are projected

to be substantially greater than under the other alternatives (section 4.5.1). However, we 

estimate that the overall contribution of emissions to PSD class II requirements would be small. 

EPA Criteria Pollutants (NOx, SO2, PM2.5, PM10, ozone, lead, and CO) are associated with a 

range of acute health effects, including exacerbation of chronic lung disease and asthma, 

increased risk of cardiac arrhythmias, exacerbation of atherosclerotic coronary artery disease,

and excess overall mortality, particularly among vulnerable groups such as young children, 

elders, and people with chronic illnesses. According to the EPA, PM2.5 in particular is 

associated with “increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, coughing, or 

difficulty breathing, for example; decreased lung function; aggravated asthma; development of 

chronic bronchitis; irregular heartbeat; nonfatal heart attacks; and premature death in people 

with heart or lung disease” (EPA 2005). 

Current air quality assessments on the North Slope are based on scientific judgment and 

limited modeling. Both EPA and the State of Alaska have established legal limits for air 

pollution based on scientific evidence, known as Ambient Air Quality Standards, to protect 

public health, including the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and 

the elderly. However, according to EPA analysis and several independent studies, substantial 

health effects accrue at even levels below NAAQS standards, down to ambient levels (Ostro et al 

2006; USEPA 2006b). The health effects include higher overall mortality rates and higher loss 

of ‘quality adjusted life years,’ a measure which takes into account time lost from illness. From 

the standpoint of the North Slope population, one of the most important findings of these data is 

that the impacts fall disproportionately to vulnerable populations (elderly, very young, and 

people with chronic illnesses. Given the baseline health disparities described in section 3.4.10, 

North Slope communities would face substantial risk from increased particulate emissions, even 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-488 

Alternative C: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

if air quality continued to meet NAAQS standards. The state of Alaska, however, has not yet 

adopted a standard for PM2.5, for which the EPA established regulatory criteria more recently. 

The deadline for the state to adopt new PM2.5 standards is December 2007. Consequently, there

are no data available for PM2.5 levels on the North Slope. 

The NSB has expressed strong concern that the models used to predict air quality on the North

Slope have not been adequately validated, particularly in view of the arctic climate conditions. 

The NSB and AI-TC have further asserted that, because of the health disparities and 

vulnerabilities in North Slope villages (including the high prevalence of certain cancers and 

pulmonary disease, as described in section 3.4.10), it is critically important to establish a 

scientifically robust monitoring program to validate the current predictions. 

Given that development would occur throughout the planning area, the increased emissions 

under Alternative C could result in a greater risk of exacerbation of chronic pulmonary disease,

as well as cardiovascular and pulmonary mortality among vulnerable groups. However, 

occasional exposure to acute low air-quality events is more likely than chronic exposure to poor 

air quality. Due to the distance of potential development from most population centers, 

substantial reductions in village air quality is unlikely. 

6. Health Problems Related to Other Contaminants 

Under Alternative C, development could occur throughout the planning area, including much of 

the most important subsistence range in the North Slope region. Emissions would be greater

than under the other alternatives because of the greater extent of exploration and developmentrelated activities. Oil spills are another route through which contaminants could contact the 

human population, either directly or through pollution of air, water, and subsistence resources.

North Slope residents have expressed concern that development in the Teshekpuk Lake region

would pose a particular danger because of its proximity to resources and popular hunting areas. 

Public health data support the link between contaminants produced by oil development, and the

risk of cancer, endocrine disruption, and cognitive disorders (Jacobsen et al 1996; Arctic 

Monitoring and Assessment Program 2003; Cone 2005). Data from other communities in which 

the “total petroleum hydrocarbons” concentrated in water (from air and waterborne sources) has

documented a correlation between proximity to oil and gas exploration and production and 

health outcomes, including cancer and miscarriages (San Sebastian, Armstrong 2001, 2002; 

Hurtig, San Sebastian 2002). However, NSB and state monitoring to date has indicated that 

the subsistence food supply in the North Slope region as a whole is quite safe, and have 

concluded that the “benefits of a traditional food diet far outweigh the relative risks posed by 

consumption of small amounts of contaminants in traditional foods” (Alaska Native Health 

Board, 1999). 

An accurate determination of specific HAP quantities and potential impacts is not feasible at 

this stage, given that particular site-specific development activities and pollution controls are

not yet able to be predicted. Furthermore, there are few direct data addressing water or air 

concentrations of many contaminants in the region, nor are there data regarding levels of these 

contaminants in the human population. HAP are a source of great concern for North Slope 

residents, who feel that their exposure to contaminants is likely to be significantly greater than 

the general population because of their extraordinarily high rates of consumption of fish and 

game which feed in the region. 

Thus, although data support the conclusion that the overall benefits of maintaining an active 

subsistence lifestyle, culture, and diet outweigh the unproven risks posed by North Slope 

4-489 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

contaminants, data are insufficient to allow accurate modeling of the public health risks under 

this alternative. The level of predicted development activity under Alternative C, and the 

extent of reliance on resources in the area, however, suggest that there is justification for 

concern, investigation, monitoring, and efforts to minimize potential routes of exposure. 

7. Infectious Diseases 

As outlined in section 3.4.10, the prevalence of pulmonary disease is high; rates of HIV and

syphilis are substantially lower in the North Slope than in the Alaskan and U.S. general 

population (Alaska Department of Public Health 2002 and 2005); Chlamydia rates are much 

higher in Alaska Natives than non-Natives in Alaska – there are no north Slope-specific data 

available at this time (Alaska Department of Public Health 2006). In our discussions with 

health care providers in the region, many commented that the North Slope community appears 

particularly vulnerable to respiratory infections. This observation has been made in other 

coastal Alaska Native populations as well (Singleton, Bruden et al. 2006). 

Under Alternative C, there would be a greater potential for transmission of infectious diseases 

than under the other alternatives, owing to a greater projected level of activity in the region, 

including greater influx of workers from outside the region (refer to section 4.5.18).

Transmission of respiratory infectious would be of greatest concern to vulnerable members of 

the community, including people with chronic illnesses and elders. Under Alternative C, an 

influx of personnel from outside of Alaska – where HIV and syphilis rates are generally 

substantially higher – could expose villages to a significant risk of increased incidence of these 

diseases. The NSB health department has tried in the past to address this problem though 

sending boxes of condoms to oil camps near villages, but existing resources in the NSB have not 

allowed a more coordinated public health effort to study or monitor transmission rates, nor to 

develop a more detailed public health approach to prevention. Diarrheal illnesses, common in 

groups of workers living and working in small enclosed facilities such as oil camps, could also 

pose a threat if infection spread to the community. Permanent roads linking the planning area 

with the road system could be allowed under Alternative C. Although not anticipated, if

constructed, permanent roads could lead to increased travel to and from the planning area, and 

thus serve as another potential source of exposure to infectious diseases. 

8. Social Determinants of Health 

Impacts on the social determinants of health – both adverse and beneficial – would be greatest 

under Alternative C. Development involving the entire planning area would pose the greatest 

risk of rapid cultural change secondary to the large flux of workers through the region; 

restrictions in subsistence leading to a breakdown in sharing networks; increases in income 

disparity; and environmental degradation. Feelings of frustration, loss, disempowerment, and 

anger over the industrialization of a region of special and unique importance to Inupiat culture 

would likely be prevalent. Referring to Table 4.3-D, on the social determinants of health, these 

issues would impact social determinants including the social gradient, stress, social capital, and 

culture, income inequality, and environmental quality, all of which have well-documented 

public health implications. 

There would be substantial benefits as well. Increases in employment and income would tend 

to benefit community well-being, particularly if local communities are able to work out adequate 

provisions for subsistence leave; income would also facilitate subsistence. As stated previously,

the funding for infrastructure, public safety, and public health, as well as employment in the 

NSB comes almost entirely from oil and gas development, and this alternative would offer 

greater revenue to continue these programs. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-490 

Alternative C: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Thus it is possible to identify both positive and adverse impacts to the social determinants of 

health from Alternative C. Given the central importance of subsistence to community wellbeing, however, if subsistence livelihoods are impacted such that communities are forced to 

substantially reduce their reliance on subsistence, it is likely that there would be an overall 

adverse impact on communities via effects on the social determinants of health. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

The North Slope economy and citizens have become heavily dependent on revenue from oil and

gas development. With the highest chance of both increases in employment and community 

income and restrictions in subsistence, Alternative C could lead to a significant shift away from 

subsistence diet and lifestyle. The relative economic depression and job loss which could follow 

the conclusion of rehabilitation work in this Alternative would be associated with a larger 

overall shift than the other alternatives, and could therefore be associated with the highest 

potential for social pathology. It is possible that subsistence resources could become more

readily accessible after a period of adjustment. If this occurred, it would help offset the effect of 

decreasing capital available for purchase and repair of hunting equipment and fuel purchase. 

Another concern would come from the potential leakage of contaminants from wells and

dumpsites: residents have expressed concern that if the area is less stringently monitored after 

development ceases, contamination of rivers, lakes, and estuarine habitats could ensue and 

would be missed, with substantial implications for human health. An example of this problem 

comes from prior development in Umiat. Although BLM is plugging wells at Umiat and the 

Corps of Engineers has ongoing projects to clean up other sources of contamination at Umiat, 

contamination has existed at several sites there for many years and has been a source of 

ongoing concern for residents of the region (Bessie O’Rourke, NSB attorney, personal 

communication by email, 2007). Overall, it is not at all clear whether people will be able to 

resume their pre-development way of life, whether subsistence resources will have become 

depleted, contaminated, or displaced, or how people will continue to support a lifestyle which 

depends heavily on modern technology. Viewed from the perspective of the social determinants 

of health, this period will have substantial implications for health given the large-scale 

economic and employment transition anticipated. 

Effects of Oil Spills 

Oil spills can affect human health in a number of ways. Direct contamination can produce 

toxicological effects; rashes and respiratory symptoms have been documented after acute

exposure (Lyons, Temple et al. 1999). Longer-term effects from contamination of subsistence 

resources by organic compounds such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons could lead to chronic

exposure-related illnesses such as cancer, birth defects, miscarriages, and endocrine disruption 

(AMAP 2002; San Sebastian, Armstrong et al. 2001, 2002). Social and psychological effects of 

large oil spills are also a significant source of morbidity. Residents in the vicinity of an oil spill 

have been shown to have higher rates of anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder 

(Palinkas, Petterson et al 1993; Lyons, Temple et al 1993). A large oil spill could result in a

significant decrease in subsistence activity, as was seen after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In 

turn, this would to marked changes in social organization, decreased social capital, decreased

consumption of subsistence foods, and an attendant increased risk of social pathology, injury, 

and diabetes and metabolic disorders (re. social capital and EVOS: Ritchie and Gill 2004). The 

magnitude of these problems would depend largely on the extent of the spill, and the degree to 

which it impacted local subsistence resources. Under Alternative C, the risk of a large spill is 

estimated to be greater than under the other alternatives, raising the chance that some of these

health problems could occur. 

4-491 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.5.19.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

The performance-based lease stipulations and ROPs developed for Alternative B would also

apply to Alternative C (see section 4.4.19.3 for an assessment of the effectiveness of the ROPs 

and lease stipulations). Under Alternative C, no areas would be withdrawn from year-round 

occupation except the buffer zones around deepwater lakes, with the same exception clauses as 

the other alternatives. Under this alternative, oil exploration and development could occur over

a wider area, in more sensitive areas and habitats, and in lakes. 

When considering the effectiveness of stipulations in mitigating public health effects, it must be 

recognized that because the Inupiat people continue to value this land deeply as a foundation of 

well-being and culture, any measure which contributes to minimizing the environmental 

impacts of development in the region can be seen as contributing positively toward overall 

health and well-being. On the other hand, North Slope residents and the North Slope Borough 

have expressed a great deal of concern that the new “adaptive management” strategy adopted in 

Alternatives B, C, and D may result in considerable weakening of protections for the area, and

well as creating a situation of perpetual flux and uncertainty as the increased flexibility offered 

under the new system creates the opportunity for important protections to be overridden by 

economic and industry concerns. Hence, from this perspective, the entire adaptive management 

program may be seen as a significant stressor, with the attendant health problems as described 

in section 4.5.19.2 on social determinants of health above. 

Overall, the extent to which the Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures for

Alternative C mitigate human health concerns will be proportional first to the degree to which 

the flexibility they provide is enforced to protect the local environment; to the degree to which 

they prevent impacts to subsistence resource populations, displacement of subsistence 

resources, and displacement of hunters and their families; on the efficacy of controls on 

environmental contamination, and on measures taken to reassure the community regarding 

their concerns about environmental contamination; and on the degree to which they prevent the 

adverse consequences of sociocultural change and support the positive aspects associated with 

employment and economic opportunity. Overall, however, in the face of expanding 

development, particularly with the development of important subsistence areas, it is likely that 

there would be substantial unmitigated impacts to health and the social determinants of health. 

4.5.19.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative C, the possibility of public health impacts would be greater than under the 

other alternatives. These impacts would occur primarily through restriction in subsistence; 

influx of large numbers of outside workers; new access routes to the community; sociocultural 

and economic change; altered employment; and contaminants. Diabetes, hypertension, and

related metabolic disorders would be expected to increase as subsistence is curtailed or as 

sociocultural changes lead to alterations in dietary patterns. Given that Alternative C involves 

the potential of development throughout the entire region, the risk of dietary change leading to

metabolic disorders and of food insecurity are both substantially higher. Although at present no

evidence exists to conclusively link rates of contaminant-based health problems, such as cancer, 

lung disease, endocrine disruption, and neurodevelopmental delay to local oil development, the 

risk of contaminant-based health problems would also be highest under Alternative C, owing to

the increased total emissions projected, as well as the distribution of emissions sources 

throughout the subsistence range. Mitigation includes stipulations which regulate discharges, 

and permits to comply with ADEC and CAA provisions. Social pathology could result from the 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-492 

Alternative C: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

economic changes anticipated; from increasing access to drugs and alcohol; and from stress and 

maladaptive coping given the impacts to wider regions of important traditional use areas. 

While measures such as Stipulation I-1, which mandates a cultural orientation program, it 

would not be expected to entirely offset the large-scale socio-economic impacts discussed in the

preceding sociocultural and public health sections. 

4.5.19.5 Potential New Mitigation Measures 

The same potential mitigation measures are proposed for this alternative as for Alternative B, 

as discussed in section 4.4.19.5. Overall, the benefits of these new measures would be similar 

to the other alternatives in terms of the range of public health effects they address. But because 

Alternative C would be associated with the greatest potential impacts to public health, these 

new potential mitigation measures would have the greatest potential benefits under this 

Alternative. Measures 1 and 3 would establish a framework to ensure that potential public 

health effects are adequately evaluated during the planning process, and establish a mechanism 

for ongoing monitoring of public health effects. Owing to the greater extent of development 

predicted under Alternative C, these measures would provide similar but greater overall 

benefits than those described under Alternative A. Because development would be allowed over 

a greater region and within particularly important subsistence regions, however, there may also 

be greater residual overall health effects. Measure 2, Subsistence Harvest monitoring, would 

provide relatively greater benefit than that described under Alternative A, because of the 

greater potential for impacts to subsistence under Alternative C, but again with a potential for 

greater residual effects. Measure 4, Control of Contaminant-Related Health Risk, would 

provide protection for contaminant-related health problems as well as helping to reassure 

communities of the continued safety of subsistence resources. Because, under Alternative C, 

development would be allowed throughout the planning area, this measure would provide

relatively greater benefit than under Alternative A or B. Certainly though, given the greater 

extent of development, there could also be greater residual impacts, including both 

contaminant-related health problems, and problems related to decreased consumption of

subsistence resources (including metabolic disorders and food insecurity, and social pathology 

and injury rates). Measures 6 and 7, through adding health concerns into required orientation 

programs for industry employees, would have equivalent benefits under Alternative C to those 

described under Alternative A or B. Owing to the slightly increased risk of oil spills under 

Alternative C, measure 8 would offer proportionally greater protection. These mitigation 

measures would have benefits to subsistence activities and surface resources similar to those 

identified for Alternative A. Like their benefits to public health, these measures would like 

provide greater benefit for subsistence, caribou, and waterfowl than the same measures for 

Alternative A, because Alternative B makes available for leasing and development areas of 

considerable value for subsistence, caribou, and waterfowl. And as described for public health, 

there could also be greater residual impacts to these resources than under Alternative A. 

Potential Effects on Oil and Gas Development 

The expense of the above potential mitigation measures varies widely, from insignificant to 

potentially millions of dollars. To the extent that the potential mitigation measures would add 

expense to oil and gas activities, they could discourage leasing, exploration, and development of

oil and gas. 

4-493 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.6 ALTERNATIVE D 

4.6.1 Air Quality 

4.6.1.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Air quality impacts associated with these activities are the same as those associated with 

Alternative A, discussed in section 4.3.1.1. 

4.6.1.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

The Air Pollutant Emission Sources, Effects of Air Pollution, and Native Views on Air 

Emissions are the same as those associated with Alternative A, discussed in section 4.3.1.2. 

Air Pollutant Emissions 

Air pollutant emission estimates for Alternative D were based on the following information 

sources: 

1) Helicopter emissions were based on the Federal Aviation Administration’s Emissions and 

Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS version 4.1) for a Bell 206 (Edwards, 2007); 

2) Emission estimates developed for the Alpine Satellite Development Plan (USDOI BLM, 

2004c) for satellite well pad/access road construction, fixed wing aircraft flights, drilling rigs, 

and specific production equipment (satellite heaters, field generator, and a CPF turbine); and 

3) Actual 2006 air pollutant emissions from the ConocoPhillips Alpine Production Facility 

(Poteet, 2007). 

These emission factors were adjusted for the following assumed activities under Alternative D: 

1) Helicopters: 5,000 one-hour flights per year; 

2) Exploration/Delineation: up to 144 fixed wing flights per year, 110 exploration wells and 83 

delineation wells, 7 drill rigs; 

3) Construction: 3,401 fixed wing flights per year, 2 drill rigs, 4,378 acres of land disturbance; 

and 

4) Production: 672 fixed wing flights per year, 32 satellite well pads, 6 Central Production 

Facilities, and 76 MMbbl peak annual oil production. 

Based on these emission factors and anticipated activity, the maximum annual emissions (in 

tons per year) by activity phase are presented in Table 4.6-A. 

Development and production activities can also produce fugitive dust emissions (primarily as 

PM10). Fugitive dust occurs primarily during the summer months due to driving on unpaved 

roads. Vehicles can also track out fine material from gravel mining operations in the winter and

summer months. Potential control measures include limiting vehicle speeds, and treating 

problematic road sections with surfactants or water. 

Well closure, abandonment and rehabilitation activities would emit air pollutants similarly to 

those during development (construction), since similar vehicles and other emission sources

would be used. Because closure activity would not occur at a single location for any substantial 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-494 

Alternative D: Air Quality 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

length of time, the impact of air emissions at any single location would be minor and short term. 

Impacts could be minimized by leaving gravel on-site, limiting the amount of transport. Once 

reclamation is complete, production facilities would no longer impact North Slope air quality. 

In comparison, a site-specific air quality impact analysis was conducted for the off-shore Liberty 

Project (USDOI MMS, 2002), which would be somewhat smaller than a typical field that could 

be developed in the planning area, which demonstrated ambient air quality levels would be 

close to, but within applicable PSD Class II increments. The combined facility concentrations 

plus background were predicted to remain well within the ambient air-quality standards 

(between 2 and 30% of the standards). Because Alternative D facilities would have similar air 

emissions as those predicted for the Liberty Project, it is likely potential satellite well pads and 

central production facilities would have similar air quality impacts. However, the accuracy of 

determinations of specific air pollutant emissions and potential impacts is necessarily limited at 

this stage, given that particular site-specific development activities are not yet able to be 

predicted. 

Since CO2 has not been regulated as an air pollutant, potential CO2 emissions were not 

quantified for Alternative D. However, assuming an average 98% combustion efficiency, the CO

emissions reported in Table 4.6-A may be multiplied by 80 to estimate equivalent CO2 emissions 

(a maximum of 24 x 104 tons per year.) However, when compared to estimated worldwide 

emissions of CO2 (nearly 28 x 109 tons per year), Alternative D would contribute minuscule 

amounts of CO2 emissions to global levels. 

4.6.1.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

No air quality lease stipulations or ROPs were included for Alternative D. Potential air quality 

impacts from site-specific development activities would be limited based on air quality permits 

issued by the ADEC and EPA, including applicable control technologies. 

4.6.1.4 Conclusion 

Air quality impacts from Alternative D are likely to remain below applicable ambient air quality 

standards and increments, therefore no significant impact to air quality is expected. Air 

pollutant emissions associated with Alternative D are approximately 23 to 26% greater than 

Alternative A (No Action), more than Alternative B, but less than Alternative C. Each new 

exploration or development activity, or production area, would result in an additional air 

pollutant emissions. The accuracy of determinations of specific air pollutant emissions and 

potential impacts is necessarily limited at this stage, given that particular site-specific 

development activities are not yet able to be predicted. As exploration and development 

activities cease, or production sites are shut-in, there would be a corresponding decrease in air

emissions. 

4-495 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative.D: Air Quality 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Table 4.6-A. Alternative D Air Pollutant Emissions from Surface Activities 

(tons per year) 

Activity 

Phase 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

Nitrogen 

Oxides 

Particulate 

Matter 1 

Sulfur 

Dioxide 

Volatile 

Organic 

Compounds 

Helicopters 10 1 1 <1 <1 

Exploration/ 

Delineation 41 187 9 21 <1 

Construction 100 377 26 30 32 

Production 2,901 15,165 350 469 333 

Total 3,054 15,730 386 520 366 

Source: Archer, 2007 1 Combustion sources primarily emit PM2.5 while land disturbance primarily emits PM10. 

4.6.2 Paleontological Resources 

4.6.2.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative D, the types of non-oil and gas activities would be the same as those 

described for Alternative A; however, there would be likely be an increase in the level of aircraft 

and survey activity associated with environmental studies and monitoring. Despite increased 

activity, the impact to paleontological resources, which are deeply buried, would still be minor. 

4.6.2.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Under Alternative D the level of seismic activity is expected to increase beyond that of

Alternative A because an additional 389,000 acres would be available for leasing, and these 

additional acres would be in an area with high oil and gas potential. While the types of impacts 

to paleontological resources would remain the same, the increased level of seismic activity 

would increase the potential for impacts to occur. Any impacts associated with the increased 

seismic activity are expected to be minor. 

Significant paleontological resources (primarily vertebrate fossils) are not ubiquitous in the 

planning area. These resources are exposed primarily through erosion (stream cuts, bluff faces, 

etc.), elsewhere they are usually deeply buried. As a result, the location of exposed material can 

be to some degree predicted and therefore avoided while the remainder is protected by its depth 

of burial. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-496 

Alternative D: Air Quality 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects of Disturbances 

Under Alternative D the level of activity in the planning area would increase. However, 

because most of the activity would occur during the winter months, the potential for impacts to 

paleontological resources is extremely minor. The likelihood of impacting surface

paleontological material also is minor due to their isolated and rare occurrence. 

The drilling of exploration wells and delineation wells typically would occur during winter. It is 

expected that no more than seven wells would be drilled at any one time. Drill pads, camp

pads, roads, and airstrips made of ice and snow would be used, but permanent pads, roads, or

airstrips could also be constructed; therefore, ground disturbance could occur and buried 

paleontological material could be impacted. The other substantial subsurface disturbance that 

would occur as a result of the actual drilling would be the making of the drill hole itself. If 

scientifically important paleontological material were present at the site of the borehole, these 

resources could be impacted by the drilling practice. However, the likelihood of such an 

occurrence is minor. 

Surface disturbance from development could impact as much as 4,378 acres, but there would be 

limited subsurface impacts associated with these activities. The primary impact to 

paleontological resources would result from the excavation of material for construction of the 

permanent facilities. Extraction of the terrestrial materials could impact paleontological 

resources. Pleistocene vertebrate fossils are commonly recovered during gravel-mining 

operations on the North Slope. It is anticipated that a pipeline would not have associated allweather roads or pads and would be constructed during the winter months from ice roads and/or 

pads. Therefore, the only substantial impact resulting from pipeline construction would be 

associated with the placement of VSMs. Depending on the depth at which the VSMs were set it

is possible, though highly unlikely, that paleontological resources would be impacted. Overall, 

ground disturbance from development would have a minor impact on paleontological resources. 

It is unlikely that cultural resources would be impacted by abandonment activities 

It is unlikely that paleontological resources would be impacted by abandonment activities as 

any paleontological resources within the effected area would have been noted through survey

prior to or during the initiation of activities. 

Effects of Spills 

Under Alternative D the effects of spills to paleontological resources would be the same as 

discussed under Alternative A. If present, surface paleontological material could be impacted; 

however since the occurrence of paleontological remains is rare, the probability of an impact is 

minor. 

Commercial Gas Development 

The types of impacts on paleontological resources that natural gas development and production 

would cause would be the same as those caused by oil development described above, except that 

there would be no crude-oil spills and if a gas pipeline is buried—the likely method—there 

would be additional acreage disturbed with increased potential for disturbance or destruction of 

paleontological resources. As with Alternatives A and B, it is anticipated that burying the 

pipeline would result in digging up approximately 162 miles of four feet wide and five feet deep 

trench (approximately 80 acres) and potential surface disturbance of 210 acres in areas adjacent 

4-497 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Paleontological Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

to the trench from potential disturbance from machinery or placement of backfill. The risk to 

paleontological resources would be reduced dramatically if gas pipelines are put on VSMs. 

Additional disturbance would occur from disturbance associated with building a 10- to 20-acre 

compressor pad. 

4.6.2.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

As discussed under Alternative B, the ROPs and lease stipulations under Alternative D would 

be highly effective in protecting known and previously unknown paleontological resources and 

preserving their research potential and, ensuring that impacts to paleontological resources 

would be minor. 

4.6.2.4 Conclusion 

The types of impacts to paleontological resources from management activities other than oil and

gas exploration and development would be similar in nature to what was described for 

Alternative A. The potential impacts to paleontological resources from oil and gas exploration 

and development could increase about 50% from levels associated with Alternative A, based on 

area of surface disturbance. Impacts could be greater if exploration and development occurred

in an area with abundant paleontological resources. However, the ROPs and lease stipulations

proposed to protect paleontological resources under this alternative would be highly effective. 

4.6.3 Soil Resources 

4.6.3.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Various types of activities not related to oil and gas leasing and development, including private 

or commercial air traffic, summer research camps, use of OHVs, recreational camps, 

paleontological and archaeological excavations, and overland moves could affect soil resources in

the planning area under Alternative D. 

Under Alternative D, impacts associated with non-oil and gas activities would be similar to 

those described under Alternative A for all alternatives. These activities could occur throughout 

the planning area and would be little affected by the increased availability of land for oil and 

gas leasing. 

4.6.3.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

The following analysis is based on section 4.2.1.2, Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development Activities. See that section for a discussion of estimates and assumptions for 

development as well as a description of how estimated areas of disturbance were calculated for 

each alternative. 

During oil and gas exploration and development, various activities could cause impacts to soil 

resources in the planning area. These activities include seismic activities; construction and use 

of gravel pads, gravel roads, gravel airstrips, and pipelines; excavation of material sites; 

construction of ice roads and ice pads; and summer tundra travel. Impacts could also occur from 

oil spills and from removal of gravel pads and gravel roads during rehabilitation. These 

activities would impact soil productivity and could alter the moisture regime of tundra near the 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-498 

Alternative D: Paleontological Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

structure by changing natural drainage patterns and areas where snow accumulates. Types of 

impacts to soils from oil and gas activities in Alternative D would be similar to those described 

for Alternative A. Differences in the magnitude and area of impacts for Alternative D are 

described below. 

Effects of Disturbances 

Seismic Surveys 

Effects to soils from seismic surveys would be the same as for Alternative A. Under all of the

alternatives, it is projected that three 2-D and two 3-D surveys would be done to fill in gaps in 

existing surveys. 

Exploration 

Under Alternative D, types of impacts to soil from activities associated with oil and gas 

exploration would be similar to those described for Alternative A. However, the area impacted 

would be somewhat greater than in Alternatives A and B and slightly less than Alternative C. 

The drilling of exploration and delineation wells would result in impacts to soil from both multiand single-year ice pads. The area of soil directly impacted by a typical ice pad (500 feet by 500 

feet) would be approximately 6 acres. Under Alternative D, it is assumed 110 exploration wells 

and 83 delineation wells, or a total of 193 wells, would be drilled from ice pads in the planning 

area. Impacts to soils would occur on approximately 1,200 acres (193 ice pads x 6 acres per ice 

pad) over a period of about 25 years. 

In addition, up to 50 miles of ice road would be constructed annually temporarily impacting 

approximately 212 acres per year. For Alternative D, it is estimated that a total of about 6,200 

miles of ice road would be constructed during the life of the plan for exploration and

development impacting approximately 19,000 acres (Table 4.2-G). In addition, approximately

30 miles of ice runway would be constructed impacting approximately 330 acres. 

The construction of well cellars during exploration requires digging a hole that would impact 

approximately 16 square feet (0.0004 acres) of ground for each well. Total area disturbed by 

digging well cellars under Alternative D would be approximately 0.07 acres (193 wells x 0.0004 

acres per well). Thermokarst associated with the disruption of the thermal regime in the 

surrounding soil could occur around the well cellars and cause long-term disturbance to these 

small areas. 

Placement of Gravel Fill 

Types of impacts to soils from placement of gravel fill would be similar to those in Alternative A. 

Construction of CPFs and associated satellite pads, roads, and airstrips would result in the loss 

of soil productivity in the areas of gravel placement. Under this alternative, 6 fields would be 

developed, resulting in a total of approximately 3,700 acres of soil productivity lost by gravel 

placement. 

Construction of gravel pads, roads, staging areas, and airstrips could alter the moisture regime

of tundra near the structure by changing natural drainage patterns and areas where snow 

accumulates. Snowdrifts caused by gravel structures would increase the wintertime soil surface 

temperature and increase thaw depth in soils near the structures. These impacts would be 

4-499 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

exacerbated by dust deposition and by the formation of impoundments. These factors could

combine to warm the soil, deepen thaw, and cause thermokarst adjacent to roads and other 

gravel structures (NRC 2003). In flat, thaw-lake plains on the North Slope, gravel construction 

can be anticipated to result in upslope water impoundment and thermokarst erosion equivalent 

to the area directly covered by gravel (Walker et. al. 1987). In this analysis, approximately

3,700 acres could be covered by gravel under Alternative D. Therefore, the total area of soils 

impacted by gravel fill under Alternative D is estimated at approximately 7,400 (2 x 3,700) 

acres. This is greater than Alternatives A and B and somewhat less than Alternative C. 

Material Sites 

In this analysis, gravel required for Alternative D would be greater than that required for 

Alternatives A and B and less than Alternative C. Gravel required for development in the 

planning area could be mined from existing sites east of the planning area or could be extracted

from new sites developed within the planning area. Investigations to identify gravel sources in

the planning area have not been conducted, but presumably would be initiated if discoveries of 

recoverable oil or gas were made. It is possible that 14 gravel mine sites would be necessary, 

resulting in a total of 700 acres impacted, depending on the actual number of sites required. 

Types of impacts from gravel excavation would be similar to Alternative A and the other 

alternatives. Excavation of the gravel mine and stockpiling of overburden would remove soil 

and impact soil productivity at these sites. 

Pipelines 

Under Alternative D, types of impacts to soil from pipelines would be similar to those described 

in Alternative A. Given the potential number of fields developed in this analysis, impacts from

pipeline construction would be greater than those described for Alternatives A and B but less 

than those for Alternative C. Pipelines on the North Slope are typically built on VSMs with a 

diameter of 12 inches and a spacing of 150 VSMs/mile. Under Alternative D, approximately 482 

miles of pipeline would be required resulting in short term disturbance to soils of approximately 

1,500 acres and a long term impact at VSM sites to a total of approximately two acres. 

The extent of impacts associated with buried pipeline could be similar to alternatives B and C. 

Melting of ice in the soils would result, and the filled area, normally mounded immediately after 

placement of fill, would level over time as melt water migrated to lower areas. Because pipeline

burial under tundra has been the exception on the North Slope rather than the norm, it is 

expected that this activity would disturb only a small amount of area in the planning area. 

Effects of Oil and Gas Development on Permafrost 

Types of impacts to permafrost from oil and gas development would be the same as those

described in Alternative A. Under alternative D, more surface disturbance is expected from oil 

and gas activities as compared to Alternatives A and B but less than Alternative C (Table 4.2­

G). Therefore, the potential area of permafrost impacted would be expected to be greater than 

in Alternatives A and B and less than in Alternative C. 

Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Types of impacts from abandonment and rehabilitation would be the same as those described in 

Alternative A. Under alternative D, it is expected that more structures would be constructed 

for oil and gas activities as compared to Alternatives A and B but less than Alternative C (Table 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-500 

Alternative D: Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.2-G). Therefore, the amount of rehabilitation required, and impacts to soils from 

abandonment and rehabilitation, would be greater than in Alternatives A and B but less than 

Alternative C. 

Effects of Spills 

Under Alternative D, types of impacts to soils from spills would be similar to those described for 

Alternative A. However, the potential for a greater amount of leasing, development, and 

production of oil could result in a larger number of small spills of crude and refined oil in the 

planning area compared with Alternatives A and B. There would also be a greater chance of a 

large oil spill occurring than with Alternatives A and B; nonetheless, a large spill would likely 

still be a very rare event (see section 4.2.2, Oil Spills). 

Summer Tundra Travel 

Under Alternatives B, C, and D some summer tundra travel would be permitted under specific 

circumstances. Although travel off of gravel pads is easiest in winter and generally 

environmentally preferable at that time, some vehicle travel off of pads does occur in North

Slope oil fields during the summer to accomplish specific tasks. The State of Alaska has 

approved some low-ground-pressure vehicles for summer tundra travel after July 15. Similar 

summer tundra travel may be anticipated to be part of oil production in Northeast NPR-A. 

Summer vehicle tundra travel is commonly associated with spill prevention and preparedness 

measures required in spill prevention plans. Each summer season, low-ground-pressure 

vehicles might be used to transport and place booms across streams downstream from pipelines. 

These booms are left in place through the summer to capture any oil that might spill from a 

pipeline and then would be retrieved, again probably using low-ground-pressure vehicles, before 

freeze-up. Pipeline inspections may also entail summer vehicle travel on the tundra. Finally, 

periodically spill response training may occur along and downstream from pipelines in summer. 

As a rule, summer tundra travel would not be permitted under Alternative A. Therefore, given 

the potentially greater number of fields developed and allowance of summer tundra travel 

under certain circumstances, impacts from summer tundra travel under Alternative D could be 

greater than in Alternatives A and B and less than Alternative C. Short-term, minor impacts to 

soils are expected from limited summer tundra travel using low ground pressure vehicles. 

However, ROP L-1 is designed to regulate and monitor summer travel and minimize impacts to

soils and vegetation. Summer travel would only be permitted on a case-by-case basis if the 

applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use would have no more than minimal impacts to 

soils and vegetation. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Under Alternative D, the types of impacts on soils that natural gas development and production 

would cause would be the same as those described for the other alternatives. If a gas pipeline is 

buried, there would be additional acreage of soils disrupted with reduced soil productivity. The 

estimated 162-mile-long gas pipeline would impact about 80 acres of soils directly through 

excavation of a 4-foot-wide trench and, potentially, 210 acres through compaction, thermokarst, 

and other indirect effects. In addition, ice roads that may be associated with placement of the 

gas pipeline would have localized, short-term impacts on soils, which would usually be limited 

to compression of the tundra under the ice roads and damage to the tops of tussocks in dryer

soils. 

4-501 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Soils thus disturbed in the ice-rich northern part of the planning area are more likely to 

experience thermal degradation and subsidence as a result. In this case, the soils would not be 

lost completely, but soil horizons as well as the thermal regime would be altered. Melting of ice

in the soils would result and the filled area, normally mounded immediately after fill, would 

level over time as melt water migrates. Ponding, and potentially soil erosion, could occur if the 

trench surface subsides below the grade of the surrounding terrain over time. These impacts 

would be dramatically reduced if gas pipelines were put on VSMs. 

4.6.3.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

To protect soils in the planning area, the approval of most proposals for summer operations are 

limited. Because of the fragile nature of thawed tundra during the summer, permit sites are

restricted to durable areas such as gravel bars, beaches, or existing gravel pads. Vehicles 

allowed for use in overland moves would exert low ground pressure and be permitted to travel

only over snow-covered ground frozen to a sufficient depth to minimize soil and vegetation 

impacts. Even so, development in the planning area would result in impacts to soils. However, 

several Lease Stipulations and ROPs for Alternative D should be effective in limiting these 

impacts. Lease stipulations and ROPs developed to protect soil under Alternative D would 

provide similar protection to those developed for Alternatives B and C. Lease Stipulation K-11 

applies only to Alternative D. This stipulation would limit surface disturbance to 300 acres 

each in tracts A-G north of Teshekpuk Lake (not including pipelines). This stipulation should

be effective in minimizing the amount of soil disturbance in these tracts north of Teshekpuk 

Lake. Existing gravel pads within the tracts would not count against the 300 acre limit for each 

tract. 

Similar to the other alternatives, many of the lease stipulations and ROPs developed under 

Alternative D would directly or indirectly limit potential impacts to soils in the planning area. 

These ROPs and lease stipulations would provide similar protection to those provided for 

Alternative A. 

4.6.3.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative D, the amount of soil area impacted from oil and gas exploration and

development would potentially exceed those of Alternatives A and B as additional high-potential 

oil and gas areas would be available for leasing. However, this analysis assumes both short and 

long term disturbance to soils would be less than in Alternative C. See Table 4.2-G for a 

comparison of estimated total surface area disturbed by alternative. 

Numerous technological advancements have been made during the decades of operations on the

North Slope that have allowed current development activities to proceed with less 

environmental impact than previous operations (NRC 2003). However, some short-term 

disturbance and permanent long-term impacts to soils are inevitable. Impacts to soil from 

management actions under Alternative D would involve short-term disturbance over fairly large 

areas and long-term disturbance of relatively small areas. Impacts in this alternative cover 

more of the planning area than Alternatives A and B but less than Alternative C (see Table 4.2­

G). All areas of soil disturbance would be small as a percentage of the entire planning area (see

below). The duration of these impacts could range from one year or less for minor disturbance 

of soil and vegetation to decades if the soil was destroyed or permafrost thawing was extensive. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-502 

Alternative D: Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Under Alternative D, impacts to soils from activities other than oil and gas development would 

be similar to the other alternatives and would include minor impacts from aircraft landings, 

archaeological or paleontological excavations, camps, and overland moves. Recovery would vary 

from one year or less for minor disturbance of soil and vegetation to decades in those areas 

where soil was excavated or permafrost thawing was extensive. 

Impacts from seismic activities would be the same for all alternatives. Short-term impacts 

could occur on approximately 8,100 acres (0.18 % of the planning area) of soil from 2-D seismic 

surveys and 100,000 acres (2.2 % of the planning area) of soil from 3-D surveys during a 25-year 

period (Table 4.2-F). 

Approximately 1,500 acres could be impacted short-term by pipeline construction. Short-term 

impacts would also occur from temporary ice roads, ice pads, and ice runways. For Alternative 

D, it is estimated that a total of 6,200 miles of ice road would be constructed during the life of 

the plan for exploration and development impacting approximately 19,000 acres (Table 4.2-G). 

In addition, approximately 1,200 acres could be impacted by ice pads for exploration and 

delineation wells and 30 miles of ice runway would be constructed impacting approximately 330 

acres. In total, potential short-term impacts to soils under Alternative D from exploration 

(excluding seismic activities) and development would be approximately 22,000 acres or 0.48% of 

the planning area. This is greater than Alternative A, slightly greater than Alternative B, and 

less than Alternative C. 

Oil and gas development and operation would affect soils by compacting and damaging soils 

under gravel pads, gravel roads, and gravel airstrips; and by excavating material sites and 

constructing VSMs. These impacts would be long-term. Long-term impacts would occur on an 

estimated 7,400 acres of soil from field and staging area development, and 700 acres from gravel 

extraction activities. Therefore, these activities could result in long-term impacts to 

approximately 8,100 (7,400 + 700) acres or 0.18% of the planning area. The placement of

pipelines underground could disturb an additional 1.5 acres per pipeline mile. However, 

because pipeline burial under tundra has been the exception on the North Slope rather than the 

norm, it is expected that this activity would disturb only a small amount of area in the planning 

area. In total, long-term impacts to soil resources could be greater than under Alternatives A 

and B and less than under Alternative C. 

Impacts associated with oil spills, the majority of which would be cleaned up immediately, could 

aversely affect soil resources for a few years to several decades depending on the quantity, 

location, and season of the spill. Based on oil and gas potential and the estimated number of 

large and small spills, impacts from oil spills could be greater under Alternative D than under 

Alternatives A and B but less than that for Alternative C (see section 4.2.2, Oil Spills). 

Under Alternatives B, C, and D some summer tundra travel would be permitted under specific 

circumstances. Short-term, minor impacts are expected from limited summer tundra travel 

using low ground pressure vehicles. However, ROP L-1 is designed to regulate and monitor 

summer travel and minimize impacts to soils and vegetation. Summer travel would only be 

permitted on a case-by-case basis if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use would

have no more than minimal impacts to soils and vegetation. 

Impacts to soil resources from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas activities, would 

likely be additive in most cases, except in those areas where the two types of activities 

overlapped. In these areas the total actual impact could be less than the sum of both impacts 

because some of the activity would occur on areas already impacted. Impacts to soil resources 

4-503 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

from exploration and development activities would also be additive, except where development 

activities occurred in areas previously disturbed during exploration. In areas where two or more

activities occurred, overall impacts would reflect those impacts associated with the first activity 

and any new impacts associated with later activities. 

Although all soil map units identified on Map 3-5 could be impacted during oil and gas 

exploration and development, soils associated with map units IQ6 and IQ21 (see section 3.2.7, 

Soil Resources and Map 3-5) would likely be most affected since they are located in the area 

having high oil potential. 

Lease stipulations and ROPs have been identified to protect soil resources. Lease stipulations 

and ROPs developed for Alternative D would provide protection similar to that offered by lease 

stipulations developed for Alternative A and are the same as those developed for Alternatives B 

and C. However, Lease Stipulation K-11 applies only to Alternative D. This stipulation would 

limit surface disturbance to 300 acres each in tracts A-G north of Teshekpuk Lake (not 

including pipelines). This stipulation should be effective in minimizing the amount of soil 

disturbance in these tracts north of Teshekpuk Lake. Existing gravel pads within the tracts 

would not count against the 300 acre limit for each tract. 

4.6.4 Water Resources 

4.6.4-a Surface Water and Groundwater Resources 

Under the Alternative D, approximately 95% (or 4.39 million acres) of the acreage in the 

planning area would be open for leasing. Because this is substantially more acreage than under 

Alternative A, more surface water could be impacted by oil and gas activities under this 

alternative. However, under the Alternative D, performance-based lease stipulations and ROPs 

very similar to those developed for alternatives B and C would be used to mitigate the impacts 

of energy exploration and development on surface resources. In addition, three new lease 

stipulations are proposed for Alternative D, and additions, deletions, and edits have been made

to the proposed performance-based mitigations designed for alternatives B and C that would 

apply to Alternative D and would increase protection to surface resources throughout the 

planning area. Setbacks from rivers, streams, and fish-bearing lakes would be in the range of 1⁄2 

to 3 miles. The main difference between this alternative and the Alternative A pertaining to 

water resources is that the Alternative D allows for drilling near Teshekpuk Lake and within 

the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area, whereas the Alternative A does not allow for drilling near 

the lake. This greatly increases the likelihood of exploration or development activities impacting 

water resources and quality in the lake. However, Teshekpuk Lake itself would be deferred 

from leasing. 

4.6.4-a.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Activities not related to oil and gas exploration and development that could occur in the

planning area under Alternative D include aircraft use, watercraft use, collection and 

excavation for scientific research, hunting camps, recreational use of the area, and use of the 

area by local natives for subsistence. These activities would be expected to occur at the same

frequency and intensity under all alternatives as described in Alternative A. All of these 

activities have the potential to impact water resources. However, all of these activities have also 

been ongoing for many years with minimal impact to water resources. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-504 

Alternative D: Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.6.4-a.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Under Alternative D, exploratory and developmental drilling would be allowed near Teshekpuk 

Lake, subject to the restrictions listed in Lease Stipulations K-4, and K-9 through K-11 (see 

section 2.6.4.2, Lease Stipulations that Apply to Biologically Sensitive Areas). Although

these lease stipulations and the other lease stipulations in K-3 are generally protective of the 

water quality in Teshekpuk Lake, drilling near the lake increases the risk for an oil spill that 

could affect this lake. However, lease stipulation K-3 requires a minimum of 1⁄4 mile setback 

from the Lake for oil and gas facilities and this should reduce the likelihood of a spill reaching 

the Lake. Teshekpuk Lake itself would be deferred from leasing under this alternative. 

Effects of Exploration and Development 

Seismic activities and overland travel. Effects to water resources from seismic surveys 

would be the same as those described for Alternative A. Under all of the alternatives, it is 

projected that three 2-D and two 3-D surveys would be done to fill in gaps in existing surveys 

and amount to the same level of impacts. 

Ice Road and Pad Construction. Types of impacts from ice road and pad construction would 

be the same as those described under Alternative A. Under Alternative D the potential impacts 

of ice roads on water resources would be greater than Alternative A, similar to Alternative B, 

and less than Alternative C. For Alternative D, it is estimated that a total of 6,162 miles of ice 

road (18,672 acres), 193 exploration and delineation well ice pads (1,200 acres), and 30 ice 

airstrips (330 acres) would be constructed during the estimated exploration and development 

scenario resulting in a total of 20,202 acres of short-term surface disturbance . Impacts to the 

tundra under this alternative should be minimal and limited mainly to the spring when the ice 

roads and pads would melt and add somewhat saline water to the shallow tundra pools. This 

impact would likely be temporary in nature, since these ponds will be recharged by local 

snowmelt and runoff. 

Ice Road/Pad Water Use. Types of impacts from ice road/pad water use would be the same as 

those described under Alternative A. Approximately 50 miles of ice road would be needed each 

year under all alternatives resulting in the use of approximately 75 million gallons (MG) of 

water per year (50 miles x 1.5 MG/mile). However, it is estimated that more water would be 

used over the life of the Plan than under Alternative A and B since more high oil and gas 

potential area would be open for exploration and development and ice roads, pads, and airstrips 

constructed. 

Drilling & Camp Water Use. Types of impacts from drilling water use would be the same as 

those described under Alternative A. Under Alternative D, water withdrawal from lakes for 

drilling water would be governed by the same ROPs and lease stipulations as those for ice roads 

and pads. Therefore, it is expected that impacts to surface water resources would be minor

because of lease stipulations governing the amount of drawdown allowed in the lakes, and

which lakes could be used as water sources. Because more of the planning area would be open to

leasing under Alternative D, more lakes could potentially be impacted by water withdrawal 

during the winter months than under Alternative A. Lease Stipulations K-1 (Rivers Area) and 

K-2 (Deep Water Lakes) would be protective of water resources in streams and fish-bearing 

lakes, but given the greater number of lakes, Alternative D could potentially have more impact 

on lakes, especially non-fish bearing lakes, than Alternative A. 

4-505 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Snow Compaction. Types of impacts from snow compaction would be the same as under 

Alternative A . Because a greater portion of the planning area would be open to oil and gas 

leasing under Alternative D, there could potentially be more impacts from snow compaction 

than under the Alternatives A and B, but less than Alternative C. Under all alternatives, snow 

compaction would be prohibited on fish-bearing lakes, except at ice road crossings. Therefore,

this alternative would be protective of lakes and streams. No impacts to ice thickness on fishbearing lakes are expected as a result of oil and gas exploration and development activities. 

However, lakes without fish could be subject to impacts due to snow compaction if this activity 

were authorized by the AO. 

Drainage Disruption. Types of impacts from disruption of drainage patterns would be the

same as those described under Alternative A. Under Alternative D, drainages would be 

protected by ROPs and lease stipulations. These ROPs and lease stipulations require setbacks 

from specified rivers, require bridges rather than culverts for crossing major rivers, and require 

that culverts used for small drainages have ample capacity to handle the flow of the drainage 

during spring breakup to avoid ice jams. Thus, this alternative would minimize impacts to 

drainages from construction of permanent and temporary facilities related to crossing the 

drainage. Overall, impacts to drainages should be minor under this alternative as a result of 

these lease stipulations. 

However, because a greater portion of the planning area would be open to oil and gas leasing 

under Alternative D, there could potentially be more disruption of drainages than under the 

Alternative A and B, but less than Alternative C. However, if the lease stipulations and ROPs

listed for this alternative are followed, this potential increase in impacts should be minor. 

Additional lease stipulations for Alternative D would reduce the impact of gravel structures in 

some areas. The additional lease stipulations and changes would prohibit permanent oil and gas 

facilities except pipelines on approximately 240,000 acres north and east of Teshekpuk Lake. 

Finally, a new site-specific stipulation would establish a maximum limit of 300 acres of 

permanent surface disturbance from oil and gas activities within each of seven lease tracts 

identified north of Teshekpuk Lake. Theses seven lease tracts range in size from approximately 

46,000 acres to 59,000 acres. These additional stipulations would help to minimize potential 

impacts to water resources. 

Channel Erosion and Sedimentation. Types of impacts from channel erosion and

sedimentation would be the same as those described under Alternative A. Lease stipulations 

and ROPs developed for Alternative D to mitigate for disturbances to drainages, streams, and 

rivers by exploration and production activities would be similar to those developed for 

Alternatives B and C. These lease stipulations and ROPs regulate bridges, culverts, winter 

crossings, removal of ice bridges, and any temporary facilities constructed near rivers. They also 

include setbacks for specified rivers. These ROPs and lease stipulations should mitigate impacts 

to stream channels. Because a greater portion of the planning area would be open to oil and gas 

leasing under Alternative D, there could potentially be more impacts from channel erosion and 

sedimentation than under the Alternative A and B, but less than Alternative C. Lease 

stipulations and ROPs developed for this alternative would minimize this potential increased 

impact to stream channels from erosion and sedimentation. 

Gravel Removal. Types of impacts to water resources from gravel sites would be the same as 

those described under Alternative A. Under Alternative D, gravel mining sites would not be 

permitted in the active floodplain of a river, stream, or lake unless authorized by the AO. Gravel

mining sites would also to be kept to a minimum in the planning area, and, where possible, be 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-506 

Alternative D: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

designed so that fish and wildlife could use them after mining was completed. These measures 

would protect streams, rivers, and lakes and keep impacts to floodplains to a minimum.

However, because more of the planning area would be open to oil and gas leasing under 

Alternative D, there would potentially be more gravel removal under this alternative than 

under Alternative A and B, but less than Alternative C. It is possible that 14 gravel mine sites 

could be necessary, impacting a total of 700 acres (See section 4.2.1.2, Table 4.2-G). This is 

greater than alternatives A and B but less than Alternative C. Lease stipulations and ROPs

developed for Alternative D (described below) would be effective in reducing impacts to streams 

and lakes from gravel removal. 

Pipelines. Types of impacts from pipeline construction and operation would be the same as 

those described under Alternative A. However, under Alternative D, more miles of pipeline 

could be constructed since more area of high oil and gas potential is open to development than 

under Alternative A. Under Alternative D, 482 miles of pipeline would be required resulting in 

short-term disturbance to soils of approximately 1,460 acres and a long-term impact at VSM 

sites to a total of approximately 2 acres. However, ROPs and lease stipulations for Alternative 

D, such as construction during the winter, would prevent or minimize impacts to water 

resources. 

Commercial Gas Development 

If commercial gas is developed on the North Slope, impacts to water resources from gas 

development in the planning area would be similar to those from oil development and similar to

those for Alternative B. Like Alternatives B and C, Alternative D would make more lands 

available in the ice-rich areas especially susceptible to thermokarst, subsidence and erosion

than Alternative A, and thus could have greater impacts from burying a gas pipeline. It would 

not have as much impact as Alternative C, however, because it would likely include few miles of 

buried gas pipeline. Potential impacts during burial of a gas pipeline could include temporary 

impoundments, diversions, and sedimentation. Buried gas lines also have potential 

thermokarst, subsidence, and erosion problems that could persist beyond the construction 

phase. If all work on the pipelines is done during winter, these impacts would be greatly 

reduced. Placement of the gas pipeline on VSMs would also obviate these impacts associated

with pipeline burial. 

4.6.4-b Surface Water and Groundwater Quality 

4.6.4-b.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Impacts under Alternative D would be expected to be similar to those that would occur under

Alternative A and the other alternatives. The only types of non-oil and gas activities in the 

planning area that are likely to affect freshwater quality would be ongoing subsistence and 

recreational activities, primarily along rivers and lakes in the ACP, and use of lakes by 

floatplanes and watercraft. These activities have been ongoing for sometime, and impacts to

freshwater quality appear to have been negligible. 

4.6.4-b.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Types of impacts from oil and gas exploration activities under Alternative D would be similar to

those described under Alternative A. The main difference between these alternatives 

4-507 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

pertaining to water quality is that Alternative D opens more of the planning area to exploration 

and development, including areas around Teshekpuk Lake. This increases the likelihood of 

exploration or development activities impacting water quality in the lake and surrounding 

areas. However, lease stipulation K-3 requires a minimum of 1⁄4 mile setback from the Lake for 

oil and gas facilities and this should reduce the likelihood of a spill reaching the Lake. 

Teshekpuk Lake itself would be deferred from leasing. Therefore, the potential for impacts to 

water quality from a spill in the Lake would be less than for Alternatives B and C. 

Potential surface water quality impacts for oil and gas exploration and development fall into

three general source categories: accidental release of fuels and other substances (including oil 

spills), which could occur during both the construction and operation periods; reductions in 

dissolved oxygen and changes in ion concentrations in lakes used for water supply, which would 

occur mainly during construction but could also happen during operations; and increases in 

terrestrial erosion and sedimentation causing higher turbidity and suspended solids 

concentrations, which could occur during both the construction and operational periods. The 

following analysis is based on section 4.2.1.2, Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Activities. See that section for a description of how estimated areas of disturbance were

calculated for each alternative. 

Effects of Exploration 

Exploration activities that could affect water quality within the planning area under all 

alternatives would be seismic surveys; ice-road and ice-pad construction; and drilling-fluid 

storage and disposal. Oil spills would predominantly be attributable to development activities; 

therefore, spills will be discussed under the analysis of development impacts. 

Seismic Activities and Overland Travel. Impacts to water quality from seismic surveys

would be the same as those described for Alternative A. Under all of the alternatives, it is 

projected that three 2-D and two 3-D surveys would be done to fill in gaps in existing surveys. 

Ice Road/Pad Water Use. Types of impacts from ice road/pad water use are the same as those 

described in Alternative A. Water use is expected to be greater than under Alternative A and 

similar to Alternative B. For Alternative D, it is estimated that a total of 6,200 miles of ice road 

would be constructed during the life of the plan impacting approximately 19,000 acres (See 

section 4.2.1.2, Table 4.2-G). In addition, 30 miles of ice runway would be constructed 

impacting 330 acres. However, as discussed under Alternative A, studies in other areas of the 

North Slope have shown that water withdrawal from lakes for ice roads and pads has not 

measurably affected long-term water quality (Baker, 2002; Hinzman, 2006). 

Drilling Water Use and Drilling Fluids. Types of impacts from drilling water use would be 

the same as those described in Alternative A. However, more exploration wells would likely be 

needed under Alternative D. Under this alternative, it is assumed 193 exploration and 

delineation wells would be drilled from ice pads in the planning area. The preferred means of 

disposing of drilling wastes, including muds and cuttings, would be reinjection into wells, which 

would not cause impacts to surface water quality. Mud pits and surface discharge of 

exploration drilling muds and cuttings would be prohibited. Under this scenario, there likely 

would be a negligible impact to water quality from drilling fluids used in exploration. 

Effects of Development 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-508 

Alternative D: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Development activities that could affect water quality in the planning area include spills; 

excavation of material sites; stream crossings; summer tundra travel; and construction of gravel 

roads, pads, and airstrips. 

Spills. The greatest risk to water quality from oil and gas activity in the planning area is the 

potential for spills, with impacts dependent upon the size, season and nature of the spill. Effects 

of spills would be similar to those described in Alternative A. Under Alternative D, however, 

more of the planning area would be open to exploration and development than under

Alternative A. Therefore, potential impacts to water quality from oil spills could be larger than 

in Alternative A as the estimated number of large and small spills is greater (see section 4.2.2, 

Oil Spills). In addition, Alternative D allows for drilling near Teshekpuk Lake. This increases 

the likelihood of a spill impacting water resources and quality in this Lake. However, lease 

stipulation K-3 requires a minimum of 1⁄4 mile setback from the Lake for oil and gas facilities 

and this should reduce the likelihood of a spill reaching the Lake. Teshekpuk Lake itself would 

be deferred from leasing. Therefore, the potential for impacts to water quality from a spill in 

the Lake would be less than for Alternatives B and C. 

As noted in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998), a small oil spill (less 

than 4 bbls) reaching Teshekpuk Lake would likely have a minimal effect on water quality. 

Dissolved oxygen levels could be affected locally. Direct toxicity would be minimal because of the 

much greater dilution volume in Teshekpuk Lake than in the small ponds and lakes discussed 

earlier, and because of the relatively unrestricted movement of the slick and underlying water. 

The spreading of the spill over about 60 acres (0.03% of the lake surface) would have an adverse 

effect on water quality in this area of the Lake. This effect would persist for a few weeks, until 

the slick was either cleaned up or the oil stranded on the shoreline. Similar effects would be

expected if an oil spill were to reach any of the lakes in the planning area. The effects on water 

quality if a large spill was released directly to surface water could be large and extensive, and 

the magnitude of the effects would depend on the speed of cleanup response teams and the local 

conditions affecting oil dispersion. The probability of this type of spill occurring is very small. 

Gravel Structures. Types of impacts to water quality from construction of CPFs, gravel pads, 

within-field roads, runways, pump stations, and staging areas would be similar to those 

described in Alternative A. However, under this alternative, it is estimated that 6 fields would 

be developed, resulting in direct impacts of approximately 3,700 acres impacted by gravel 

placement. It is anticipated that gravel construction would result in indirect impacts of upslope 

water impoundment and thermokarst erosion equivalent to at least the same area as that 

directly covered by gravel, or about 3,700 acres for the development assumptions made under 

this alternative. This is greater than alternatives A and B and less than estimates for 

Alternative C. Therefore, compared to Alternatives A and B, there would be a potential 

increase for thermokarst erosion to result in water features with high turbidity and suspendedsediment concentrations. 

Additional lease stipulations for Alternative D would reduce the impact of gravel structures in 

some areas. The additional lease stipulations and changes would prohibit permanent oil and gas 

facilities except pipelines on approximately 240,000 acres north and east of Teshekpuk Lake. 

Finally, a new site-specific stipulation would establish a maximum limit of 300 acres of 

permanent surface disturbance from oil and gas activities within each of seven lease tracts 

identified north of Teshekpuk Lake. Theses seven lease tracts range in size from approximately 

46,000 acres to 59,000 acres. These additional stipulations would help to minimize potential 

impacts to water quality. 

4-509 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Gravel Removal. Types of impacts from development of gravel sites would be the same as 

those described in Alternative A. Under Alternative D it is possible that 14 gravel mine sites 

would be necessary, resulting in a total of 700 acres impacted, depending on the actual number 

of sites required. More area could be affected than estimated for Alternatives A and B. 

Therefore, the potential is greater for impacting water quality locally by an increase in 

thermokarst and erosion at gravel extraction sites. ROP E-5 is designed to minimize the 

development footprint and would also minimize the amount of gravel and, therefore, gravel 

sites. ROP E-8 is designed to minimize the impact of mineral materials mining activities on air,

land, water, fish, and wildlife resources. It would require that sites are located outside the 

active floodplain and would encourage their use for reservoirs and sites for enhancing fish and

wildlife habitat. These ROPs would minimize effects to water quality from material sites. 

Summer tundra travel. Given the potentially greater number of fields developed, impacts 

from summer tundra travel under Alternative D could also be greater than under alternatives A

and B. Short-term, minor impacts are expected from limited summer tundra travel using low 

ground pressure vehicles. ROP L-1 is designed to regulate and monitor summer travel. 

Summer travel would be permitted on a case-by-case basis if the applicant can demonstrate that 

the proposed use would have no more than short-term impacts to soils; vegetation; and, 

therefore, water quality. 

Stream Crossings. Types of impacts to water quality from stream crossings would be the 

same as those described in Alternative A. Under Alternative D, it is estimated that more roads 

(section 4.2.1.2, Table 4.2-G) would be constructed than under Alternatives A and B. 

Therefore, more steam crossings and drainage culverts could be necessary to reach additional 

areas of high oil and gas potential. The potential for constricting flows and creating increased 

stream velocities, ice jams, ice impacts, scour, and streambank erosion would be greater.

However, lease Stipulations 42, 43, and 44 provide guidance on the use of bridges and culverts 

that would help ensure natural drainage patterns and water quality are maintained. 

Pipelines. Types of impacts from pipeline construction and operation would be the same as 

those described in Alternative A. Under Alternative D, given the potentially greater number of

fields developed, impacts from pipeline construction would be greater than those described for 

Alternatives A and B. Under Alternative D, 482 miles of pipeline would be required resulting in 

short-term disturbance to soils of approximately 1,460 acres and a long-term impact at VSM 

sites to a total of approximately 2 acres. However, ROPs and lease stipulations for Alternative 

D, such as construction during the winter, would prevent or minimize impacts to water 

resources. 

The extent of impacts associated with buried pipeline could also be greater under Alternative D 

given the potentially greater number of fields developed than in Alternatives A and B. Because 

pipeline burial under tundra has been the exception on the North Slope rather than the norm, it 

is expected that this activity would disturb only a small amount of area in the planning area. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Types of effects from abandonment and rehabilitation would be the same as those described in 

Alternative A. Under Alternative D, given the potentially greater number of fields developed, 

impacts from abandonment and rehabilitation would be greater than those described for 

Alternatives A and B, but less than for Alternative C. See section 4.2.1.2, Table 4.2-G for a 

comparison of areas impacted by infrastructure that would need to be rehabilitated. Lease 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-510 

Alternative D: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Stipulation G-1 could require removal and reclamation of the developed site(s) upon field

abandonment, which would eventually result in restoration of the natural drainage. 

Commercial Gas Development 

If commercial gas is developed on the North Slope, impacts to water quality from gas 

development in the planning area would be similar to those from oil development, except there 

would not be the risk of impacts from an oil spill, and similar to those for Alternative B. Like 

Alternatives B and C, Alternative D would make more lands available in the ice-rich areas 

especially susceptible to thermokarst, subsidence and erosion than Alternative A, and thus 

could have greater impacts from burying a gas pipeline. It would not have as much impact as 

Alternative C, however, because it would likely include few miles of buried gas pipeline. 

Potential impacts during burial of a gas pipeline could include temporary impoundments, 

diversions, and sedimentation. Buried gas lines also have potential thermokarst, subsidence, 

and erosion problems that could persist beyond the construction phase. If all work on the 

pipelines is done during winter, these impacts would be greatly reduced. Placement of the gas 

pipeline on VSMs would also obviate these impacts associated with pipeline burial. 

4.6.4.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Under Alternative D, the lease stipulations and ROPs listed in Table 2-2 are expected to 

mitigate impacts to water resources because they would require setbacks from rivers and fishbearing lakes for oil and gas activities, place limits on the withdrawal of water from fish-bearing 

lakes, and regulate the construction of gravel roads, ice roads and pads, and pipelines. Also, oil 

spill prevention and response procedures would be required, as would oil spill clean-up 

procedures. Refueling would be regulated and thereby kept away from rivers and lakes, 

particularly fish-bearing lakes. The required snowpack would be present on the tundra before

seismic equipment would be allowed to make overland moves during winter. Drilling would not 

be allowed in streams, rivers, or fish-bearing lakes. 

Lease stipulations and ROPs would also protect water quality under Alternative D. Required 

Operating Procedures A-1 through A-7 would regulate garbage, wastewater, drilling wastes, 

fuel and chemical storage, fuel handling, and spill prevention and clean-up plans. Required 

Operating Procedure B-1 would prohibit water withdrawal from rivers during winter and ROP 

B-2 would regulate amounts of winter water withdrawals from lakes. Required Operating 

Procedure’s C-2 through C-4 would regulate overland moves, seismic work, ice-road 

construction, and other heavy equipment travel during the winter to limit impacts to water 

resources. Lease Stipulation D-1 would limit exploratory drilling in shallow lakes, streams, and 

floodplains, but would allow exceptions if there was no feasible or prudent alternative. Required 

Operating Procedures and Lease Stipulations E-2, E-3, E-6, and E-8 would limit certain facility, 

structure, and gravel mine site design and construction impacts near lakes and rivers, but 

would allow exceptions if there was no feasible or prudent alternative. 

Lease Stipulation G-1 may require removal and reclamation of the developed site(s) upon field 

abandonment, which would eventually result in restoration of the natural drainage. Lease 

Stipulation K-1 would be equally effective as Alternative A Lease Stipulation 39 in protecting 

aquatic, floodplain, and riparian areas adjacent to rivers identified as having critical aquatic 

and riparian habitat, except in certain large rivers. Lease Stipulation K-2 would also be equally 

effective as Alternative A Lease Stipulation 39 in protecting aquatic and riparian areas adjacent 

to deep-water lakes, but would allow exceptions if there were no feasible or prudent alternative. 

4-511 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Lease stipulation K-3 requires a minimum of 1⁄4 mile setback from Teshekpuk Lake for oil and 

gas facilities and this should reduce the likelihood of a spill reaching the Lake. 

In addition, three new lease stipulations are proposed for Alternative D, and additions, 

deletions, and edits have been made to the proposed performance-based mitigations designed

for alternatives B and C. These stipulations would increase protection to surface resources 

throughout the planning area. The additional lease stipulations and changes would prohibit 

permanent oil and gas facilities except pipelines on approximately 240,000 acres north and east 

of Teshekpuk Lake. Exploration activities would be allowed within this RSO, including seismic 

acquisition and exploratory drilling. Finally, a new site-specific stipulation would establish a 

maximum limit of 300 acres of permanent surface disturbance from oil and gas activities within 

each of seven lease tracts identified north of Teshekpuk Lake. Theses seven lease tracts range 

in size from approximately 46,000 acres to 59,000 acres. 

4.6.4.4 Conclusion 

Under all alternatives, this analysis shows that impacts to water resources from non-oil and gas 

activities would be minor. Most impacts from and oil and gas exploration would also be minor 

and short-term. Short-term impacts include water withdrawals from lakes for ice roads and ice 

pads. Seismic activities could result in thermokarst and erosion on approximately 153 acres 

during a 25-year period under all alternatives. 

Under Alternative D, the amount of area impacted from oil and gas exploration and

development would potentially exceed those of alternatives A and B as additional high-potential 

oil and gas areas would be available for leasing. Therefore, potential impacts to water resources 

from development infrastructure such as CPFs, roads, pads, runways, pipelines, pump stations, 

staging bases, and material sites would also be greater (see section 4.2.1.2, Table 4.2-G, for a 

comparison of infrastructure by alternative). Long-term impacts from development of CPFs, 

gravel roads, pads, runways, pump stations, and staging bases could have direct impacts of 

approximately 3,700 acres and indirect impacts of approximately 3,700 acres under Alternative 

D. Impacts could include disturbance of stream banks or shorelines and subsequent thawing of 

permafrost (thermokarst); and blockages of natural channels and floodways which would 

disrupt drainage patterns. Excavation of material sites would also result in a long-term loss of 

approximately 700 acres. Total long-term impacts would total 8,100 acres. 

Under Alternative D, it is estimated that more roads and, therefore, steam crossings could be 

necessary to reach areas of high oil and gas potential than under Alternatives A and B. The 

potential for constricting flows and creating increased stream velocities, ice jams, ice impacts, 

scour, and streambank erosion would also be greater. However, lease Stipulations 42, 43, and 

44 provide guidance on the use of bridges and culverts that would help ensure natural drainage 

pattern are maintained. 

The greatest risk to water quality from oil and gas activity in the planning area is the potential 

for spills. Under Alternative D, the estimated number and volume of large and small spills 

would be greater than those estimated for Alternatives A and B since additional high oil 

potential areas would be available for development. Also, the potential for a spill in Teshekpuk 

Lake would be greater than for Alternative A. However, since leasing on the Lake itself would 

be deferred under this alternative, there is less potential for a spill to impact water resources in 

Teshekpuk Lake than for Alternatives B and C. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-512 

Alternative D: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Impacts to water resources from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas activities, 

would likely be additive, except in those areas where the two types of activities overlapped.

Impacts to water sources from exploration and development activities would also be additive, 

except where development activities occurred in areas previously disturbed during exploration. 

In areas where two or more activities occurred, overall impacts would reflect those impacts 

associated with the first activity and any new impacts associated with later activities. 

Numerous technological advancements have been made during the decades of operations on the

North Slope that have allowed current development activities to proceed with less 

environmental impact than previous operations (NRC 2003). While any surface-disturbing 

activity or spill could affect water resources, the lease stipulations and ROPs under Alternative 

D would help mitigate impacts to these resources. 

4.6.5 Vegetation 

4.6.5.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative D, impacts associated with non-oil and gas activities would be similar to 

those described under the other three alternatives. These activities could occur throughout the 

planning area, and at more or less the same frequency and intensity as under the other 

alternatives. There could be some increased use of off-road vehicles in the planning area due to 

an increase in the amount of roads associated with development when compared to Alternative 

A. However, additional impacts to vegetation from this increase would likely be small. 

4.6.5.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbances 

 Exploration 

Under Alternative D, types of impacts to vegetation from activities associated with oil and gas 

exploration would be similar to those that occur under other alternatives. There would be a 

greater number of exploration and delineation wells drilled than under Alternatives A or B (less 

than Alternative C), which would alter the impacts of well collar construction and the number 

and impacts of both ice pads and ice roads. 

Under Alternative D, the same scenario for seismic exploration is assumed as for the other 

alternatives. Short-term vegetation disturbance from 2-D and 3-D operations combined would 

total a maximum of 107,996 acres (2.3% of the 4.6 million acre planning area). Long-term

disturbance is estimated to total 153 acres. 

During the life of the plan, it is assumed that 110 exploration wells and 83 delineation wells, or 

a total of 193 wells, would be drilled from ice pads in the planning area under Alternative D. At 

six acres per pad, these would impact 1,158 acres of tundra, spread out over 50 years (28% more 

than Alternative A, 14% more than Alternative B and 9% less than Alternative C). Assuming 

that 4% (eight) of these would also involve an over-summer ice pad, an additional 48 acres of 

vegetation would be affected by ice pads (8% less than Alternative C, but up to 14% more than 

Alternatives A or B). 

4-513 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Ice road construction is assumed the same as for Alternative B in terms of total miles 

constructed. The total acreage of short term disturbance from ice roads over 50 years would be 

18,672, about 20% more than for Alternative A and 17% less than Alternative C. Since 

vegetation recovery from ice road impacts is expected within a few years (Yokel et al. in press),

long-term disturbance from ice roads would be negligible. Although some evidence of crushed

tussocks may still be apparent, new growth would preclude any exposed soils. 

Ice airstrips are also used during exploratory drilling, and under Alternative D it is assumed 

that 30 ice airstrips would be constructed covering 11 acres each for a total of 330 acres (the 

same as for Alternative B, 50% more than Alternative A and 33% less than Alternative C). 

These airstrips are commonly built on the grounded ice of large lakes, but if they were built over 

tundra they would result in impacts similar to ice roads. 

The construction of well cellars during exploration requires the digging of a hole that destroys 

vegetation on approximately 16 square feet (0.0004 acres) of ground. Thermokarst associated 

with the disruption of thermal regime in the surrounding soil may also change the vegetation 

type around the well cellar to a wetter vegetation type. These impacts could result in 0.07 acres 

of vegetation being destroyed under Alternative D (28% more than Alternative A, 14% more 

than Alternative B and 9% less than Alternative C). 

Development and Production 

During oil and gas development and production, various activities could cause impacts to 

vegetation in the planning area. These activities include construction and use of gravel pads, 

staging areas, roads, airstrips, and pipelines, excavation of material sites, and construction of 

ice roads and ice pads. Ice roads and pads are covered above. 

Placement of Gravel Fill. Construction of CPFs and associated satellite pads, roads, staging 

areas, and airstrips would result in the destruction of vegetation in the areas of gravel 

placement. Under this alternative, six CPFs and associated satellite pads, roads and airstrips,, 

and three staging bases would be developed, resulting in 3,676 acres of vegetation destroyed by 

gravel placement. This is about 35% more area than would be impacted by gravel placement 

under Alternative A, 20% more than under Alternative B, and about 5% less area than would be 

impacted under Alternative C. 

Under Alternative D, a larger area would be impacted by dust than under Alternative A or 

Alternative B. However, impacts from dust would be slightly less than would occur under 

Alternative C, which assumes one more gravel airstrip. Assuming a total of 320 miles of in-field 

gravel roads and 6 miles of airstrips, there is a potential for a total perimeter of 652 miles. 

Within 30 feet of gravel fill, up to 2,371 acres of vegetation could be subject to smothering by 

dust and gravel, and another 9,484 acres could be affected by a dust shadow. 

Construction of gravel pads, roads, and airstrips could alter the moisture regime of tundra near 

the structure by changing natural drainage patterns and areas where snow accumulates. 

Snowdrifts caused by gravel structures increase the wintertime soil surface temperature and

increase thaw depth in soils near the structures. These impacts are exacerbated by dust 

deposition (described above) and by the formation of impoundments (described below). These 

factors could combine to warm the soil, deepen thaw, and produce thermokarst adjacent to

roads and other gravel structures (NRC 2003). Additionally, these changes could alter the 

species composition of the plant community near gravel structures. In general, most changes in

the plant community around gravel structures would occur within 164 feet of the structure. If 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-514 

Alternative D: Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

all effects were to occur within this zone, approximately 12,961 acres would be impacted under 

Alternative D (39% more than under Alternative A, 27% more than under Alternative B, and 

0.3% less than under Alternative C). Note that this area includes the 11,855 acres affected by 

dust above, and is not in addition to it. 

Material Sites. Gravel required for development in the planning area could be mined from

existing sites east of the planning area or could be extracted from new sites developed within 

the planning area. Investigations to identify gravel sources in the planning area have not been 

conducted, but presumably would be initiated if discoveries of recoverable oil or gas were made. 

Under Alternative D it is assumed that 14 material sites, each affecting 50 acres, would be 

needed. This would cover a total area of 700 acres (27% more than Alternative A, 8% more than 

Alternative B, and 13% less than Alternative C). Excavation of gravel and stockpiling of

overburden would destroy vegetation at these sites. 

Pipelines. Under Alternative D, impacts from oil pipeline construction would be similar in 

nature to those described for the other alternatives. The total area disturbed by each VSM 

would be about 14 square feet. Overall, 0.03 acres of vegetation would be disturbed by VSMs per 

pipeline mile. Under Alternative D, 320 miles of gathering lines and 162 miles of sales-oil 

pipelines would disturb 15 acres of vegetation through VSM placement (23% more than 

Alternative A, 17% more than Alternative B, and 4% less than Alternative C). In addition, if 

commercial gas development occurred in the planning area, the impacts of gas pipelines would

likely be the same as those described for Alternative A. 

Summer Tundra Travel. On a case-by-case basis, BLM may permit low-ground-pressure 

vehicles to travel off of gravel pads and roads during periods other than when the ground is 

frozen and covered with snow. This is expected to be an uncommon occurrence, and if permitted

at all it would likely be only during late summer to fall. Because of restrictions that would be 

placed on this activity, impacts to vegetation should be limited to the compression of standing 

vegetation, similar to what happens during winter following traffic by low-ground-pressure 

vehicles. 

Air Pollution. The potential for impacts to vegetation from air pollution would be slightly 

greater under Alternative D than under Alternative A, less than under Alternative C, and the 

same as for Alternative B, given the differences in oil fields and processing facilities assumed. 

However, it is unlikely that impacts to vegetation from pollutants would substantially alter the 

plant communities in the planning area. 

Effects of Spills 

The greater amount of leasing, development, and production of oil that would occur under 

Alternative D, relative to Alternative A or Alternative B, would result in a greater number of 

small spills of crude and refined oil in the planning area. The chance of a large oil spill 

occurring would also be greater under Alternative D; however it would still be a very rare event. 

Impacts from spills would be less likely under Alternative D than under Alternative C. 

Most oil spills cover less than 500 square feet (<0.01 acres), though a pressured aerial mist may 

cover up to 145 acres (Ott 1997). (Such a spill is a very low probability event, occurring less than 

once out of the total spills expected throughout the life of this plan. Thus its magnitude is not

apparent in the following acreages). The average spill would cover 0.1 acre. If 11% of all oil 

spills would reach vegetation during summer, under Alternative D this would mean 252 of the 

2,287 spills assumed to occur over the life of the plan would have more than a negligible effect 

4-515 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

on vegetation. This is about 27% more than the amount that would be impacted under 

Alternative A. Assuming the average spill would cover 0.1 acre, under Alternative D 

approximately 25 acres would be impacted substantially during the lifetime of development in 

the planning area. This is about 26% more than the acreage impacted under Alternative A, 16% 

more than under Alternative B, and 10% less than under Alternative C. Overall, past spills on 

Alaska’s North Slope have resulted in minor ecological damage and ecosystems have shown 

good potential for recovery (Jorgenson 1997). 

Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

During abandonment activities, vegetation and wetlands would be impacted by dust fallout 

along roads, by ice roads and other off-road tundra travel associated with dismantling of 

pipelines and power lines, and by disturbance to vegetation adjacent to VSMs and power line 

poles during their removal. The level of impact from these activities would be roughly the same

as that during construction if gravel fill was removed; impacts would be less if the gravel were 

to be left in place. If roads and pads were left in place, and especially if cross drainage across 

roads was not maintained, water impoundment would occur, and could alter plant communities

as described for the construction period. It is also likely that the unmaintained roads would

have occasional washouts, where tundra vegetation would be covered with washed-out gravel. 

Roads and pads, if left in place, would likely need to be revegetated with plants native to gravel 

bars and ridges in the Arctic (i.e., different from the plant communities surrounding the 

facilities). Revegetation activities could take several years, as initial attempts are not always 

successful. Removal of gravel from pads, roads, and airstrips could be mandated. Partial or 

complete removal of gravel can result in faster reestablishment of native plant growth, although

establishment can take many years (more than a decade). In addition, thaw subsidence is 

difficult to predict, and complete restoration to preexisting conditions is improbable. In general, 

impacts from abandonment and rehabilitation for Alternative D would be greater than what 

would occur under Alternatives A or B, and less than what would occur under Alternatives C 

given the numbers of fields likely to be developed under each of these alternatives. 

Commercial Gas Development 

The 162-mile-long buried gas pipeline projected for Alternative D (as well as Alternatives A and 

B) would destroy about 80 acres of vegetation directly through excavation of a 4-foot-wide 

trench and, potentially, alter 210 acres along an approximately 11-foot-wide strip where 

compaction and other indirect effects from use of machinery and temporary storage of 

overburden would occur. Because of the difficulty colonizing species would have invade such a 

wide area, a recovery time of several years or longer may be expected, though wetter areas 

would generally revegetate before drier areas (McKendrick, 2000). In addition, vegetation

would be lost to a 10- to 20-acre compressor station pad. Placement of gas pipelines on VSMs, 

would generally reduce impacts to vegetation as described for Alternative A. 

4.6.5.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Alternative D would have very similar lease stipulations and ROPs as those outlined under 

alternatives B and C, and the differences would have no effects on impacts to vegetation. Under 

Alternative D, development in the planning area would result in greater impacts to vegetation 

and plant communities compared to Alternatives A or B (but less than Alternative C), due to the 

different extent of gravel fill. The ROPs and lease stipulations associated with Alternative D 

would reduce impacts by minimizing destruction of vegetation and alteration of plant 

communities. Alternative D also has additional lease stipulations that limit surface occupancy 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-516 

Alternative D: Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

in portions of the planning area. These lease stipulations would prevent surface occupancy 

(except for pipelines and community-funded roads) in areas north and east of Teshekpuk Lake

in the Goose Molting Area and in caribou calving and migration areas to the south and east of 

Teshekpuk Lake. These additional lease stipulations would also protect vegetation in these 

areas. 

4.6.5.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative D, impacts to vegetation from activities other than oil and gas development

would include minor impacts from aircraft landings, archaeological and paleontological 

excavations, camps, and overland moves. The duration of these impacts would be short term, 

ranging up to 5 months, and recovery would vary from 1 to several years. The amount of impact 

from these activities would be similar for all alternatives. 

As for other alternatives, impacts to vegetation from oil and gas exploration would occur from 

seismic work and construction of well cellars during exploratory drilling and the construction of 

ice roads and ice pads. The duration and recovery time for impacts associated with seismic work

would be similar to those for overland moves and the same as for the other three alternatives. 

Based on earlier studies, there should be no substantial, long-term impacts to vegetation from 

seismic lines, but camp move trails could substantially impact approximately 153 acres after 8-9 

years. Effects of well cellar construction would also be permanent, but would impact only 1.2 

acres of vegetation. 

Under Alternative D, the effects of oil and gas development and operation would include

destruction of vegetation during construction of gravel pads (CPFs, satellite drill pads, pump 

stations, and staging bases), roads, airstrips, and staging areas; from excavation of material 

sites and burial of gas pipelines; and construction of VSMs. These impacts would be long-term 

and would impact about 4,378 acres (6% less than Alternative C), or 0.1% of the 4.6 million acre 

planning area (as compared to 0.07% under Alternative A, 0.08% under Alternative B, or 0.1% 

under Alternative C). (An additional 80 acres would be destroyed through burial of gas 

pipelines). Plant communities could also be altered by dust deposition, salinity of gravel fill used 

in construction, snow drifts, and blockage of or change to natural drainage patterns. These

impacts would also be long-term and would impact about 12,961 acres, or 0.3% of the planning 

area (39% more than the amount of vegetation impacted under Alternative A, 27% more than 

under Alternative B, or 0.3% less than under Alternative C). 

It is assumed that impacts to vegetation types or communities would occur in proportion to

their occurrence within the planning area. However, Alternative D also has several additional 

lease stipulations that limit surface occupancy in portions of the planning area. These lease 

stipulations would prevent surface occupancy (except for pipelines and community-funded

roads) in areas north and east of Teshekpuk Lake in the Goose Molting Area and in caribou 

calving areas to the south and east of Teshekpuk Lake. These additional lease stipulations 

would protect vegetation in these areas, which have a higher percentage of wet vegetation 

communities. 

Under Alternative D, development would be unlikely to substantially affect any plant species or 

communities. However, if development facilities were constructed in an area containing a 

population of a rare plant species, the impacts to that species could be severe. Three rare North

Slope plant species are known to occur in the planning area, and four other rare species are 

known to occur on the North Slope but have not been documented in the Northeast NPR-A.

Sabine grass is an aquatic grass that rarely occurs between the pendent grass and sedge zones 

4-517 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

in lakes and ponds. This species is known from a few locations north and northeast of

Teshekpuk Lake, which would be protected from development under the alternatives A and B,

but would not be protected under Alternative C. Although some development would be allowed

in the area north of Teshekpuk Lake under Alternative D, most areas where Sabine grass could 

be found would be protected by the additional lease stipulations associated with this 

alternative. Stipulated cinquefoil has been found at Umiat. This Asian species is found in sandy 

substrates, such as sandy meadows, and riverbank silts and sands other than dunes. This 

species would be protected by setbacks along rivers in the planning area and by the designation 

of the Colville River Special Area. Muir’s fleabane, Drummond’s bluebell, and Hartz’s bluegrass 

all occur in dry habitats associated with bluffs, floodplains, river terraces, sand dunes, rocky

outcrops and fellfields. These habitats are the primary sources of gravel fill used during 

construction and development (NRC 2003) and could be impacted by development in these 

areas. 

Impacts to vegetation from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas activities, would 

likely be additive, except in those areas where the two types of activities overlapped. Impacts to 

vegetation from exploration and development activities would also be additive, except where 

development activities occurred in areas previously disturbed during exploration. In areas 

where two or more activities occurred, overall impacts would reflect those impacts associated 

with the first activity and any new impacts associated with later activities. 

4.6.6 Wetlands and Floodplains 

Under the Alternative D, approximately 95% of the acreage in the planning area (approximately 

4.39 million acres) would be open for leasing. Because this is substantially more acreage than 

under Alternative A, more wetlands and floodplains could be impacted by oil and gas activities 

under this alternative. However, under the Alternative D, performance-based lease stipulations 

and ROPs very similar to those developed for alternatives B and C would be used to mitigate

the impacts of energy exploration and development on surface resources. In addition, three new

lease stipulations are proposed for Alternative D, and additions, deletions, and edits have been

made to the proposed performance-based mitigations designed for alternatives B and C that 

would apply to Alternative D and would increase protection to surface resources throughout the 

planning area. Setbacks from rivers, streams, and fish-bearing lakes would be in the range of 1⁄2 

to 3 miles. The main difference between this alternative and the Alternative A pertaining to 

wetlands and floodplains is that the Alternative D allows for drilling near Teshekpuk Lake and 

within the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area, whereas the Alternative A does not allow for drilling 

near the lake. This greatly increases the likelihood of exploration or development activities 

impacting wetlands since over 95% of the additional acreage is considered wetlands. However, 

Teshekpuk Lake itself would be deferred from leasing. 

4.6.6.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative D, the types of non-oil and gas activities would be similar to those described 

under the other three alternatives. Activities not related to oil and gas exploration and

development that could occur in the planning area under Alternative D include aircraft, 

watercraft, OHV and snowmachine use, overland moves, collection and excavation for scientific 

research, hunting camps, recreational use of the area, and use of the area by local natives for

subsistence. These activities could occur throughout the planning area, and at greater frequency

and intensity than under Alternative A, because of the increased availability of land for oil and 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-518 

Alternative D: Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

gas leasing. For example, use of OHVs in the planning area would likely rise due to an increase 

in the amount of roads associated with development. However, additional impacts to wetlands 

and floodplains from this increase would likely be small. 

4.6.6.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

The following analysis is based on section 4.2.1.2, Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development Activities. See that section for a description of how estimated areas of

disturbance were calculated for each alternative. 

Effects of Disturbances 

Various activities associated with oil and gas exploration, development and production could

impact wetlands and floodplains in the planning area. These activities include seismic 

operations, exploration drilling, construction of ice roads and ice pads, summer tundra travel, 

gravel roads, gravel pads for pump stations, CPFs, and staging bases, airstrip and pipeline 

construction, and gravel mine sites. 

Exploration 

During oil exploration, various activities could cause impacts to wetlands and floodplains in the 

planning area. These activities include seismic operations, exploration drilling, construction of 

ice roads, pads and airstrips. The types of impacts to wetlands and floodplains from exploration 

activities were described in Alternative A and are similar for all Alternatives. 

Under Alternative D, impacts to wetlands and floodplains from activities associated with oil and 

gas exploration would be greater than those that occur under Alternative A and B, but less than 

Alternative C, which would increase the impacts of well cellar construction and the number and 

impacts of both ice pads and ice roads. 

Under Alternative D, the same scenario for seismic exploration is assumed as for all other 

Alternatives. Short-term vegetation disturbance from 2-D and 3-D operations is expected to 

total a maximum of 108,000 acres. Long-term disturbance is estimated to total 153 acres. 

During the life of the plan, it is assumed that 110 exploration wells and 83 delineation wells, or 

a total of 193 wells, would be drilled from ice pads in the planning area under Alternative D. At 

six acres per pad, these would impact 1,158 acres of tundra, spread out over 50 years. This 

compares with 906, 1,020, and 1,260 acres of impacts from Alternatives A, B, and C, 

respectively. Assuming that 4% (eight) of these would also involve an over-summer ice pad, an 

additional 48 acres of vegetation would be affected by ice pads. 

The total acreage of ice roads for Alternative B and D over 50 years would be 18,672, assuming 

a 25-foot width for ice roads. This compares with 15,642 and 21,763 acres of impacts from 

Alternatives A and C, respectively. This also represents the total short-term disturbance from 

ice roads. Since vegetation recovery from ice road impacts is expected within a few years, it is 

assumed that long-term disturbance from ice roads would be negligible. 

. 

Ice airstrips are also used during exploratory drilling, and under Alternative D it is assumed 

that 30 ice airstrips would be constructed (10 more than Alternative A, the same as Alternative 

B and 10 less than Alternative C) covering 11 acres each for a total of 330 acres. These airstrips 

4-519 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

are commonly built on the grounded ice of large lakes, but if they were built over tundra they 

would result in impacts similar to ice roads. 

The construction of well cellars during exploration requires the digging of a hole that destroys 

vegetation on approximately 16 square feet (0.00037 acres) of ground. Thermokarst associated 

with the disruption of thermal regime in the surrounding soil may also change the vegetation 

type around the well cellar to a wetter vegetation type. The impacts from 193 wells could result 

in 0.07 acres of vegetation being destroyed under Alternative D. 

Development and Production 

During oil development and production, various activities could cause impacts to wetlands in 

the planning area. These activities include construction of gravel pads for pump stations, 

staging bases and CPFs, roads, airstrips, pipelines, excavation of material sites, summer tundra 

travel, and construction of ice roads. Impacts of ice roads were discussed previously under the

“Exploration” subheading and more thoroughly in Alternative A. 

Placement of Gravel Fill. Types of impacts to wetlands and floodplains from placement of gravel

fill were described in Alternative A. Construction of CPFs and associated satellite pads, roads, 

staging areas, and airstrips would result in the destruction of vegetation in the areas of gravel 

placement. Under Alternative D, six oil fields, six pump stations, and three staging bases would 

be developed, resulting in 3,676 acres of wetlands destroyed by gravel placement. This compares 

with 2,718, 3,064, and 3,847 acres of impacts from Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively. 

The increased facilities construction and use under Alternative D would result in a larger area 

impacted by dust than under Alternative A and B and fewer than Alternative C. Assuming a 

total of 320 miles of in-field gravel roads and 6 miles of airstrips, there is a potential for a total 

perimeter of 652 miles. Within 30 feet of gravel fill, up to 2,371 acres of vegetation could be 

subject to smothering by dust and gravel, and between 30 and 150 feet, another 9,484 acres of 

altered vegetation for a total of 11,855 acres that could be affected by a dust shadow out to a 

distance of 150 feet. In general, most changes in the plant community around gravel structures 

would occur within 164 feet of the structure (Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1983). If all effects 

were to occur within this 164 foot zone, a total of 12,961 acres would be affected. This compares 

with 9,343, 10,178, 13,001 acres of impacts from Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively. 

Material Sites. Types of impacts to wetlands and floodplains from material sites were 

described in Alternative A. Gravel required for development in the planning area could be 

mined from existing sites east of the planning area or could be extracted from new sites 

developed within the planning area. Investigations to identify gravel sources in the planning 

area have not been conducted, but presumably would be initiated if discoveries of recoverable oil

or gas were made. Under Alternative D it is assumed that 14 material sites, each affecting 50 

acres, would be needed. This would cover a total area of 700 acres. This compares with 550, 

650, and 800 acres from Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively. Excavation of the gravel mine

and stockpiling of overburden would destroy wetlands and floodplains at these sites. ROP E-8 

minimizes impacts to wetlands and floodplains by placing material sites outside of floodplains, 

or within floodplains if water reservoirs can be utilized and fish habitat increased. 

Pipelines. Types of impacts to wetlands and floodplains from pipelines were described in 

Alternative A. Impacts under Alternative D from pipeline construction would be similar to 

those described for Alternative A. The total area disturbed by each VSM would be about 14 

square feet. About 6% of this area would be destroyed vegetation and subsequently replaced by 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-520 

Alternative D: Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

the VSM, and the remaining portion would be potentially altered in terms of community type or

species composition. Overall, 0.03 acres of vegetation would be disturbed per pipeline mile. 

Under Alternative D, 320 miles of gathering lines and 162 miles of sales-oil pipelines would 

disturb up to 15 acres of vegetation through VSM placement. This compares with 12, 13, and 15 

acres from Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively. 

Summer Tundra Travel. Types of impacts to wetlands from summer tundra travel were

described in Alternative A and are similar for all Alternatives. Given the potentially greater 

number of fields developed, impacts from summer tundra travel under Alternative D could also 

be greater than under Alternative A and B but less than Alternative C. Short-term, minor 

impacts are expected from limited summer tundra travel using low ground pressure vehicles. 

ROP L-1 is designed to regulate and monitor summer travel. Summer travel would be 

permitted on a case-by-case basis if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use would

have no more than minimal impacts to soils and vegetation. 

Stream Crossings. Types of impacts to floodplains and stream crossings from installation of 

culverts, bridges or pipelines were described in Alternative A and are similar for all 

Alternatives. An additional 90, 70, and 0 miles of infield gravel roads are expected under 

Alternative D than under Alternatives A, B and C, respectively. For this reason it is expected 

that more stream crossings will be needed, and the potential for constricting flows and creation 

of increased stream velocities, ice jams, ice impacts, scour and streambank erosion would be 

greater under Alternative D. However, ROP E-6 is protective of stream crossings by requiring

crossings to be designed and constructed to maintain natural drainage and minimize adverse 

effects to natural stream flow. 

Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Alternative D may require removal of structures or rehabilitation of 4,378 acres. This compares

with 3,270, 3,716, and 4,649 acres from Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively. During

abandonment activities, vegetation and wetlands would be impacted by dust fallout along roads, 

by ice roads and other off-road tundra travel associated with dismantling of pipelines and power 

lines, and by disturbance to vegetation adjacent to VSMs and power line poles during their 

removal. The level of impact from these activities would be roughly the same as that during 

construction if gravel fill was removed; impacts would be less if the gravel were to be left in 

place. If roads and pads were left in place, and especially if cross drainage across roads was not 

maintained, water impoundment would occur, and could alter plant communities as described 

for the construction period. It is also likely that the unmaintained roads would have occasional 

washouts, where tundra vegetation would be covered with washed-out gravel. Roads and pads, 

if left in place, would likely need to be revegetated with plants native to gravel bars and ridges 

in the Arctic (i.e., different from the plant communities surrounding the facilities). 

Revegetation activities could take several years, as initial attempts are not always successful. 

Removal of gravel from pads, roads, and airstrips could be mandated. Partial or complete 

removal of gravel can result in faster reestablishment of native plant growth, although 

establishment can take many years (more than a decade). In addition, thaw subsidence is 

difficult to predict, and complete restoration to preexisting conditions is improbable. Lease 

Stipulation G-1 would provide for the removal of all oil and gas facilities at the time of field 

abandonment unless the AO determined that facilities should be left in place. 

4-521 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects of Spills 

The greater amount of leasing, development, and production of oil that would occur under 

Alternative D, relative to Alternative A, would result in a greater number of small spills of 

crude and refined oil in the planning area. The chance of a large oil spill occurring would also 

be greater under Alternative D; however, it would still be a very rare event. 

Most oil spills cover less than 500 square feet (<0.01 acres), although a pressured aerial mist 

may cover up to 145 acres (Ott 1997). (Such a spill is a very low probability event, occurring 

less than once out of the total spills expected throughout the life of this Plan. Thus its 

magnitude is not apparent in the following acreages). See section 4.3.5.2 under the vegetation 

section for a more thorough analysis of potential impacts to vegetation and wetlands from spills 

If 11% of all oil spills would reach vegetation during summer under Alternative D this would 

mean 252 of the 2,287 spills assumed to occur over the life of the plan would have more than a 

negligible effect on vegetation. This compares to 197, 228, and 275 estimated spills from 

Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively, which would have more than a negligible effect on 

vegetation. Assuming the average spill would cover 0.1 acre, under Alternative D approximately 

25 acres would be impacted substantially during the lifetime of development in the planning 

area. Overall, past spills on Alaska’s North Slope have resulted in minor ecological damage and

ecosystems have shown good potential for recovery (Jorgenson 1997). 

Commercial Gas Development 

Development of commercial gas in the planning area under Alternative D would reflect the 

impacts described for soils, water, and vegetation and would be similar to that described for 

Alternative A. The same length of buried gas pipelines is projected, as well as the same impacts 

from construction of a 10- to 20-acre pad for a gas compressor station. Alternative D (as well as 

Alternatives B and C), which makes more lands available in ice-rich areas especially susceptible 

to thermokarst, subsidence and erosion, could have greater impacts from burying a gas pipeline. 

Placement of gas pipelines on VSMs, would reduce these impacts, though vegetation and soils 

would be destroyed at base of the VSMs, vegetation under aboveground pipelines would be 

impacted by shading, and ice roads that may be used during construction would have localized, 

short-term impacts on vegetation and during spring melting add somewhat saline water to any 

shallow tundra pools. 

4.6.6.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Alternative D would have very similar performance-based lease stipulations and ROPs as those 

outlined under Alternatives B and C and be equally protective as those of the prescriptive 

stipulations in Alternative A. In addition, three new lease stipulations are proposed for 

Alternative D, and additions, deletions, and edits have been made to the proposed performancebased mitigations designed for alternatives B and C. These stipulations would increase 

protection to surface resources throughout the planning area. The additional lease stipulations 

and changes would prohibit permanent oil and gas facilities except pipelines on approximately 

240,000 acres north and east of Teshekpuk Lake. Exploration activities would be allowed within 

this RSO, including seismic acquisition and exploratory drilling. Finally, a new site-specific 

stipulation would establish a maximum limit of 300 acres of permanent surface disturbance 

from oil and gas activities within each of seven lease tracts identified north of Teshekpuk Lake. 

These seven lease tracts range in size from approximately 46,000 acres to 59,000 acres. 

Development in the planning area would still result in impacts to wetlands and floodplains, 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-522 

Alternative D: Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

however, the ROPs and lease stipulations associated with Alternative D would be effective in 

minimizing destruction of wetlands and floodplains. 

4.6.6.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative D, impacts to vegetation from activities other than oil and gas development

would include minor impacts from aircraft, watercraft, OHV and snowmachine use, overland 

moves, collection and excavation for scientific research, hunting camps, recreational use of the 

area, and use of the area by local natives for subsistence. The duration of these impacts would

be short term, ranging up to 5 months, and recovery would vary from 1 to several years. 

Under Alternative D, impacts to wetlands and floodplains from oil and gas exploration would be 

greater than Alternatives A and B, but less than Alternative C. Activities that may create

impacts to wetlands and floodplains include seismic work, construction of well cellars during 

exploratory drilling, and the construction of ice roads, pads, and airstrips. Based on earlier 

studies, there should be no substantial, long-term impacts to vegetation from seismic lines, but 

camp move trails could substantially impact approximately 153 acres after 8-9 years. Effects of 

well cellar construction would also be permanent, but would impact only 0.07 acres of 

vegetation. 

The effects of oil development and operation would include destruction of vegetation during 

construction of gravel pads, roads, airstrips, and staging areas; from excavation of material 

sites; and construction of VSMs. These impacts would be long-term and would impact about 

4,378 acres, or 0.1% of the 4.6 million acre planning area. This compares with 3,270, 3,716, and 

4,649 acres of impacts from Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively. Wetland plant communities 

could also be altered by dust deposition, salinity of gravel fill used in construction, snow drifts, 

and blockage of or change to natural drainage patterns. These impacts would be also be longterm and would impact about 12,961 acres, or 0.3% of the planning area. This compares with 

9,343, 10,178, and 13,001 acres of impacts from Alternatives A, B, and C, respectively. 

It is assumed that impacts to wetlands and floodplains would occur in proportion to their 

occurrence within the planning area. However, increased development in the area around

Teshekpuk Lake, and across the 213,000 acres that would be off-limits to oil and gas leasing 

and development under Alternative B but would be open to leasing under Alternative D, could 

disproportionately impact wet vegetation classes. A higher percentage of wet vegetation 

communities occur in areas in the northern portion of the planning area. This area is also 

considered to have the highest potential for oil reserves, which would increase the likelihood 

that these areas would be developed under Alternative D. 

Impacts to wetlands and floodplains from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas 

activities, would likely be additive, except in those areas where the two types of activities 

overlapped. Impacts to vegetation from exploration and development activities would also be

additive, except where development activities occurred in areas previously disturbed during 

exploration. In areas where two or more activities occurred, overall impacts would reflect those

impacts associated with the first activity and any new impacts associated with later activities. 

4-523 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.6.7 Fish 

4.6.7-a Freshwater and Anadromous/Amphidromous Fish 

4.6.7-a.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

It is expected that the frequency and intensity of most non-oil and gas activities occurring under 

Alternative D would be similar to those occurring under the other alternatives. Compared to the

other alternatives, ground camps in support of research may increase or decrease proportionally 

in association with the projected amount of oil and gas activity, and subsistence fishing could 

potentially occur in more or fewer areas, depending on the level of access. However, the 

difference in potential impacts would likely be immeasurable. 

4.6.7-a.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbances 

Effects from Seismic Surveys. Extrapolation of current 2D and 3D seismic data gathering 

techniques suggests that the entire area could be covered by a level of effort similar to that 

described for alternatives B and C. There would be 250 miles of additional 2-D surveys and two 

to five additional 3-D surveys relative to Alternative A. As a result, seismic activities associated 

with Alternative D would be expected to have the same overall effect on fish as discussed for the 

other alternatives⎯no measurable effect on Arctic fish populations. Because of the larger 

potential scope of development under Alternative D relative to Alternative A, the number of fuel

spills during seismic surveys is expected to be higher. However, the amount of fuel entering fish 

habitat is not expected to increase significantly since spills are expected to be small (< 5 

gallons). Fuel spills associated with Alternative D are expected to have the same overall effect 

on fish populations as discussed for Alternative A (i.e., no measurable effect on Arctic fish 

populations). 

Effects from Seismic Surveys in Teshekpuk Lake. Under Alternative D, Teshekpuk Lake

would be deferred from leasing. The deferral would preclude exploratory drilling and pipeline 

construction, but would allow seismic exploration. Under Alternative D, seismic exploration in 

Teshekpuk Lake could occur during the summer open water period using airgun arrays and 

explosives (although the use of explosives is unlikely). Impacts from Vibroseis and airgun arrays 

under Alternative D would be similar to those for the other alternatives. 

Explosives, in comparison to airguns and Vibroseis, are generally more detrimental to fish 

(Wright and Hopky 1998). The received impulse depends on the mass of the charge, the depth of

the charge, the distance from the charge to fish, and the depth of the fish. The peak pressure

generated by an airgun array is less than that produced by a small charge of explosives. Most 

blast injuries to fish involve damage to air or gas-containing organs (Yelverton 1981). All of the 

species of fish present in Teshekpuk Lake have swim bladders and would be vulnerable to 

explosives. During exposure to shock waves, the swim bladder oscillates and may rupture, 

causing hemorrhages in nearby organs. In extreme cases the oscillating swim bladder may 

rupture the body wall of the fish. The use of explosives in Teshekpuk Lake would likely result in

the mortality of some fish present in the lake. The number of fish impacted would depend on the 

frequency and size of the charge used and the location of charges relative to fish in the lake. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-524 

Alternative D: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects from Water Demand. Construction-related activities that could affect Arctic fish 

include water withdrawal needed for the construction of drill pads, roads, airstrips, and 

exploratory drilling. Under Alternative D, it is anticipated that up to 110 exploratory wells and 

up to 83 delineation wells would be drilled (Table 4.2-E), for a total of up to 193 wells on ice 

pads. Assuming that the average ice pad is 500 feet by 500 feet (5.7 acres), water needs equate 

to approximately 2 million gallons per drill pad, for a total of up to 386 million gallons. Each

mile of ice road requires up to 1.5 million gallons of water to construct. It is assumed that zero 

to two ice roads, 25 to 50 miles long, would be built each season for a maximum annual water 

requirement of 150 million gallons (same as Alternative B). Water needed for the maximum of 

four drilling rigs, associated camps and airstrips, and maintenance of roads, pads and airstrips 

would add another 119 million gallons to the annual water use budget. The total annual 

maximum water would be on the order of 435 million gallons, or about a 13% increase over 

Alternative A (384 million gallons). 

Under Alternative D, greater levels of water withdrawal would be expected, in conjunction with 

increased exploration and development activities, relative to Alternative A. However, adherence 

to lease stipulations and ROPs should help mitigate impacts to fish. Alternative D would offer 

slightly less protection to ninespine stickleback and Alaska blackfish than Alternative A. 

Assuming that the Authorizing Officer follows the common practices when approving water 

withdrawals, lake water withdrawals associated with Alternative D may kill small numbers of 

fish, but would not be expected to have a measurable effect on arctic fish populations 

throughout the planning area. 

Effects from Exploratory Drilling. Under Alternative D, the general level of protection to

fish and fish habitat offered by ROPs and lease stipulations would be similar to those developed 

for Alternative A and Alternative B. The number of exploratory wells could increase under 

Alternative D relative to Alternative A and Alternative B, but would be fewer in comparison to 

Alternative C. Regardless of the number of wells, the prohibition of drilling in rivers and 

streams should provide fish with adequate protection. Therefore, exploratory drilling activities 

associated with Alternative D should not have a measurable effect on freshwater, anadromous, 

or amphidromous fish populations within and adjacent to the planning area. 

Effects from Gravel Extraction. Required Operating Procedure E-8 is synonymous with

Lease Stipulation 40 of Alternative A. Both are intended to minimize the effects of gravel 

mining on fish by limiting gravel mine sites within the active floodplain of any river, stream, or 

lake unless the action enhances fish habitat. Gravel deposits are limited within the planning 

area and importation from outside sources could further reduce mining activities. Equivalent 

protection is provided for fish and fish habitat under all alternatives. No alternatives are 

expected to have a measurable effect on freshwater, anadromous, and amphidromous fish 

populations in and adjacent to the planning area, and may have a positive effect by creating 

new overwintering areas. 

Effects from Pad, Road, and Pipeline Construction. Impacts from sedimentation and 

altered flow patterns associated with the construction of drill pads, roadways and airstrips are 

similar to those described for Alternative A. Impacts from erosion would be short term. The 

proper placement and design of bridges and culverts, in combination with adequate and 

properly sited drainage systems, should minimize impacts to anadromous/amphidromous and 

freshwater fish. 

4-525 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects from Summer Tundra Travel. The use of low-ground-pressure vehicles for tundra 

travel during the summer may be necessary for pipeline inspection, maintenance, and spill 

prevention activities. Under Alternative D, the same protections would be provided for fish as in 

Alternatives B and C (L-1 ROP), and the potential for an impact would be similar to Alternative 

B because of the similar length of pipeline projected. Summer tundra travel under Alternative D

should not have a measurable effect on freshwater, anadromous, or amphidromous fish 

populations within and adjacent to the planning area. 

Effects from Causeways. BLM discourages the use of solid-fill causeways, instead preferring 

alternatives including onshore directional drilling, elevated structures, or buried pipelines. 

Lease Stipulation 30 prohibits the construction of causeways, docks, artificial gravel islands, 

and bottom-founded structures in river mouths and deltas, and artificial gravel islands and 

bottom-founded structures in active stream channels, unless otherwise approved by the AO on a 

site-specific basis. Under Alternative D, the general level of protection to fish and fish habitat 

offered by ROPs and lease stipulations would be nearly identical to those for the other

alternatives. The future construction of a causeway or dock could have a minor effect on 

anadromous, and amphidromous fish populations under Alternative D. 

Effects from Waterflooding. Under Alternative D, oil fields in the northern portion of the 

planning area are likely to receive seawater from facilities already serving fields in the Prudhoe 

Bay/Kuparuk area. These facilities have been operational for years and have been shown to 

have no serious adverse affect on fish migrating or foraging in the intake area (see Alternative 

A, Effects from Waterflooding). If seawater intake facilities are constructed in the future to

enhance supply to oil fields in the planning area, it is assumed that the same design safeguards 

would be incorporated to prevent the entrainment and impingement of fish. Waterflooding 

under Alternative D is not expected to have a measurable effect on anadromous and 

amphidromous fish population within the planning area, regardless of any increase in 

exploration and development activities. Nonetheless, under this alternative, it is projected that 

impacts to fish from seawater facilities would be greater than under other alternatives, except 

for Alternative C. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Water withdrawal and removal of bridges, culverts, and bridge approaches could have impacts 

on fish similar to those described for construction activities. Additional fish habitat could be 

created by allowing gravel pits to be colonized by fish from nearby streams. Because of the 

relative amount of infrastructure anticipated under Alternative D, it is expected that the 

impacts of abandonment and rehabilitation will be greater compared to Alternative A. 

Effects of Spills 

Under Alternative D, the general level of protection to fish and fish habitat offered by ROPs and

lease stipulations would be nearly identical to those discussed under the other alternatives. 

Potential impacts are the same as those described under Alternative A. However, designation 

of RSO areas by Lease Stipulations K-4(h), K-9, K-10, and K-11 would help protect fish in lakes

and streams in those areas from potential impacts of oil spills. 

Under Alternative D, the volume of spills and expected amount of impact would increase 

proportionately (from Alternative A) with increased exploration and development. In 

Alternative D, the volume of oil from small and large spills is projected to be 27% more than the 

volume from spills estimated to occur under Alternative A. This is more than Alternative B, but 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-526 

Alternative D: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

less than Alternative C. Given the small volume of oil typically involved in small spills, as well 

as the safety requirements for operations in the oil field and stringent clean-up protocols, small 

oil spills associated with Alternative D would not likely have a measurable effect on freshwater, 

anadromous, or amphidromous fish populations in or adjacent to the planning area. Besides the 

effectiveness of the response, many independent factors will determine the probability that fish 

will be negatively impacted by an oil spill, including the quantity spilled, season, weather 

patterns, location (e.g. upland versus river channel), and proximity to sensitive habitat (see 

4.2.2.3, Fate and Behavior of Spilled Oil). If a large spill of crude oil occurred during the 

summer open-water period and within a major stream or river channel, this could potentially 

have an effect on freshwater, anadromous, or amphidromous fish populations in or adjacent to

the planning area; in particular, impacting subpopulations at the drainage level. A very large 

oil spill within a major stream or river channel during the summer would have an even more 

likely impact on freshwater, anadromous, or amphidromous fish populations in or adjacent to

the planning area. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Impacts of commercial gas development under Alternative D would be similar to those described 

for Alternatives A and B and slightly less that those for Alternative C. Winter construction of a 

buried gas pipeline by trenching through fish inhabited streams or portions of streams not

frozen to the bottom would impact fish to some degree, depending on the volume of the 

overwintering habitat and the density of fish utilizing this habitat. Potential impacts to fish 

associated with maintenance of gas pipelines would be similar to those described for 

construction. Water withdrawals and changes to hydrology caused by ice roads could affect fish. 

Potential issues include losing access to suitable habitat, barriers to movement, or habitat 

degradation. These ice roads would be necessary during both natural gas exploration and 

construction phases. For example, ice roads would be used to reach exploration drilling sites 

and also used in trenching the pipeline route or construction of a compressor station (ADNR,

2006b). If a buried gas pipeline ruptured and gas escaped to a fish-bearing waterbody, some 

fish in the immediate vicinity might be killed. Natural gas and condensates would be hazardous 

to any organisms exposed to high concentrations. In general, very few fish are likely to be 

affected by a pipeline rupture. 

While natural gas exploration and development may have notable localized impacts, it is not

likely to have a measurable effect on freshwater fish populations. 

4.6.7-a.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

The effectiveness of lease stipulations and ROPs in protecting freshwater, anadromous, and

amphidromous fish and fish habitat under Alternative D are similar to lease stipulations 

developed for Alternative A. 

4.6.7-a.4 Conclusion 

Construction of pads, roads, airstrips, and fuel spills associated with Alternative D might kill a 

small number of individual fish, but these activities are not expected to have a measurable 

effect on Arctic fish populations. Higher water demand relative to Alternative A would 

potentially place greater numbers of fish at risk, although limits on withdrawal and monitoring 

of water quality should minimize concerns. The greater extent of exploration activity under 

Alternative D (as compared to Alternative A) represents a correspondingly higher water budget.

Gravel extractions within the planning area are likely to be minimal and, if they did occur 

4-527 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

under the proper siting and design criteria, could lead to habitat enhancement under certain 

situations. Seismic surveys, non-oil and gas activity, causeways, and seawater spills associated 

with Alternative D are not expected to have a measurable effect on Arctic fish populations in 

the planning area over the production life of the field. Overall, potential impacts to fish are 

greater under Alternative D than under Alternative A or Alternative B. 

4.6.7-b. Marine Fish 

4.6.7-b.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Most non-oil and gas activities, including recreational fishing, would be quite limited in scope 

and duration. In addition, recreational and commercial fishermen do not target marine fish in 

the Beaufort Sea. Therefore, it is not expected that non-oil and gas activities occurring under 

the Alternative D would have a measurable effect on marine fish in the vicinity of the planning 

area. 

4.6.7-b.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbances 

Effects from Seismic Surveys. Seismic surveys could be conducted within the planning area 

during the winter months, from early December to mid-May and on Teshekpuk Lake during the 

summer. Because marine fish and their habitat lie outside the planning area in winter and 

Teshekpuk Lake during the summer, seismic activities associated with Alternative D would not

be expected to have a measurable effect on marine fish populations. 

Effects from Water Demand. Water used in the building of drill pads, roads, and airstrips 

would likely be withdrawn from freshwater sources proximal to the site of construction. These 

activities would have no effect on marine fish or their environment. Water withdrawal for the 

purposes of waterflooding, which would have implications for the marine system, is discussed 

separately below under the “Effects from Waterflooding” subheading. 

Effects from Exploratory Drilling. Most exploratory drilling would be conducted within the 

planning area during the winter months, from early December to mid-April. Because marine 

fish and their habitat lie outside the planning area in winter, most exploratory activities 

associated with Alternative D would not be expected to have a significant effect on marine fish 

populations. Exploratory drilling could also be conducted from current production pads or 

platforms within a lake body during summer in the TLCH Area, but impacts to marine fish 

would be minor. 

Effects from Gravel Extraction. It is doubtful that gravel extraction would be permitted 

along the coastal tidal zone. Small numbers of fourhorn sculpin and Arctic flounder could 

migrate upriver in summer, but any encounter with a gravel site would be a chance occurrence, 

and would involve only a minor segment of any population. Fourhorn sculpin and Arctic 

flounder regularly inhabit and forage in highly turbid coastal waters near river outfalls and 

plumes. Gravel extraction would not benefit fish populations by creating overwintering habitat, 

as it might for freshwater fish, since all marine fish overwinter at sea. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-528 

Alternative D: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects from Pad, Road, and Pipeline Construction. Under Alternative D, a greater 

number of pads, roads, and pipelines associated with expanded exploration and development 

activities relative to Alternative A would occur, primarily inland rather than in coastal areas. 

The construction of pads, therefore, is not expected to have a significant effect on marine fish 

populations within and adjacent to the planning area under Alternative D. Under Alternative 

D, the general level of protection to freshwater, anadromous, and amphidromous fish and fish 

habitat offered by ROPs and lease stipulations for this alternative would be less than those 

developed for Alternative A. 

Effects from Causeways. Under Alternative D, restrictions on the use, design, and 

monitoring of causeways that might be constructed along the coast in the future would be 

nearly identical to those discussed under Alternative A. Any future construction of causeways or

docks would not be expected to have a measurable effect on marine fish populations within and 

adjacent to the planning area even if there were a greater level of activity associated with 

exploration and development, relative to the other alternatives. 

Effects from Waterflooding. Under Alternative D, waterflooding is not expected to have a 

significant effect on marine fish, for the same reasons given above for anadromous and 

amphidromous fish, even if there were a greater level of activity associated with exploration and 

development, relative to the other alternatives. 

Effects of Spills 

The threat to marine fish from an oil spill is contingent upon the spill reaching coastal waters at 

volumes capable of affecting large nearshore areas. Because oil spills in the planning area are 

expected to be small, and given the stringent oil-spill-response safety requirements for 

operations on the oil field, there is a minor likelihood that an inland spill would reach 

coastal/marine waters of the planning area at volumes capable of causing a biologically 

measurable impacts to marine fishes. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Marine fish populations are not expected to be affected by exploration, construction, or

maintenance activities associated with a gas development beyond what is expected to occur

during oil development. 

4.6.7-b.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Under Alternative D, the general level of protection to fish and fish habitat offered by lease 

stipulations and ROPs would be similar to those under Alternatives B and C. Lease Stipulation 

K-6 specifically prohibits permanent oil and gas development within 3⁄4 mile inland from the 

coastline, unless the AO grants an exception. Thus, greater protection is afforded marine fish 

under Alternative D than Alternative A. 

4.6.7-b.4 Conclusion 

In general, marine fishes of the Beaufort Sea are insulated from many potential environmental 

impacts associated with oil and gas development in the planning area. Most of the coastal tidal 

area of the planning area is shallow and lies within the winter landfast ice scour zone. Thus, the 

marine habitat and the fish occupying it are outside the planning area proper during winter and 

4-529 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

would not be subject to disturbances associated with seismic surveys, exploration drilling, and 

water withdrawal. Although species like fourhorn sculpin and Arctic flounder may move 

upriver during summer, most members of these marine species remain in shallow coastal 

waters. The bulk of the population would not be directly subject to the effects of river gravel 

extraction; pad, road, and pipeline construction; sedimentation from gravel erosion; and the 

potential blockage of migratory corridors. 

Because marine species are abundant and widely distributed throughout the Beaufort Sea, it is

also highly unlikely that any point impact associated with oil and gas development in the 

planning area (the occurrence of which is unlikely) could substantially affect these marine 

species at the population level. One exception might be a catastrophic oil spill that could cause 

sublethal genetic or physiological abnormalities that might be propagated through the broader 

population. However, given that oil spills in the planning area are expected to be small, and the 

stringent oil-spill-response safety requirements for operations on the oil field, such an event is 

unlikely. 

Overall, impacts to marine fish resources under Alternative D would be greater than those that 

would be expected to occur under Alternative A and Alternative B. 

4.6.8 Birds 

This section discusses the potential effects to bird species, which are not threatened or

endangered, that could result from management actions in the planning area under the 

Alternative D. A discussion of effects to threatened and endangered bird species is given in 

section 4.4.10, Threatened and Endangered Species. Most of the activities that could 

potentially affect birds in the planning area would result from oil and gas exploration and 

development. Other activities that could potentially affect birds in the planning area include 

subsistence activities (including hunting, fishing, berry picking etc.), recreational use, activities

associated with scientific surveys and research camps, clean up of old oil and gas exploration 

sites, and activities associated with government actions (e.g. clean up of abandoned well sites). 

These activities could affect tundra nesting birds by causing: 1) temporary or permanent habitat 

loss; 2) various types of disturbance related to equipment and facility noise, vehicular and air 

traffic, and pedestrian activities, which could result in displacement from preferred foraging, 

staging, nesting and/or brood-rearing habitats or decreasing productivity and survival; 3) 

increased predation from predators attracted to areas of human activity; and 4) mortality 

resulting from collisions with vehicles or structures, or exposure to contaminants, including oil 

spills. Alternative D makes 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). 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. Under Alternative D, Teshekpuk Lake (approximately 211,000 

acres) would be deferred from leasing. This deferral would preclude exploratory drilling and 

pipeline construction. Current leases are not affected by the deferral. 

4.6.8.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative D, activities not related to oil and gas exploration and development that 

could affect birds in the planning area would be the same as those described under the other

alternatives: private or commercial air traffic, aerial surveys to inventory wildlife or other 

resources, summer research camps, hazardous material or debris removal, subsistence hunting 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-530 

Alternative D: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

and fishing, and recreational camps and boating activity. Impacts to birds under Alternative D

could be more frequent, greater in extent, or longer in duration than those occurring under 

Alternative A. A greater number of individual animals would be exposed to human activities. 

Aircraft traffic would more often pass over birds during flights to or from the camps and along 

aerial survey routes. The disturbance reactions of birds would likely be brief, lasting for a few 

minutes to an hour. Some birds might avoid inventory survey and recreation camps during the 

6 to 12 weeks of activities, while ravens could be attracted to the camps. The potential for 

disturbance, displacement, or mortality from non-oil and gas related activities, would likely be 

similar under the various alternatives. Lease stipulations to protect waterfowl, shorebirds, 

raptors, and other birds and their habitats would help to mitigate the potential effects of non-oil 

and gas activities on birds under Alternative D. 

4.6.8.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbances 

Exploration 

Most seismic surveys to collect geological data and exploration drilling activities would occur 

during the winter months when birds are mostly absent from the planning area. Under 

Alternative D, the types of effects of winter exploration activities on the bird species present in 

the planning area during the winter would be the same as those discussed under the other

alternatives. Although impacts associated with winter exploration would likely be minor under 

any alternative, exploration could occur in the central portion of the Goose Molting Area under 

Alternative D that is closed to development under Alternative A and Alternative B. Conversely, 

small portions of the western and southeastern Goose Molting Area that are not protected

under Alternative B would receive some protection under Alternative D. The direct effects of 

exploration would likely include the temporary displacement of a small number of birds 

(ptarmigan and gyrfalcon) from preferred winter feeding or roosting areas. 

During winter exploration activities, indirect impacts to birds could result from the construction

of ice roads and ice pads and the associated water withdrawal. The types of effects that could 

result from ice road and ice pad construction under Alternative D would be the same as those 

described under the other alternatives, and would primarily involve the temporary alteration of 

tundra habitats. Water withdrawal for ice road construction could also temporarily alter 

habitats adjacent to water source lakes, which could affect nesting or brood-rearing loons and 

waterfowl. Rolligons and track vehicles used during winter exploration could also temporarily 

affect tundra vegetation, resulting in minor impacts to tundra-nesting birds. Currently there is 

little known as to why geese use the Goose Molting Area in such large concentrations and

impacts to vegetation or impoundments and delayed drainage due to ice roads may have a 

negative effect on the habitat used by molting geese. Although exploration could occur in 

portions of the Goose Molting Area that are closed to oil and gas leasing under Alternative A 

and Alternative B, other portions of the Goose Molting Area that are open to development under

Alternative B would receive some protection under Alternative D. 

Under Alternative D, exploration activities in Teshekpuk Lake would be deferred, thus delaying 

the potential for seismic exploration activities to impact birds. The use of airguns for boat-based 

seismic work in Teshekpuk Lake during the summer could temporarily displace loons and 

waterfowl from preferred feeding habitats while surveys were being conducted. Disturbance 

may result not only from airgun use but also from boat activity (Rodgers and Smith 1995). 

Because setbacks around the perimeter of the lake presumably would eliminate the potential for 

4-531 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

disturbance to birds nesting near the lakeshore, only birds using habitats in the open water of 

the lake would potentially be disturbed. Birds displaced by seismic activities would likely return 

to preferred habitats after the airgun arrays passed through the area. Effects of use of airguns 

on forage fish may include stress from fleeing behavior and physical damage or death (section 

4.1.1 this document) potentially resulting in a reduction in the amount of prey available to 

foraging loons. Disturbance to birds near and nesting on the shoreline could result from support

activities, such as use of helicopters to transport personnel and supplies. Disturbance related to 

support activities could result in permanent or temporary displacement from nesting, feeding, 

or brood-rearing habitats. Conducting surveys after the completion of the nesting, molting and

brood-rearing period would eliminate the potential for nest abandonment and loss of 

productivity. 

Predators, such as glaucous gulls, ravens, and Arctic foxes, could be attracted to anthropogenic 

food sources associated with summer maintenance of exploratory drilling and seismic 

equipment or winter exploratory activities. Increased levels of predation could have moderate 

impacts on tundra-nesting birds. Under Alternative D, ROPs A-2 and E-9 would help mitigate 

the potential effects of increased predation, and the overall effect to birds would likely increase 

incrementally as the amount of exploratory activity increases under the four alternatives. 

However, it would likely be difficult to prevent ravens from nesting on oil field structures and 

increased levels of predation from ravens may be difficult to mitigate under any alternative. 

Oil and Gas Development 

Activities on Roads and Pads. Activities related to oil development and production in the 

planning area, such as vehicle, aircraft, pedestrian, and boat traffic; routine maintenance 

activities; heavy equipment use; and oil spill clean-up activities could cause disturbances that 

would affect tundra-nesting birds. Under Alternative D, these types of disturbances to birds 

would be the same as those discussed under the other alternatives. These disturbances could 

result in temporary displacement from preferred foraging, nesting, and/or brood-rearing 

habitats; decreased nest attendance or nest abandonment; and increased energy expenditures 

that could affect physiological condition, rate of survival, and productivity of birds. The 

likelihood for impacts to tundra-nesting birds would depend on the location of the disturbance, 

the bird species and the number of individuals in the area, and the time of year. The greatest 

potential for impacts from disturbance would most likely occur in habitats with high bird 

concentrations, such as the Teshekpuk Lake Goose Molting Area, or if species with low or 

declining populations, such as buff-breasted sandpiper or yellow-billed loon, were disturbed. 

The potential for disturbance to birds from activities on roads and pads would likely be greater 

under Alternative D, as compared to Alternatives A and B, because Alternative D roads would 

be permitted throughout most of the Goose Molting Area and pads would be permitted in 

portions of the Goose Molting Area that were closed to development under Alternative B. Under

Alternative D, restricted surface occupancy, including the construction of roads, would be 

permitted in the caribou migration corridor between Teshekpuk Lake and the Kogru Inlet 

(pipelines would be allowed after the best corridor had been identified via a workshop process, 

see Stipulation K-5a). An RSO area would also be established southeast and southwest of 

Teshekpuk Lake covering 233,000 acres identified as an important caribou calving area which 

will allow pipelines but not allow roads. Restricting surface occupancy in this area would also 

help reduce impacts to birds using the area. 

Alternative D would likely increase the risk of disturbance to internationally significant 

populations of molting geese, particularly brant that use the Goose Molting Area when 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-532 

Alternative D: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

compared to alternatives A and B. The reduction in protection under Alternative D could also 

affect white-fronted, lesser snow and Canada geese. Disturbance that resulted in a reduction in 

the breeding success and survival during molting of geese and other waterfowl could also impact 

the success of subsistence and sport hunters in Alaska, the lower 48 states, Canada, Russia, and 

Mexico. Disturbance effects could also impact shorebirds if development occurred in areas of 

high shorebird concentration located north of Teshekpuk Lake. Lease Stipulation K-6 would 

establish a 3⁄4-mile buffer inland from the coast, within which oil and gas facilities would be 

prohibited to the extent practicable to minimize hindrance or alteration of caribou movement 

within caribou coastal insect-relief areas. This lease stipulation could also help to reduce the 

potential impacts to waterfowl and their habitats in coastal areas. 

Under the Alternative A, no permanent oil and gas facilities would be permitted within 1⁄4 mile 

of the perimeter of any fish-bearing lake in the Deep Water Lakes Area south of Teshekpuk 

Lake. Under Alternative D, facilities would generally not be permitted within this buffer, but 

could be permitted, on a case by case basis, in consultation with Federal, state, and NSB 

regulatory and resource agencies. Permitting facilities within the 1⁄4-mile buffer of fish-bearing 

lakes in the Deep Water Lakes Area could result in disturbance to yellow-billed loons and 

waterfowl near the facilities and access roads. However, other bird groups could also be 

disturbed if facilities were located outside the 1⁄4-mile buffer. The extent of effects to birds from 

activities on roads and pads would depend on the species and numbers of individuals occurring

in areas adjacent to the development. Although Lease Stipulation K-2 has been designed

primarily to provide mitigation for deepwater fish habitat, it would also provide protection for 

birds using habitats near these lakes. 

Summer Tundra Travel. Alternative A allows summer tundra travel in Northeast NPR-A 

only through use of the stipulation exception process (see stipulation 24i in the 1998 Northeast 

NPR-A ROD). Travel off of gravel pads is easiest in winter and generally environmentally 

preferable at that time, some vehicle travel off of pads does occur in North Slope oil fields

during summer to accomplish specific tasks. The State of Alaska has approved some lowground-pressure vehicles for summer tundra travel and similar summer tundra travel may be 

anticipated to be part of oil development in northeast NPR-A. Alternative D contains Required

Operating Procedure L-1 which was crafted with the following objective “Protect stream banks 

and water quality;...maintain populations of, and adequate habitat for birds, fish, and caribou 

and other terrestrial mammals; and support maintenance of subsistence activities.” Summer 

tundra travel is commonly associated with spill prevention and preparedness measures 

required in spill prevention plans and it is anticipated that these are the types of activities that 

would be permitted to travel off of gravel pads and roads during times other than those

identified in ROP C-2a if required surveys and studies show that minimal impacts to the 

resources in the area would occur. The potential for disturbance to birds from summer tundra 

travel would likely be greater under Alternative D, as compared to Alternatives A and B but 

less than under Alternative C, because there are greater areas that support high bird 

concentrations in portions of the Goose Molting Area that would be available for oil and gas 

leasing under Alternative D as compared to Alternatives A and B. The reduction in the amount 

of habitat protected under Alternative D, as compared to Alternative A and B, would increase

the risk of disturbance to internationally significant populations of molting geese, particularly 

brant that use the Goose Molting Area. The additional areas available for leasing under 

Alternative D could also affect white-fronted, lesser snow and Canada geese. Disturbance that 

resulted in a reduction in the breeding success of geese and other waterfowl could also impact 

the success of subsistence and sport hunters in Alaska, the lower 48 states, Canada, Russia, and 

Mexico. Disturbance effects could also impact shorebirds if development occurred in areas of 

high shorebird concentration located north of Teshekpuk Lake. 

4-533 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Air Traffic. Both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters could be used to transport personnel,

supplies, and equipment to airstrips or staging areas during development and production

activities in the planning area. The types of disturbance effects to waterfowl and other bird 

groups from aircraft would be the same under Alternative D as those discussed under the other 

alternatives, and could include displacement from preferred feeding habitats, temporary or

permanent nest abandonment, and temporary or permanent displacement from molting or 

brood-rearing areas. However, some birds could habituate to aircraft activity and either remain 

in habitats located near aircraft activities, or move to nearby habitats. This may not be the case 

for brant, as they apparently do not habituate well to aircraft traffic (Derksen et al. 1992). 

Aircraft disturbance to brant may cause behavioral and physiological responses that could 

increase energy expenditures and reduce foraging time, which could increase the duration of the 

flightless period and susceptibility to predation. Birds could be displaced from optimal to suboptimal habitats, causing birds to spend more time foraging to meet nutrient needs (Derksen et

al. 1992). 

Under Alternative D, there would be the potential for a greater amount of disturbance to birds 

from aircraft activity in most of the Goose Molting Area as compared to Alternatives A and B. 

This is due to the potential for placement of facilities in the central portion of the Goose Molting 

Area, which is not open to oil and gas leasing and development under Alternatives A and B. 

Under Alternative D, however, development would not be permitted in portions of the western, 

southeastern, and north coastal Goose Molting Area that are open to development under 

Alternative B, which could reduce the potential for aircraft disturbance to birds in these areas. 

Confounding the issue is the potential for pipeline construction throughout most of the Goose

Molting Area, which would result in the potential for helicopter surveillance for pipeline 

inspection. 

Although set-backs from the goose molting lakes would provide a buffer within which facilities 

could not be located, continual aircraft flights into facilities located between buffer zones would 

have the potential to disturb molting geese. Aircraft disturbance could have moderate impacts 

on tundra nesting waterfowl and shorebirds under Alternative D. Impacts may be greater on 

molting and brood-rearing brant and other geese that apparently do not habituate well to some 

types of aircraft traffic. Helicopter traffic during pipeline surveys or other activities may result

in greater impacts to brant than other types of aircraft traffic. If all of the development in the 

Goose Molting Area is connected by a road system and individual fields are supplied from 

staging areas located on coast, it is possible that individual fields could be supplied via the road 

system and aircraft disturbance could be minimized. However, in that case the level of impact 

to geese from vehicles would then be increase but would likely be lower than aircraft 

disturbance. The level of impacts would depend on the final development scenario, the number

and location of fields, and whether construction and production activities were conducted

primarily with air or road support. 

Watercraft. Several types of watercraft could be used during the summer to transport 

equipment and supplies and to conduct oil spill response training drills. Summer barge traffic 

(up to 30 barges per year with each CPF requiring 1 or 2 seasons of barge traffic depending on

size), with the potential to temporarily displace feeding, molting, brood-rearing and staging 

waterfowl, could occur in offshore and near shore waters of the planning area from mid-July 

through October. These impacts would vary depending on the species of birds using the area 

and activity of those birds at the time of the disturbance but are likely be minor. Displaced

waterfowl would probably move to adjacent habitats or return to original habitats after the 

barges passed though the area, and barge traffic would not be expected to substantially impact 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-534 

Alternative D: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

waterfowl. It is well known (Avery, Springer and Dailey 1980) that birds may be attracted to 

sources of light with the potential for the bird to strike a structure (building, barge, tower etc.) 

resulting in the possibility of mortality. There are documented accounts of waterfowl and 

seabirds being attracted to and colliding with ships in various light conditions (Dick and 

Donaldson 1978). However, there is a short window of time during the fall when the planning 

area is dark and birds are present, thus the potential for collisions between staging waterfowl 

and barges working in the planning area is low. There may be a greater likelihood for 

disturbance to waterfowl under Alternative D as compared to Alternatives A and B, because of 

the increased potential for development in the Goose Molting Area that may require increased

barge support at coastal staging areas. Under Alternative D and Alternatives B, the potential 

for barge and vessel traffic to disturb birds would be greater than for Alternative A, and less for 

Alternative C. 

Oil spill response training activities using watercraft could be conducted on rivers and lakes 

several times during the summer. Disturbance from watercraft activity along rivers could affect 

birds such as ruddy turnstones, semipalmated plovers, and Baird’s sandpipers that use gravel

bars. The results of disturbance may include failure to nest or nest abandonment (Rodgers and 

Smith 1995). The potential for these activities to disturb waterfowl and shorebirds under 

Alternative D would likely be increased compared to Alternatives A and B because there would 

be a greater likelihood that facilities would be located in areas of high bird use within the Goose 

Molting Area, and a road system through the area would allow access to goose molting lakes. 

Habitat Losses and Alteration 

Permanent Habitat Loss. Gravel mining and placement for the construction of oil field

infrastructure would have the greatest potential to result in the loss of tundra-nesting bird

habitat. Under Alternative D, it is estimated that there will be a need for six central processing 

facilities (90 acres each) in the planning area. In conjunction with these facilities there are 

other support structures, such as gravel production pads, gravel runways in-field gravel roads, 

several types of pipelines, and other associated structures, that will also cause surface 

disturbances. It is estimated that under Alternative D, there will be: 32 gravel production pads 

(10 acres each); 6 gravel runways (11 acres each); 320 miles of in-field gravel roads (7.75 

acres/mile); 320 miles of three-phase produced fluids (oil, gas, water) gathering lines; 162 miles 

of sales oil pipelines; 6 pump stations (20 acres each); 3 staging bases (50 acres each); and 14 

gravel pits (50 acres each). It is estimated that during the construction phase of these facilities 

that the total short term disturbance would be 6,765 acres. During the production phase it is 

estimated that the total long term disturbance would be 4,378 acres (Table 4.2-G). 

During the construction of oil field roads and pads, tundra covered by gravel as well as tundra 

associated with gravel mine sites would be lost as nesting, brood-rearing, and foraging habitat 

for birds. The potential effects of habitat loss under any alternative would likely have moderate 

impacts to tundra-nesting birds and would depend on the location of the development, the types 

of habitat lost, and the level of bird use in the areas to be developed. The impacts of permanent 

habitat loss on tundra-nesting birds under Alternative D may be reduced compared to 

Alternative C due to the reduced amount of tundra covered by gravel for facilities under 

Alternative D. Loss of habitat in areas of high bird use in the Goose Molting Area, however, 

could cause greater impacts to birds under Alternative D compared to Alternatives A and B. In 

addition, the potential for roads to be constructed throughout the Goose Molting Area under 

Alternative D would further increase the potential for habitat loss in areas of high bird use. 

Birds that use drier habitats may be more affected by habitat loss than those that use wet 

habitats, because less dry habitat is available in the NPR-A. Loss of dry habitat could be 

4-535 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

especially important for buff-breasted sandpiper, which is a species of concern with low 

population numbers that uses dry habitats. As under Alternative C, there would be an 

increased potential for birds to be affected by a functional loss of habitat under Alternative D in 

areas near roads and pads if development-related disturbances precluded birds from utilizing 

these habitats. The potential for habitat loss to impact tundra-nesting waterfowl and shorebirds

would be greater under alternatives B, C, and D as compared to Alternative A. 

Temporary Habitat Loss. In addition to permanent habitat loss, modification or temporary

loss of tundra habitat adjacent to gravel roads and pads could occur as a result of thermokarst,

dust deposition, snow accumulation, and impoundment formation. Water withdrawal from lakes 

during ice-road construction could temporarily affect birds in adjacent habitats if the lakes did 

not have adequate recharge capabilities. Under Alternative D, the types of effects to birds 

resulting from temporary habitat loss would be the same as those discussed under the other

alternatives. As with permanent habitat loss, the degree of effects would depend on the location 

of gravel infrastructure and local use of adjacent habitats by bird populations. Temporary 

habitat loss under Alternative D could potentially have a reduced impact on tundra-nesting 

birds, compared to Alternative C, because there is a greater amount of the area unavailable for 

leasing as well as a greater area covered by of restricted surface occupancy protection than in 

Alternative C. The potential for locating facilities and a road system in the Goose Molting Area 

under Alternative D, however, would increase the potential for impacts to birds as compared to 

Alternatives A and B. The potential for temporary habitat loss to impact birds under 

Alternatives B C and D would be greater than those under Alternative A. 

Mortality 

Bird mortality could also result from collisions with structures such as elevated pipelines, 

buildings, drilling rigs, towers, power lines if suspended, boats (including barges), or bridges. 

The potential for collisions with oil field structures or equipment is discussed under Alternative 

A. The magnitude of potential impacts to bird populations as a result of collisions in areas of oil 

and gas development will depend, among other variables, on the location and type of the 

structure, the species involved, the lighting regime employed and the weather conditions and

would likely impact birds at the level of the individual and not at a population level. Without 

knowing specific locations of potential developments, it is difficult to compare potential impacts 

among alternatives. There would be an increased risk of bird collision with offshore barge and 

vessel traffic under Alternative D as compared to Alternatives A and B due to an increase in 

barge traffic necessary for transportation of materials for the greater potential of facilities 

construction in this alternative due to the greater area open to development. There could also be 

a greater potential for bird collisions with offshore vessel traffic under Alternative D than under 

Alternatives A and B, given the larger area available for development in the Goose Molting 

Area under Alternative D, which could increase the potential for development and associated

vessel traffic in that area. Under Alternative D, ROP E-10 would require illumination to 

prevent migrating waterfowl from colliding with drilling structures, production facilities, and 

other structures exceeding 20 feet in height, although the effectiveness of the stipulation is 

currently unknown. Although there is no similar lighting requirement under Alternative A, the 

potential risk of bird collisions with oil field infrastructure could still be greater under 

Alternative D, because the potential benefits of illumination of facilities may not be adequate to 

mitigate for the presence of facilities within or near areas of high bird use and the potential for 

greater development in high density bird areas is higher in Alternative D. Under Alternative D, 

ROP E-11c requires that power and communication lines be buried in roads or suspended on 

vertical members, to the extent practical and that support wires be clearly marked along their 

entire length to improve visibility to low flying birds. Alternative D also requires that studies be 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-536 

Alternative D: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

conducted in areas of Yellow-billed loon and endangered species nesting to ensure that facility 

siting minimizes impacts to birds and by improving visibility of towers, power lines and guy 

wires in a manner that reduces bird collisions (ROP E-11). Although there is no similar 

stipulation under Alternative A, the potential risk of bird collisions with oil field infrastructure 

could still be greater under Alternatives B, C, and D because the potential benefits of

illumination of facilities may not be adequate to mitigate for the presence of facilities within or 

near areas of high bird use. The potential for bird mortality to result from collisions with vessel 

traffic and oil field facilities and equipment depends on facility location and on the species and 

numbers of birds in developed areas. 

Some predators, such as ravens, gulls, Arctic fox, and bears, could be attracted to areas of 

human activity where anthropogenic sources of food and denning or nesting sites were present. 

The potential impacts of increased numbers of predators on birds are discussed under the other

alternatives. Increased predation pressure could have moderate impacts on tundra-nesting 

birds. Under Alternative D, the types of effects to bird populations would be the same as those 

discussed under the other alternatives. Under Alternative D, there may be the potential for 

greater bird mortality due to predation than under Alternatives A and B if predators were

attracted to development in areas of high bird use that are closed to leasing under Alternatives 

A and B. Under Alternative C and Alternative D, the potential for bird mortality to result from

increased levels of predation would be greater compared to Alternative A. Although all 

alternatives have ROPs or lease stipulations in place to eliminate attraction of predators to

anthropogenic sources of food, the action alternatives would require the lessee to use the best 

available technology to prevent facilities from providing nesting, denning, or shelter sites for 

ravens, raptors, or foxes. Still, it may be difficult to totally exclude ravens or foxes from nesting 

or denning on or in oil field structures. There would be no equivalent lease stipulation under 

Alternative A. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

The impacts of abandonment and rehabilitation of oil fields on birds would be similar in many 

respects to those incurred by construction activity. Impact types would be the same for 

Alternative D as described in Alternative A. Alternative D would likely have a greater effect of 

abandonment and rehabilitation than Alternative A as more area would be available for oil and 

gas development in Alternative D, potentially resulting greater total area to be abandoned and 

subsequently rehabilitated. 

Effects of abandonment and rehabilitation resulting from Alternative D would likely have less 

of an impact than effects from Alternative C as more area would be available for leasing in 

Alternative C. Effects of abandonment and rehabilitation resulting from Alternative D would 

likely have less of an effect than Alternative B as a greater percentage of Alternative D is 

unavailable for leasing as compared to Alternative B. 

Effects of Spills 

Oil spills would have similar types of effects to birds as under the other Alternatives. However, 

there would be an increased risk of a contaminant spill occurring under Alternative D compared 

to Alternative A. The potential for an offshore spill would increase because there would be 

approximately 20% more barge traffic under Alternative D than Alternative A. Offshore spills 

would have the potential to spread through the action of wind and currents, and could affect 

molting waterfowl along the coastline or in Harrison and Smith bays, as well as shorebirds 

feeding in littoral habitats in the Colville River Delta. The risk of an onshore spill risk increases 

4-537 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

with increased volume of oil expected to be produced. The risk (or number of) large spills under

Alternative D increases by about 27% (0.6 spill – see section 4.2.2 – Oil Spills) and the 

potential spill volume from large spills increases by 2,880 barrels compared to Alternative A. 

Under Alternative D, the potential for a terrestrial oil spill in the Goose Molting Area would be 

greater compared to Alternatives A and B because of the potential to construct facilities and 

pipelines in the central portion of the Goose Molting Area under Alternative D. A pipeline leak 

or other spill on terrestrial habitats could affect greater numbers of waterfowl and shorebirds 

because of the high concentration of nesting and molting birds found in this area. The potential 

for a terrestrial spill to impact birds under Alternatives B, C and D would be greater compared 

to Alternative A. The potential for a terrestrial spill to impact birds would be less in Alternative 

D as compared to Alternative C as there are greater areas of restricted surface occupancy 

within the goose molting area in Alternative D than in Alternative C. 

Oil entering a river or stream could potentially spread into delta or coastal areas, where 

impacts to birds could be more severe. Waterfowl along the shoreline or in marine habitats and

shorebirds in the littoral areas of the planning area could be impacted during the fall molting 

and staging period. Under Alternative D, the potential that an oil spill would enter a major 

river or stream would be minimized by the setbacks from goose molting lakes associated with 

this alternative, although pipelines would not necessarily be prohibited in some of these areas. 

The other alternatives have lease stipulations with similar levels of protection. 

Commercial Gas Development 

The types of impacts on birds that natural gas development and production would cause would 

be the same as those caused by oil development described above, except that there would be no 

crude-oil spills and, if a gas pipeline is buried, there would be additional acreage disturbed with 

increased potential for impacts on bird habitat. Any effects on birds of natural gas development 

and production under Alternative D that are associated with previously constructed oil 

infrastructure, such as noise and visual disturbance from vehicles or construction activity, are 

expected to be temporary, nonlethal, and local, affecting a few individuals. As in the case with 

the other alternatives, resident ptarmigan, gyrfalcons, snowy owls and ravens may be present 

in the area during construction activities associated with gas development; however, the 

impacts to these species will be slight, and migrant bird species will not be present during 

winter construction activities (ADNR, 2006b). Changes in vegetation community caused by

burial of the pipeline could result in a loss of bird habitat and would be similar in size to that for 

Alternatives A and B and about 11% less than that under Alternative C. Any emergency repair 

of a buried pipeline that occurred in summer has the potential to disturb nesting, brood-rearing, 

feeding, staging or molting birds. Buried pipelines would not impact birds. Aboveground

pipelines could present a collision hazard to low-flying birds. 

A natural gas well blowout occurring between May and October could affect birds that are 

nesting, rearing young, staging, or migrating. Some mortality could result from such an 

incident, although it is likely that a small number of individuals would be affected. A gas 

pipeline leak may also cause effects on birds through the presence of response personnel and

equipment. Such impacts to waterfowl would be more likely in Alternative D than in 

Alternative A, because Alternative D would make available for leasing and development the

important bird habitat north and east of Teshekpuk Lake. Because this alternative makes less 

of this habitat available than Alternative C, the risks from a blowout or leak would be less 

under Alternative D than C. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-538 

Alternative D: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.6.8.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations 

Numerous lease stipulations and ROPs were developed to protect birds. These include the “A” 

ROPs, which have been developed to reduce the potential for direct mortality due to oiling, 

ingestion of toxic materials, or contamination of habitat, prey species, and forage species, and to

reduce the attractiveness of industrial sites to predators that could result in elevated predator 

populations. The “B” ROPs were developed to maintain populations of habitats of fish and

invertebrates in order to maintain populations of and habitat for waterfowl. 

Lease Stipulation D-1 would prohibit exploratory drilling in lakes, streams, lakebeds, and active 

floodplains unless impacts to wildlife were minimal. Lease Stipulation D-1 would protect fishbearing rivers, streams and lakes for blowouts which would help protect bird habitat while 

Lease Stipulation D-2 would be effective in minimizing surface impacts from exploratory 

drilling by limiting exploratory drilling to temporary facilities such as ice pads, ice roads, ice 

airstrips, and temporary platforms, unless the lessee were to demonstrate that construction of 

permanent facilities was environmentally preferable. 

Required Operating Procedure E-1 would be effective in protecting wildlife resources by 

requiring that all roads be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated to create minimal 

environmental impacts, while ROPs E-2, E-3and E-4 would protect fish-bearing water bodies 

which provide food for birds. In addition, ROPs E-8, E-9 and E-10 are designed to protect birds 

from the impacts of minerals mining activities, human caused increases in predator populations 

and striking of facilities or other oil and gas infrastructure. ROP E-11 is designed to minimize 

the take of species listed under the Endangered Species Act and would benefit many bird

species. If fully implemented, these ROPs would be effective in reducing, but not eliminating, 

the impacts of oil development birds. Since many species of birds are sensitive to humans on

foot and moving vehicles, there would be some negative effects on their ability to use the area, 

regardless of how well the field was designed. 

Required Operating Procedure F-1(a) would minimize the effects of low-flying aircraft on 

raptors by requiring an altitude of at least 1,500 feet AGL (except for takeoffs and landings) 

over raptor nesting sites from April 15 through August 15. ROP F-1(e) requires stipulates that 

aircraft use over the Goose Molting Area should be minimized from May 20 through August 20 

in order to minimize disturbance to nesting and molting waterfowl. Assuming that aircraft 

operators were aware of the potential effects of aircraft on wildlife and took the appropriate 

actions to minimize those effects, disturbance impacts to nesting raptors could be effectively 

reduced. 

Lease Stipulations K-4 (general, exploration and development) would require that the operator

minimize disturbance to molting geese and loss of goose molting habitat in and around lakes in 

the Goose Molting Area. These lease stipulations would require restrictions on timing of specific

activities, avoidance of goose-feeding habitat types, restrictions on aircraft use during specific 

periods of time, and the conductance of monitoring studies to determine the consequences of 

development. Lease Stipulation K-7 pertains to the Colville River Special Area and is designed 

to prevent loss of raptor foraging habitat by restricting the alteration of high quality foraging 

habitat within 15 miles of known nest sites. 

Lease Stipulation K-11 would delineate the area north of Teshekpuk Lake into seven large lease 

tracts and limits development to a maximum of 300 acres of permanent surface disturbance 

resulting from oil and gas development in each tract. This lease stipulation, along with Lease 

Stipulation K-4(d), would limit the amount of surface disturbance within the area north and 

4-539 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

east of Teshekpuk Lake and would help to minimize impacts to waterfowl molting and brood 

rearing habitats and movements of birds within the area. However, potential impacts would 

depend on the actual location of any developments within this area. 

4.6.8.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative D, the types of disturbances related to vehicle, aircraft, pedestrian, and 

vessel traffic, routine maintenance activities, heavy equipment use, facility noise, and oil spill 

clean-up activities would be similar to those described under the other alternatives. Under 

Alternative D, oil and gas leasing and exploration would be allowed anywhere in the planning 

area (with a deferral under Teshekpuk Lake), except where lease stipulations prohibit 

permanent oil and gas facilities in the area north and east of Teshekpuk Lake, 

southeast/south/southwest of Teshekpuk Lake and in the migration corridors east and 

northwest of Teshekpuk Lake. In addition, lease stipulations and ROPs would provide seasonal 

and spatial protection to certain environmentally sensitive areas, including Rivers Area, Deep 

Water Lakes, Goose Molting Area, Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area, Pik Dunes, Colville 

River Special Area, Coastal Area, and Teshekpuk Lake. The exposure of birds to oil and gas 

activities, and therefore the level of associated impact, would be greater under Alternative D 

than under Alternative A, given that leasing of lands adjacent to Teshekpuk Lake could occur

and that the overall scale of development would likely be greater under Alternative D. The level 

of impacts, however, would also be dependant on the location of facilities and development in 

the Goose Molting Area, which under Alternative D, could increase the effects of development 

on sensitive species, such as brant. Potential impacts may be greater for brant than for other 

species due to their apparent inability to habituate to some types of disturbance (Derksen et al. 

1992), their decreasing population size, and the potential for as much as 30% of the Pacific 

flyway population of brant to use the Goose Lake Molting Area. Impacts could be even greater if 

oil and gas activities occurred in areas with high bird concentrations, with high quality habitat, 

or used by species of concern. However, exposure of birds to oil and gas activities under this 

alternative would be less than would occur under alternative C. 

The potential for habitat loss and alteration to affect tundra-nesting birds may be greater under

Alternative D compared to Alternative C, although the amount of tundra habitat that would be 

lost to gravel infrastructure would be less. Under Alternative D, there would be a higher 

potential for infrastructure to be located in areas of high bird use in the Goose Molting Area 

than in Alternatives A and B. The potential for bird mortality resulting from collisions with 

vehicles or infrastructure and marine vessel traffic may be greater under Alternative D because 

of the increased potential for development that may require offshore barge support. The 

potential for an oil spill to impact tundra-nesting birds would also be greater under Alternative 

D, as compared to Alternative B, because of the increased potential for an off shore spill from a 

barge and the potential for a pipeline spill in the Goose Molting Area. The impacts from any 

alternative would depend on the location and size of the developments and the species and

numbers of birds located in developed areas. 

It is expected that impacts to birds in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake would be greater under 

Alternative D than under the Alternative A, particularly with respect to goose molting. Overall, 

impacts throughout the planning area would be greater under Alternative D, given the greater

overall scale of the planned development. Impacts associated with Alternative D may be less 

than Alternative B given the additional Lease Stipulations K-4 exploration and development

requirements, and K-11 which help to mitigate many of the potential impacts to birds. 

Effectiveness of lease stipulations are unknown at this time but are presumed to be effective. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-540 

Alternative D: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Similarly, impacts to birds under Alternative D would be less than would occur under 

Alternative C, which has fewer restrictions on the locations of oil and gas activity. 

In general, impacts to birds from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas activities, 

would likely be additive, except in those areas where both types of activities occurred. Impacts 

to birds from exploration and development activities would also be additive, except where 

development occurred in areas previously disturbed during exploration. In areas where two or

more activities occurred, overall impacts would reflect those impacts associated with the first 

activity and any new impacts associated with later activities. 

4.6.8.5 Potential New Mitigation Measures 

The potential mitigation measures for Alternatives B through D are essentially the same as 

those presented for Alternative A in section 4.3.8.5. In Alternative A, they are presented as 

potential new stipulations, consistent with the approach for protective measures in Alternative 

A. In Alternatives B through D, they would be considered as potential new ROPs. They are

listed below in their ROP form. 

1) Colville River Special Area 

Potential Mitigation Measure (New ROP)

Objective: Prevent or minimize the loss of nesting habitat for cliff nesting raptors. 

Requirement/Standard

a. Removal of sand and/or gravel from cliffs shall be prohibited. 

b. Any extraction of sand and/or gravel from an active river or stream channel shall be 

prohibited unless preceded by a hydrological study that indicates no potential impact by the 

action to the integrity of the river bluffs. 

Potential Benefits and Residual/Unavoidable Impacts 

Prohibiting the removal of sand and gravel from cliffs in the Colville River Special Area will 

enhance existing protections to raptor nest sites in this Special Area. Preservation of cliffs 

would allow for the continued expansion of the breeding population of cliff nesting raptors in the 

Colville River Special Area by providing potential nest sites for all species of cliff nesting 

raptors. Prohibition of removal of sand and/or gravel from an active river or stream channel 

will negate to potential for subsequent erosion of downstream cliffs. Nest sites for cliff nesting

raptors are potentially population limiting and destruction of cliff nest sites caused by 

sand/gravel mining would accelerate the existing natural erosion of cliffs in the Special Area. 

Paleontological resources may indirectly benefit from this measure by providing protection to

the substrates that may contain these undiscovered resources. Water quality downstream of a 

gravel mining operation that occurs in the river bed would benefit from the prohibition of

mining in the stream bed and the subsequent erosion of downstream cliffs. Visual resources 

and recreation would benefit from this measure by virtue of an environment unchanged by 

human cause gravel mining and subsequent erosion of downstream cliffs. 

Construction costs may increase in some situations if gravel needs to be transported to the

construction site instead of mining of gravel near the site. 

4-541 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

2) Raptor Protection 

Potential Mitigation Measure (New ROP)

Objective: Prevent or minimize the loss of raptors due to electrocution by power lines.

Requirement/Standard

Comply with the most up to date suggested practices for raptor protection on power lines. Refer 

to the publication: Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the 

Art in 2006 Item #40-06-01-008 funded and produced by the Avian Power Line Interaction 

Committee and the California Energy Commission. 

Potential Benefits and Residual/Unavoidable Impacts 

Requiring all power lines and poles to be designed and constructed in a manner which reflect 

raptor safe configurations will prevent death of raptors by electrocution. 

Additional cost may be incurred by the developer in order to provide raptor safe power lines and 

poles. 

4.6.9 Mammals 

4.6.9-a Terrestrial Mammals 

4.6.9-a.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

The types of impacts to terrestrial mammals under Alternative D would be similar to those that 

would occur under the other alternatives, but could be more frequent, greater in extent, or 

longer in duration than those occurring under Alternative A. A greater number of individual 

animals would be exposed to human activities. Aircraft traffic would more often pass over

caribou and other terrestrial mammals during flights to or from the camps and along aerial 

survey routes. The disturbance reactions of caribou and other terrestrial mammals would likely 

be brief, lasting for a few minutes to an hour. Some terrestrial mammals might avoid inventory 

survey and recreation camps during the 6 to 12 weeks of activities, while bears and foxes could

be attracted to the camps. Impacts from recreation and overland moves would be the same as 

under Alternative A. Proposed lease stipulations and ROPs addressing land use authorizations 

for temporary facilities, overland moves, and recreation permits would effectively mitigate 

impacts from these activities on terrestrial mammals. 

4.6.9-a.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Under Alternative D, oil and gas leasing and exploration would be allowed throughout the 

planning area (with a deferral for Teshekpuk Lake), but lease stipulations would limit surface 

occupancy in the Goose Molting Area northeast of Teshekpuk Lake (approximately 240,000 

acres), in the caribou calving area southeast and southwest of Teshekpuk Lake (approximately 

233,000 acres), and in the caribou movement corridor between Teshekpuk Lake and the Kogru 

River (approximately 45,000 acres) (Figure 2-4). In addition, lease stipulations would provide 

seasonal and spatial protection to certain environmentally sensitive areas, including Rivers 

Area, Deep Water Lakes, Goose Molting Area, Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area, Pik 

Dunes, Colville River Special Area, Coastal Area, and Teshekpuk Lake. The exposure of 

terrestrial mammals to oil and gas activities, and therefore the level of associated impact, would 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-542 

Alternative D: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

be greater under Alternative D than under Alternative A, given that leasing of lands adjacent to 

Teshekpuk Lake could occur and the overall scale of development would likely be greater under

Alternative D. Exposure of terrestrial mammals to oil and gas activities under Alternative D 

would likely be reduced compared to alternatives B and C because of the additional lease 

stipulations provided under this alternative. 

Effects of Disturbances 

Seismic 

Impacts to terrestrial mammals would be nearly the same as those discussed under the other

alternatives since it is assumed that the extent of terrestrial seismic operations would be the 

same under all alternatives. The only change is that seismic surveys on Teshekpuk Lake are 

considered less likely under Alternative D than in Alternatives B or C. It is expected that the 

reactions of caribou and other terrestrial mammals to disturbance would be brief, although 

large numbers of wintering TLH caribou would likely be encountered, depending on the location 

of exploration activities (see Alternative A for a description of potential adverse impacts). Some

caribou and other large mammals would likely be displaced from the general area of the seismic 

work. Some terrestrial mammals would avoid seismic camps, while others, such as foxes, could 

be attracted to the camps by food odors. The potential for disturbance to hibernating bears 

would remain, but bears are only present at low densities in the planning area. Muskox and 

moose would most likely be present in their greatest numbers in the southern portion of the 

planning area. 

The use of airguns for seismic work in Teshekpuk Lake during the summer would likely cause 

only temporary displacement of terrestrial mammals near the lake. Displacement would occur 

primarily from the support activity associated with the surveys, such as helicopter flights to 

bring equipment to the lake. Once surveys were finished and the sources of disturbance had

been removed, mammals would likely move back into the area around the lake. However, 

Teshekpuk Lake would be deferred from leasing under Alternative D, which would likely limit 

seismic activity in the lake. 

Exploratory Drilling 

Under Alternative D, it is projected that the number of exploration and delineation wells drilled 

(193) would be greater than for Alternative A and Alternatives B, but less than for Alternative 

C. Types of impacts to terrestrial mammals would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative A, but greater in spatial extent, frequency and magnitude, as more exploration 

would occur, particularly in the area to the northwest, south, and east of Teshekpuk Lake, 

which would be excluded from leasing under Alternative A. Exploratory drilling would be 

conducted during the winter, when some mammal species are less active or less often present,

although wintering TLH caribou could be present in large numbers. Exploratory drilling could 

also occur from pads and platforms in lakes in the TLCH Area during summer, potentially 

disturbing mammals found near this activity. Moose, muskox, and grizzly bears would 

experience a greater level of impacts than under Alternative A. 

The implementation of lease stipulations and ROPs would minimize impacts to terrestrial 

mammals. These lease stipulations and ROPs would include provisions to avoid known grizzly 

bear dens by 1⁄2 mile, methods to avoid attracting wildlife to food and garbage, provisions to 

protect stream banks from damage during overland moves, provisions to minimize the effect of 

4-543 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

low-lying aircraft on wildlife (particularly over caribou winter ranges), and provisions to 

minimize the disturbance and hindrance of caribou in the TLCH Area. 

Oil Development 

Approximately 95% of the planning area would be made available for leasing under Alternative 

D. Leasing would be allowed throughout the planning area. However, additional lease 

stipulations would limit development in the approximately 240,000-acre region northeast of 

Teshekpuk Lake and would protect the caribou calving area south and southeast of Teshekpuk 

Lake (approximately 233,000 acres), and the caribou travel corridor between Teshekpuk Lake 

and the Kogru River (approximately 45,000 acres) by creating RSO areas. 

The primary effects of oil and gas development on terrestrial mammals would be similar to 

those outlined under the Alternative A, and would result from construction of facilities such as 

roads and pipelines; motor vehicle traffic within the oil field(s) and on connecting roads; foot 

traffic near facilities and camps; aircraft traffic; crude-oil and fuel spills contaminating tundra, 

stream, and coastal habitats; and habitat alteration associated with gravel mining and 

construction. These impacts would likely be greater under Alternative D than under 

Alternatives A and B, given the larger development scenario that would affect approximately 

958 and 612 additional acres, respectively, of habitat under long-term disturbance as compared 

to Alternatives A and B, and the availability for lease of the high potential lands in the northern 

portion of the planning area. Alternative D would affect 171 acres less than Alternative C. In 

all alternatives, functional loss of habitat would be greater than the number of acres indicated,

which is the actual development footprint. Wolfe (2000) suggested that when caribou in the 

CAH avoided areas within 2.5 miles of roads and pipelines, the functional habitat loss increased

from 2% (the immediate footprint of roads and gravel pads) to 29%. 

Construction of permanent roads within the planning area could increase access to the area and

could increase public and subsistence hunting of terrestrial mammals if those roads were to 

connect to villages or the larger road system. Among ungulate species, caribou would be most

impacted by increased access for hunting, but other species (moose in particular) may also be 

impacted depending on the location of permanent roads. The overall number of animals taken 

would be unlikely to increase dramatically since most hunting would be for subsistence, but 

roads could focus hunts in particular portions of the planning area. Hunting pressure and 

harvests have increased for many wildlife species near the TAPS since its construction, but 

have not produced adverse population effects (TAPSO 2001). It is unlikely that the more remote 

roads associated with oil and gas development in the planning area would have as great an 

effect on wildlife populations as occurred along the TAPS corridor. 

Caribou 

Although much of the construction associated with oil and gas development would occur 

primarily during winter, development would bring year-round facilities and activities to caribou 

range. If a field were developed in the area surrounding Teshekpuk Lake, production pads, 

pipelines, within-field roads, and other facilities would be located within areas used by the TLH 

caribou for calving, insect relief, and wintering. A field development in the northern section of 

the planning area would also require a connector pipeline to link the oil field with facilities to 

the east. 

The types of impacts of field development on caribou would be similar to those outlined under 

Alternative A. However, given the greater possibility that a field would be developed within the 

calving, insect-relief, and wintering grounds of the TLH caribou, impacts to caribou could be 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-544 

Alternative D: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

greater under Alternative D than under Alternative A or B, but somewhat less than for 

Alternative C because of the greater restrictions on surface development in Alternative D 

compared to C. Overall, the level of impact would be dependent on the specific location of any oil

field—a field in the central or southern portion of the planning area would not impact the TLH 

caribou calving grounds, although such a development could still affect migratory movements of 

TLH and WAH caribou as well as activities on their wintering ground. 

Development in the TLH caribou calving grounds could displace some calving animals within 

21⁄2 miles of roads. Movements of some cows and calves across roads would also likely be 

reduced, and cow caribou might avoid crossing the roads during the calving season. Lease 

Stipulation K-11 would limit development north of Teshekpuk Lake and would help protect 

caribou calving areas in that region. Additionally, Lease Stipulation K-10 creates an RSO area 

southeast and southwest of Teshekpuk Lake (233,000 acres). This area in addition to the areas 

north of Teshekpuk Lake is important to caribou calving. These lease stipulations prohibit 

permanent oil and gas facilities excluding major rights-of-ways for pipelines within these areas. 

Lease Stipulation K-11 would delineate the area north of Teshekpuk Lake into seven large lease 

tracts and limits development to a maximum of 300 acres of permanent surface disturbance 

resulting from oil and gas development in each tract. 

Some TLH caribou movements during the insect-relief season (late June to mid-August ) would 

likely be affected by pipelines and road traffic. A critical part of the movement to the coastal 

insect-relief area is through the narrow corridor between Teshekpuk Lake and the Kogru River.

Caribou must pass through these corridors to get to and from insect-relief areas. The areas to

the east and the northwest of Teshekpuk Lake are particular problems, because nearly all of the 

parturient cows pass through these areas either shortly before or after calving (Person et al. in

press). Any development that occurs on the limited amount of habitat that is used by caribou 

migrating through these corridors would likely affect caribou movements. Lease Stipulation K-9 

designates an RSO area extending from the eastern shore of Teshekpuk Lake approximately 4 

miles eastward towards the Kogru Inlet (approximately 45,000 acres). The RSO designation 

prohibits permanent oil and gas facilities including roads, but excluding pipelines. This lease 

stipulation is intended to protect enough land to allow caribou use of this major migration 

corridor. Careful siting of pipeline rights-of-way would still be required to minimize adverse 

affects on caribou use of this corridor. Additionally, the areas that would be excluded from

surface occupancy do not extend to the coast in much of the area, suggesting that there could be 

some development along the coastline. While a 3⁄4 mile set-back from the coast is stipulated 

(Lease Stipulation K-6), development in the coastal area could still impact caribou use of insectrelief areas near the coast, though the number of developments would be restricted by Lease 

Stipulation K-11. 

Traffic associated with hauling gravel from outside of the planning area could result in local 

disturbance and displacement of caribou within one to a few miles of the operations. A pipeline 

linking oil fields in the planning area with facilities at the Alpine and Kuparuk River fields 

would result in the disturbance and displacement of some caribou during winter construction,

due to vehicle traffic along ice roads and air traffic. It is expected that these disturbances would

be short term (but see Alternative A’s discussion of potential effects of seismic operations) and

occur within about one to a few miles of the pipeline corridor. 

Moose 

Moose occur in low densities in the planning area during the summer, and are concentrated in 

major drainages at the southern edge of the planning area in the winter (Map 3-26). Unless an 

oil field were to be developed in the southern portion of the planning area, development would 

4-545 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

be unlikely to impact moose. Under Alternative D, impacts to moose would be similar to those

discussed under the other alternatives, although they could be greater in duration and area 

than under Alternatives A and B, given the larger overall development scenario under 

Alternative D. Conversely, they may be lesser in duration and area than under Alternative C. 

If gravel were mined from the southern portion of the planning area, a temporary displacement 

and disturbance of moose could occur. Borrow pit operations could potentially destroy or

degrade 20 to 50 acres of moose habitat per borrow pit if gravel borrow operations occur in the 

southern portion of the planning area. 

Muskox 

Muskoxen occur in low densities in the planning area, and they may not be present year-round

in all years. Potential effects of oil and gas development activities include displacement and

disturbance of individual animals, direct habitat loss from gravel mining in river floodplains 

and placement of gravel at oil field facilities, and indirect habitat loss through reduced access 

caused by physical or behavioral barriers created by roads, pipelines, and other facilities. Under 

Alternative D, impacts would be similar to those under the other alternatives, although they

could be greater in duration and area than under Alternatives A and B, given the larger overall 

development scenario. Conversely, they may be lesser in duration and area than under 

Alternative C. Impacts would be greatest if development were to occur in the southern portion 

of the planning area. 

Grizzly Bears

Major sources of noise include construction of roads, installation of crude oil pipelines, pump 

stations, gravel mining, and drilling operations. These activities could disturb grizzly bears 

within a few miles of the noise sources. Industrial activities and human presence could also

cause potentially serious disturbances to denning bears. Under Alternative D, impacts to grizzly 

bears would be similar to those that would occur under the other alternatives, although the 

extent and duration of impacts could be greater than under Alternatives A and B because of the 

larger overall development scenario, depending on the location of the field development. 

Conversely, they may be lesser in duration and area than under Alternative C. Grizzly bears

are present at low densities in the northern portion of the planning area, but could be attracted

to some activities. It is likely that the greatest number of bears would be encountered during 

development activities in the southern portion of the planning area, since the greatest amount 

of suitable habitat is located in this area. 

Wolves 

Under the Alternative D, oil and gas development would have a minimal impact on wolves, 

similar to the other alternatives. Potential effects to wolves would include short-term 

disturbance from air and surface traffic and human presence, and increased hunting and 

trapping pressure through improved access or increased human presence associated with oil 

development. If caribou abundance were negatively affected by oil and gas development, wolf 

abundance could in turn be affected. However, wolves are generally not abundant in the 

planning area. 

Wolverines 

The potential effects of oil and gas development on wolverines under Alternative D are the same

as under other alternatives and could include disturbance from air and surface vehicle traffic, 

increased human presence, and habitat alteration. Documented sightings and harvest locations

suggest that wolverines could be encountered along rivers and in the vicinity of Teshekpuk 

Lake. Under Alternative D, some wolverines could be displaced in the vicinity of oil field 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-546 

Alternative D: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

facilities. Impacts under this alternative are likely to be similar to, or slightly greater than, 

those that would occur under Alternatives A and B, given the larger overall development 

scenario. Conversely, they may be less than under Alternative C. 

Foxes 

Under Alternative D, impacts to foxes would be similar to those under the other alternatives, 

although they could be greater in duration and extent than under Alternatives A and B, but less 

than under Alternative C. Oil and gas development activities could affect foxes by increasing 

the availability of food and shelter. An increase in the fox population associated with oil 

development could affect some fox-prey species (such as ground-nesting birds and molting 

waterfowl) in the development area and over a region larger than the oil field itself (Burgess et

al. 1993). 

Other Mammals 

Small rodents and their predators would be affected locally (i.e., through direct mortality of 

individuals or small groups of lemmings and voles, or through loss of habitat) along pipelines, 

gravel pads, and other facilities. Arctic ground squirrels sometimes den in gravel fill in the oil 

fields (Shideler and Hechtel 2000). The availability of suitable burrowing habitat could increase 

local densities of ground squirrels. Under Alternative D, impacts to small mammals would be 

slightly greater than those that would occur under Alternatives A and B, given the larger

overall scale of the development scenario. Conversely, they may be less than under Alternative 

C. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Abandonment and rehabilitation activities are expected to disturb and displace terrestrial 

mammals in a manner similar to that associated with construction. The intensity of the 

disturbance might be less than during construction, however, because it is possible that caribou, 

muskoxen, and other terrestrial mammals would have become habituated to road and air traffic 

over the course of construction and operation of the facilities. Some individuals could be killed 

by collisions with road traffic. If roads were left in place and maintained in useable condition 

upon abandonment, they could continue to provide improved access to hunting areas, with 

consequent hunting pressure on caribou and other subsistence species. Revegetation of the 

roads, pads, and the airstrip left in place would facilitate rehabilitation of habitat, but plant 

communities on these raised gravel structures would likely be different from those that prevail 

in adjacent areas and may include invasive species. Pads, roads, and the airstrip could provide

some insect-relief habitat for caribou, if left in place (Murphy and Lawhead 2000). If gravel fill 

was removed and the pad revegetated with vegetation similar to the surrounding plant 

communities, caribou, and possibly other terrestrial mammals, would use the area. Foam 

insulating materials that could be used in pad construction could be broken up in the course of 

removal. If some of this foam escapes being cleaned up, it may be used by foxes as denning 

material. Depending on the material’s toxicity and the amount ingested by a fox, this could 

cause mortality, though the numbers of fox killed would likely be very small. Overall, a greater 

amount of development is assumed under Alternative D than under Alternatives A or B,

providing a potential of greater impacts from abandonment and rehabilitation. However, they 

would likely be expressed over a longer time period resulting in no population level effects from 

these activities in either case. The converse may be expected under Alternative C. 

4-547 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects of Spills 

Typical refined products that are spilled on the Alaska North Slope include aviation fuel, diesel 

fuel, engine oil, fuel oil, gasoline, grease, hydraulic oil, transformer oil, and transmission oil.

The extent of environmental impacts would depend upon the type and amount of material 

spilled, the location of the spill, and the effectiveness of the response. The majority of small 

spills would be contained on the gravel pad and would have no impact on terrestrial mammals 

or their habitat. 

The impacts of oil spills on terrestrial mammals are described under Alternative A (section 

4.3.9, Mammals). Compared to Alternatives A and B, the risk of oil spills would be greater, but 

still small, under Alternative D, given the greater extent of development and the increased 

estimated number of spills. Conversely, they may be less than under Alternative C. Activities 

occurring in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake could increase the likelihood that a spill would 

reach the lake under Alternative D than under Alternative A. This probability would be less 

than under Alternative C, but not substantially different than under Alternative B. Because 

most spills would be small and affect a small area, the majority of impacts to terrestrial 

mammals would likely result from disturbance associated with spill clean-up activities rather 

than direct oiling. 

Commercial Gas Development 

The types of impacts from gas development under Alternative D would be similar to that for 

Alternative B, greater than for Alternative A (because more important caribou habitat would be 

made available for lease and development), and less than Alternative C (because less gas 

pipeline is projected and less of the important caribou habitat is made available for lease and 

development). Buried pipelines would have no impact on caribou movement, though 

disturbance could occur during winter construction in approximately the same way as it would 

occur by construction of aboveground pipeline. The noise associated with a 10- to 20-acre 

compressor station may cause avoidance, but the pad’s raised surface may attract caribou 

seeking insect relief. 

If a gas pipeline was elevated on a set of VSMs separate from oil-pipeline bearing VSMs, 

caribou movement could be hindered. 

Construction and operation of gas facilities would likely impact other terrestrial mammals in a 

manner similar to and in like proportion, when comparing among alternatives, to the impacts 

associated with oil development. 

In the event of a natural gas well blowout or pipeline rupture, would be similar to that 

described for the other alternatives. Terrestrial mammals in the immediate vicinity of the

blowout could be killed. Given the small area that would be exposed to the plume and the rapid 

dissipation of the gas, it is not likely that any animals other than individuals present in the

immediate vicinity at the time of the blowout would be affected. The likelihood of caribou, 

moose, muskoxen, wolves, or grizzly bears being exposed to toxic amounts of gas and

condensates is very low and (should it occur) would probably only affect a few individuals. 

Smaller, less mobile species with small home ranges, such as squirrels, voles, and lemmings 

may be affected in larger numbers. However, there would be no population level impacts on any 

species. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-548 

Alternative D: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.6.9-a.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations 

Alternative D would include almost the same lease stipulations and ROPs that were outlined 

under Alternative B. (section 4.4.9.1, Terrestrial Mammals), and they would provide similar 

protection to terrestrial mammals as those developed for Alternative B. 

Additional lease stipulations associated with Alternative D also provide protection for 

terrestrial mammals. Lease Stipulation K-4(d) creates an RSO in the Goose Molting Area north 

and east of Teshekpuk Lake (approximately 240,000 acres). This lease stipulation would provide 

protection for caribou calving and insect-relief areas located in this region and should effectively 

limit impacts to caribou associated with development. 

Lease Stipulation K-9 would designate an RSO area extending from the eastern shore of 

Teshekpuk Lake approximately 4 miles eastward towards the Kogru Inlet (approximately 

45,000 acres) and another northwest of the lake (approximately 9,700 acres). The RSO 

designation prohibits permanent oil and gas facilities with the exception of a pipeline. This 

lease stipulation is intended to protect enough land to allow caribou use of this major migration 

corridor. 

Lease Stipulation K-11 would delineate the area north of Teshekpuk Lake into seven large lease 

tracts and limits development to a maximum of 300 acres of permanent surface disturbance 

resulting from oil and gas development in each tract. This lease stipulation, along with Lease 

Stipulation K-4(d), would limit the amount of surface disturbance within the area north and 

east of Teshekpuk Lake and would help to minimize impacts to caribou calving and insect relief 

habitat and movements of caribou within the area. However, potential impacts would depend on

the actual location of any developments within this area. 

4.6.9-a.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative D, impacts to terrestrial mammals would be similar to those discussed under 

the other alternatives, but would be greater in frequency and extent than for Alternatives A and 

B because of the high oil and gas potential of the northern portion of the planning area, and the 

potential for greater development to occur, including in areas currently off-limits to surface 

development activities. 

Under Alternative D, oil and gas leasing and exploration would be allowed anywhere in the 

planning area (with a deferral under Teshekpuk Lake), but lease stipulations prohibit most 

permanent oil and gas facilities in the area north and east of Teshekpuk Lake, 

southeast/south/southwest of Teshekpuk Lake and in the migration corridors east and 

northwest of Teshekpuk Lake. In addition, lease stipulations and ROPs would provide seasonal 

and spatial protection to certain environmentally sensitive areas, including Rivers Area, Deep 

Water Lakes, Goose Molting Area, Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area, Pik Dunes, Colville 

River Special Area, Coastal Area, and Teshekpuk Lake. The exposure of terrestrial mammals to

oil and gas activities, and therefore the level of associated impact, would be greater under 

Alternative D than under Alternatives A and B, given that leasing of lands adjacent to 

Teshekpuk Lake could occur (as opposed to Alternative A) and that the overall scale of

development would likely be greater under Alternative D. However, exposure of terrestrial 

mammals to oil and gas activities under this alternative would be less than would occur under 

alternative C. 

4-549 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

It is expected that impacts to terrestrial mammals throughout the planning area, and especially 

in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake, would be greater under Alternative D than under Alternative 

A or B, particularly with respect to caribou calving and insect-relief habitat. They would be less, 

however, than for Alternative C. Impacts associated with Alternative D may be less than 

Alternative B given the additional Lease Stipulations K-4(d), K-9, K-10, and K-11 which help to

mitigate many of the potential impacts to caribou. Similarly, impacts to terrestrial mammals 

under Alternative D would be less than would occur under Alternative C, which has fewer 

restrictions on the locations of oil and gas activity. 

In general, impacts to mammals from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas activities, 

would likely be additive, except possibly in those areas where both types of activities occurred.

Impacts to mammals from exploration and development activities would also be additive, except 

possibly for habitat impacts where development occurred in habitats previously disturbed 

during exploration. In areas where two or more activities occurred, overall impacts would reflect 

those impacts associated with the first activity and any new impacts associated with later 

activities. Based on the amount of habitat with a potential to be affected, the potential for 

impacts to mammals under this alternative would be about 37% more than Alternative A. If oil 

and gas activities occurred in areas with an abundance of caribou or other mammals, or in areas 

with high quality habitat, impacts could be greater than those based strictly on number of acres 

of habitat impacted. 

4.6.9-b Marine Mammals 

4.6.9-b.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Alternative D is expected to have impacts associated with non-oil and gas activities similar to 

those described for the previous Alternatives. These activities could occur throughout the 

planning area and would not be affected by the increased availability of land for oil and gas 

leasing. 

Overland moves could disturb a few ringed seals if overland moves were to occur over floating, 

shore-fast ice. It is expected that small fuel spills would occur under Alternative D. It is 

expected that small fuel spills would occur, but they would be small, and primarily terrestrial 

and unlikely to reach areas used by marine mammals. 

Under Alternative D, it is expected that the effects of non-oil and gas activities on marine 

mammals would be localized and short term, with no or minor effects to marine mammal 

populations. 

4.6.9-b.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbances 

The frequency, spatial extent, and magnitude (intensity and duration) of the impacts likely will

vary among alternatives in relation to the total amount of area open to development, the 

location of the areas open, and the Lease Stipulation and Required Operating Procedures. The 

potential for impacts is expected to be proportional to the differences in area impacted and 

vessel trip estimates. Alternative D makes approximately 95% of the planning area open to

exploration and development. The Alternative D development scenario estimates approximately 

25% (1,110 acres) more permanent surface disturbance than Alternative A; 15% (660 acres) 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-550 

Alternative D: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

more permanent disturbance than Alternative B; and 6% (271 acres) less permanent 

disturbance than Alternative C. With regards to marine mammals it is primarily the level of 

indirect effects associated with development D−primarily vessel traffic−under Alternative D 

that separates its impact potential from the other Alternatives. Like Alternatives B and C, 

opening the area north of Teshekpuk Lake creates a greater potential for adverse impacts to 

marine mammals compared to Alternative A although special restrictions under Lease 

Stipulation K-4 still apply within 3⁄4 mile from the coast line. 

Seismic 

Seismic exploration is expected to have the same potential for affect and likelihood to occur as 

under the other Alternatives. However, the 3⁄4 mile coastal buffer required by ROP K-4 would 

reduce the attractiveness of the Atigaru/Kogru area making the likelihood of seismic in these 

areas lower than under Alternative A. The low likelihood of seismic under this alternative 

combined with the expected very low density of seals in these shallow areas (Moulton et al. 

2005) makes it unlikely that seals would be affected by seismic work. No affect to whales is 

anticipated. 

Visual and Noise Disturbance 

Aircraft 

The effects of aircraft disturbance would be similar to those described under the previous 

Alternatives, but could be greater in extent than under A and B given the greater number of

pads and production facilities expected under Alternative D, but less than under Alternative D. 

More importantly, because more development area for development would be open north of 

Teshekpuk Lake the number of aircraft that would regularly occur over areas that may be used 

by marine mammals would be greater compare to Alternative A and B. However aircraft would 

generally fly at 1,000 feet AGL over water due to Lease Stipulations to protect caribou and 

molting geese, minimizing the potential for disturbance to seals and most likely whales (Born et 

al. 1999, Patenaude et al. 2002, Richardson and Williams 2004, Moulton et al. 2005). 

Shipping 

It is expected that the difference in impacts from shipping among alternatives is proportional to 

the difference in number of vessel trips. Six to 12 sealifts would are estimated to be necessary

support development of the estimated 6 CPFs under Alternative D; totaling 180 to 360 barges 

(approximately 20% more than estimated for Alternative A, 20% less than under Alternative D 

and the same as Alternative B). In addition, it is possible that barges could be landed on the 

northern coast of the planning area, most likely at Lonely. In this scenario, increased barge 

traffic during the summer could result in more disturbance and displacement of whales and 

seals than under Alternative A because barges would be maneuvering off the coast and be in 

place for several days instead of transiting past. Although like Alternative A and B the 

displacement/disturbance is expected to be localized in time (only occur within a short distance 

<1 mile for seals, 1-4 miles for whales) in time and short-term (hours or days) It is not expected

that effects would levels that could result in substantial impacts to individual marine mammals 

or populations, although the fitness of some individuals could be impacted. 

4-551 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Contaminants 

The effects of a spill on marine mammals would be as described under the Alternative A. The 

likelihood of a spill reaching or occurring in areas used by marine mammals is higher due to the 

greater amount of development but is still very low with little difference in potential between 

alternatives. Although a greater amount of coastline in the planning area is open than under 

Alternative A, Lease Stipulation K-4 places a 3⁄4 mile buffer along the entire coastline, including 

the area around Atigaru Point, which is open under Alternative A. 

Collisions 

The likelihood of a vessel strike is influenced by the number of vessels traveling through an 

area over time. Speed probably has an influence on the likelihood of a collision and does 

increase the potential that a collision will result in sever injury or death (Laist et al. 2001). 

Alternative D would result in similar levels of vessel traffic to Alternative B and there would be 

an increase in risk compared to Alternative A with a commiserate decrease in the likelihood of a 

collision compared to Alternative C. Given the expected low rates of collisions (George et al. 

1994), this change while moderate in percentage terms is likely a minor risk in actual number 

of animals injured or killed. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

The potential for impacts and type of impact resulting from abandonment and rehabilitation 

activities are expected to be similar to those for construction under this Alternative. Given the 

expense of transport, vessel traffic is expected to be substantially lower than occurred during 

construction as large modules or other equipment may be moved to other development or stored

at regional staging areas rather than moving it off the North Slope. The potential for impacts is 

expected to be proportionally higher compared to Alternative A, similar to Alternative B, and

less than Alternative D. 

4.6.9-b.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Alternative D includes the same lease stipulations and ROPs as outlined under alternatives B 

and C and some additional stipulations to protect caribou and molting geese. These ROPs and

lease stipulations should provide similar levels of protection as those developed for the

Alternative A. The additional lease stipulations included in Alternative D would have little 

effect on impacts to marine mammals. 

4.6.9-b.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative D, the effects of non-oil and gas activities on marine mammals, particularly 

ringed seals along the coast of the planning area, would be short term and localized, occurring

within one mile of aircraft corridors, survey activities, recreational camps, and overland moves. 

The difference between impact potential of each alternative on marine mammals is primarily a 

factor of how much area is available for development and the projected amount of oil produced. 

No alteration of marine habitat is anticipated under any of the alternatives so the projected

impacts are related to the difference in disturbance potential between Alternatives and the 

likelihood of a spill or collision. In this respect Alternative B and D have similar potentials for 

adverse effects on marine mammals, while Alternative A has less, and Alternative C has 

slightly more. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-552 

Alternative D: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Oil and gas leasing and development activities would likely result in a greater level of noise and

disturbance, primarily near the Colville River Delta and inner Harrison Bay, than under the 

other alternatives because of the greater level of development. Effects should be localized

(within one mile of aircraft corridors and activities) and short term as individual sealifts would 

typically be completed in one season. Lease Stipulation K-6 would minimize the potential for 

development to impact ringed seals, spotted seals, and beluga whales in areas along the coast. 

While exploration could occur in this area under Alternative C, surface occupancy would 

generally not be allowed. The effects of seismic exploration would be limited to short-term, 

localized disturbance to denning or hauled out ringed seals. The effects of development under 

Alternative C are expected to be short term, with few effects on marine mammal populations. 

A small number of ringed seals, spotted seals, beluga whales, and possibly harbour porpoise 

could be affected by oil spills entering the Kogru River, the Colville River, or drainages that 

empty into the Colville River, Fish Creek, or Judy Creek. The likelihood of such and event is 

small and not expected to occur. It is expected that any losses would be small. 

The effects of development under Alternative C are expected to be greater than those under the 

Alternative A and B due to the greater amount of exploration and development projected to 

occur under this alternative. However, these effects would be short term, with few impacts on 

marine mammals and no detectable impact on populations. Since nearly all exploration and 

development activity would occur onshore under all alternatives, the potential for impacts to 

marine mammal resources under Alternative D would be slightly greater than those that could 

occur under the Alternative B and greater than those under Alternative A, but less than 

Alternative C. 

4.6.10 Threatened and Endangered Species 

This section discusses the potential effects to bowhead whale, spectacled and Steller’s eiders, 

and polar bear which could result from management action in the planning area under 

Alternative D. Whales would be most affected by disturbance and oil spills. Most, but not all, 

activities that could potentially affect eiders and polar bears in the planning area would be 

associated with oil and gas exploration and development. Other activities that could occur in the 

planning area include subsistence hunting, recreational use, and activities associated with 

scientific survey and research camps. 

4.6.10-a Bowhead Whale 

4.6.10-a.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative D, the effects of non-oil and gas activities on bowhead whale would be similar 

to those that would occur under Alternative A, and would occur only when bowhead whales 

migrated exceptionally close to shore. It is not expected that non-oil and gas activities would 

have high impacts on individual bowhead whales or the population. 

4-553 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.6.10-a.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbances 

The effects of oil and gas activities on bowhead whales would likely be greater under

Alternative D than under Alternative A, given the greater area available for development.

Alternative D opens up to 300 acres in each of seven lease blocks north of Teshekpuk Lake for 

development, including areas near the coast. If developments up to 300 acres in size were placed 

near the coast (although Lease Stipulation K-6 would require that permanent facilities be sited 

at least 3⁄4 of a mile from the coastline to the extent practicable), then effects to bowhead whales 

could be as great as those possible under Alternative C. Vessel activity in Harrison Bay and 

other areas off the coast of the planning area could increase under Alternative D when 

compared to Alternative A; be similar to Alternative B, but would not be expected to increase to

the same extent as under Alternative C. An increase in barge traffic by approximately 20% 

(compared to Alternative A) along the coast to transport equipment and supplies for 

development within the planning area, and a potential increase in activity at staging areas 

along the coast, would increase the potential for impacts to migrating bowhead whales. There is 

also a greater likelihood that aircraft operation over marine waters would increase under 

Alternative D compared to Alternative A. Effects to bowhead whales would be expected if 

bowhead whales migration close to shore. As discussed under Alternative A the effects of those 

activities are expected to be limited to short term avoidance behavior, but more studies are 

required to assess the consequences of eliciting this behavior. It is unknown if the potential

increase in these disturbance activities will result in an impact level that significantly reduces 

the fitness of individual bowhead whales, although it is unlikely that population level effects 

would be detected. 

Contaminants 

There would be a greater potential for oil spills under Alternative D than under Alternative A, 

given the larger area available for development and higher levels of development activity that 

would occur under Alternative D. Risk would be similar as under Alternative B, and less than 

under Alternative C. It is unlikely under any alternative that a spill large enough to reach 

bowhead whale habitat would occur, unless development is allowed to occur along the coast.

The potential for an accidental release from barge traffic would increase compared to 

Alternative A due to the estimated increase in number of barges but this remains an unlikely 

event (although the probability of a spill occurring would increase relative to Alternative A, 

decrease compared to Alternative C, and be similar to Alternative B as a result of 20% more 

barge traffic). 

The southward edge of the migration corridor could be deflected northward due to any vessel 

activity associated with containment and clean-up activities occurring during the fall migration. 

However, impacts to individual bowhead whales or the whale population would be minor, except 

in the case of a very large spill coincident with the fall migration, which is very unlikely. 

Collisions 

Alternative D, like Alternative B is estimated to result in an approximate 20% increase in barge 

traffic over Alternative A. The projected increase in barge traffic would not all occur in one year 

but would consist of more sealifts than Alternative A spread over some period of time, likely

separated by 5 to 10 years and likely over a longer period of total time than Alternative A. The 

likelihood of a vessel strike is influenced by the number of vessels traveling through an area 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-554 

Alternative D: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

over time thus the likelihood of a collision is increased under Alternative D compared to 

Alternative A and decreased compared to Alternative C. However, given the expected low rates 

of collisions observed in the past (George et al. 1994), those expected based on the low rate of 

speed barges typically travel (Laist et al. 2001), and that barges usually are active only during 

the earlier portion of migration, this change, while moderate in percentage terms is likely a 

minor risk in actual number of whales injured or killed. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Impacts of abandonment and rehabilitation activities are expected to be similar to those for 

construction and higher than under Alternative A, slightly higher than Alternative B, and 

slightly lower than under Alternative C. Effects could occur from aircraft, barges used to 

transport equipment to remove materials from the planning area, and potential spills. 

Commercial Gas Development 

If natural gas development and production occur in the planning area, it is unlikely that 

bowhead whales would be affected other than temporary, nonlethal effects from marine vessels 

as described for traffic associated with oil development. 

4.6.10-a.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

There are no Stipulations or Required Operating Procedures specific to bowhead whales, but 

several would indirectly reduce the potential that any oil spill would reach marine waters. 

Lease stipulation K-1 requires no development setbacks from the banks of major rivers in the 

planning area. While this stipulation does not prohibit pipelines from crossing rivers,

development would be prohibited from within 1⁄2 to 3 miles from the banks. This should 

substantially reduce the potential for a large spill originating from pads or pipelines parallel to 

the river channel to reach the river and be transported from to marine waters. Lease 

Stipulation K-4 requires a 3⁄4 mile set back from the coast which would have a similar effect as 

K-1, reducing the potential for a large spill to reach marine waters. 

4.6.10-a.4 Conclusion 

Alternative D is expected to result in approximate 25% more surface disturbance and 15% more 

than Alternative B and 6% less than Alternative C; potentially distributed over a greater area

of the planning area than either Alternative A or B, with a commiserate increase in barge 

traffic, aircraft, and spill potential, Therefore there is a greater likelihood of impacts to bowhead 

whales, including behavioral displacement from high-density foraging areas, injury, and 

mortality from ship collisions and oils spills. However, displacements are expected to be shortterm and spills unlikely. Should they occur a relatively small proportion of the population is 

projected to be affected by these impacts. In those years where bowheads occur in shallower 

waters during fall migration, the number affected could be higher, but potential effects are not 

expected to be severe to lead to changes in the population unless a very large oil spill occurred 

in the marine environment. 

4-555 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.6.10-b Spectacled and Steller’s Eiders 

4.6.10-b.1 Activities Not Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Non-oil and gas activities that could affect spectacled and Steller’s eiders under Alternative D 

would be the same as those listed under the other alternatives—private or commercial air 

traffic, aerial surveys to inventory wildlife or other resources, summer research camps, 

hazardous material or debris removal, subsistence hunting and fishing, and recreational camps 

and boating activity. Under Alternative D, a larger area would be available for permanent oil 

and gas facilities and development than Alternative A. However, the potential for non-oil and 

gas activities to disturb, displace, or cause mortality would likely be similar under all four 

alternatives. Lease stipulations and ROPs would mitigate some of the potential effects of non-oil 

and gas activities. 

4.6.10-b.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Seismic 

The effects of seismic exploration on eiders is expected to be the same as under Alternative A as 

similar levels of seismic exploration are predicted for all alternatives (section 4.2.1.2)

Although as with Alternatives B and C seismic could be conducted on Teshekpuk Lake this 

would be done over-ice – if at all. Because of the deferral of leasing of Teshekpuk Lake under

this alternative, seismic work on Teshekpuk Lake is even more unlikely. 

Exploration

Under Alternative D, the potential effects of ice-road and ice-pad construction would be greater 

than Alternative A, similar to Alternative B, and less than Alternative C, and would involve the 

temporary alteration of tundra vegetation. The potential effects of temporary habitat alteration 

on eiders may be greater under Alternative D than A or B because a large portion of the Goose

Molting Area is opened, which is also an area of relatively high spectacled eider use, is closed to

development under Alternative A and B. Therefore the associated impacts to eiders could also 

potentially be greater under Alternative D, but less than Alternative C. 

Predators, such as glaucous gulls and Arctic foxes, could be attracted to anthropogenic food 

sources associated with summer maintenance of exploratory drilling and seismic equipment or 

winter exploratory activities. As with the other Alternatives with the performance-based ROPs 

and Lease Stipulations, the potential for increased predation of eiders by predators attracted to 

development would be reduced by ROP A-2, although the relatively greater amount of 

exploration drilling would increase the likelihood of predator attraction under Alternative D. 

The typical short time period and seasonality of exploration would reduce the likelihood that 

predators would discover any human provided food source as well as reducing the likelihood of 

predators persisting in the area because there would be no recurring anthropogenic food source. 

Furthermore since exploration is primarily a winter activity, avian nest predators would not be 

present, except for possibly common ravens. 

Development and Production 

Activities related to oil development and production in the planning area, such as vehicle, 

aircraft, pedestrian, and boat traffic, routine maintenance activities, use of heavy equipment, 

oil-spill clean-up activities, and aerial surveys to inventory wildlife or other resources, could 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-556 

Alternative D: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

cause disturbances that would affect eiders. Under Alternative D, the types of disturbances to 

eiders would be the same as those discussed for the other Alternatives. These disturbances 

could result in temporary displacement from preferred foraging, nesting, or brood-rearing 

habitats, decreased nest attendance or nest abandonment, and increased energy expenditures 

that could affect physiological condition and rate of survival or reproduction. The likelihood for 

impacts to eiders would depend on the location of the disturbance, the number of eiders in the 

area, and the time of year. Under Alternative D, these impacts would likely be greater than 

Alternative A, similar to Alternative B, and less than Alternative C. 

The potential for disturbance to threatened eiders from activities on roads and pads would 

likely be greater under Alternative D, as compared to Alternative A, because areas that support 

relatively high spectacled eider concentrations would be available for oil and gas leasing that 

are closed under Alternative A and only a small portion open under Alternative B. The large 

buffers placed around lakes that receive moderate to high use by molting geese somewhat offset the effects of opening a greater area in that lakes in the Goose Molting Area have Restricted

Surface Occupancy buffers extend 1⁄4 to more than 1 mile depending on the lake (Map 2-4). 

Lease Stipulation K-4 would also minimize disturbance by minimizing ground traffic from May 

20 through August 20. In addition, Lease Stipulation K-6 would establish a 3⁄4-mile buffer 

inland from the coast, within which permanent oil and gas facilities would be prohibited, to the 

extent practicable, to minimize hindrance or alteration of caribou movement within caribou 

coastal insect-relief areas. This lease stipulation could also help to reduce the potential impacts 

to eiders in nesting, molting, or brood-rearing habitats in coastal areas. 

Development restrictions within the Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area would protect eider 

habitat along in the northwestern corner of Teshekpuk Lake and along its western shore (Map

2-4). 

As with Alternative B and C, Alternative D could also result in a greater level of disturbance to 

eiders in the Deep Water Lakes Area south of Teshekpuk Lake, than under Alternative A. 

Under Alternative A, no permanent oil and gas facilities would be permitted within 1⁄4 mile of 

the any fish-bearing lake. Under Alternative D, facilities would generally not be permitted 

within this buffer, but could be permitted, on a case by case basis, in consultation with Federal, 

state, and NSB regulatory and resource agencies. Permitting facilities within the 1⁄4-mile buffer 

of fish bearing lakes in the Deep Water Lakes Area could result in disturbance to eiders near 

the facilities and access roads. Although Lease Stipulation K-2 has been designed primarily to 

provide mitigation for deep-water fish habitat, it could also mitigate impacts to eiders using 

habitats near these lakes. 

Air Traffic. The types of effects to eiders from aircraft would be the same as under other 

Alternatives and could include displacement from preferred feeding habitats, temporary or

permanent nest abandonment, and temporary or permanent displacement from molting or 

brood-rearing areas. However, some eiders could either remain in habitats located near aircraft 

activities or move to nearby habitats. Although there is evidence that molting and staging 

geese are disturbed by aircraft (Jensen 1990, Ward et al. 1999) and pre-nesting eiders may 

respond to low flying (≤ 150 feet) aircraft (Balogh 1997). Evidence of adverse impacts to eiders is 

equivocal. Johnson et al (2006) found no indication that spectacled eider nests with higher 

levels of overflights had reduced nest success compared to those with no or less overflights. 

However, their dataset is short-term and it is reasonable to assume that some level of effect 

may occur under certain circumstances. Repeated flushing of pre-nesting birds may reduce 

nesting success, more sensitive birds may not nest or be displaced to lower quality nesting 

4-557 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

habitat, and disturbance of molting eiders may result in greater rates of predation and reduced 

fitness with subsequent reduced migratory survival. None of these effects have been 

demonstrated, and would be very difficult to establish cause and effect relationships; however, 

here it is assumed that they are possible, but the magnitude (number of birds affected) and 

severity (likelihood of mortality/reduced recruitment) is unknown. 

A greater number of eiders could be affected by air traffic under Alternative D than under A or 

B because of the greater area available for development. Even though a larger area would be 

available for oil and gas leasing and facilities could be located in areas where surface activity 

was prohibited under Alternative A and to a lesser extent restricted or prohibited under 

Alternative B, Lease Stipulations K-3 through K-6 would provide setbacks from various 

habitats surrounding Teshekpuk Lake and along the coast that are considered important for 

fish, birds, and caribou in the area. Within these setbacks, permanent oil and gas facilities 

would be prohibited, and other potentially disturbing activities, such as vehicular and air 

traffic, would be restricted. These lease stipulations would help to reduce potential aircraft 

disturbance to eiders, should oil and gas facilities be located within portions of the Teshekpuk 

Lake Special Area. However, if CPFs were located within the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area, the 

level of aircraft disturbance would likely increase along flight corridors and near airstrips 

located at these CPFs. Flight restrictions under Lease Stipulations K-4 and K-5 would be 

expected to also reduce the effects of aircraft in the Caribou Habitat Area/Goose Molting area. 

Lease Stipulation K-5 would place seasonal (May 20 – August 20 flight elevation restrictions 

(>2,000 feet except during take-offs and landings) and require an aircraft use plan showing 

minimization of flights in the Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area. 

Watercraft. Several types of watercraft could be used during the summer to transport 

equipment and supplies, to conduct oil spill response training drills. Summer barge traffic with 

the potential to temporarily displace molting eiders could occur in offshore waters of the 

planning area from mid-July through October. How eiders will react to boat traffic is unknown 

but the may react similarly to other waterfowl with short-term short-distance avoidance 

movements (Flint et al. 2003). Displaced eiders would probably move to adjacent habitats or 

return to original habitats after the barges passed though the area and barge traffic would not 

be expected to substantially impact molting eiders. There would be a greater likelihood for 

disturbance to molting eiders under Alternative D than under Alternative A because much of 

the area adjacent to the coast would be open for leasing under Alternative D but unavailable for 

oil and gas development under Alternative A. Therefore, it would be more likely that 

development would occur in portions of the Goose Molting Area, and that barge traffic would be

required near this area for transportation of equipment and supplies during oil field

construction and operation. 

Oil spill response training activities using watercraft could be conducted on rivers and lakes 

several times during the summer open-water season. Under Alternative D, these activities 

would be more likely to disturb eiders than under Alternative A, because there would be a 

greater likelihood that facilities would be located in areas of spectacled eider concentrations 

within the Goose Molting Area. 

Habitat Loss and Alteration 

Under the development scenario for Alternative D the gravel footprint for roads, pads, airstrips, 

staging areas and gravel extraction sites is estimated to be approximately 4,378 acres; 

approximately 25% more than under Alternative A; 15% more than Alternative B; and 6% less 

than Alternative C. Loss of eider habitat would therefore be greater under Alternative D 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-558 

Alternative D: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

compared to Alternative A and B, but less than Alternative C. The loss of habitat would be 

permanent in the area occupied by the development footprint, and eiders nesting in this area 

would be displaced to other areas. Their survival and future reproductive success would be

dependent on the availability and quality of unoccupied habitat. 

If spectacled and Steller’s eider densities are assumed to be 2.0 and 0.02 birds per mi2 (640

acres per mi2) respectively (very high estimates based on aerial survey data; Larned et al. 2006; 

Ritchie and King 2003), up to 13.7 spectacled eiders and 0.2 Steller’s eider could be expected to 

be displaced by the gravel footprint over the life of the plan if all development occurred in high 

density areas. This estimate is likely overly-conservative as areas of “high high” density make 

up only a small proportion of the planning area even with the entire area north of Teshekpuk 

Lake open under Alternative D (Map 3-33). 

Alternative D would open the entire area north of Teshekpuk Lake but has substantial 

Restricted Surface Occupancy provisions (although pipelines) associated with Coastal areas, 

and lakes used by molting geese and caribou. Average eider density over 15 years in area north 

of Teshekpuk Lake is 0.79/mi2

. This area also contains approximately 57% of the indicated 

population within the Northeast NPR-A planning area (FWS, unpublished data). When this 

area is included the average Northeast NPR-A spectacled eider density is 0.36 eiders/mi

2 

. For 

comparison average spectacled eider density in the entire Eider Breeding Survey Area is 0.57 

eiders/mi

2

 (Larned et al 2006). Steller’s eider densities are so low that estimates are not 

calculated from the Eider Breeding Survey (Larned et al. 2006), but they do occur within the 

planning area. 

However, under all alternatives, the potential effects of habitat loss would depend on the

location of the development, the types of habitat lost, and the level of eider use in the areas to be

developed. Without specific information on the locations of potential developments, the 

estimates of eiders potentially impacted should be seen as an index of comparison between 

alternatives, not an absolute value of birds affected. 

In addition to permanent habitat loss, temporary loss of tundra habitat adjacent to gravel roads 

and pads could occur as a result of thermokarst, dust deposition, snow accumulation, and 

impoundment formation. Under Alternative D, the types of effects to eiders resulting from 

temporary habitat loss would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A. As with 

permanent habitat loss, the degree of effects would depend on the location of gravel 

infrastructure and local use of adjacent habitats by eiders. However, impacts from the 

temporary loss of tundra habitat is projected to be greater under Alternative D than A and B 

because more areas with higher densities of eiders are available for oil and gas leasing. Lease 

stipulations and ROPs would help to mitigate potential effects of habitat loss to eiders. 

Mortality 

Compared to the Alternatives A and B, there would be an increased risk that eiders would 

collide with offshore barge and vessel traffic under Alternative D, as more area would be 

available for development north and east of Teshekpuk Lake that could increase the potential 

for development in that area and the amount of associated vessel traffic in offshore areas. Drill 

rigs and other tall structures would be present for a longer period of time and would increase 

the potential for collisions over other alternatives. As with Alternatives B and C, ROP E-11 

would limit overhead lines and guywires and provide marking where they could not be avoided,

thus reducing the threat from collisions 

4-559 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

ROP E-10 would require illumination to prevent migrating waterfowl from colliding with 

drilling structures, production facilities, and other structures exceeding 20 feet in height. 

Although there is no similar action under Alternative A, the potential risk of eider collisions 

with oil field infrastructure could still be greater under the action alternatives because the

potential benefits of illumination of facilities may not outweigh the presence of facilities within 

or near areas of high eider concentrations. There would also be an increased risk of eider 

collisions with vehicles under Alternative D compared to alternatives A and B because of the 

potential for road construction in the Goose Molting Area. The overall risk of eider collision with 

development related facilities or equipment would be reduced under Alternative D compared to 

Alternative C. 

Some predators, such as ravens, gulls, Arctic fox, and bears, may be attracted to areas of human 

activity where they find anthropogenic sources of food and denning or nesting sites. The 

potential types of effects of increased predation to eiders under the Alternative D would be the 

same as those discussed under the other alternatives. Under Alternative D, impacts to eiders 

from predation are expected to be greater than Alternative A and B, and less than Alternative 

C. Although all alternatives have lease stipulations in place to eliminate attraction of predators 

to anthropogenic sources of food, under the action alternatives the lessee would be required to 

use the best available technology to prevent facilities from providing nesting, denning, or 

shelter sites for ravens, raptors, or foxes. There is no equivalent lease stipulation under 

Alternative A. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Winter activities would cause little disturbance or displacement, because eiders are absent from 

the area during the winter. However, ice roads could impound water and reduce habitat for 

nesting birds; such impacts would only affect nesting in the summer following ice road use. 

These impacts should be very minor, however, since most ice roads have melted prior to the 

time of nest initiation. Summer road and air traffic generated by abandonment and 

rehabilitation activities could cause disturbance, displacement, and mortality to eiders similar 

to, and at the same levels as, those described for traffic during construction and operations. If 

pads, roads, and airstrips were not revegetated, impacts to eider habitat would be permanent. If 

they were revegetated without removing the gravel, the habitat would not return to its historic 

use. If gravel was removed, habitat similar to that existing in the area could be created and

used by eiders, although the habitat types would likely not be the same as what occurred in the

area prior to disturbance. Alternative D would have an increased potential for adverse impacts 

to eiders from abandonment and rehabilitation compared to Alternative A due to the greater 

amount of pads and infrastructure. Alternative D would have similar but moderately more 

potential than Alternative B due the greater infrastructure and potentially greater spatial 

distribution but less than under Alternative C. 

Effects of Spills 

Oil spills would have similar types of effects to threatened eiders as under the other 

Alternatives. However, there would be an increased risk of a contaminant spill occurring under 

Alternative D. The potential for an offshore spill would increase because there would be 

approximately 20% more barge traffic under Alternative D than Alternative A. The risk of an 

onshore spill risk increases with increased volume of oil expected to be produced. The risk (or

number of) large spills under Alternative D increases by about 27% (0.6 spill – see section 4.2.2 

– Oil Spills) and the potential spill volume from large spills increases by 2,880 barrels 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-560 

Alternative D: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

compared to Alternative A. An offshore spill would have the potential to spread through the 

action of wind and currents and could affect molting eiders in Harrison and Smith bays. 

There could be an increased risk that an oil spill would occur and impact eiders in onshore 

habitats north and east of Teshekpuk under Alternative D, as compared to Alternatives A and

B, as more of this area would be available for leasing under Alternative D. In the remaining 

portion of the planning area, the potential effects of an oil spill to eiders would be similar under 

all alternatives, although eider density is lower. Excluding the Goose Molting Habitat Area and 

Teshekpuk Lake Special Area, the areas available for leasing would be the same under all 

alternatives, and similar lease stipulations would apply. There would be a greater potential that 

an oil spill would occur and impact eiders in the Deep Water Lakes Area south of Teshekpuk 

Lake under Alternatives B, C and D than Alternative A, as a facility could be permitted within 

the 1⁄4-mile buffer around fish-bearing lakes under the action alternatives. However, Lease 

Stipulation K-2, which would apply to the Alternatives B, C, and D and would prohibit 

permanent facilities within 1⁄4 mile of fish-bearing lakes without prior consultation with 

regulatory agencies. The potential for an offshore or terrestrial spill to impact spectacled and 

Steller’s eiders would be less under Alternative D compared to Alternative C. 

Oil entering a river or stream could potentially spread into delta or coastal areas where impacts 

to threatened eiders could be more severe. Lease Stipulation K-1 would help reduce the 

likelihood that an oil spill would enter a major river or stream. This lease stipulation would 

provide setbacks of 1⁄2 to 3 miles from specified rivers, within which permanent oil and gas 

facilities would be prohibited, although pipelines could be permitted in some of these areas. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Gas development would have impacts on eiders similar to that described for oil development, 

except that there would be no impacts from oil spills. Any effects of natural gas development 

and production on spectacled and Steller’s eiders are expected to be limited to temporary, 

nonlethal effects, perhaps resulting in disturbance to a few birds. However, a natural gas well 

blowout occurring from June to September could affect eiders that are nesting, rearing young, 

staging, or migrating. Some mortality could result from such an incident, although it is likely 

that no more than a small number of individuals would be affected. Such impacts to eiders 

would be more likely in alternatives B, C, and D, which make important eider habitat available 

for leasing north and east of Teshekpuk Lake than Alternative A. 

4.6.10-b.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Under Alternative D, almost the same lease stipulations and ROPs that apply to alternatives B 

and C would apply. These measures should be equally, more, or less effective than the lease 

stipulation measures developed for Alternative A when viewed individually. In total they 

should be considered different but likely to achieve similar protections although in different 

areas and with different means. Most ROPs and Lease Stipulations that would reduce impacts 

to eiders have been discussed in previous sections. Additional discussion is provided here for 

ROP E-11 and Lease Stipulation K-4. 

ROP E-11 is specific to eiders. It requires pre-construction surveys for 3 years which will assist 

in facility and infrastructure placement to avoid eiders. It also requires minimizing overhead 

lines and guywires. Transmission lines are required to be attached to VSMs or buried off-pad 

and marking devices are required for guywires. These requirements substantially reduce the 

4-561 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

collision risk by limiting hard to detect overhead transmission wires and making guywires more 

visible. 

Under Alternative D, a buffer around goose molting lakes within which permanent oil and gas 

facilities (except pipelines) would not be permitted would help mitigate impacts to spectacled 

and Steller’s eiders from the effects of development in these areas. These buffers are equal to 

(1/4 mile or larger >1 mile) than the buffers under K-4 for Alternative B and C. However, 

portions of the Goose Molting Area that receive protection under alternatives A and B would be 

open to surface occupancy under Alternative D. The highest spectacled eider concentrations in 

the planning area occur in the Goose Molting Area and development in this area could result in 

a higher level of disturbance to eiders than would occur under alternatives A and B. In 

addition, under Alternative D, pipeline construction would be permitted in the entire Goose 

Molting Area, which could result in increased levels of disturbance and habitat loss as well as 

increased potential for an oil spill in an area of high eider use. The area east and southeast of 

Teshekpuk Lake in the caribou habitat area, where surface occupancy is restricted, would also 

provide some protection for disturbance and habitat loss for eiders although spectacled eiders

occur in low to moderate densities in this area. 

4.6.10-b.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative D the types of disturbances related to vehicle, aircraft, pedestrian, and vessel 

traffic, routine maintenance activities, heavy equipment use, facility noise, and oil spill clean-up 

activities would be the same as those that would occur under the other alternatives. The 

potential for these disturbances to impact spectacled and Steller’s eiders would be greater under 

Alternative D, compared to alternatives A and B, because a greater portion of high eider use 

areas in the Goose Molting Area would be available for leasing and development under 

Alternative D. Under Alternative D, these impacts would be reduced compared to Alternative 

C. 

The potential for habitat loss and alteration to affect eiders would be greater under Alternative 

D compared to alternatives A and B because there would be a greater potential for 

infrastructure to be located in areas of high eider use in the Goose Molting Area. In addition, 

road and pipeline construction could occur throughout the Goose Molting Area, which could

result in further loss of eider habitat and increased levels of disturbance. The potential for eider 

mortality resulting from collisions with vehicles and/or infrastructure and marine vessel traffic 

would also be greater under this alternative than under alternatives A and B. Under 

Alternative D, development related impacts to spectacled and Steller’s eiders would be less 

compared to Alternative C. 

In general, impacts to eiders from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas activities, 

would likely be additive, except in those areas where the two types of activities overlapped.

Impacts to eiders from exploration and development activities would also be additive, except 

where development activities occurred in areas previously disturbed during exploration. 

However, once exploration and development/production ceased in an area, bird populations and

habitat could recover, reducing overall effects in the planning area. In areas where two or more

activities occurred, overall impacts would reflect those impacts associated with the first activity 

and any new impacts associated with later activities. Because of the potential for disturbance 

in a larger portion of the Goose Molting Area, impacts to eiders under Alternative D would 

probably be slightly greater than Alternative B, and much greater than under Alternative A. 

Under Alternative D, impacts to eiders would be less compared to Alternative C. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-562 

Alternative D: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.6.10-c Polar Bears 

4.6.10-c.1 Activities Not Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Subsistence hunting and disturbance of denning bears resulting from winter overland travel 

likely have the most effect on bears in planning area. There is no record of where bears are 

taken, so the how subsistence take impacts bears in or near the planning area is unknown, but 

on average 32 polar bears from the Southern Beaufort Sea stock are taken annually in Alaska 

(Angliss and Outlaw 2005). Winter overland travel not in support of oil and gas is likely 

relatively rare in the planning area and unlikely to result in significant disturbance effects. 

Research activities and close passes (<1 mile) may cause abandonment of a den if they occur 

early in the season but do not appear to have significant effects later in the season (Amstrup 

1993). 

4.6.10-c.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Seismic 

Under Alternative D, a small number of polar bears could be affected by seismic exploration 

occurring along the coast, although ROP C-1 would prohibit seismic activities within one mile of

known or suspected polar bear dens or seal birthing lairs. 

Exploration 

Under Alternative D, increased levels of exploratory drilling and development that could occur 

near the coast would increase the likelihood of displacing or attracting polar bears or causing 

den abandonment compared to Alternative A. Most polar bear dens near the planning area are 

off the coast, north of Teshekpuk Lake. The effects of exploration activities, including 

disturbance and potential spills, would depend on the scale and duration of the activity and 

could affect some marine mammals. 

Development and Production 

Female polar bears denning within approximately one mile of construction activity could be 

disturbed by vehicle traffic and construction noise. If disturbance leads to premature 

abandonment of the den it could result in the potential death of cubs (Amstrup and Gardner 

1994). The relatively greater amount of development anticipated under Alternative D compared 

to Alternative A or B increases the likelihood that activities associated with oil and gas have 

greater impacts on denning polar bears. However, the required set-backs under Lease 

Stipulation K-1 and K-4 from major rivers and the coastline respectively would reduce the 

likelihood of construction destroying potential den sites. Polar bears could be attracted to drill 

sites by food odors and curiosity, increasing the potential for negative human-bear interactions, 

and the possible death of bears in defense of human life and property. However, under current 

rules, policy, and practice there has not been a DLP taking reported in the Alaska oil fields

(Schliebe et al. 2006) 

As under other Alternatives, consultation between oil field developers and the USFWS would

result in the use of nonlethal means of deterrence if necessary. 

4-563 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Contaminant Spill 

Female polar bears select “bluffs” including river banks for denning habitat, thus they are more 

likely to be present in river drainages. Any spill that reached a river during late fall when polar 

bears are constructing dens, occurred in winter under ice, or in spring during broken ice periods 

could impact denning polar bears and their young if the spill was large enough to reach the den 

area in sufficient concentration. The potential for a spill is increased under Alternative D 

compared to Alternatives A and B due to the greater amount of oil expected to be produced. 

Spring or summer spills that reached marine waters would have the greatest likelihood of 

impacting polar bears or their prey. Spills during broken ice or in the lead system would have 

the largest potential for adverse effect. 

Polar bears are generally widely dispersed, thus any spill would be unlikely to affect more than 

one to three bears. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Effects would generally be the same as under construction. Dismantling of equipment and

modules and readying it for transport would most likely take place during summer. Transport 

of large or heavy material would be a winter activity and occur over ice roads. Any recontouring or removal of gravel would primarily be done in the winter, although some summer

activity may be necessary to finish. Any planting or monitoring would also be a summer 

activity. A combination of surface vehicles and aircraft would be required for transportation. 

The potential for large spills would be substantially reduced after shut-down. 

Because more development is predicted and could occur over a larger area than under 

Alternative A or B, Alternative D has a greater likelihood of impacting polar bears during 

abandonment and rehabilitation but less than Alternative C. Some disturbance of denning 

bears could occur, and there is a possibility of a DLP taking; however, under no case is the level

of effect expected to cause population level responses. 

Commercial Gas Development 

If natural gas development and production occur in the coastal areas used by polar bears, 

potential impacts would include those described above for oil development, such as attraction to 

waste from the facilities, though there would be no oil spill impacts. Denning female bears may 

be encountered during winter construction or maintenance activities. Aroused female bears may 

abandon the den, potentially leaving cubs. Additionally, increased energy expenditure could 

negatively impact the cub survival. Because more lands near the coast would be available for 

oil and gas development under this alternative than in Alternative A, there is greater potential 

for impacts to polar bears than under Alternative A. If gas development occurs in rough 

proportion to that projected for oil development, there would be more impacts under this 

alternative than in Alternatives A and B, but less than for Alternative C. 

4.6.10-c.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Alternative D would include the same performance based ROPs and Stipulations as Alternative 

B and C. ROP A-1 would minimize the potential for food waste to attract polar bears and the 

need for deterrence or take. The ROP is similar to current practice within the Prudhoe oil fields 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-564 

Alternative D: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

which has resulted in few deterrence actions and no DLP takings since implemented (Schliebe

et al 2006). 

Required Operating Procedure C-1 would prohibit the cross-country use of heavy equipment and

seismic activities within 1 mile of known or observed polar bear dens or seal birthing lairs. This 

ROP would also require operators to consult with the USFWS before initiating activities in 

coastal habitat between October 30 and April 15. Letters of Authorization reinforce the ROP 

and may result in area specific restriction that would further reduce the likelihood of adverse

affect. 

The K-1 Lease Stipulation would require 1-3 mile setbacks from the major rivers the planning 

area. This is expected to reduce the potential for disturbing denning bears in these areas. 

Pipelines could still cross these areas so the likelihood of a spill from a transport pipeline is 

possible but spills from accidents on pads, parallel pipelines or at compressor stations would be 

very unlikely to reach the river banks. 

Lease Stipulation K-6 would prohibit the placement of permanent facilities within 3⁄4 mile of the 

coast, except where technological limitations, economics, logistics, or other factors necessitated

a structure. Under these circumstances, the use of a previously occupied site (Camp Lonely, 

Husky/USGS drill sites, and DEW-Line sites) would be considered. The elimination of new 

permanent facilities within 3⁄4 mile of the coast should be effective in reducing the potential for 

disturbance to polar bears and their prey and is expected to reduce the potential for disturbance

(displacement or attraction) of polar bears along the coast. 

4.6.10-c.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative D, ROPs and lease stipulations (as described under “Effectiveness of 

Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures”) would prohibit the construction of 

permanent structures within 3⁄4 of a mile of the coast, although exploration could occur in the 

area. The effects of exploration activities, including disturbance and spills, would be localized 

and would be unlikely to affect populations. Individual polar bears could be affected by 

exploration activities and seismic surveys in close proximity to polar bear dens and could cause

abandonment of maternity dens by polar bears. Avoidance requirements are expected to result 

in only a small number of dens being affected. 

A greater area would be affected under Alternative D than under Alternative A or B. The 

opening of the area north of Teshekpuk Lake would allow development in areas where polar 

bears are most likely to occur; however, coastal buffer and river buffer requirements should 

reduce the potential for adverse effects. The ROPs and Stipulations combined with the relative 

low density of denning bears near the planning area make it unlikely that Alternative D would 

have a significant effect on polar bear populations. 

4.6.11 Cultural Resources 

4.6.11.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Aircraft and watercraft traffic, scientific investigations (e.g., archaeological and paleontological 

surveys and excavation), summer camps, hazardous and solid waste material removal and 

4-565 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

remediation, overland moves, and recreation could cause effects to cultural resources. The 

effects of these non-oil and gas activities on cultural resources under Alternative D would be the 

same as those occurring under Alternative A. There would be no difference in the occurrence of 

recreational use between Alternative A and Alternative D. However, a greater amount of 

scientific work could occur in the planning area under Alternative D than in Alternative A 

(though less than in Alternative C) as exploration increases along with other management 

activities by BLM. As a result, there would be a greater likelihood of effects to cultural 

resources in the planning area under Alternative D than under Alternative A. 

4.6.11.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Under Alternative D the amount of area available for exploration along a geological feature 

known as the Barrow Arch, which is anticipated to hold significant deposits of hydrocarbons, 

would be greater than under Alternative A. The amount of land anticipated to receive surface 

impacts, though less than in Alternative C, would be greater than that for Alternatives A and B. 

Consequently, under Alternative D the likelihood of impacts to known and undocumented

cultural resources would be greater than in all alternatives except Alternative C. 

Effects of Disturbances 

Under Alternative D the level of disturbance associated with oil and gas exploration and 

development activities in the planning area is anticipated to be about 25% greater than under 

Alternative A, 15% greater than under Alternative B, but 5% less than under Alternative C. 

However, because most of the oil and gas activities would occur during the winter months when 

buried cultural resources are protected by snow cover and frozen soil, the potential for effects to 

buried cultural resources would be minor. As discussed for Alternative A, the likelihood of oil 

and gas activities affecting surface cultural resources would be minor because of the isolated

occurrence of these resources and because of the variety of lease stipulations and ROPs that 

would govern oil and gas exploration activities. 

Under Alternative D the types of effects of possible disturbance would be the same as those 

occurring under Alternative A. Efforts to supply necessary materials for construction of gravel 

pads, airfields, and roads at this scale could increase the likelihood of damage to known or

undocumented cultural resources in the planning area. The excavation of gravel material for 

the construction of the permanent facilities would be a primary source of potential effects to

cultural resources. Pipelines would not have associated all-weather gravel roads or pads and 

would be constructed during the winter months from an ice road and pads. Therefore, the only 

effects on cultural resources resulting from aboveground pipeline construction would be 

associated with the placement of VSMs, and would depend on the depth at which the VSMs 

were set. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

It is unlikely that cultural resources would be impacted by abandonment activities unless the 

facilities to be abandoned or removed during rehabilitation were themselves historic. 

Effects of Spills 

Under Alternative D the effects of oil spills on cultural resources would be the same as those 

that would occur under Alternative A, though because there is an increased chance for more

spills and more spilt oil, there would be a corresponding marginal increase in the potential 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-566 

Alternative D: Cultural Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

impacts to cultural resources. In the exploration stage, most spills would occur on an ice pad or 

ice road and during winter conditions. In such a case, the spill or subsequent spill cleanup 

would probably not alter or destroy buried cultural resources. Warm oil, however, could melt 

through the snow and ice and impact cultural resources buried near the surface. An oil spill 

could affect surface cultural resources by covering these resources with oil or other spill 

material. A spill occurring during the summer would have a greater potential to affect surface 

and subsurface cultural resource sites than a spill occurring during the winter because the 

effects of both the spill and subsequent cleanup would be greater. Oil spills on cultural resource 

sites would cause damage proportional to the extent of contamination, and could require data 

recovery (excavation) as part of remediation and clean-up efforts. However, irreparable damage 

to some of the data could occur. Oil spills at cultural resource sites, either surface or buried, 

could make radiocarbon dating of that site problematic or impossible. 

Commercial Gas Development 

The types of impacts on cultural resources that natural gas development and production would 

cause would be the same as those caused by oil development described above, except that there 

would be no crude-oil spills, impact from creation of gravel pads would be increased for a 10- to 

20-acre pad for a pipeline compressor station, and if a gas pipeline is buried—the likely 

method—there would be additional acreage disturbed with increased potential for disturbance 

or destruction of cultural resources. As with Alternatives A and B, it is anticipated that burying 

the pipeline would result in digging up approximately 162 miles of four feet wide and five feet 

deep trench (approximately 80 acres) and potential surface disturbance of 210 acres in areas 

adjacent to the trench from potential disturbance from machinery or placement of backfill. The 

risk to cultural resources would be reduced dramatically if gas pipelines are put on VSMs. 

4.6.11.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Under Alternative D several lease stipulations and ROPs would minimize the effects of oil 

exploration and development activities on cultural resources. Required Operating Procedure E13 requires that a survey for cultural resources be conducted prior to any ground disturbing 

activity. Required Operating Procedure I-1, which corresponds to Lease Stipulation 63 of 

Alternative A, would be effective in reducing cultural and resource conflicts through an 

orientation program for personnel that would teach the importance of not disturbing 

archaeological resources, as well as sensitivity to community values, customs, and lifestyles. 

The “K” lease stipulations would require setbacks along rivers, streams, lakes, cabins, and the 

coast, providing effective protection to cultural resources in these areas. Lease Stipulations K-1, 

K-2, K-3 and K-7 would effectively minimize the loss of cultural resources through setbacks 

from certain rivers, lakes. Additional “K” lease stipulations (K-8, K-9, and K-10) would apply to 

areas previously unavailable for leasing under the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD, but available 

for leasing under Alternative D. Lease Stipulation K-9 would protect an area with a large 

number of cultural resource sites on the east side of Teshekpuk Lake from surface occupancy 

and would prohibit permanent oil and gas facilities, including major ROW, such as pipelines 

and major roads. However, Lease Stipulations K-4(h) and K-10, while prohibiting permanent oil 

and gas facilities within the RSO area, could allow ROW for pipelines in areas with 

concentrations of known cultural resources. In addition, Lease Stipulation K-11 would allow up 

to 300 acres of permanent surface disturbance in each of seven lease tracts north of Teshekpuk 

Lake, except in those areas of the Goose Molting Area that would be off limits to surface 

development. Cultural resources have been documented in the proposed lease tract areas (see

Map 3-34). 

4-567 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Cultural Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Prior to any undertaking (i.e., ground-disturbing activities such as the construction of buried 

pipelines, all weather gravel roads, and gravel well pads) on Federal lands, the NHPA would 

require that an archaeological resource survey be completed. If cultural resources were 

identified during such a survey, BLM guidelines and policy would require that all impacts to 

these resources be mitigated to the satisfaction of the land manager and the State Historic 

Preservation Officer. 

4.6.11.4 Conclusion 

The probability of impacts to known and undocumented cultural resources would greater under 

Alternative D as compared to alternatives A and B, because of the increase in the amount of 

land that could be impacted, but less than that for alternative C. Effects to cultural resources

from oil and gas activities could occur in leased areas of the planning area and would continue 

for the duration of operations through abandonment. Known cultural resources would not be 

affected, but the presence of undocumented cultural resources in the planning area cannot be 

discounted. Multiple sales over the available portions of the planning area increase the 

likelihood of effects to undocumented cultural resources. 

Approximately 2 to 3% of the planning area has been surveyed for cultural resources. The 

distribution of known cultural sites does not reflect locational preference of prehistoric and

historic people, but rather indicates that only portions of the planning area (e.g., well sites, 

portions of the coast, the Colville River, the Ikpikpuk River, and the Teshekpuk Lake area) have 

been examined through some type of organized reconnaissance for the presence of cultural sites.

The TLUI sites generally cluster in these same areas with greater density on the lower 

Ikpikpuk River and associated drainages (NSB 1978, 2003). Activities that could occur near 

these areas may have a greater likelihood of impacting cultural resources. For example, the

Teshekpuk Lake Special Area contains a high density of documented archaeological, historical, 

and TLUI sites (see Map 3-34), and is likely to have a high density of undocumented 

archaeological, historical, and TLUI sites. Exploration and development activities in the 

Teshekpuk Lake Special Area could impact these known and undocumented cultural resources. 

In general, impacts to cultural resources from non-oil and gas activities, and from oil and gas 

activities, would likely be additive, except in those areas where the two types of activities 

overlapped. Impacts to resources from exploration and development activities would also be

additive, except where development activities occurred in areas previously disturbed during 

exploration. In areas where two or more activities occurred, overall impacts would reflect those

impacts associated with the first activity and any new impacts associated with later activities. 

Because of the larger disturbance area and the potential for more oil and gas exploration and

development activities, potential impacts to cultural resources under this alternative would be 

greater for oil and gas exploration and development activities as compared to Alternative A. 

Impacts could increase, too, if oil and gas exploration and development activities occur in an 

area with a high concentration of cultural resources, such as the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area. 

These impacts would be effectively mitigated by lease stipulations and ROPs that prohibit oil 

and gas exploration and development in areas with a high likelihood of having cultural 

resources: enforcement of lease stipulations and ROPs that prohibit collection of artifacts and 

require training of workers regarding avoidance of effects on cultural resources; and compliance 

with all Federal laws, including the National Historic Preservation Act, which requires surveys

for cultural resources in areas where ground-disturbing activities are proposed. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-568 

Alternative D: Cultural Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.6.12 Subsistence 

4.6.12.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative D, non-oil and gas activities requiring permits from the AO could be subject 

to the stipulations outlined in Appendix F, as well as any other applicable Federal, state, and 

NSB regulations. Activities not associated with oil and gas exploration and development 

include: aircraft and watercraft use; research activities, including remote camps associated with 

research; overland moves; solid and hazardous waster removal, and recreation. All of these 

activities have the potential to affect subsistence use. See section 4.1 for a detailed description 

of the types of non-oil and gas activities that may occur in the planning area. 

Effects of Disturbances 

Aircraft Use. Under Alternative D, the effects of aircraft use would be similar to that described 

under Alternative A, although it would have a greater potential to interfere with subsistence 

species and hunters, should research increase. The opening of areas to the north and west of 

Teshekpuk Lake could increase the amount of aircraft disturbance to subsistence species, 

relative to Alternative A, thereby affecting Nuiqsut, Atqasuk, and Barrow subsistence users 

(see Maps 3-36, , 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, and 3-42). Aircraft could divert caribou that are 

migrating or caribou in insect relief areas, as well as seals, walrus, and whales from subsistence 

use areas. This would increase the number and duration of trips needed to maintain the level of 

subsistence harvest necessary to support the community. In addition, subsistence users could 

have to travel farther to harvest subsistence foods, resulting in more time spent in pursuit of 

subsistence species, increased stress and anxiety of subsistence user, loss of money, increased

costs in fuel and time, and increased risk of equipment failure and meat spoilage, and increased 

risk of possible loss of life or serious bodily injury. If subsistence resource users have an 

emergency far from existing communities and facilities, rescue efforts must be mounted by the 

NSB with the help of the nearest communities at increased cost due to increased travel 

distances, along with increased risk of possible injury or loss of life for rescue personnel. 

Nuiqsut subsistence users have repeatedly stated during scoping meetings that aircraft traffic 

reduces harvest access and success (Nukapigak 1998, Ahtuangaruak 2003, Kaigelak 2003, 

Olemaun 2003). 

Watercraft Use. Under Alternative D, the effects of watercraft on subsistence harvest patterns 

would likely be the same as those discussed under Alternative A. 

Research Activities. As baseline data are gathered preparatory to further lease sales under 

Alternative D, scientific research and data collection could increase as compared to Alternative 

A. Clearance and inventory of cultural resources would increase in anticipation of further lease,

development, and exploration activity in the planning area. Biological research and monitoring 

would increase to expand baseline data for future effects monitoring. The result of increased

research and data collection would be temporary and would include localized diversion, 

deflection, or disturbance of subsistence users and species, including caribou, moose, wolf, 

wolverine, muskox, and spotted seals (USDOI BLM 2003a). 

The amount of scientific research and data collection associated with lease sales would likely be 

greater under Alternative D than under Alternative A. Therefore, there would be an increased

likelihood that these activities would affect subsistence users and species. Research activities 

would predominately take place in the summer months. Aircraft-based biological surveys have 

4-569 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

the greatest likelihood of affecting subsistence harvest patterns because they cover a large area,

last a long time relative to other research activities, and are known to elicit responses from

caribou and waterfowl (Nukapigak 1998, Ahtuangaruak 2003, Kaigelak 2003, Olemaun 2003). 

Archaeological, paleontological, and geological activities involving personnel walking on tundra 

would have effects on subsistence species for the duration of the activity. 

Recreation. Under Alternative D there could be more recreation in the planning area than 

under Alternative A in response to publicity, but it would likely be limited to summer use of 

river corridors. Recreation would result in a temporary and local effect on subsistence species. 

Similar to Alternative A, recreational users would likely frequent waterways used by 

subsistence hunters during the summer months, potentially causing resource user conflicts. The 

effects of these conflicts on subsistence harvest patterns would likely be localized and of short 

duration. Since the amount of recreation that would occur would be more or less the same under 

Alternatives A and D, effects to subsistence harvest patterns would also be much the same. 

Waste Removal. Solid and hazardous waste removal and remediation, such as monitoring of 

existing clean-up sites and aging infrastructure (e.g., wellheads), would be ongoing and 

independent of additional lease availability. The effect of solid and hazardous waste removal 

and remediation on subsistence species under Alternative D would be similar to those that 

would occur under Alternative A. Over the short term, a localized deflection of subsistence 

species could occur. Long-term effects could include a decreased potential for contamination of 

subsistence species with the cleanup of waste sites. 

As discussed under Alternative A, solid and hazardous waste removal and remediation 

activities would have localized effects that would last for the duration of the activity. Evaluation 

activities would have little effect on long-term harvest patterns. Site cleanup and remediation 

activities could temporarily divert or disturb caribou, muskox, and grizzly and polar bears, but 

would have little effect on long-term subsistence harvest patterns. 

Overland Moves. Similar to Alternative A, overland moves would occur only by permit and 

would be subject to stipulations and ROPs. Stipulations and ROPs would mandate procedures

to protect denned bears and minimize impacts to caribou. However, overland moves could 

temporarily deflect local subsistence species when they occur. Overall, the effects of overland

moves on subsistence harvest patterns would likely be similar under all alternatives. 

Conclusion 

The effects of non-oil and gas activities on subsistence species would be similar to those that 

would occur under the Alternative A. Activities would be, in most cases, of limited duration and 

magnitude, and effects on subsistence species would be limited to the immediate area of the 

activity. However, the duration, extent, and magnitude of effects could be slightly greater 

under Alternatives B, C and D than under Alternative A. Under all action alternatives, aircraft 

traffic could increase during summer to support activities (such as scientific research) that 

would be required prior to expanding lease areas, resulting in increased effects to subsistence 

species through temporary and localized diversion, deflection, or disturbance of animals. 

Non-oil and gas activities that could affect subsistence harvest patterns include aircraft use and 

scientific research and data collection. As discussed Alternative A, these activities could alter 

the availability of subsistence species in traditional harvest areas through direct interference

with hunts. This direct interference could affect harvest patterns by requiring hunters to travel 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-570 

Alternative D: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

further, because the subsistence resources are more wary than normal following a disturbance 

or are deflected from traditional harvest areas following the presence of vehicles, vessels, and

aircraft. Nuiqsut residents have noted that aircraft have diverted subsistence resources away 

from areas where hunters were actively pursuing them, directly interfering with harvests or 

causing harvests to fail (USDOI BLM 2004C). Increased travel distances would result in greater 

expenditures for fuel and equipment, as wear and tear on snowmobiles, outboards, and fourwheel vehicles would occur. 

4.6.12.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

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

planning area’s 4.6 million acres for oil and gas leasing. Management practices would 

emphasize performance-based stipulations and ROPs on surface activities, consultation with 

local residents, and coordinated scientific studies to protect wildlife habitat, subsistence use 

areas, and other resources. Under Alternative D, Teshekpuk Lake (approximately 211,000 

acres) would be deferred from leasing. This deferral would preclude exploratory drilling and 

pipeline construction. Current leases are not 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, including the creation of larger lease blocks 

and a cap on the number of acres of disturbance allowed in each block, have been developed to

protect important resources and subsistence activities in the TLSA (see section 2.3.4 for a 

description of these protective measures). 

Effects of Disturbances 

Aircraft Activity. Disturbance from aircraft activity related to oil development would be 

greater under Alternative D compared to Alternative A, as new areas within the planning area 

would be available for oil and gas leasing. Activities related to aircraft use could disturbed 

subsistence activities which could in turn impact subsistence users. Some of these impacts 

include loss of money, loss of time, loss of subsistence food, increase cost in fuel, increased 

degradation on equipment, increase stress and anxiety and increase risk of loss of life or serious

injury. These impacts could lead to a greater need for emergency search and rescue 

responsibilities by local governments. 

Seismic Survey Activity. Under all alternatives, it is anticipated that five additional seismic 

surveys, three 2-D and two 3-D, would be conducted within the planning area in order to cover 

all gaps where seismic has not yet occurred. The three 2-D surveys are projected to potentially 

impact a total of 8,126 acres, which is the combined total of acres impacted by the survey and 

acres impacted by the camp train overland move. The two 3-D surveys are estimated to 

potentially impact a total of 99,870 acres, combined. It is also assumed that the surveys would 

occur in those areas currently not covered by 3-D surveys, which include the foothills area and

the area north and east of Teshekpuk Lake (see Figure 4.6). The area north of Teshekpuk Lake 

is favorable habitat for denning polar bears. The South Beaufort polar bear sub-population is 

an important subsistence resource that could be affected by seismic activity under Alternative 

D. According to Schliebe et al. (2006) oil exploration and development occurring in near-shore 

environments within the South Beaufort Sea polar bear sub-population range is a conservation 

concern. The effects of seismic exploration under Alternative D could be greater than those 

described under Alternative A (see section 4.3.12.2). 

4-571 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Exploratory Drilling. Under Alternative D it is estimated that 110 exploratory wells will be 

drilled in the planning area, with an additional 83 delineation wells drilled in subsequent years 

near wells that showed potential as oil producers. Wells that do not indicate the presence of 

hydrocarbons in developable quantities will be plugged and abandoned. Wells that show 

potential may be “suspended,” and capped with what is known as a “Christmas tree” at the 

surface. It is anticipated that, at most, 7 drill rigs will be operating in the planning area in any 

given winter season, an increase (relative to Alternative A) of 2 rigs under this alternative. 

Impacts as a result of exploratory drilling under Alternative D will be identical to those 

described under Alternative A; however, given the increase in proposed activity, the effects on 

subsistence use and species would be greater in magnitude, extent, and duration. Subsistence 

species that may be affected include caribou, wolves, wolverines and polar bear. In addition, 

opening the entire planning area to exploratory drilling increases the likelihood of subsistence 

user conflicts with oil and gas activities. And, as discussed under Alternative B, the more 

anticipated activity, the greater the increase in conducting necessary studies prior to the winter 

drilling season (see section 4.4.12.2). The effects as a result of Alternative D would be greater 

than Alternatives A and B, but slightly less than Alternative C. 

Development and Permanent Facilities. The effects of oil and gas exploration and

development activities on subsistence uses and harvests in the Northeast NPR-A under 

Alternative D would be greater in magnitude, extent, and duration than under Alternatives A

and B, and less than under Alternative C. All areas that were unavailable for year-round 

occupation and development under Alternative A, except Teshekpuk Lake, would become

available under Alternative D, and subsistence uses in these areas could be affected by oil and

gas development. The primary effect of oil and gas development activities in the area 

surrounding Teshekpuk Lake would be to deflect subsistence users from the vicinity of

development pads, roads, and pipelines. In addition, these facilities could deflect caribou from 

their normal migration, calving, insect-relief, and grazing areas. Development activities may 

also deflect the caribou from subsistence harvest areas used by Nuiqsut, Atqasuk, and Barrow 

residents. Pipelines, pads, and roads may concentrate caribou during certain seasons in areas 

where they would not likely be harvested by subsistence users due to prohibitions against 

hunting in industrial areas and fears of accidents and contamination. Development near 

Teshekpuk Lake could also affect subsistence uses of fish, waterfowl, and seals in areas near

exploration, development, and production activities. 

Subsistence users tend to avoid areas of oil infrastructure and activity for the reasons noted in

Alternative A. Hunters from Nuiqsut, Barrow, and Atqasuk would be directly affected by 

development in the Teshekpuk Lake area, where numerous subsistence camps, cabins, and ice

cellars are located. Nuiqsut subsistence users have stated during scoping meetings and public 

testimony that air traffic reduces harvest success (Nukapigak 1998, Ahtuangaruak 2003, 

Kaigelak 2003, Olemaun 2003). Based on data from Pedersen et al. (2000) and Pedersen and 

Taalak (2001), as a consequence of oil development, Nuiqsut caribou harvesters tend to avoid 

development, with approximately 78% of the 1993 and 1994 caribou harvests occurring greater 

than 16 miles from the development east of the Colville River. More recently, 51% of the 1999­

2000 harvests occurred greater than 16 miles from the Alpine field and 27% occurred 6 to 15 

miles from the Alpine field. Oil and gas development could divert subsistence users a distance 

of 5 to more than 25 miles from facilities. 

Nuiqsut, Barrow, and Atqasuk subsistence users harvest wolves and wolverines in the planning 

area. These species could be displaced by development in the area (Brower 1997). Alternative 

D would have a greater effect on subsistence caribou harvests than Alternative A, and similar to 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-572 

Alternative D: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Alternatives B and C, because the areas of potential activity would be large, the duration of oil 

and gas activity in the area could be longer, and the geographical extent of possible 

development (from the Colville River to the Ikpikpuk River surrounding Teshekpuk Lake) 

would be greater. 

Waterfowl could be affected by activity in newly-opened areas during construction and 

production. Helicopter traffic and persons walking on tundra or gravel pads would be the most 

likely sources of disturbance to nesting and molting waterfowl (USDOI BLM and MMS 2003). 

Development under Alternative D has the potential to have greater effects on black brant, 

which are an important subsistence resource. The communities of Point Lay, Wainwright, 

Barrow, and Nuiqsut harvest brant as they move to and from molting areas north of Teshekpuk 

Lake. Effects to black brant in their molting area may have impacts on the subsistence use of 

brant in other parts of the state, including communities on the Seward Peninsula or the YukonKuskokwim Delta. Increases in predator populations near developed areas could cause locally 

severe nesting failures and elevated predation on waterfowl in developed areas (Burgess 2000, 

Johnson 2000b). However, these effects should be relatively minor, geographically widespread, 

and occur during the relatively brief period when these animals are present in the area. Some

aspects of oil and gas development could create new habitat favorable to waterfowl survival, 

such as reclaimed gravel pits and water impoundments near roads (Johnson 2000a, b; 

McKendrick 2000; Ritchie and King 2000; Sedinger and Stickney 2000). Reclaimed gravel pits 

complicate some subsistence harvests, however, by making it difficult to recover waterfowl from

the deep lakes left behind. A possible indirect effect of development in the Teshekpuk Lake

area would be the placement of restrictions on harvests of waterfowl on the North Slope, the 

Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta areas, and along the Pacific Flyway, in response to reduced waterfowl 

populations. These restrictions would reduce subsistence harvests (USDOI BLM and MMS 

1998). 

Subsistence fish harvests take place in all seasons, primarily in freshwater rivers and lakes. 

Nuiqsut’s primary harvest area for fish is located in the northeast quarter of the planning area, 

in the Colville River and its delta channels and Fish and Judy creeks, where development is 

already in the planning stages. A loss or reduction in Nuiqsut’s fish harvest would be a 

hardship for the community, as fish provide approximately 30-40% of all subsistence harvest by 

weight in the community (see section 3.4.2). Barrow residents harvest fish during caribou 

harvest activities along the coast and in the Teshekpuk Lake and Chipp and Ikpikpuk river 

areas (see Map 3-39), and they receive fish in trade from Nuiqsut residents. Atqasuk residents

fish in several lakes near Teshekpuk Lake and in the Chipp and Ikpikpuk rivers (SRBA 2003b). 

Under Alternative D, development activities could impact fish harvest patterns; however, the 

lease stipulations and ROPs should be effective in protecting fish numbers to ensure availability 

for subsistence harvests. More development in previously restricted areas may deflect 

subsistence users from harvest areas and impede access for subsistence users, however.

Therefore, effects of Alternative D on subsistence fishing could be greater than those described

under Alternative A, and similar to Alternatives B and C. 

As noted under Alternative A, oil and gas development could inhibit subsistence harvesters’ use 

of traditional harvest areas, which could reduce harvest success; increase the cost, effort, and 

risk involved with subsistence harvest; increase the and wear and tear on equipment used for

harvesting subsistence foods; devalue elders’ knowledge of the traditional landscape; increase 

the importance of local knowledge of oil industry schedules and practices; and reduce the 

enjoyment of eating traditional foods, should harvests be reduced or perceptions of 

contamination of subsistence resources arise. 

4-573 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Conclusion 

Under Alternative D, the duration, severity, and extent of the effects of oil and gas development

activities on subsistence users and species would be greater than under Alternatives A and B,

as there would be a larger area open for year-round occupation and development, which would

include ecologically sensitive areas that would not be open under Alternatives A or B, which 

include caribou calving and insect relief areas, goose molting areas, and areas used by denning 

polar bears. The amount of habitat loss and degradation would also be greater under 

Alternative D than under Alternatives A and B. Oil and gas activities could divert caribou and 

waterfowl from normal habitat areas and deflect these species from normal migration routes 

until they were able to habituate to activities and infrastructure changes in these areas. 

Caribou might be deflected from preferred habitats at times of nutritional or energy stress.

Development in the area around Teshekpuk Lake could reduce available areas for animals to 

use if set-aside areas are overgrazed or their value to the animals are reduced in response to

climate, use, weather, drought or flood, and other possible forces which may change habitats. 

Increases in fox (red and Arctic), seagull, and jaeger populations associated with human 

activities could result in an increased risk for predation of molting geese, eggs, and fledglings. 

Changes in overwintering and seasonal fish habitat caused by oil development (e.g., turbidity, 

salinity changes, reduced dissolved oxygen, redirection of sheet flows, and possible spills) could 

harm fish populations. Some species, (e.g., wolves and wolverines) would avoid human activity, 

while others (e.g., bears and foxes) are attracted to such activity and could become nuisance 

animals. Oil and gas activities would inhibit subsistence users from harvesting in their 

traditional use areas, including areas previously unavailable for leasing. Polar bears may be

affected in coastal and near-shore areas by seismic activities and development to a greater 

extent under Alternative D compared to Alternative A. 

The opening of the area around Teshekpuk Lake could increase the amount of aircraft 

disturbance to subsistence species and users, as compared to Alternatives A and B. As 

discussed in section 3.4.2, Subsistence, Nuiqsut, Barrow, Atqasuk, Wainwright and

Anaktuvuk Pass depend on TLH caribou as a subsistence species. If oil and gas activities were 

to deflect, divert, or reduce the TLH caribou population, harvest of caribou by area residents 

could be reduced until the caribou were able to habituate to the increased activity and 

infrastructure in the area. Oil and gas activities in the northeast portion of the planning area 

could affect Nuiqsut subsistence and activities, deflecting migrating caribou away from 

traditional harvest locations, reducing harvest access and success. If TLH caribou were to move 

outside of their normal migration routes, Anaktuvuk Pass could suffer a shortage of caribou, its 

main subsistence resource, until the normal migration route was resumed. As a result, a 

greater expenditure and risk on the part of the subsistence hunters from Anaktuvuk Pass would

be required, and other communities would supplement the loss of traditional foods at the cost of 

increased hunting effort and expenditure in their subsistence use areas. In the past, when the

herd has failed to pass near the community, Anaktuvuk Pass hunters had to fly to other 

locations in search of subsistence food, increasing community stress and the time necessary for 

harvest success, as well as reducing the connection with traditional areas (SRBA 2003b). 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

During oil facility abandonment and rehabilitation activities, which include the removal of all 

equipment and facilities, and the plugging of all wells, subsistence resources and activities 

would be subject to impacts similar to those caused by construction as described under 

Alternative A (see section 4.3.12.2). Following the abandonment and rehabilitation, 

subsistence resources would be subject to fewer impacts. If the gravel roads and pads were left 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-574 

Alternative D: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

in place and remained serviceable, they could be used by residents to provide access to 

subsistence resources, possibly reducing hunting effort and time. 

Effects of Spills 

Under Alternative D, it is assumed that 2.775 large spills (e.g., greater than or equal to 500 

barrels of oil, but less than 120,000 barrels) consisting of an estimated 13,320 barrels of oil, 

could occur in the planning area. These spills would consist of unrefined crude oil from a 

pipeline, or possibly as much as 900 barrels of crude or diesel oil from a gravel pad facility. 

Small spills (e.g., less than 500 barrels) are currently the most frequently-occurring spill type on 

the North Slope, and primarily consist of the release of less than a barrel of aviation fuel, diesel 

fuel, engine lube oil, fuels oil, gasoline, grease, hydraulic oil, transformer oil and transmission 

oil. Under Alternative D it is estimated that a total of 659 small crude oil spills and 1,628 

refined oil spills could occur in the planning area. A very-large spill, defined as a spill greater 

than or equal to 120,000 barrels of oil, is considered extremely unlikely to occur within the 

lifetime of this plan. 

The risk of oil spills under Alternative D would be similar to that under Alternative A; however, 

a greater area of important caribou, waterfowl, and fish habitat would be subject to potential 

contamination by oil spills. The area surrounding Teshekpuk Lake and north to the Beaufort 

Sea, largely unavailable for leasing and/or year-round occupation under Alternative A and

partially unavailable under Alternative B, would be open for year-round development and 

operation under Alternative D. Subsistence users have stated that they prefer not to hunt in

industrial areas, and the communities of Barrow, Atqasuk, and Nuiqsut have harvested 

resources in the area to be opened under Alternative D. The communities of Barrow, Atqasuk, 

and Nuiqsut rely greatly on the TLH caribou for subsistence, and Wainwright and Anaktuvuk 

Pass utilize the herd to a lesser extent. Large oil spills could affect subsistence patterns by 

reducing populations of subsistence species, contaminating subsistence species or their habitats, 

resulting in the resource being unfit to eat or polluted. These effects could reduce the amount of 

subsistence foods harvested, cause changes in traditional diets, increase risks and wear and 

tear on equipment if users were required to travel farther to find more suitable resources, and 

cause social stress due to the reduction or loss of preferred foods harvested in the traditional 

fashion. Effects on subsistence harvest patterns would be greater under Alternative D than 

under Alternatives A and B, but less than under Alternative C, because oil and gas activity 

would occur over a larger and more ecologically sensitive area, and the likelihood of an oil spill 

occurring would be greater. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Effects on subsistence resources and harvest patterns from natural gas development and 

production under Alternative D would occur in much the same way as effects would occur under 

that alternative from oil development and production, though there would be no crude oil spills 

from gas production. Because Alternative D makes important subsistence resource habitat and 

subsistence use areas available for leasing and development, this alternative would likely result 

in greater impacts to subsistence than Alternative A, though less than Alternative C, which 

makes even more such area available. Winter burial of the pipeline would potentially disrupt 

caribou and subsistence hunters, though once buried, a gas pipeline should not have additional 

impacts on subsistence. If a natural gas well blowout occurred, the subsistence harvest of any 

species in the vicinity could be affected and, if an explosion and fire occurred, subsistence 

resources in the immediate vicinity could be killed. Natural gas and condensates that did not

burn in the blowout would be hazardous to any organism exposed in high concentrations. 

4-575 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

However, natural gas vapors and condensates would be dispersed very rapidly from the blowout 

site (1 km downwind for about 1 day) and would affect only those species in the immediate 

vicinity of the accident. While such an effect would be relatively short term and localized and 

likely would not measurably affect the regional population of any species, it could cause 

disruption to subsistence harvests in the area of the blowout. In addition, subsistence hunters, 

who already tend to avoid oil field infrastructure, may be even more likely to avoid gas fields for 

fear of a well blowout. 

4.6.12.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

The performance-based lease stipulations and ROPs are intended to protect subsistence 

resources to the same extent as the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD prescriptive lease stipulations 

under Alternative A. Under Alternative D, oil exploration and development would be allowed 

over a wider area and in more sensitive areas and habitats than under Alternative A; however, 

ROPs (e.g., ROPs H-1 and H-2) intended to minimize conflicts between subsistence uses and oil 

and gas activities would be in place. During scoping, subsistence users stated that the proposed

revision to the 1998 Northeast IAP is a breach of faith, that opening up more areas in the 

planning area would have severe negative effects on subsistence users from Barrow and 

Nuiqsut, and that the BLM was acting as an advocate for development rather than managing 

the land for multiple compatible uses (Ahmaogak 2003, NSB 2004). 

Local municipal government and tribal governments generally have few paid staff and limited 

funding, and local government officials and tribal leaders feel they are overtaxed when asked to

provide meaningful input to BLM on permitted activities. Institutional overload affects 

subsistence users by placing increased, non-compensated demands on their time, further 

reducing the time available to continue subsistence pursuits and most severely for those 

working year-round, full time jobs. These officials and leaders contend that the change from the 

prescriptive lease stipulations in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD to performance-based ROPs 

and lease stipulations in the Northwest IAP/EIS (and as proposed in this amendment) would

place them in the position of having to defend subsistence interests because compliance is now 

defined in terms of meeting a management objective rather than meeting an absolute

prescriptive standard. To effectively respond, they would have to further stretch their existing 

capabilities to review and comment on increasingly numerous industry proposals and their 

impact on subsistence (NSB 2004). 

BLM holds that performance-based lease stipulations and ROPs would provide equivalent 

protection, while gaining flexibility for adaptive management. The flexibility of the new 

approach places greater reliance on on-going monitoring to insure that these procedures do in 

fact achieve equivalent protections. BLM is committed to directing the necessary resources to

this on-going monitoring requirement, including support for the continuing work of the 

Subsistence Advisory Panel to provide oversight, exchange information, and develop solutions 

for any emerging issues. 

Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures on Subsistence 

Species 

Under Alternative D, several ROPs and lease stipulations would address subsistence species. 

With the exception of Lease Stipulations K-4(h), K-9, K-10, and K-11, the ROPs and lease 

stipulations for Alternative D would be the same as for Alternatives B and C. Required

Operating Procedures A-2 and A-8 would be effective in seeking to avoid human-caused changes 

in predator populations (i.e., avoid attracting wildlife to food and garbage). Required Operating 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-576 

Alternative D: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Procedures A-4 to A-7 would be effective in minimizing the impact of contaminants (spills) on 

wildlife and the environment and to protect subsistence resources. Required Operating 

Procedures B-1, B-2, D-1 and D-2 would be effective in maintaining populations of, and habitat 

for, fish and invertebrates. 

Required Operating Procedure C-1 would be effective in protecting bear denning and birthing 

sites during overland moves. Required Operating Procedures C-2 to C-4 would be effective in 

protecting streams and prevent additional freeze down of deep-water pools harboring 

overwintering fish and invertebrates. 

Required Operating Procedure E-1 would be effective in protecting subsistence use and access to

traditional subsistence hunting and fishing areas and minimize the effects of oil and gas 

development on subsistence resources. Required Operating Procedures and Lease Stipulations 

E-2, E-3, E-6, and E-8 would be effective in maintaining free passage of marine and anadromous

fish and protecting fish habitat, as well as subsistence use and access to traditional subsistence 

fishing. Required Operating Procedure E-7 would be effective in minimizing disruption of 

caribou movement and subsistence use by elevating pipelines to a minimum of 7 feet as opposed 

to the 5-foot minimum in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD. Required Operating Procedure E-9 

would be effective in minimizing human caused increases in populations of species that prey on

ground nesting birds. Required Operating Procedure E-10 would be effective in preventing 

migrating waterfowl from striking oil and gas facilities during low-light conditions. Required 

Operating Procedure E-11 would be effective in minimizing the take of species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act (e.g., spectacled and Steller’s eiders) and minimizing disturbance to

other species caused by interaction with oil and gas facilities. 

Required Operating Procedure F-1 would be effective in minimizing the effects of low-flying 

aircraft on wildlife. Lease Stipulations K-1 and K-2 would be effective in minimizing the 

disruption of natural flow patterns; changes to water quality; changes to floodplain and riparian

areas; and loss of fish spawning, rearing, or overwintering habitat through setbacks along rivers 

and around lakes. Lease Stipulations K-3, K-5, K-6, and K-7 would be effective in protecting fish 

and wildlife habitat and minimizing disturbance of caribou and alteration of migration patterns 

in the Teshekpuk Lake region and in coastal areas. 

Lease stipulations proposed under Alternative D would limit surface occupancy and disturbance 

while making 95% of the Northeast NPR-A available for leasing, exploration, and eventual 

production. Lease Stipulation K-4(h) would limit surface occupation in the Goose Molting Area 

north of Teshekpuk Lake to pipelines and allow winter seismic testing and exploratory drilling. 

Lease Stipulation K-9 would prohibit surface occupancy, excluding pipelines, in two areas: the 

first between the east shore of Teshekpuk Lake and the western extent of the Kogru River; and

the second in an area northwest of Teshekpuk Lake, but would allow winter seismic exploration

and exploratory drilling. Lease Stipulation K-10 would set aside the Southern Caribou Calving 

Area (located south and east of Teshekpuk Lake, and including the Kogru River) as a caribou 

calving, post-calving, and insect-relief area. No permanent facilities, except for pipelines, would 

be allowed in this area. Lease Stipulation K-11 would divide the area north of Teshekpuk Lake

into seven large lease tracts. No more than 300 acres of surface disturbance would be allowed in 

each tract for permanent facilities, excluding pipelines. The limitations on surface area 

disturbance would be intended to reduce impacts to caribou and goose habitats. While these 

additional lease stipulations provide some protection for caribou and geese in areas opened for 

leasing under Alternative D, subsistence resources could still be affected by oil and gas 

activities, as pipelines would be allowed in all of the area opened up for leasing. 

4-577 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures on Subsistence 

Harvest Patterns 

In general, the ROPs and lease stipulations seek to protect specific resources by establishing 

spatial buffer zones around facilities and infrastructure, scheduling disruptive activities for 

periods when there is the least potential for conflicts with other users, making efforts to include 

community residents in project planning, monitoring effects on subsistence resources, and 

making efforts to minimize the interference of oil and gas exploration and development 

activities and structures with subsistence resources and users. The effectiveness of these 

measures depends heavily on their ongoing implementation, enforcement, and local 

participation. With the exception of Lease Stipulations K-4(h), K-9, K-10, and K-11, the ROPs 

and lease stipulations for Alternative D are the same as for alternatives B and C. Required

Operating Procedure A-4 would be effective in minimizing the impact of contaminants (spills) on 

fish, wildlife, and the environment, and would protect subsistence activities and resources. 

Required Operating Procedure E-1 would be effective in protecting subsistence use and access to

traditional subsistence hunting and fishing areas. Lease Stipulation E-3 would be effective in 

maintaining free passage of marine and anadromous fish and protect subsistence use and access

to traditional subsistence hunting and fishing. Required Operating Procedure E-7 would be 

effective in minimizing the disruption of caribou movement and subsistence use by requiring 

that pipelines and roads be designed to allow the free movement of caribou and the safe and

unimpeded passage of subsistence hunters. Ground pipelines would be elevated a minimum of 7 

feet to facilitate wildlife passage and subsistence passage. Access, ramps would be placed, after 

consultation with appropriate Federal, state, and NSB regulatory and resource management 

agencies, in areas where facilities or terrain funnel caribou movement. Pipelines and roads 

would be separated by 500 feet, where possible. 

Required Operating Procedure F-1 would be effective in minimizing the effects of low-flying 

aircraft on wildlife, traditional subsistence activities, and local communities. This ROP is 

designed to minimize aircraft disturbance of caribou and bird populations and sensitive habitat 

areas, especially near known subsistence camps and cabins or during sensitive subsistence 

hunting periods (spring goose hunting and fall caribou and moose hunting). Required Operating 

Procedures H-1 and H-2 are subsistence-specific mitigation procedures designed to provide 

opportunities for participation in planning and decision-making to prevent unreasonable 

conflicts between subsistence uses and oil and gas activities, including seismic exploration. 

Required Operating Procedure H-2 would define potentially affected cabins or campsites and 

would provide for additional consultation requirements for geophysical exploration beyond those 

required in ROP H-1. Required Operating Procedure I-1 would require the lessee to provide a 

cultural orientation program for all oil and gas workers to minimize cultural and resource 

conflicts with local inhabitants. Of special concern is aircraft use near traditional subsistence 

cabins and campsites during spring goose and fall caribou and moose hunting. 

Lease Stipulations K-1 and K-2 would be effective in minimizing impacts to subsistence cabins 

and campsites and disruptions to subsistence activities by prohibiting permanent oil and gas 

facilities (e.g., gravel pads, roads and airstrips, and pipelines) through setbacks along/around 

the Colville, Ikpikpuk, Miguakiak, Kikiakrorak and Kogosukruk rivers, Fish and Judy creeks, 

and the Deep Water Lakes areas. Lease Stipulation K-3 would be effective in protecting 

subsistence resources and access to the Teshekpuk Lake area by ensuring that there would not 

be unreasonable conflicts with traditional subsistence uses and access or impacts to seasonally 

concentrated fish and wildlife resources. Lease Stipulation K-6 would be effective in minimizing 

impacts to subsistence activities in coastal areas through a setback of 3⁄4 of a mile from the 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-578 

Alternative D: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

coastline, to the extent practicable, as well as the use of previously occupied sites (e.g., Camp

Lonely, various Husky/USGS drill sites and DEW-Line sites). 

Alternative D has added lease stipulations regarding development in the Teshekpuk Lake

Special Area as compared to alternatives B and C. Lease Stipulation K-4(h) allows for 

exploration in the Goose Molting Area, but allows for no permanent facilities, except for 

pipelines. This lease stipulation would limit impacts to sensitive geese during molting, nesting,

and fledging periods. Pipelines affect the migration, grazing, insect-relief, and calving habitat 

use of caribou. Other animals, such as caribou, muskox, wolves, wolverines, moose, polar and

brown bears, and Arctic and red fox, could be disturbed air traffic associated with monitoring 

pipelines and resupplying facilities, and pipeline-related habitat changes (McKendrick 2000). If 

wildlife were deflected or disturbed, subsistence harvest patterns could be affected as hunters

would be required to travel further to harvest resources. 

Lease Stipulation K-9 would close an area between Teshekpuk Lake and the Kogru River, and

an area northwest Of Teshekpuk Lake to all surface occupancy, excluding pipelines, but would

allow for winter exploration activities. This area is an important passageway for caribou 

migration, as well as for calving, post-calving and insect relief. Winter exploration activities 

such as seismic testing and exploratory drilling could disturb overwintering caribou, fish, 

wolves, wolverines, and denned brown bears. Caribou diverted from this area could be subject 

to increased harvest pressure if they escape oil exploration activity by walking towards Barrow, 

Nuiqsut, or Atqasuk. This lease stipulation would protect caribou calving, post-calving and 

insect-relief habitats, but could alter the distribution of caribou and make it more difficult for 

subsistence users to hunt caribou. 

Lease Stipulation K-10 would designate 233,000 acres southeast and southwest of Teshekpuk 

Lake, and including the Kogru River, as Restricted Surface Occupancy for permanent facilities, 

but would allow for pipelines and for winter exploratory activities. This lease stipulation would 

reduce direct impacts to a key caribou calving, post-calving, and insect-relief area. Allowing

pipelines through this area could divert or disturb caribou during critical calving and postcalving periods. Air traffic associated with pipeline monitoring could potentially disturb calving 

and post-calving caribou in the spring and summer and could disturb overwintering caribou. 

This lease stipulation would also reduce potential conflicts with subsistence users by limiting 

the amount of surface occupancy by permanent oil and gas facilities. By allowing pipelines in

this area, however, use of the area by subsistence resource users could be impeded. 

Lease Stipulation K-11 would divide the area north of Teshekpuk Lake into seven lease tracts. 

No more than 300 acres of additional disturbance would be allowed within each lease tract for 

permanent oil and gas facilities, excluding pipelines. Permanent oil and gas facilities and 

pipelines in this area could affect waterfowl, caribou, wolves and wolverines. Winter 

exploration, development and production activity in this area could divert or disturb 

overwintering caribou, wolves, wolverines, denned brown bears, and overwintering fish. 

Summer activity could divert or disturb waterfowl, caribou, fish, wolves, wolverines, brown 

bears, seals and walrus. Subsistence users from Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Atqasuk use the area for 

subsistence harvests in all seasons and may not use area if oil and gas development and 

production occurred in the area. 

4.6.12.4 Conclusion 

Most impacts to subsistence species associated with oil and gas development would be localized 

and would not substantially affect subsistence species numbers, as long as the activities 

4-579 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

occurred outside of key habitat areas or migratory zones when animals were present. In

addition, the ROPs and lease stipulations discussed above, could be effective in protecting 

subsistence species and may help to resolve conflicts between the oil and gas industry and local 

residents. Even in the best case scenario of species protection and consultation, however,

subsistence users could be constrained by oil and gas facilities from harvesting subsistence 

resources, would question the health of those resources, and would tend to harvest resources at 

least 5 miles from areas of development. Should oil and gas exploration and development 

activities divert resources from their accustomed routes and places, greater effort would be 

required on the part of subsistence users to locate, access, and harvest sufficient quantities of 

these resources. Increased travel distances would result in greater expenditures for fuel and

equipment, as wear and tear on snowmobiles, outboards, and four-wheel vehicles would occur.

Impacts under this alternative would be expected to be greater than under Alternatives A and 

B, but less than Alternative C. 

As expressed in public scoping testimony, local residents are fearful for the future of subsistence 

hunting on the North Slope, their ability to carry on with traditional customs and ways in their 

preferred locations without interference, and their ability to be able to pass along these 

traditions to their children. Under Alternative D, these fears could be realized if oil and gas 

development occurs in the area north of Teshekpuk Lake, and subsistence resources are 

impacted by these activities. 

4.6.13 Sociocultural Systems 

4.6.13.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative D, the effects of non-oil and gas activities on sociocultural patterns would be 

greater than under Alternative A, similar to Alternative B, and less than Alternative C. There 

would be a greater amount of scientific research and data collection undertaken prior to lease 

sales and as part of Federal land management responsibilities. These research efforts and 

associated aircraft use could cause temporary and localized diversion or deflection of 

subsistence species. It is not expected that the amount of recreational and solid and hazardous 

waste removal and remediation would be greater under Alternative D, but more overland moves 

could be required to support scientific and other activities in the areas newly available for 

leasing. Several families from Atqasuk, Barrow, and Nuiqsut use cabins, camps, caches, and 

other sites along the coast and inland to Teshekpuk Lake for subsistence activities. The area is 

also an important route for residents who travel by snowmobile between Barrow, Atqasuk, and 

Nuiqsut for social, subsistence, and employment reasons. Continued use of this area helps 

maintain family connections and a feeling of relatedness and stability, which could be impeded 

or reduced by increased activity if these areas are opened to oil and gas development. In 

general, effects from non-oil and gas activities under Alternative D would be temporary and 

localized, and would be unlikely to affect overall sociocultural patterns. 

4.6.13.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Oil and gas exploration, development, and production would require a seasonal network of ice 

roads, permanent gravel roads, runways, and pads, a year-round corridor for pipelines and 

powerlines, and permanent gravel pads and production facilities. 

Effects of Disturbances 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-580 

Alternative D: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

The types of effects on sociocultural patterns from disturbances caused by oil and gas activities 

under Alternative D would be the same as under Alternative A, but would be greater in 

intensity and duration. These impacts would be similar to Alternative B, but less than those 

expected under Alternative C. Increases in the amount of area available for leasing and

exploration would have a corresponding increase in effects to subsistence harvests as compared

to those for Alternative A. The development proposed for the planning area would require 

increased staging and overland travel during the winter, and in summer would require 

increased use of aircraft for supplies, equipment, and crew changes, as compared to Alternatives 

A and B. In all seasons, noise, lights, personnel, and traffic near oil and gas infrastructure could 

temporarily deflect or divert caribou in areas where activities are occurring; however, gravel

pads could provide caribou with insect-relief habitat. These effects could change the 

distribution, timing, and location of the caribou harvest, which could require increased effort 

and expenditure on the part of subsistence hunters, resulting in sociocultural consequences, 

such as increased stress and a decreased sense of well-being. These problems are discussed in 

more detail in section 4.6.19. Oil and gas development could divert subsistence users from 

facilities at distances from 5 to more than 25 miles. Given the high gasoline costs on the North 

Slope, this would add additional cost to subsistence harvests. Increased fuel costs and wear and

tear on hunters and their equipment would increase the need for wage labor to support 

subsistence pursuits and reduce the time available to pursue subsistence activities, which 

would result in sociocultural consequences, such as increased stress and a decreased sense of 

well-being. Increases in the speed, range, and reliability of outboards and snowmobiles have 

facilitated the mixed subsistence and wage economy, but could not compensate for impacts to 

subsistence harvest activities from continued development and production activities in 

important subsistence harvest areas as proposed under Alternative D. 

As discussed under Alternative A, long-term change to sociocultural patterns would result from 

a weakening of stabilizing traditional institutions through prolonged stress and disruptive 

effects that could be exacerbated by activities occurring under this alternative. These changes 

are already occurring to some degree on the North Slope because of onshore oil and gas 

development, more dependence on a wage economy, higher levels of education, improved

technology, improved housing and community facilities, improved infrastructures, increased 

presence of non-Natives, increased travel outside of the North Slope, and increasing penetration 

of television and the Internet. Data from other circumpolar Inuit populations suggest that 

continued modernization is associated with a trend toward displacement of sociocultural 

systems, including: a trend toward less time being spent conducting subsistence harvest 

activities; less subsistence consumption among younger generations; a greater focus on a cashbased economy, as opposed to the egalitarian sharing network; an increased importance on the 

nuclear family, as opposed to the more-traditional extended family structure (Curtis et al. 2005; 

Nobmann et al. 2005; Condon et al. 1995). North Slope Borough institutions, such as the school 

district that promotes the teaching of Iñupiat language and culture, the Arctic Eskimo Whaling 

Commission that negotiates with industry to protect Iñupiat subsistence whaling interests, the 

NSB Department of Wildlife Management, and other regional and village Native corporations 

and organizations, have been working vigorously and quite successfully at preventing the 

weakening of traditional Iñupiat cultural institutions and practices. Increased social 

interactions between oil-industry workers and Nuiqsut residents could be long term, but there 

is not expected to be a tendency toward displacement of Iñupiat social institutions. However, 

population changes in ethnicity, such as the influx of a large non-native population, could 

disrupt or displace existing sociocultural systems and cultural institutions. Small-scale changes

in population and employment are unlikely to disrupt sociocultural systems or displace existing

institutions (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998, 2003). 

4-581 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Sociocultural Systems 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Abandonment and rehabilitation activities would restore habitat for caribou and other 

subsistence species and subsistence resources would be subject to fewer impacts, potentially 

improving subsistence opportunities. Abandonment and rehabilitation activities would likely 

provide jobs for local residents for several years. However, after oil and fields were reclaimed 

and abandoned, jobs associated with them would cease. At present, very few long-time Nuiqsut 

residents have jobs in the oil fields; people instead move to Nuiqsut if they get employment at 

the oil fields (CRA 2002). If local residents were to become substantially integrated into oil field 

operations and the local communities were to become dependent on revenues associated with 

their operation, the community would face a period of economic depression as fields were

abandoned. The NSB is currently undergoing a period of contraction in services and funding as 

oil field revenues decline, and has had to cut police presence and privatize services in some 

rural communities (NSB 2000, Anchorage Daily News 2004). Other potential avenues for 

maintaining income at the standards established in the oil development era have not been

identified. 

Effects of Oil Spills 

The effects of oil spills would be the same as those discussed in Alternative A. Under 

Alternative D there would be a greater likelihood that a spill event could occur than under 

Alternatives A and B, but less than under Alternative C, with the potential to damage unique 

critical habitats and subsistence use areas. Effects would vary in severity depending upon the 

timing and location of the spill event, but fish, waterfowl, and marine and terrestrial mammals 

could all be affected. An oil spill could result in contamination of subsistence resources and 

would be a threat to the health and lifestyle of the affected communities. If a large oil spill 

occurred in a traditional use area, then subsistence users would have to travel further to 

harvest uncontaminated resources, which would result in high effects to sociocultural patterns 

for a much longer time than the period that subsistence resources would be measurably 

contaminated. An oil spill that reached coastal waters could affect the harvest of marine 

mammals, including bowhead whale harvests, which are at the center of Iñupiat sociocultural 

organization. 

Activities associated with cleanup of an oil spill could have an effect on sociocultural systems. In 

the event that a large spill contacted and extensively oiled habitats, the presence of hundreds of 

humans, boats, and aircraft would increase the displacement of subsistence species and alter or

reduce access to subsistence species by subsistence hunters. These events would supply shortterm employment for local residents, at the expense of long-term subsistence resource

availability and long-term employment. Because it is expected that oil spills from activities 

would be small, chronic events and would normally be contained on the drill pad, effects from 

the spills themselves and potential disruptions from clean-up activities would be unlikely to 

cause excessive disturbance to sociocultural systems or the surrounding environment. A large 

oil spill, however, would be catastrophic to the sociocultural structure of the whaling peoples of 

the North Slope if it were to occur in a riverine, nearshore, or marine environment. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Effects on sociocultural systems under Alternative D and all other alternatives would be due to 

effects on subsistence harvest patterns, changes in employment and population, and effects on 

public health. In the event of natural gas development and production in the planning area, 

there could be an increase in employment and population in some North Slope communities and 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-582 

Alternative D: Sociocultural Systems 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

subsistence use patterns and public health may be affected as described in sections 4.6.12 and 

4.6.19, respectively. The amount of employment and population change would probably differ 

among the alternatives in rough proportion to the amount of oil production and infrastructure

development that would occur under each alternative. 

4.6.13.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

The performance-based lease stipulations and ROPs proposed under Alternative D would

provide equivalent or greater setbacks from rivers and lakes than under Alternative A, but 

would allow drilling, permanent facilities and pipelines in the area around Teshekpuk Lake. 

Exploration, including seismic testing and exploratory drilling, would also be allowed in the 

area around Teshekpuk Lake. Lease Stipulation K-11 would divide the area north of 

Teshekpuk Lake into seven lease tracts. No more than 300 acres of additional permanent oil 

and gas facilities, excluding pipelines, would be allowed within each tract. 

Required Operating Procedure I-1 would require the lessee to provide a cultural orientation 

program for all oil and gas personnel involved in planning area activities in order to effectively 

minimize cultural and resource conflicts with local inhabitants. This orientation program, as it 

relates to subsistence pursuits and cultural concerns, would: 1) provide sufficient detail to notify 

personnel of applicable lease stipulations and ROPs, as well as inform them about specific types 

of environmental, social, traditional, and cultural concerns that relate to the region; (2) address 

the importance of not disturbing archaeological and biological resources and habitats, and 

provide guidance on how to avoid disturbance; 3) be designed to increase sensitivity and 

understanding of personnel to community values, customs, and lifestyles in areas where

personnel would be operating; 4) include information about avoidance of conflicts with 

subsistence, commercial fishing activities, and pertinent mitigation; and 5) include information 

for aircraft personnel concerning subsistence activities and areas and seasons that are 

particularly sensitive to disturbance by low flying aircraft (e.g., aircraft use near traditional 

subsistence cabins and campsites, flights during spring goose hunting and fall moose hunting 

seasons, and flights near North Slope communities). 

4.6.13.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative D, areas of importance to subsistence users, including areas surrounding 

subsistence camps, critical habitat for subsistence species, and large concentrations of historic 

and prehistoric cultural resources, could be impacted by oil and gas activities and could increase 

anxiety in Nuiqsut, Barrow, and Atqasuk. If oil and gas development occurs near the north 

shore of Teshekpuk Lake, and is connected by roads and pipelines to the Alpine field, an 

important subsistence use area used by residents of Nuiqsut, Barrow, and Atqasuk could be 

avoided by subsistence users. Bowhead whales would be deflected and their behavior made

more dangerous to hunters if marine traffic increases in the Point Lonely area (NSB 2004). 

Development in the area north of Teshekpuk Lake could impact anadromous and 

amphidromous fish numbers, habitat, migration patterns, and quality as subsistence foods. 

Increased air and ground traffic could take place at the Alpine field and at a proposed staging 

area south of Nuiqsut, and could divert caribou and other subsistence species away from 

Nuiqsut. Increased traffic and activity could also make subsistence harvesting more difficult for 

residents who do not own or have access to motorized transportation or depend on walking, 

trucks, and OHVs to travel to harvest areas. Traffic that occurred north and south of Nuiqsut 

could isolate the community from subsistence resource harvest areas and could prevent 

residents from using their homelands, subsistence cabins and camps, and unspoiled open areas 

4-583 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Sociocultural Systems 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

for resource harvests and pursuits. This would further degrade the quality of life and connection

of people with their land and environment. 

Under Alternative D, economic impacts on the communities should be positive at the Borough

level, but may not benefit local communities if the jobs and revenue generated in the 

communities do not offset the effects of loss of subsistence harvests and land use. Circumpolar 

Research Associates reported that long-time Nuiqsut residents did not get jobs in the oil field, 

rather, people were hired from other communities and moved to Nuiqsut after getting the jobs 

(CRA 2002). Sarah Kunaknana, a Nuiqsut elder, and others in the communities have noted a 

growing divide in the communities that originates in the uneven distribution of benefits and

costs from oil and gas exploration and development (NSB 2004). Nuiqsut residents have been 

impacted by industrial activity near the community, but do not feel that they have received a 

proportional amount of impact funds or other compensation. 

While Federal subsistence management responsibilities would remain unchanged under all 

alternatives, residents stated during scoping that the proposed lease stipulations and ROPs 

would be more permissive to lessees, would not sufficiently protect subsistence use areas or

resources, and would diminish what local residents consider to be the BLM’s responsibilities in 

supporting and maintaining subsistence uses in the planning area. In their view, BLM would be 

shifting the responsibilities for enforcing the lease stipulations and ROPs to other local, state, 

and Federal agencies (Ahmaogak 2003, Napageak 2003, NSB 2004). Under Alternative D, areas 

protected under the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD would be made available for oil and gas 

leasing and development. The possibility that important subsistence use areas would be 

developed, and thus placed off-limits to other land users, has caused increased anxiety for 

residents of Nuiqsut, Barrow, and Atqasuk. Residents noted during scoping for this amendment 

that the existing lease stipulations had not been in effect long enough to be adequately tested, 

and that the provisions of the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD have not prevented ConocoPhillips 

from applying for, and the BLM from considering, development in the Fish Creek Setback as 

part of the Alpine Satellite Development Plan. 

Commenters on the amended Northeast IAP/EIS stated that the granting of exceptions to the

lease stipulations and ROPs was a factor undermining the credibility of the proposed Amended 

IAP/EIS. The consultation period leading to the Northeast Amended IAP/EIS ROD, was noted 

by local residents as being a “rushed,” with no power on the part of the communities to reject or 

veto any particular course of action (NSB 2004). Local residents felt that instead of being 

consulted, they were being “informed” by the BLM, which did not build confidence on the part of 

the communities, and reinforced their feelings of being powerless to oppose changes being

imposed by outside agencies and industry (NSB 2004). As a result, some residents regarded any 

effort to participate in consultation or other management processes as futile. This can create a 

feedback loop of decreased participation, decreased interest in cooperation with agencies, and 

increased conflict between agencies, lessees, and local resident groups as evidenced in scoping 

transcripts for 30 years of hearings held on the North Slope. BLM initiates consultation by 

informing interested parties of the proposed action, and inviting said parties to participate in 

consultation, the nature of which is to be determined by mutual agreement. If informed parties 

have no issues and do not wish to participate in further discussions, that is their choice and 

consultation may be complete, although the BLM will continue to communicate and inform 

those entities initially contacted for consultation throughout the planning process. 

The BLM perspective on the effectiveness of mitigation measures also differs from that of 

village residents. BLM believes that the proposed performance-based approach to protecting 

the environment using lease stipulations and ROPs provides the agency greater flexibility to 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-584 

Alternative D: Sociocultural Systems 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

achieve the necessary protections to mitigate the potential impacts from oil and gas 

development in areas proposed to be opened to oil and gas activities under the action 

alternatives. The prescriptive approach adopted in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD gained 

legitimacy and credibility through the extended consultation leading to the final decision. The 

new approach proposed for Alternative D is not well known or understood, and some local 

residents doubt that the new approach would provide equivalent protection. The flexibility of 

the new approach places greater reliance on on-going monitoring to insure that modified

procedures do in fact achieve equivalent protections. Based on input from the local communities

during public hearings on the Draft Amended IAP/EIS, BLM developed Lease Stipulations K-8 

through K-11 for Alternative D to address community subsistence concerns. 

4.6.14 Environmental Justice 

4.6.14.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

The non-oil and gas activities likely to occur in the planning area would primarily be transitory 

in nature, of short duration, and highly localized. They could temporarily divert, deflect, or

disturb subsistence species from their normal patterns. Non-oil and gas activities could alter the 

availability of subsistence species in traditional harvest areas, which could affect harvest 

patterns by requiring hunters to travel further in pursuit of resources. Increased travel 

distances would result in greater expenditures for fuel and equipment, and increased wear and 

tear on snowmobiles, outboards, and four-wheel vehicles and could result in a higher risk of 

accidents. Consequently, there could be an effect on the subsistence hunting activities of the 

local minority population as a result of non-oil and gas activities. Under Alternative D, these 

effects could be slightly greater than those described under Alternative A, but would still be 

minor, temporary, short term, and generally highly localized. As outlined in section 4.6.19, this 

could result in isolate problems of social pathology. 

4.6.14.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbance 

Under Alternative D, disturbances caused by oil and gas activities would be the same as those 

discussed under Alternative A, but their effects on subsistence would be increased in 

magnitude, extent, and duration. Areas that would be unavailable for year-round occupation 

and development under Alternative A would be available for lease and year-round surface

occupation under Alternative D, and could be affected by oil and gas development. Exploration 

and development activity could last 50-60 years, followed by 2-5 years of abandonment activity. 

This time frame would likely represent the duration of effects for species unable to habituate to 

the oil and gas development activities. Public health effects relating to sociocultural and dietary 

change, as well as exposure to contaminants, could persist for considerably longer. 

Alternative D could have long-term effects on several terrestrial mammal species. In particular, 

effects on caribou herds would likely be slightly greater than under Alternatives A and B, but 

less than C (see section 4.6.9, Mammals). It is expected that effects on waterfowl harvested

for subsistence would more frequent and more widespread than under Alternatives A and B, 

given the greater area available for petroleum leasing. Little or no effect on marine mammals 

would be expected from onshore activities under Alternative D, but noise and disturbance 

associated with offshore barge and vessel traffic could impact bowhead whale migration 

patterns. There are concerns that, depending on the particular activity and, especially, the 

4-585 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Sociocultural Systems 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

location of the activity, actions occurring under Alternative D, as under Alternative A, B and C, 

could cause local effects on fish populations. All of these effects would be experienced primarily 

by the subsistence dependent minority Iñupiat population. 

Under Alternative D, the possibility of public health impacts would be substantially increased 

compared with the Alternative A. These impacts would occur primarily through restriction in 

subsistence; influx of large numbers of outside workers; new access routes to the community; 

sociocultural and economic change; altered employment; and contaminants. Diabetes, 

hypertension, and related metabolic disorders would be expected to increase as subsistence is 

curtailed or as sociocultural changes lead to alterations in dietary patterns. Given that 

Alternative D involves substantially more development in and near particularly sensitive 

habitat and hunting and fishing areas, the risk of dietary change and the resultant increases in 

metabolic disorders would appear to be significantly greater. Food insecurity would likely 

increase substantially, and hunger could increase as well is substantial impacts on subsistence 

harvests occur. Cancer, lung disease, endocrine disruption, and neurodevelopmental delay are 

related to contaminants common to oil and gas development. Because of both the increased 

total emissions projected under this Alternative, and the location of operations within an 

important subsistence area, the risks of these problems would be increased under Alternative D.

Social pathology could result from the economic changes anticipated; from increasing access to 

drugs and alcohol; and from stress and maladaptive coping given the impacts to wider regions of 

important traditional use areas. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Activities associated with dismantling and removing of production pads and facilities could 

disproportionately impact Nuiqsut residents through disturbance, displacement, and mortality 

of subsistence resources, through subsistence users’ avoidance of areas undergoing 

dismantlement and removal, and through potential impacts to water, air quality, and noise. 

Once abandonment and rehabilitation were completed, Nuiqsut residents would be 

disproportionately impacted by the reduction in local and Native corporation revenues and by 

fewer local jobs and business opportunities. Since economic depression is associated with 

increased social pathology, this could result in increases in domestic violence, injury, drug and 

alcohol problems, and suicide. Local residents could benefit from a reduction in impacts on 

subsistence resources, compared to during construction and operation. 

Effects of Oil Spills 

As discussed elsewhere, the magnitude of effects of a crude oil spill on subsistence resources 

would depend on the context of the spill, the volume and area covered by spilled product, and 

the amount of time the product was released before clean-up efforts commenced. Tundra oil 

spills could affect small numbers of terrestrial mammals and waterfowl unable to avoid the spill 

area, but would be unlikely to have population level effects. Oil spills (any size) directly into a 

water body, particularly in difficult to contain conditions such as breakup or broken ice, could

spread widely and have effects on fish and waterfowl. In the nearshore environment, a large to

very large spill, particularly during broken ice or storm conditions, could affect marine 

mammals including seals, and beluga and bowhead whales. Oil spills can also be associated 

with toxicological health effects in human populations, as outlined in section 4.6.19. 

Furthermore, if a large spill resulted in a substantial decrease in consumption of subsistence 

foods, food insecurity and hunger as well as diabetes and related metabolic disorders could 

increase. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-586 

Alternative D: Environmental Justice 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

The Iñupiat people consider contamination from oil spills in nearshore waters to be a

catastrophic possibility that would threaten their very existence, primarily because of the 

potential effects of spills on bowhead whales, which are a very important part of their culture in 

addition to being a favored food source (Brower 1976, Itta 2001). Potential effects on 

subsistence harvest patterns would be greater under Alternative D than under Alternative A 

because oil and gas activity would potentially occur over a larger area in the planning area than 

under Alternative A, and there would thus be a greater potential for oil spills. Potential effects 

on harvest patterns would be less under Alternative D than under Alternative C, and slightly 

more than under Alternative B, because of the amount of area allowed for oil and gas activity. 

A major oil spill on the North Slope would result in effects that would impact Iñupiat 

subsistence users more than any other human group. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Environmental Justice impacts of gas development for Alternative D would be largely 

attributable to impacts to subsistence, sociocultural changes, and public health impacts and are 

described, respectively, in sections 4.6.12, 4.6.13, and 4.6.19. While impacts from an oil spill 

would not be a factor, it is possible that well blowouts or the fear of blowouts would increase

subsistence users’ avoidance of infrastructure. The proportional impacts among the 

alternatives would mirror that attributed to oil development. 

4.6.14.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

The lease stipulations and ROPs for Alternative D would protect subsistence resources to the 

same extent as the lease stipulations under Alternative A. Required Operating Procedures H-1 

and H-2 would be highly effective in reducing conflicts between subsistence uses and oil and gas 

activities. Lease Stipulations K-4(h), K-9, K-10 and K-11, which are specific to Alternative D, 

would indirectly support subsistence use, and users, by abetting the caribou and waterfowl 

population successes. 

4.6.14.4 Conclusion 

Several lease sales have already taken place in the planning area. Exploration programs, 

consisting of seismic testing and drilling using ice pads, are ongoing. Residents of Barrow, 

Nuiqsut, and Atqasuk have noted some effects from these activities on subsistence (SRBA 

2003a,b). One effect included the redistribution of caribou, wolves, and wolverines in response 

to seismic activity and cat trains operating in the NPR-A (SRBA 2003a, b). These effects would 

continue under Alternative D, and would be somewhat greater than under Alternatives A and 

B, but less than under Alternative C. Most effects of disturbance would still be short term, but 

the extent and magnitude would likely increase. Effects from oil spills would depend greatly on 

the size, location, and season of the spill. Small spills on gravel pads would have little or no 

environmental justice effects. A major spill into a watercourse, on the other hand, could have 

long term serious effects on Iñupiat subsistence activities. While any major spill would have 

serious consequences, the worst, from an environmental justice standpoint, would be one that 

occurred in a key harvest area or near a community, particularly Nuiqsut or areas used by 

Barrow residents in the northwest portion of the planning area. 

The activities likely under Alternative D could also have substantial health effects, as outlined 

above and discussed in detail in section 4.6.19. Because the population within and near the 

planning area is primarily comprised of Iñupiat, any health effects that occur would 

disproportionately affect this minority population. 

4-587 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Environmental Justice 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.6.15 Coastal Zone Management 

4.6.15.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative D, non-oil and gas activities would be subject to all applicable lease 

stipulations and ROPs, as well as any other Federal, state, or NSB regulations pertaining to the 

activities in question. These activities would be subject to permitting, and would include the 

activities noted in section 4.2.1.1, Activities Not Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration 

and Development, and evaluated for Alternative A in section 4.3.15.1, Coastal Zone 

Management. As non-oil and gas activities are normal occurrences under existing BLM 

management practices, they would, in most cases, be of limited duration and magnitude, and 

effects on neighboring uses, primarily subsistence resources and harvest patterns of nearby 

communities, would be limited to the immediate area of the activity. Activities would be 

consistent with ACMP standards. 

4.6.15.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

As described in section 4.3.15, Coastal Zone Management of this document, Section 

307(c)(3)(B) of the CZMA requires applicants to certify that each of their activities that affects 

any land use or water use in the coastal zone complies with, and would be implemented 

consistent with, the state’s coastal management program. In the following discussion, ACMP 

standards for uses and activities are used to evaluate activities and effects that would occur 

under Alternative D. Policies of the NSB CMP are assessed in conjunction with the most closely

associated statewide standard. 

This analysis is not a consistency determination pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act 

of 1972, as amended, nor should it be used as a local planning document. 

Effects of Exploration and Development Related to the Alaska Coastal Management 

Program 

Coastal Development (11 AAC 112.200) 

Water dependency is a prime criterion for development along the shoreline. The intent of this 

policy is to ensure that onshore developments and activities that could be placed inland would 

not displace activities that depend on shoreline locations, which include marine shores, 

lakeshores, and river waterfronts. Under Alternative D, almost the entire Beaufort Sea coast 

within the planning area would be open to leasing, although Lease Stipulation K-11 would limit 

permanent surface disturbance to not more than 300 acres in each of seven coastal large lease 

tracts and Lease Stipulation K-4(h) would specify Restricted Surface Occupancy in much of the 

area between Teshekpuk Lake and the Beaufort Sea coast. Lease Stipulation K-6 would be 

highly effective in discouraging permanent oil and gas facilities within 3⁄4 mile of the coast, and 

other ROPs and lease stipulations would address sensitive issues areas along parts of the coast 

and near deep-water lakes and major creeks and rivers. 

Other lease stipulations and ROPs (See Table 2-2 in Chapter 2) in place under Alternative D 

would further reduce the potential for conflicts with this policy around lakes and rivers. 

Specifically, ROPs and lease stipulations related to waste-prevention, handling, and disposal 

and spills; ice roads and water use; facility design and construction; abandonment; protections 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-588 

Alternative D: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

for subsistence and traditional use sites; and other activities restrictions would be effective in 

reducing conflicts, making Alternative D consistent with the statewide standard. 

Natural Hazard Areas (11 AAC 112.210) 

This statewide standard permits coastal districts and state agencies to identify and designate 

areas in which natural hazards are known to exist that may present a threat to life or property.

Development in these areas would be prohibited until siting, design, and construction measures 

for minimizing property damage and protecting against the loss of life were provided. 

Flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, storm surges, ice 

formations, snow avalanches, erosion, permafrost, and beach processes in the planning area 

should be considered. Onshore development would be sited in areas of permafrost. Development 

in these areas would be required to maintain the natural permafrost insulation quality of 

existing soils and vegetation (NSB CMP 2.4.6[c] and NSBMC 19.70.050.L.3). Alternative D 

would be required to comply with the statewide standard. 

Coastal Access (11 AAC 112.220) 

Districts and state agencies shall ensure that projects maintain and, where appropriate, 

increase public access to, from, and along coastal water. Alternative D would be consistent with 

this standard, although the larger leasing area along the Beaufort Coast could lead to some 

conflicts with access opportunities, as compared to Alternative A. 

Energy Facilities (11 AAC 112.230) 

The ACMP requires that decisions on the siting and approval of energy-related facilities be 

based, to the extent practicable, on 16 criteria within the energy facilities standard. Lease 

stipulations and ROPs (See Table 2-2 in Chapter 2) in place under Alternative D would be 

effective in reducing conflicts, making the alternative consistent with the statewide standard. 

Other criteria within this standard require that facilities be consolidated and sited in areas of 

least biological productivity, diversity, and vulnerability and where effluents and spills can be 

controlled or contained (11 AAC 112.230 (a) [3] and [14]). Under Alternative D, ROPs and lease 

stipulations would be effective in protecting biologically sensitive areas, although leasing would 

be permitted in coastal areas that would be off limits under Alternative A. The NSB CMP also

requires that transportation facilities and utilities be consolidated to the maximum extent 

possible (NSB CMP 2.4.5.2[f] and NSBMC 19.70.050. K.6). 

Construction associated with energy-related facilities under Alternative D would also be 

required to comply with siting standards that apply to all types of development, which are 

discussed below under Habitats; Air, Land, and Water Quality; and Historic, Prehistoric, and 

Archeological Resources.

 Utility Routes and Facilities (11 AAC 112.240) and Transportation Routes and 

Facilities (11 AAC 112.280) 

These statewide standards require that routes for transportation and utilities be compatible 

with district programs and sited inland from shorelines and beaches. Utility routes and 

facilities along the coast must avoid, minimize, or mitigate alterations in drainage patterns, 

disruption in wildlife transit, and blockage of existing or traditional access. 

4-589 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

The NSB CMP contains several additional policies related to transportation and utilities that 

would be relevant to this analysis; all but one are best-effort policies and are subject to some 

flexibility. Transportation development, including pipelines, which significantly obstructs 

wildlife migration, is subject to three conditions (NSB CMP 2.4.5.1[g] and NSBMC 

19.70.050.J.3.f). Interference with caribou movements would be temporary and brief under 

Alternative D, and would be specifically limited by Lease Stipulations K-9 and K-10; caribou 

migrations and overall distribution should not be greatly affected. Lease stipulations and ROPs 

in place under Alternative D would be effective in reducing conflicts, making the alternative 

consistent with the statewide standard. 

Transportation facilities would be consolidated to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, 

there should be no conflict with either NSB CMP 2.4.5.1(i) (NSBMC 19.70.050.J.3.h), which 

discourages duplicative transportation corridors from resource-extraction sites, or NSB CMP 

2.4.5.2(f) (NSBMC 19.70.050.K.6), which requires consolidation of transportation facilities and 

utilities. Lease stipulations and ROPs required under Alternative D would be highly effective in

reducing conflicts, making this alternative consistent with the statewide standard. 

The NSB CMP 2.4.6(b) (NSBMC 19.70.050.L.2), under the category of Minimization of Negative 

Impacts, requires that alterations to water features associated with transportation and utilities 

be minimized, and that periods critical for fish migration be avoided. Lease Stipulation K-6, in 

particular, would be effective in ensuring compliance with this standard. 

Sand and Gravel Extraction (11 AAC 112.260) 

The ACMP statewide standards indicate sand and gravel may be extracted from coastal waters, 

intertidal areas, barrier islands, and spits if no practicable noncoastal alternative is available to 

meet the public need. Substantial alteration of shoreline dynamics is prohibited (NSB CMP 

2.4.5.1[j] and NSBMC 19.70.050.J.3.i). Constraints may be placed on extraction activities to 

lessen environmental degradation of coastal lands and waters (NSB CMP 2.4.5.2[a] and [d] and 

NSBMC 19.70.050.K.1 and 4). Substantially more gravel could be required under Alternative D 

than under Alternative A, but ROPs and lease stipulations (See Table 2-2 in Chapter 2) would 

place restrictions on gravel mining locations and thus effectively reduce conflicts to ensure 

compliance with this standard and the NSB policies. Alternative D would require somewhat less 

gravel than Alternative B and substantially less than Alternative C. 

Subsistence (11 AAC 112.270) 

The statewide standard for subsistence indicates a project within a designated subsistence use

area must avoid or minimize impacts to subsistence uses of coastal resources. Subsistence uses

of coastal resources and maintenance of the subsistence way of life are primary concerns of the 

residents of the NSB. Under Alternative D, most of the Beaufort Sea coast would be open to

leasing, albeit limited by constraints by ROPs and lease stipulations. As a consequence, access 

to subsistence resources could be more limited than under Alternative A. Disturbances and oil 

spills associated with oil and gas activities would have short-term and localized impacts on the 

TLH caribou and other terrestrial mammals, fish, birds, and bowhead whales and other marine 

mammals. The impacts would result in more difficult and somewhat reduced success at 

subsistence harvests for Barrow, Atqasuk, and Nuiqsut hunters. Subsistence-hunter concerns

about access to resources, resource disturbance, and resource contamination would be greater 

than for the Alternative A, but less than for alternatives B and C. Lease stipulations (See Table 

2-2 in Chapter 2) would offer protection to subsistence resources and activities. Surface, air, and 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-590 

Alternative D: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

foot traffic near the oil fields would be expected to increase more than under Alternative A and

would potentially displace larger numbers of caribou, moose, muskox, grizzly bears, wolves, and

wolverines, but again to a lesser degree than under alternatives B and C. Roads and pipelines

would be constructed to provide for unimpeded wildlife crossings. Based on the analysis of 

disturbance effects on caribou, potential conflict with the subsistence policies would be greater 

under Alternative D than under Alternative A, although Alternative D would likely still comply 

with the statewide standard. 

Policy 2.4.3(d) (NSBMC 19.70.050.D) requires that development not preclude reasonable access 

to a subsistence resource. Onshore pipelines and construction activities could cause disruptions 

to subsistence caribou harvests from access and movement conflicts, but effects are expected to 

be short term. Where access is reduced or restricted, development can occur only if no feasible or 

prudent alternative is available, and is then subject to the conditions of best-effort policies. 

Conflict with these standards and policies would be somewhat greater under Alternative D than 

under Alternative A. 

Several important NSB CMP policies relate to effects on subsistence resources. The NSB CMP 

Policy 2.4.3(a) (NSBMC 19.70.050.A) relates to extensive impacts to a subsistence resource that 

are likely and cannot be avoided or mitigated. In such an instance, development must not 

deplete subsistence resources below the subsistence needs of local residents of the NSB. Policy 

2.4.5.1(a) (NSBMC 19.70.050.J.3.a) addresses development that would likely result in 

substantially decreased productivity of subsistence resources or their ecosystems. Temporary 

reductions in subsistence resources and changes in subsistence resource-distribution patterns 

could occur as a result of disturbance from seismic surveys, aircraft and vessel traffic, drilling 

activities, and construction activities. 

The development scenario under Alternative D predicts that there would be an onshore pipeline 

for oil delivery to the TAPS and that a pipeline spill could potentially contaminate the Colville 

River. A spill entering the Colville River potentially could affect the subsistence harvest by 

reducing fish populations, disrupting subsistence-fishing activity, and curtailing the subsistence 

hunt by tainting resources or causing subsistence users to perceive them as tainted. However, 

the number and size of oil spills estimated for Alternative D would still be small. It is 

anticipated that the potential for effects from spills and associated clean-up activities would be 

greater under Alternative D than under Alternative A, but less than under alternatives B or C. 

The impact on subsistence resources and harvest patterns would remain minor. 

Conflict with policies to protect subsistence resources would be possible during the exploration, 

development, and production phases. Under Alternative D, ROPs and lease stipulations 

designed to protect subsistence resources, and to establish procedures and advisory bodies to 

address subsistence concerns, would be effective in minimizing policy conflicts. Therefore, 

Alternative D should be consistent with the statewide standard. 

Habitats (11 AAC 112.300) 

The statewide standard for habitats contains management measures specific to nine areas: 

offshore areas; estuaries; wetlands; tideflats; rocky islands and seacliffs; barrier islands and 

lagoons; exposed high-energy coasts; rivers, streams, and lakes (including associated floodplains 

and riparian management areas); and important upland habitat. The NSB CMP contains a 

district policy that reiterates the applicability of the statewide standard (NSB CMP 2.4.5.2[g] 

and NSBMC 19.70.050.K.7), plus several others that augment the overall policy or can be 

related to activities within a specific habitat. Under Alternative D, fewer sensitive habitat areas 

4-591 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

would be excluded from leasing than under Alternative A. However, applicable ROPs and lease 

stipulations, including four that are specific to this alternative, would provide effective 

protection for fish, birds, and terrestrial mammals, and their habitats (see Lease Stipulations 

K-4(h), K-9, K-10 and K-11. Therefore, conflicts with the ACMP standards would be minimized 

to the degree possible, making activities under Alternative D consistent with the statewide 

standard. 

The ACMP statewide standard for habitats in the coastal zone requires that habitats be 

managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts to habitat resources. This

policy is supported by an NSB CMP policy requiring that development be located, designed, and 

maintained in a manner that prevents or minimizes impacts on fish and wildlife and their 

habitat, including water circulation and drainage patterns and coastal processes (NSB CMP 

2.4.5.2[b] and NSBMC 19.70.050.K.2). In addition, vehicles, vessels, and aircraft that are likely 

to cause disturbance must avoid areas where species that are sensitive to noise or movement 

are concentrated, at times when such species are concentrated (NSB CMP 2.4.4[a] and NSBMC 

19.70.050.I.1). Some disturbances associated with exploration and development would be 

mitigated by ROPs and lease stipulations placed on permits. Alternative D ROPs and lease 

stipulations (See Table 2-2 in Chapter 2) would be effective in reducing potential conflicts, and 

the activities would be consistent with the statewide standard. 

Oil and gas development activities could affect several of the habitats identified in the statewide 

standard, including lagoons, wetlands, rivers, lakes, and streams. Therefore, onshoredevelopment activities would need to be designed and constructed to avoid, minimize, or

mitigate significant adverse effects. 

It is expected that caribou of the CAH and TLH would be disturbed and their movements 

delayed along the pipeline during periods of aircraft overflights, but that disturbances would 

not affect migrations or overall distribution. It is expected that surface, air, and foot traffic near 

the oil fields would be greater under Alternative D than under Alternative A and could displace 

some large mammals, though not enough to substantially affect North Slope populations. The 

NSB CMP policy 2.4.6(e) (NSBMC 19.70.050.L.5) emphasizes that roads and pipelines must 

provide for unimpeded wildlife crossing and provides a set of guidelines and an intent statement 

specifically to implement the policy. 

Rivers, lakes, and streams are managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse 

impacts to natural water flow, active floodplains, and natural vegetation within riparian 

management areas. Pipeline and road construction, including gravel extraction, could affect 

these waterways and would need to be conducted in a manner that would ensure the protection 

of riverine habitat and fish resources. Gravel extraction also is regulated under policies that are 

described in Section 11 AAC 112.260. The ROPs and lease stipulations in place under

Alternative D would be effective in reducing conflicts, and would be consistent with the 

statewide standard. 

Air, Land, and Water Quality (11 AAC 112.310) 

The air, land, and water quality standard of the ACMP incorporates by reference all the 

statutes pertaining to, and regulations and procedures of, the ADEC. The NSB reiterates this 

standard in its district policies and emphasizes the need to comply with specific water and air 

quality regulations in several additional policies. North Slope Borough policies (NSB CMP 

2.4.4[k] and NSBMC 19.70.050.I.11) address water quality issues, and development must 

comply with the conditions of the best-effort policies (NSB CMP 2.4.5.1[e] and NSBMC 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-592 

Alternative D: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

19.70.050.J.3.d). Under Alternative D, there could be some short-term conflict with these 

policies due to potential oil spills, which would likely to be more frequent under Alternative D 

than under Alternative A, although less frequent than under alternatives B or C. However, the 

ROPs and lease stipulations (See Table 2-2 in Chapter 2) in place under Alternative D would be 

effective in reducing conflicts, and the alternative would be consistent with the statewide 

standards. 

Some discharges and emissions would occur during exploration and development, and the NSB 

CMP policy 2.4.4(c) (NSBMC 19.70.050.I.3) requires that these emissions comply with all state 

and Federal regulations, which is consistent with the statewide standard. 

Discharges of drilling muds, cuttings, and fluids are regulated closely. Formation water 

produced from the wells along with the oil is regulated by the USEPA. The Alaska Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission has primacy for this program. Some wastes are disposed through the 

annulus of producing wells, an activity that is exempt from the Underground Injection Control

program. However, the AOGCC also regulates this practice for the State of Alaska. Surface 

disposal of drilling wastes would require a solid waste permit from ADEC. 

Because discharges of drilling muds, cuttings, and drilling fluids are closely regulated, no 

conflict is anticipated with the statewide standard or NSB CMP Policy 2.4.4(d) (NSBMC 

19.70.050.I.4), which requires that industrial and commercial development be served by solid 

waste disposal facilities that meet state and Federal regulations. There would be no inherent 

conflict between the proposed activities of Alternative D and the ACMP water-quality 

provisions. 

Air quality also must conform to Federal and state standards (11 AAC 112.310, NSB CMP 

2.4.3[i] and 2.4.4[c], and NSBMC 19.70.050.H and I.3). The analysis of air quality effects under 

Alternative D in section 4.6.1, Air Quality indicates that conformance is anticipated, and no

conflict between air quality and coastal policies should occur. 

Historic, Prehistoric, and Archeological Resources (11 AAC 112.320) 

The ACMP statewide standard requires that coastal districts and appropriate state agencies

identify areas of the coast that are important to the study, understanding, or illustration of 

national, state, or local history or prehistory, including natural processes. 

The NSB developed additional policies to ensure protection of its heritage. The NSB CMP 

2.4.3(e) (NSBMC 19.70.050.E) requires that development that is likely to disturb cultural or 

historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places; sites eligible for inclusion in the 

National Register; or sites identified as important to the study, understanding, or illustration of 

national, state, or local history or prehistory shall 1) be required to avoid the sites, or 2) be 

required to consult with appropriate local, state and Federal agencies and survey and excavate 

the site prior to disturbance. The NSB CMP 2.4.3(g) (NSBMC 19.70.050.G) also requires that 

development not disturb newly discovered historic or cultural sites prior to archaeological 

investigation. It is likely that new cultural and paleontological sites would be discovered under 

Alternative D. No conflicts with these policies would be expected; however, ROPs and lease 

stipulations would be highly effective by requiring an inventory of traditional use sites prior to 

conducting any activities. Therefore, Alternative D would be consistent with the statewide 

standard. 

4-593 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Traditional activities at cultural or historic sites also are protected under the NSB CMP 2.4.3(f) 

(NSBMC 19.70.050.F) and 2.4.5.2(h) (NSBMC 19.70.050.K.8). As noted in the discussion of

policies related to subsistence, the latter is a best-effort policy that requires protection for 

transportation to subsistence use areas as well as cultural use sites. No conflict with these 

policies would be expected. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

Land ownership would not be affected by abandonment and rehabilitation. Upon completion of 

abandonment and rehabilitation, land uses and management could return to As near the 

original condition as practicable. 

Effects of Spills 

Because of the interrelated nature of the ACMP and NSB CMP policies, the potential effects of 

spills were addressed with the effects of disturbances under each major policy area above (See 

section 4.2.2). 

4.6.15.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Lease stipulations and ROPs referred to under each of the Coastal Zone Policy standards 

discussed above would be sufficient for Alternative D to achieve compliance with ACMP and 

NSB CMP policies and standards. While it is expected that there could be land use and CZMP 

conflicts over the life of the alternative development scenario, any such conflicts should be short

term and subject to resolution. Conflicts, should they occur, would most likely result from oil 

and gas development activities interrupting subsistence activities, but the scale of development 

and enforcement of applicable lease stipulations and ROPs should be effective in minimizing the 

conflicts and quickly returning the development to compliance with policies and standards. 

4.6.15.4 Conclusion 

It is expected that disturbance and oil spills associated with oil and gas activities would cause 

short-term and localized impacts to the TLH caribou and other terrestrial fish, birds, mammals, 

and bowhead whales and other marine mammals. In general, impacts to subsistence and other 

coastal zone resources from non-oil and gas activities, and from exploration and development 

activities, would be additive, except where these activities occurred in areas previously 

disturbed during exploration or development. 

These impacts would likely be greater under Alternative D than under Alternative A, as would 

subsistence-hunter concerns about access to resources and resource contamination. The greater 

degree of impacts would result from opening additional area to leasing in caribou, waterfowl, 

and fishing areas, and because the expected level of development would be greater. The impacts 

would be less under Alternative D than under alternatives B or C, however. Conflicts with 

ACMP and NSB CMP policies related to effects on subsistence resources resulting from periodic 

disturbance and oil spills would be possible, but no resource would become unavailable, 

undesirable for use, or experience overall population reductions. Implementation of ROPs and

lease stipulations would effectively ensure that Alternative D would comply with ACMP 

standards. Combined oversight by BLM, the ADNR, and the NSB, under the guidance of their

respective standards, would be sufficient to deal with any potential conflict that could arise 

between Alternative D and the policies addressed in this section. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-594 

Alternative D: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.6.16 Recreational Resources 

4.6.16.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative D, impacts to recreation resources from on-the-ground management

activities such as archeological collection efforts, field camps, survey work, and overland moves

would be very similar to recreation effects from Alternative A. The level of non oil and gas 

activity may increase under this Alternative as compared to Alternative A, as a result of a 

general increased interest in the area generated by the potential for more oil and gas. 

Temporary structures, vehicles, noise from generators, aircraft, human presence, and associated 

activity all would have some minimal short-term effects on the experience of solitude, 

naturalness, or primitive/unconfined recreation. As under Alternative A, the short-term 

impacts from Alternative D would be confined primarily to the activity site viewshed or 

noiseshed within approximately 1⁄2 mile in any direction of the activity (500 acres). All of the 

identified non-oil and gas activities would be transitory and short term; the likelihood of 

recreationists encountering them in any given location in the 4.6 million acre planning area 

would be small. If such activities were encountered, the recreation experience and opportunity 

for solitude on the North Slope would be diminished. Depending on the activity, there may be 

some increased likelihood of an encounter with recreationists because of the propensity to 

concentrate on major rivers and coastal areas. 

A longer-lasting impact would be trails resulting from overland moves. These trails do not

necessarily develop over the entire route of an overland move, but when they do they can be 

very detectable from the air for 2 to 5 years. They are typically more difficult to recognize from 

the ground. Vegetation can also be damaged along these trails from broken stems or the tops of

tussocks being scraped off. Current operating procedures make this an infrequent problem but 

one that can occur in conjunction with trails. Because overland moves would be relatively 

constant from year to year and generally follow the same route(s), several thousand miles of 

intermittent trail in some phase of recovery would likely be visible from the air during any one 

summer season. Though still relatively short term in nature, the linear nature of these trails 

would emphasize the presence of man, which would reduce the sense of naturalness and

unconfined primitiveness to a small degree. 

Although there are no formal designations of wilderness or wild and scenic rivers in the 

planning area, and none are anticipated at this time, none of the identified non-oil and gas 

activities would diminish requisite wilderness and wild and scenic river characteristics 

sufficiently to preclude such designations in the future. 

4.6.16.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Exploration 

Under Alternative D, seismic work would occur throughout most of the planning area. This 

work would occur in winter using all-terrain ground vehicles supported by light aircraft. Mobile 

seismic camps would consist of a train of trailer sleds pulled by tractors. These moving camps 

and associated noise and activities would result in a short-term effect on the primitive setting of 

the planning area and a loss of solitude and naturalness. The effects would be confined 

primarily to the activity site viewshed or noiseshed, or within approximately 1⁄2 mile in any 

direction. As many as five seismic operations could take place in a season, temporarily affecting 

4-595 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Recreational Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

approximately 2,500 acres. The potential effect on recreation opportunities and experience 

would be minimized by the fact that very little recreation takes place in the area. 

A longer lasting impact would be trails resulting from seismic survey operations. Unlike 

overland moves, seismic operations do not follow the same routes every year and the number of 

miles of survey line run can vary greatly from year to year. In some years, no surveys would 

occur. As with trails created by overland moves, these trails do not necessarily develop over the 

entire survey route; they would be visible for about 2 to 5 years. Because of the many variables 

involved, it is difficult to make a reliable estimate as to the number of miles of trail that would 

be visible during anyone summer season as a result of seismic operations. However, oil and gas 

scenarios state that approximately 250 miles (6,060 acres) of line would be surveyed using 2-D 

seismic methods, while approximately 10,560 miles (98,880 acres) of line could be surveyed 

annually using 3-D seismic methods, potentially resulting in several thousand miles of trails. 

Mobile camp trails could add another 840 miles (3,056 acres) of trails. Although some of the

camp train route could be outside of the planning area and could overlap survey line miles. The 

number of miles of trail visible would decline as this phase of exploration slows. 

Approximately 193 exploration and delineation wells would be drilled under Alternative D. 

However, due to the limited number of drill rigs available, it is anticipated that no more than 

seven wells would be drilled at any one time. Drilling would primarily occur over several winter 

seasons using ice pads, roads, and airstrips. Temporary on-site location of structures (e.g., drill 

rigs); noise from generators, vehicles, and aircraft; human presence; and associated activity all 

would have short-term impacts on solitude, naturalness, and primitive/unconfined recreation 

experiences. These impacts would be expected to be greatest within a 2-mile radius of the drill 

site, which is an area of approximately 8,000 acres per well site. Accordingly, under this 

alternative, there would be a temporary loss of solitude, naturalness, or primitive/unconfined 

recreation over an area of approximately 56,000 acres. This would be equivalent to about 1.2% 

of the planning area and the potential effect on recreation opportunities and experience would

be further minimized by the fact that most drilling occurs during winter when very little 

recreation takes place in the area. 

In addition to the short-term impacts that result from ongoing exploratory drilling operations, 

an accumulating summer-season visual concern exists as a result of the “greening” of vegetation 

under vacated ice pads, airstrips, and roads. This direct impact to the area’s naturalness would 

be a result of the same conditions that create “green trails”, the greater availability of moisture 

and nutrients as ice or compacted snow melts. This “greening” of the vegetation does not 

necessarily develop wherever ice pads are constructed or snow is compacted but when it does, it

can be very noticeable from the air for 2 to 5 years and somewhat less noticeable from the 

ground. Another impact at these sites would be vegetation actually being damaged or broken, 

especially along the perimeter of a pad or edge of a road. Exploratory drilling operations and

ancilliary facilities i.e. 193 ice pads (6 acres each), 30 airstrips (11 acres each) and 6,162 miles of 

ice roads (3 acres/mile) would result in as many as 19,974 acres that would be in a various state 

of recovery from these impacts. 

Exploration wells that do not indicate the presence of hydrocarbons in developable quantities 

will be plugged and abandoned leaving nothing more than possibly a mound of dirt expected to 

be no larger than a square foot on the lands surface. Wells that show potential may be 

“suspended,” and capped with what is known as a “Christmas tree” at the surface, especially if 

the well might be used again for possible oil production. These are essentially permanent 

impacts (less than 6 feet high), but almost unnoticeable from several hundred feet away. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-596 

Alternative D: Recreational Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects of Development 

Up to 32 production pads, and 162 miles of pipeline that extend beyond the production area, are 

anticipated under Alternative D. While the intensity of impacts would be greatest during 

actual construction and development of these facilities, remaining structures, human presence, 

and associated activity and noise all would have impacts on the experience of solitude,

naturalness, and primitive/unconfined recreation opportunity during the life of the field.

Because production could occur for 10-50 years beyond the development phase, impacts would 

be long term. These long-term impacts are expected to be greatest within 2 miles of a pad or 

staging area site (or an area of about 8,000 acres). 

Pipelines also would impact recreation values. Pipelines would be elevated a minimum of 7 feet 

above the ground surface. There would be little if any pipeline associated on-the-ground 

activity, except during construction and repair. Long-term impacts to recreation values from

pipelines would be expected to be minimal beyond about 1⁄2 mile. This equates to about 640 

acres per mile of pipeline. Impacts to recreation values from a staging base would be similar to 

those resulting from a production pad and its facilities, or about 8,000 acres impacted per 

staging base. Accordingly under this alternative, there would be a long-term loss of solitude, 

naturalness, or primitive/unconfined recreation opportunity over an area of 359,680 acres (i.e., 

[8,000 acres/pad x 32 pads] + [640 acres/mile x 162 miles of pipeline]). In addition, it is 

estimated that long-term surface (i.e. 2 miles from footprint of staging and CPFs) disturbance 

and consequently impacts to primitive recreation from three staging areas (50 acres each) and

six CPFs (90 acres each) including pads, roads, airstrips, gravel pits, and infield gathering 

pipelines and associated infield gravel roads (320 miles) would impact 290,900 acres (i.e. [9,300 

acres/staging area x 3 staging areas] + [9,700 acres/CPF x 6 CPFs] + [640 acres/mile of road x 

320 miles]). These impacts combined (650,580 acres), would be equivalent to about 14.1% of the 

planning area. Short-term, routine/daily inspection flights also would impact solitude and 

naturalness along the length of all pipelines as long as they are in use. The potential effect on 

recreation opportunities and experience would be greatest for development activities because it 

would entail year-round activity and would thus continue during the summer when most 

recreational activity in the planning area occurs. Therefore, the effects to recreation use would 

not be considered a great impact, because they would impact such a small portion of the 

planning area (14.1%) and because there is such a small amount of recreation use in the area.

The actual effects would depend greatly on where development fields were located relative to

major watercourses and the Beaufort Sea coast. The area subject to recreation effects from

development under Alternative D would be approximately 116,600 acres greater than that 

affected under Alternative A. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

While abandonment and rehabilitation activities occurred, small number of recreational users 

in the area of rehabilitation could have their wilderness experience diminished by noise, marred 

views, and disturbance to animals which they have come to observe (bird-watchers) or harvest 

(hunters). However, over the long term, these efforts would minimize and impacts to recreation

use would likewise be minimized. 

Effects of Spills 

Most spills would be confined to a pad. Spills not confined to a pad usually are confined to the 

area immediately around the pad or pipeline. Therefore, effects on solitude, naturalness, or 

4-597 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Recreational Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities resulting from spills likely would be confined 

to the same area described above as impacted by the development. 

A large spill that could reach a river, especially the Colville River, and move rapidly 

downstream would have substantial short-term (and possibly long-term) impacts on recreation 

values. 

Effects to Wilderness and Wild and Scenic River Values 

None of the identified non-oil and gas activities would diminish requisite characteristics 

sufficiently to preclude wilderness or wild and scenic river designations in the future. 

Potential wilderness values of naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude and 

primitive, unconfined recreation experiences would be affected by long-term development of 

petroleum resources on as much as 14.1% of the planning area under Alternative D, about 1% 

greater than the area that would be similarly affected under Alternative A. In addition, there 

could be portions of the area that were explored unsuccessfully that would experience lesser 

residual effects that would reduce wilderness values. Despite the lost values, over 3.9 million 

acres (86%) of the planning area would likely retain substantial wilderness values. For 

perspective, the Wilderness Act specifies a minimum of 5,000 acres to qualify for wilderness 

consideration in most cases. 

The “outstandingly remarkable values” that support Wild and Scenic River eligibility for the 

Colville River include recreation, wildlife viewing, geology and archeology upstream from 

Umiat, and paleontology and wildlife from Umiat to Nuiqsut. Only a small portion of the 

Colville River would experience effects to these values from activities associated with 

Alternative D, primarily from an expected pipeline crossing of the river in an as yet

undetermined location. Specified buffer areas would provide substantial protection for the

Colville and other rivers, except in the area very near the pipeline crossing. Although pipeline 

crossings are discouraged in designated Wild and Scenic River areas, they are permissible, 

when unavoidable, if measures to minimize effects on the river’s outstandingly remarkable 

values are utilized. 

Wild and Scenic River designation is not planned or proposed for the Colville River, as noted in 

section 3.4.6.3, but the applicable lease stipulations and ROPs would preserve most, if not all, 

of the character and values that could qualify the river for designation in the future, if local and 

state political sentiments should ever determine designation to be favorable. A potential 

pipeline would not disrupt the requisite “free flowing” nature of the river and, to the degree

possible, it would be sited to avoid the areas specific to the “outstandingly remarkable values” 

noted above. Selection of a river crossing location for the pipeline would require a permit from 

the BLM, which would afford an opportunity for more detailed review of effects on the Wild and

Scenic River eligibility of the Colville River. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Because a gas pipeline would likely be buried and because little recreation occurs in the 

planning area in the winter when construction would primarily occur, there would be very little 

impact to recreation from gas development. The exception might be if gas development 

prompted some development that would not occur if only oil could be developed. In those cases, 

impacts would be similar to those associated with oil development. Given the different amounts 

of development considered likely under the various alternatives, it is likely that gas 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-598 

Alternative D: Recreational Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

development under Alternative D would create less impacts than Alternative C, but more than 

Alternatives A and B. 

4.6.16.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Although the lease stipulations and ROPs do not specifically address recreation activities and

there is no current intention to consider designation of wilderness or wild and scenic rivers in 

the planning area, many of the performance-based lease stipulations and ROPs required for 

development of Alternative D would serve to protect recreation values in the area. For example,

areas excluded from leasing and several ROPs and lease stipulations address protection of 

subsistence values and wildlife in the planning area. Also, buffer requirements serve to 

minimize potentially damaging activity in and near creeks, rivers and lakes. Since wildlife 

viewing, big game hunting and boating are major factors attracting recreationists to the 

planning area, these lease stipulations and ROPs associated with Alternative D also serve to 

protect and preserve recreation values. 

4.6.16.4 Conclusion 

There would be approximately 2,000 to 3,000 acres in temporary effects on recreation values 

from activities other than oil and gas exploration and development. Short-term (temporary) 

disturbance from ongoing oil and gas exploration activities would impact approximately 107,996 

acres. The “greening” of vegetation resulting from ice pads, roads, airstrips, and compacted 

snow would impact an additional 19,974 acres. Most of the combined 127,970 acres could be in 

a various state of recovery from the “greening” effect. Seismic operations would result in 

temporary impacts to recreation use over many hundreds of miles of trails and noise and other 

disturbance produced by seismic operations. Short-term impacts such as trails and pads, 

disturbance from noise, aircraft and other on-going activities would not accumulate. 

Oil and gas development would result in the long-term loss of solitude, naturalness, or 

primitive/unconfined recreation opportunities over an area of approximately 650,580 acres (or 

14.1% of the planning area) for the life of production fields and pipelines. The area subject to

recreation impacts would be very similar to the impacts on recreation under Alternative A.

Lease stipulations to mitigate for these impacts would be similar for both alternatives. 

4.6.17 Visual Resources 

4.6.17.1 Activities Not Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative D, impacts to visual resources would result from on-the-ground management

activities, such as archaeological collection efforts, field camps, survey work, overland

movements, and hazardous and solid material removal and remediation activities and would be 

similar to Alternative A. The level of non oil and gas activity may increase under this

alternative, as a result of general increased interest in the area generated by the potential for 

more oil and gas development. 

Temporary structures (e.g., sleds, tents), vehicles (e.g., Rolligons, tractors), aircraft, human 

presence, and associated activities would have some minimal short-term impacts on visual 

resources or scenic quality by creating a contrast to the line, color, and texture of a primarily 

horizontal natural landscape. The colors of structures and equipment would contrast the white 

4-599 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Recreational Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

color of the snow-covered landscape and the various hues of greens and browns, and the smooth

texture of the facilities would contrast the varied textures of the windswept terrain and the 

irregular texture of vegetation. Non-oil and gas activities would need to occur within the 

Foreground-Middleground Zone of the viewshed in order to attract the attention of the casual 

observer. 

A longer-lasting impact would be trails, sometimes referred to as “green trails,” resulting from 

winter overland moves. Between 20 and 60 trains comprised of one to six vehicles and attached

sleds could engage in overland travel each year. These trails form when vehicles compact snow 

and dead vegetative material, resulting in a greater availability of moisture and nutrients for 

underlying vegetation the following growing season. Visible trails would not necessarily develop 

over the entire route of the overland move. Vegetation could be damaged along these trails and

the tops of tussocks could be scraped off, although current operating procedures would ensure

that such damage was an infrequent problem. Trails would be visible for about 2 to 5 years, but 

some trails may be visible for longer periods of time. However, because they visually modify 

existing vegetation, rather than adding something foreign into the viewshed, trails would not 

produce much contrast to line, form, or texture. The color contrast would be minimal from 

ground view because of the natural variation in hue, and would be almost nonexistent from

more that a few hundred feet away. 

4.6.17.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Exploration 

Under Alternative D, impacts to visual resources from seismic surveys would be the same as 

Alternative A. The discussion is repeated here for convenience. 

Five seismic surveys would occur. Seismic work would occur in the winter using cat trains with 

low-ground-pressure vehicles supported by light aircraft. Seismic crews would be housed in 

mobile camps consisting of a train of trailer sleds pulled by tractors along different trails. These 

moving camps and associated activities would result in short-term impacts on visual resources 

and the scenic quality of the area by creating color contrast between the vehicles and trailers 

and the predominantly white background of the snow-covered landscape. These impacts would

be confined primarily to the activity-site viewshed. 

Trails resulting from seismic survey operations would result in a longer-lasting impact to visual 

resources. Unlike overland moves, seismic operations would not follow the same routes every

year, and the number of miles of survey line could vary greatly from year to year. In some years,

no surveys would occur. Like trails caused by overland moves, trails caused by seismic 

operations would not necessarily develop over the entire survey route, but where present would

be visible for about 2 to 5 years, but some trails may be visible for longer periods of time. 

Approximately 250 miles (6,060 acres) of lines would be surveyed using 2-D seismic surveys, 

while approximately 10,560 miles (98,880 acres) of lines could be surveyed during each 3-D 

seismic survey, potentially resulting in several thousand miles of green trails. Mobile camp 

trails could add another 840 miles (3,056 acres) of green trails. Because trails visually modify 

existing vegetation, they would not produce much contrast to line, form, or texture. The color 

contrast would be minimal from ground view because of the natural variation in hue, and would 

be almost nonexistent from more than a few hundred feet away. 

Approximately 193 exploration and delineation wells would be drilled under this alternative, 42 

more than Alternative A, 23 more than under Alternative B, but 17 less than Alternative C. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-600 

Alternative D: Visual Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Given the limited number of drilling rigs available, however, no more than seven drilling rigs 

would likely be operating at any one time. Drill rigs (average height of 208 feet) would introduce 

strong vertical lines into a predominantly horizontal landscape. Because they are painted red, 

most drill rigs would also produce a strong visual contrast to the white background of the snow

covered landscape. Winter drilling requires lighting, which would create a visual contrast 

against the dark night sky. Drill rigs, because of their height, could be seen and attract the 

attention of the casual observer if they were located within the Foreground-Middleground Zone

and Background Zone. 

In addition to the impacts that would result from ongoing exploratory drilling operations, the 

greening of vegetation under vacated ice pads, ice airstrips, and ice roads would cause impacts 

to visual resources during the summer. This greening of vegetation would be caused by the 

same conditions that create “green trails” — a greater availability of moisture and nutrients as 

ice or compacted snow melts. However, greening of vegetation would not necessarily occur 

everywhere ice facilities were constructed or snow was compacted. There would also be a “ring 

effect” around ice pads, ice airstrips, and ice roads caused by the death of vegetation adjacent to 

these snow and ice structures. Winter facilities inclusive of 193 ice pads (6 acres each), 30 

airstrips (11 acres each), and 6,162 miles of ice roads (3 acres per mile) would result in as many 

as 20,202 acres that would be in various states of recovery from greening and ring effects under 

Alternative D (16,768 acres in Alternative A; 20,022 acres in Alternative B; and 23,463 acres in 

Alternative C). Because greening and ring effects visually modify existing vegetation, they

would not produce much contrast to line, form, or texture. The color contrast would be minimal 

from ground view because of the natural variation in hue, and would be almost nonexistent 

from more that a few hundred feet away. 

Dry exploration wells would be cut off and plugged below ground level and temporally leave 

only a small area barren of vegetation while exploration wells with production potential would 

leave behind a marker pipe (also known as a Christmas tree), which would likely be less than 6 

feet tall and no larger than a square foot on the surface. This marker pipe would essentially be a 

permanent impact, but would be almost unnoticeable from a distance of several hundred feet. 

Effects of Development 

Production rigs (two with an average height of 208 feet) would introduce strong vertical lines 

into a predominantly horizontal landscape. Because they are painted red, most drill rigs would 

also introduce strong contrast to the natural browns landforms and greens of the vegetation. In 

addition, burn-off flares and general work lighting would contrast against the dark night sky. 

Drill rigs, because of their height and color, could be seen and dominate the attention of the 

casual observer if they were located within the Foreground-Middleground Zone and Background

Zone. 

It is estimated that long-term surface disturbance from three staging bases (50 acres each), six 

pump stations (20 acres each) and six CPFs (90 acres each) would impact 810 acres (650 acres 

in Alternative A; 810 acres in Alternative B; and 970 acres in Alternative C). These facilities 

would introduce strong vertical lines from buildings into the landscape of predominately soft 

horizontal lines. There would also be a visual contrast between the simple, regular form of the 

buildings and the complex, irregular forms of the vegetation. Colors of buildings and materials 

would be in contrast with the greens, browns, and blues of vegetation and water bodies. Some of 

the buildings could be up to three stories in height above the tundra, and would attract and 

dominate the view of the casual observer if located within the Foreground-Middleground Zone. 

4-601 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Visual Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Production pads (32 at 10 acres each),320 mile of infield roads (2,480 acres), six airstrips (11 

acres each), 14 gravel pits (50 acres each), and 320 miles of infield gathering pipelines (972 

acres) would impact 4,538 acres (2,818 acres in Alternative A; 3,664 acres in Alternative B; and 

4,649 acres in Alternative C). The gravel pads, airstrips and infield roads would generally be 

only 3 to 5 feet above the surrounding green tundra, and would be relatively unnoticeable 

beyond a few thousand feet. Infield gathering pipelines (4-10 inches in diameter) would

introduce shiny and smooth horizontal lines into a natural landscape. They would also 

introduce regularly spaced vertical supports into an irregular horizontal landscape, but would 

be associated with other facilities within the disturbance area. Disturbance associated with 

gravel sites from borrow pits or below ground bedrock would generally occur below the ground

surface, with only stockpiled materials being visible above ground. While these sites could be

large in size or footprint, very little material would remain as stockpile at any one time. Gravel 

mine sites from above ground bedrock locations may produce visible impacts if material is 

removed from rock outcrops within the planning area. This mining activity would change the 

form of the natural landscape and may be visible from the Foreground-Middleground Zone. 

It is anticipated that as many as 162 miles of sales oil and main pipelines impacting up to 491 

acres (3 acres per mile), would be constructed under Alternative D (162 miles, 491 acres in 

Alternative A; 162 miles,491 acres in Alternative B; and 182 miles, 551 acres in Alternative C). 

There would be no on-the-ground activities associated with sales oil and main pipelines, except 

during construction and repair. Sales oil and main pipelines (12-20 inches diameter) would 

introduce shiny and smooth horizontal lines into the naturally irregular brown and green 

landscape. They would also introduce regularly spaced vertical supports into an irregular 

horizontal landscape. All pipelines would be elevated at least seven feet above the surrounding 

tundra, but could be elevated as high as 20 feet above ground level. At these elevations, 

pipelines would attract and dominate the attention of the casual observer if located within the 

Foreground-Middleground Zone and Background Zone. 

Other facilities associated with development would include bridges and communications towers. 

If located within the Foreground-Middleground Zone, bridges, because of their contrast with 

smooth water bodies, and communications towers, because of vertical height above the horizon,

would be likely to attract the attention of a casual observer. 

Vehicle traffic on roads during construction and other production activities would create shortterm noticeable visual impacts through the creation of dust. Summer vehicle travel off gravel 

pads and roads would be very limited, but may cause color changes from the natural landscape

by causing damage to vegetation and possibly the tundra mat. These changes would be limited 

to the Foreground-Middleground Zone. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

During abandonment and rehabilitation activities, vehicle traffic on roads would create shortterm noticeable visual impacts through the creation of dust. Gravel pads and roads may or may 

not be removed and may or may not be revegetated with native species or other appropriate 

vegetative materials. Once closure and abandonment activities including revegetation are 

completed, the strong contrasts with the surrounding vegetation colors created by structures, 

such as pipelines and buildings, gravel pads, roads and airstrips would be eliminated. If gravel 

is not removed and not revegetated, long-term color contrasts would remain between the gravel 

areas and the surrounding natural vegetation. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-602 

Alternative D: Visual Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects of Spills 

Most small spills would be confined to a pad. Small spills not confined to a pad would usually be 

confined to the limited area immediately around the pad or pipeline, and usually impact less 

than five acres. With proper containment and clean-up, there would be no new visual impacts 

associated with small spills estimated to occur 2,287 times over the life of oil and gas activities 

in the planning area under this alternative (1,792 in Alternative A; 2,070 in Alternative B; and 

2,503 in Alternative C). 

Large spills, estimated to occur about three times during the life of oil and gas activities in the 

planning area, would likely reach beyond the gravel pad and enter the environment. Impacts 

associated with visual resources would be to the surrounding vegetation and result in a contrast 

in color between the affected vegetation and soil, and the natural landscape. 

Commercial Gas Development 

Impacts to visual resources associated with surface disturbance and surface facilities for 

development and production of natural gas infrastructure would be similar to those described 

for oil development, though there would be no impacts from an oil spill. If natural gas 

production facilities are associated with existing oil infrastructure there would be some 

additional visual impacts associated with pipeline offset impacting additional acres if gas is 

transported on separate aboveground VSMs. If a gas pipeline is buried—considered the more 

likely scenario—there would be some change in line, color, and texture. These changes would 

result from the disturbance of irregular, predominately green, rough vegetation to a more

regular, brown, smooth area of soil as seen within the Foreground–Middleground Zone. 

Facilities associated with a compressor station along a gas pipeline would introduce vertical, 

blocky, colored facilities similar to CPF structures into a predominately horizontal, green, 

irregular landscape and be visible within the Foreground-Middleground Zone and the 

Background Zone from some locations. These facilities would impact additional acres. It is 

anticipated that Alternative D would result in greater impacts to visual resources than 

Alternatives A and B because there is greater prospect for development, but less than

Alternative C both because less lands are made available for leasing and because less miles of 

gas pipeline are expected to occur. 

4.6.17.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

Although there are no ROPs or lease stipulations specific to visual resources, ROPs and lease 

stipulations designed to minimize impacts to solid and hazardous wastes; regulate overland 

moves, seismic work, and exploratory drilling; and regulate facility design, construction, and 

siting would reduce the visual impacts that would occur under Alternative D. In addition, 

approximately 211,000 acres around Teshekpuk Lake would be deferred from leasing and 

development, further protecting visual values. Restricted Surface Occupancy stipulations on 

approximately 1,451,000 acres will help reduce impacts to visual resources by restricting certain 

activities associated with exploration and oil and gas development (see Map 2-4). 

4.6.17.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative D, as many as 11,650 miles of seismic and camp lines will impact 107,996 

acres. This is the same as under the other alternatives. Other temporary facilities such as ice 

roads, pads and airstrips, associated with exploratory drilling would impact up to 20,202 

additional acres. Most of the combined 128,198 acres could be in various states of recovery from 

4-603 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Visual Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

greening and ring effects. It is anticipated that up to 782 miles of pipelines would be constructed 

under this alternative, creating surface disturbance of up to 1,463 acres. There could also be 

approximately 4,376 acres of disturbance associated with gravel pads, roads, gravel sites, pump 

stations, staging bases, and Central Processing Facilities. Visual impacts associated with this 

alternative would be approximately 2.9% of the planning area. Approximately 211,000 acres 

would be deferred to leasing and development around Teshekpuk Lake while another 1,451,000 

acres would have Restricted Surface Occupancy stipulations. 

4.6.18 Economy 

4.6.18.1 Activities Not Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Impacts of non-oil and gas activities are likely to be the same as those for the other alternatives.

Recreational river rafting will occur in the planning area, primarily on the Colville River. BLM 

estimates (Table 4.2-A) up to 22 trips each made by 4 persons taking place each year. 

Employment generated by this activity would result from air taxi service and guide service. 

Neither of these services originate within the planning area. Air taxi services used for Colville 

River access originate in Bettles, Kotzebue, Fairbanks, and Coldfoot. Guides originate in 

Bettles, but may also originate from other locales in Alaska outside the North Slope, or may 

originate outside Alaska entirely (Delaney 2007). Permitted commercial guided activities will 

result in fees to the Federal government. Operators or guides pay approximately $600 per year 

for BLM permits. BLM estimates their clients pay $1,200-$1,500 each for a trip. 

Other activities such as research or surveys, various ground activities, and aircraft use not

related to petroleum are shown in Table 4.2-A, Summary of Selected Non-Oil and Gas Related 

Management Activities. North Slope Borough residents may be employed in some of these 

activities, as will be other Alaskans and nonresidents. 

4.6.18.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

In Alternative D, oil and gas exploration and development activities will increase revenue and 

employment over the life of the fields. The construction, operation, and servicing of facilities 

associated with oil and gas activities would also result in increased property-tax revenues. The 

year 2021 initiates substantial production for this alternative (31.9 MM bbl). Peak production in 

this alternative is calculated at 72.2 million barrels in 2041, 76.4 million barrels in 2051, 74.2 

million barrels in 2061, and 73.5 million barrels in 2071. By these dates, up to 7 central 

processing facilities will be in operation. We indicate revenue for 2021 as it is the first year of 

substantial production for all alternatives (31.9 MM bbl). In this case, up to 30% more 

exploration and delineation wells may be drilled than in the Alternative A scenario as all fields 

are developed. 

Revenues 

Bonus bids may total as much as $49.2 million in offers for the 373,000 acres newly opened to 

leasing under this alternative. Exploration, development, and production activities are 

estimated to generate property tax revenue to the North Slope Borough of about $43 million in 

2021, while capital costs will be depreciated as operation continues, lowering property tax over 

the life of the operation. Other local, state, and Federal revenues are also anticipated to 

increase under this alternative. The estimated 2045 royalty payments split equally by the State 

of Alaska and the Federal government exceeds $1.3 billion. State Taxes will be approximately 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-604 

Alternative D: Visual Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

$98 million, and Federal income tax will be over $1.1 billion. In addition, $666 million in state 

severance taxes could be generated in 2045. These estimates are based upon average imported 

crude oil prices in 2005 dollars from the Annual Energy Outlook 2007. 

Table 4.6-B. Alternative D Revenues (in millions of 2005 dollars) 

Alternative 

Revenue 

Bonus 

Bids 

Royalty Property 

Tax 

State Tax Federal 

Tax 

Severence 

Tax 

Year 2021 2045 2021 2045 2021 2045 2021 2045 2021 2045 

D 49.2 325 1,312 43 245 29 98 325 1,112 165 666 

Employment 

In this alternative we expect 7 exploratory wells each year in five year increments as a lease is 

explored. Additional fields will also be delineated by exploratory wells over thirty years after 

initial activity. Direct employment will be higher than Alternatives A or B, as high as 3400 by 

2045 when three CPFs are operating, a fourth under construction, with wells and infrastructure 

being added. Increased indirect employment will result from added capital investment over the 

life of all fields in this alternative. 

Table 4.6-C. Alternative D Estimated Employment in the Field 

Tasks/Alternative Year Total 

Direct 

Total 

Indirect 

NSB 

Direct 

NSB Indirect 

Survey 2008-9 Same as A Same as A Same as A Same as A 

Exploratory well

drilling 

2010-15 210-420 600-1,200 14-28 10-20 

CPF, and 

infrastructure 

development 

2016 500-800 Same as C Same as C Same as C 

CPF operation 

development well

drilling, sale line

construction 

2017 500-680 Same as A Same as A Same as A 

Pad, development 

wells road, pipe, 3 

CPFs in operation,

CPF under 

construction 

2045 1,700-3,400 Same as C Same as C Same as C 

Commercial Gas Development 

Natural gas development and production from the NPR-A would generate additional 

employment. Construction of pipelines would provide substantial numbers of construction jobs 

for the winter seasons of installation. It is likely that a portion of construction workers would 

reside in the NSB. Once in operation, gas development would not result in substantial 

increases in employment over that associated with oil production. However, if gas development

occurs as oil production is decreasing or ceasing, the addition or shift to gas production may 

prolong employment from planning area petroleum production. Development would generate

additional property taxes and royalty income for the NSB and State, more severance taxes for 

4-605 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Economy 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

the state, and additional royalties for the Federal government. To the extent that industry is 

attracted to bid on leases for their gas rather than oil production potential, gas development 

opportunities could increase interest and bid amounts at lease sales within Northeast NPR-A, 

providing additional revenues for the Federal and state governments. Alternative D offers less 

land for oil and gas leasing than Alternative C, but is anticipated to prompt more development 

than Alternatives A and B, so it is anticipated to have less impact on employment and revenues 

than Alternative C, but more than Alternatives A and B. 

4.5.18.3 Conclusion 

Most revenues and employment generated by oil and gas exploration and development under

Alternative D would be greater than under the Alternatives A and B and similar to or lower 

than Alternative C. Approximately $245 million would be generated annually in property taxes, 

by 2045. The royalty would be total $1.3 billion, to be shared by the Federal government and the 

State of Alaska. The number of jobs created by exploration, development, and production would 

be similar to Alternative C. The likelihood for disruptions to the harvest of subsistence 

resources and associated economic impacts would be greater than under the Alternative A. 

4.6.19 Public Health 

4.6.19.1 Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Under Alternative D, the effects of non-oil and gas activities and the potential for increased

tourism because of interest generated by leasing in the area could all lead to short term 

disturbances. It is not anticipated that these activities would be substantially more frequent

under Alternative D than under Alternative A. Thus, the health effects from activities not 

associated with oil and gas exploration and development under Alternative D would be similar 

to those described under the other alternatives. In general these effects would be temporary and

localized. On an individual basis, such events could be highly significant. But because the 

activities not associated with oil and gas development are expected to be short term, localized, 

and sporadic, they would not be expected to result in overall population health changes. 

4.6.19.2 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Effects of Disturbances 

Under Alternative D, the public health effects would be similar in nature, but generally greater 

in magnitude than those anticipated under Alternative A. Revenue to the NSB and state would 

be substantially higher under Alternative D than Alternative A. Increases in the amount of area 

available for leasing and exploration would have a corresponding increase in the effects to 

subsistence harvests as compared to those for Alternative A. The development proposed for the 

planning area would require increased staging and overland travel during the winter, and in 

summer would require increased use of aircraft for supplies, equipment, and crew changes, as 

compared to Alternative A. In turn, this would result in a relative increase in presence of oil 

industry personnel in the villages and subsistence areas. In all seasons, noise, lights, 

personnel, and traffic near oil and gas-related infrastructure could temporarily deflect or divert 

caribou in areas where activities are occurring; however, gravel pads could attract caribou 

during some seasons as insect-relief habitat. These effects could change the distribution, timing, 

and location of the caribou harvest, which could require increased effort and expenditure, travel 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-606 

Alternative D: Economy 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

time and risk on the part of subsistence hunters, resulting in sociocultural consequences such as

increased stress and a decreased sense of well-being. Development in and near rivers which 

serve as important sources of fish harvest could also lead to decreases in the total fish harvest 

for impacted villages. 

1. Diabetes Hypertension, and Associated Metabolic Disorders

As described in section 4.3.19, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension – collectively 

termed “metabolic disorders” here, would result if subsistence were displaced from its current 

contribution to the diet. These disorders are among the primary risk factors for cardiovascular, 

cerebrovascular, and chronic renal disease. Metabolic disorders are disproportionately common 

in AI/AN groups compared with the U.S. population. However, because of the high consumption 

of subsistence foods in communities depending on the planning area, rates of diabetes in the

North Slope Inupiat are among the lowest in the U.S., including among non-natives (Naylor et 

al 2003; Bjerregaard and Jorgensen 2004; Zinman; Murphy et al 1997; Young et al 1992; 

Bjerregaard, Young et al 2004). Hence subsistence constitutes the primary protection against 

these disorders, and any substantial decrease in subsistence harvest would place communities 

at higher risk. 

Under Alternative D, impacts to subsistence would be greater than under Alternatives A and B, 

but less than under Alternative C. With development occurring in roughly 95% of the planning 

area including in sensitive resource-rich areas around Teshekpuk Lake, impacts would occur 

through displacement of animals and hunters, but also potentially through population decline, 

contamination, or concerns about contamination of subsistence resources. Furthermore, the 

modernization and acculturation pressures described under section 4.4.13 would tend to foster 

a shift toward a ‘western’ diet (Schraer and Bulkow 1993; Curtis, Kvernmo 2005; Nobman, 

Ponce et al. 2005; Condon et al. 1994). The sociocultural effects and impacts to subsistence are 

expected to be greater under Alternative D, which would contribute to a greater risk of diabetes 

and related metabolic disorders. Increased employment would provide income for subsistence 

equipment, but this benefit would be offset by the difficulty of balancing work schedules with 

subsistence activities. 

2. Food Insecurity and Hunger

As described in Alternative A, food insecurity and hunger are considered to be severe health 

problems even before malnutrition or starvation occur. Impacts to subsistence resources – and 

the potential for impacts before they actually occur – would be greater under Alternative D than 

Alternative A, similar to impacts under Alternative B, and less than Alternative C. Both food

insecurity and hunger would be likely to increase under alternative D if significant decreases in 

harvest success occur. In such a scenario, kinship and sharing networks could be stretched 

thin. Replacing subsistence foods with store bought foods would be both extremely costly and

far less nutritious; the expense of buying high-quality foods in remote Alaskan villages is often 

prohibitive (Bersamin, Luick et al 2006; Lamden, Receveur et al. 2006). Alternative D would 

result from the potential loss of resources posed by development in the heart of the most 

productive subsistence regions in the planning area. To our knowledge, there are no cases of 

severe protein-calorie malnutrition or starvation in Alaska in recent years. This is likely 

because of the national and state programs such as food stamps and general assistance, as well

as kinship and sharing networks, all of which provide a ‘safety net.’ Under Alternative B, it is 

not certain whether these programs would be enough to make up for harvest losses if impacts to 

subsistence were severe. Starvation is felt to be highly unlikely in view of national, state, and 

NSB support, but malnutrition could occur in the unlikely event of a severe reduction in the 

availability of subsistence foods. 

4-607 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

3. Social Pathology

Social pathology would be more likely under Alternative D than under Alternative A, but would

be less likely overall than under Alternative C and similar to Alternative B. Factors which 

would influence rates include the following. The influx of large numbers of workers and the 

chance that new roads could be built (though not anticipated) connecting the planning area with 

the road system would effectively provide routes for more ready importation of illicit alcohol and 

drugs; this would also place a heavy burden on already taxed local law enforcement. Data 

shows that social pathology is related to access to alcohol in Alaska Native villages, and that 

VPSO support in villages can substantially improve well-being (Wood and Gruenewald 2006; 

ANTHC 2006; Chiu and Perez 1998; Martin 2005). Perceived and actual threats to subsistence 

(which could be greater under Alternative D), coupled with the industrialization of highly 

valued subsistence lands, would be sources of increasing stress and tension, factors which would

also tend to increase social pathology. This effect could be particularly severe if subsistence 

sharing networks were interrupted by the restriction of subsistence. Sociocultural change, or 

“acculturation,” is associated with intense contacts with outside social systems and cultures, 

such as would occur under this alternative with the influx of oil workers to from outside the 

region. Rapid sociocultural change is well-established as a cause of social pathology and related 

health problems in Arctic Indigenous populations (Curtis, Kvernmo et al 2005; Bjerregaard 

2001; Wexler 2006) These effects would likely be most intense in Nuiqsut, which lies between 

the road system and the planning area, but might be experienced by Anaktuvuk Pass, 

Wainwright, Atqasuk, and Barrow as well as development of the region expands. Interruption 

of sharing networks, if severe enough, could have effects on other villages as well. Stress 

produced by the loss of traditionally important hunting range, and the fear of curtailed ability 

to continue pursuing a subsistence way of life, food insecurity, and the longer travel distances 

and more difficult hunting conditions produced by displacement of subsistence resources and 

hunters by oil infrastructure would all contribute to increases in social pathology. Rosemary 

Ahtuangaruak, a former mayor of Nuiqsut who also worked for years as a community health 

aide and trained as a physician’s assistant, described the link between subsistence and social 

pathology: 

When our people can feed themselves, they're very happy. They don't care if they don't 

have a job as long as they're providing for their families, as long as they have the hope in 

their mind of the possibility to provide for their families. You take away that hope, and 

you're going to have many, many people that we lose to the ills of social ills. (Rosemary 

Ahtuangaruak, in MMS 2001). 

On the other hand, data from other populations has fairly consistently shown that economic 

development and increased employment generally have favorable impacts on rates of social 

pathology. Travis (1987) showed that in Inupiat communities, the increased risk of suicide 

caused by rapid modernization and acculturation is mitigated to some degree by economically 

favorable conditions. Haley (2004) found that strong preexisting economic systems helped a 

North Slope community cope with the rapid economic change brought by development. One

study, however, found that in Inupiat communities, increased employment was not always 

associated with improved well-being, because of the tensions created between work and

subsistence (Martin 2005). However, most North Slope residents tend to view employment 

opportunities as a positive, particularly if flexibility to allow continued active participation in 

subsistence can be built into the work schedule. 

Overall, the trend toward increases in social pathology would be most dependent on impacts to 

subsistence traditions, sharing networks, and the degree to which the proposed action results in 

illicit importation of drugs or alcohol. The stress associated with widespread community fears 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-608 

Alternative D: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

about the implications of leasing in this area is evident in community testimony, and will likely 

contribute to social pathology regardless of actual impacts from development in the region. 

Improved employment and income opportunity would offset these problems to some degree, but 

overall trends in social pathology would likely mirror the trends toward socio-cultural 

disruption as described in section 4.6.13. 

4. Injury

Injury rates tend to parallel social pathology, reflecting alcohol-related injury, suicide, and rates 

of violence (ANTHC 2006, injury statistics). Under Alternative D, injury rates would tend to 

parallel the trend toward increased social pathology described above. Additionally, the 

potential for displacement of hunters and subsistence resources could compound this problem, 

as longer and more difficult hunts would be associated with a higher risk for injury as well. 

The public safety system would face additional stresses coping with large numbers of oil 

workers entering communities and traveling through the region, making it difficult for 

communities to adequately enforce prohibition laws. Studies in the region have shown a strong

association between adequate police support, effective prohibition laws, and decreased injury 

rates (Wood and Gruenewald 2006). 

5. Health Problems related to EPA Criteria Pollutants 

Airborne emissions produced by exploration and development under Alternative D would be 

greater than Alternative A, less than Alternative C, and similar to Alternative B (section 

4.6.1). However, we estimate that the overall contribution of emissions to PSD class II 

requirements would be small. EPA Criteria Pollutants (NOx, SO2, PM2.5, PM10, ozone, lead, 

and CO) are associated with a range of acute health effects, including exacerbation of chronic 

lung disease and asthma, increased risk of cardiac arrhythmias, exacerbation of atherosclerotic 

coronary artery disease, and excess overall mortality, particularly among vulnerable groups 

such as young children, elders, and people with chronic illnesses. According to the EPA, PM2.5 

in particular is associated with “increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the 

airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing, for example; decreased lung function; aggravated

asthma; development of chronic bronchitis; irregular heartbeat; nonfatal heart attacks; and 

premature death in people with heart or lung disease” (EPA 2005). 

Current air quality assessments on the North Slope are based on scientific judgment and 

limited modeling. Both the EPA and the State of Alaska have established legal limits for air 

pollution based on scientific evidence, known as Ambient Air Quality Standards, to protect 

public health, including the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and 

the elderly. However, according to EPA analysis and several independent studies, substantial 

health effects accrue at even levels below NAAQS standards, down to ambient levels (Ostro et al 

2006; USEPA 2006b). The health effects include higher overall mortality rates and higher loss 

of ‘quality adjusted life years,’ a measure which takes into account time lost from illness. From 

the standpoint of the North Slope population, one of the most important findings of these data is 

that the impacts fall disproportionately to vulnerable populations (elderly, very young, and 

people with chronic illnesses). Given the baseline health disparities described in section 

3.4.10, North Slope communities would face substantial risk from increased particulate 

emissions, even if air quality continued to meet NAAQS standards. The state of Alaska, 

however, has not yet adopted a standard for PM2.5, for which the EPA established regulatory 

criteria more recently. The deadline for the state to adopt new PM2.5 standards is December 

2007. Consequently, there are no data available for PM2.5 levels on the North Slope. 

4-609 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

The NSB has expressed strong concern that the models used to predict air quality on the North

Slope have not been adequately validated, particularly in view of the arctic climate conditions. 

The NSB and AI-TC have further asserted that, because of the health disparities and 

vulnerabilities in North Slope villages (including the high prevalence of certain cancers and 

pulmonary disease, as described in section 3.4.10), it is critically important to establish a 

scientifically robust monitoring program to validate the current predictions. 

Health effects under Alternative D would be less than Alternative C, more than Alternative A, 

and similar to Alternative B. Given that development would occur closer to actively used

subsistence camps and hunting areas, the emissions under this alternative may result in a 

greater risk of exacerbation of chronic pulmonary disease, and cardiovascular and pulmonary 

mortality among vulnerable groups. However, occasional exposure to acute low air-quality 

events is more likely than chronic exposure to poor air quality. Due to the distance of potential 

development from most population centers, substantial reductions in village air quality is 

unlikely. 

6. Health Problems Related to Other Contaminants 

Under Alternative D, development could occur over much of the most important subsistence

range in the North Slope region. Emissions would be greater than under Alternative A because 

of the greater extent of exploration and development-related activities. Oil spills are another 

route through which contaminants could contact the human population, either directly or 

through pollution of air, water, and subsistence resources. North Slope residents have

expressed concern that development in the Teshekpuk Lake region would pose a particular 

danger because of its proximity to resources and popular hunting areas. 

Public health data support the link between contaminants produced by oil development, and the

risk of cancer, endocrine disruption, and cognitive disorders (Jacobsen et al 1996; Arctic 

Monitoring and Assessment Program 2003; Cone 2005). Data from other communities in which 

the “total petroleum hydrocarbons” concentrated in water (from air and waterborne sources) has

documented a correlation between proximity to oil and gas exploration and production and 

health outcomes, including cancer and miscarriages (San Sebastian, Armstrong 2001, 2002; 

Hurtig, San Sebastian 2002). However, NSB and state monitoring to date has indicated that 

the subsistence food supply in the North Slope region as a whole is quite safe, and have 

concluded that the “benefits of a traditional food diet far outweigh the relative risks posed by 

consumption of small amounts of contaminants in traditional foods” (Alaska Native Health 

Board, 1999). 

An accurate determination of specific HAP quantities and potential impacts is not feasible at 

this stage, given that particular site-specific development activities and pollution controls are

not yet able to be predicted. Furthermore, there are few direct data addressing water or air 

concentrations of many contaminants in the region, nor are there data regarding levels of these 

contaminants in the human population. HAP are a source of great concern for North Slope 

residents, who feel that their exposure to contaminants is likely to be significantly greater than 

the general population because of their extraordinarily high rates of consumption of fish and 

game which feed in the region. 

Thus, although data support the conclusion that the overall benefits of maintaining an active 

subsistence lifestyle, culture, and diet outweigh the unproven risks posed by North Slope 

contaminants, data are insufficient to allow accurate modeling of the public health risks under 

this alternative. The level of predicted development activity and the extent of reliance on 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-610 

Alternative D: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

resources in the area, however, suggest that there is justification for concern, investigation, 

monitoring, and efforts to minimize potential routes of exposure. 

7. Infectious Diseases 

As outlined in section 3.4.10, the prevalence of pulmonary disease is high; rates of HIV and

syphilis are substantially lower in the North Slope than in the Alaskan and U.S. general 

population (Alaska Department of Public Health 2002 and 2005); Chlamydia rates are much 

higher in Alaska Natives than non-Natives in Alaska – there are no north Slope-specific data 

available at this time (Alaska Department of Public Health 2006). In our discussions with 

health care providers in the region, many commented that the North Slope community appears 

particularly vulnerable to respiratory infections. This observation has been made in other 

coastal Alaska Native populations as well (Singleton, Bruden et al. 2006). 

Under Alternative D, there would be a greater potential for transmission of infectious diseases 

than under alternative A, owing to a greater projected level of activity in the region, including 

greater influx of workers from outside the region (refer to section 4.5.18). Transmission of 

respiratory infectious would be of greatest concern to vulnerable members of the community, 

including people with chronic illnesses and elders. Under Alternative D, an influx of personnel 

from outside of Alaska – where HIV and syphilis rates are generally substantially higher – 

could expose villages to a significant risk of increased incidence of these diseases. The NSB 

health department has tried in the past to address this problem though sending boxes of 

condoms to oil camps near villages, but existing resources in the NSB have not allowed a more 

coordinated public health effort to study or monitor transmission rates, nor to develop a more 

detailed public health approach to prevention. Diarrheal illnesses, common in groups of 

workers living and working in small enclosed facilities such as oil camps, could also pose a 

threat if infection spread to the community. Permanent roads linking the planning area with 

the road system could be allowed under Alternative D. Although considered unlikely, if 

constructed, permanent roads could lead to increased travel to and from the planning area, and 

thus serve as another potential source of exposure to infectious diseases 

8. Social Determinants of Health 

There would be substantial differences in impacts to the social determinants of health between 

Alternative A and D. Adverse effects would come from greater impacts on subsistence, leading 

to the potential for decreased social capital and stress; there would be more influx of non-Native

employees through the villages (see section 4.6.18), leading to the potential for acculturation 

stresses; there would be a tendency toward more problems of addiction, as described under

“social pathology” above; if the increased development activity anticipated under this scenario

translates into increased income to local native corporations, there could be increases in relative 

income disparity within villages; and there would be feelings of frustration, loss, 

disempowerment, and anger over the industrialization of a region of special and unique 

importance to Inupiat culture. Referring to Table 4.3-D, these issues would impact social 

determinants including the social gradient, stress, social capital, and culture, income inequality, 

and environmental quality, all of which have well-documented public health implications. 

There would be substantial benefits as well. Increases in employment and income would tend 

to benefit community well-being, particularly if local communities are able to work out adequate 

provisions for subsistence leave; income would also facilitate subsistence. As stated previously,

the funding for infrastructure, public safety, and public health, as well as employment in the 

NSB comes almost entirely from oil and gas development, and this alternative would offer 

greater revenue to continue these programs. 

4-611 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Thus it is possible to identify both positive and adverse impacts to the social determinants of 

health from Alternative D. Given the central importance of subsistence to community wellbeing, if subsistence livelihoods are impacted such that communities are forced to substantially 

reduce their reliance on subsistence, it is likely that there would be an overall adverse impact 

on communities. 

Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

The North Slope economy and citizens have become heavily dependent on revenue, employment, 

and income from oil and gas development. Under Alternative D, income would be substantially 

higher than under Alternative A, and employment is estimated to be times greater than 

Alternative A (Table 2-3). This could lead to greater dependence on economic resources, and a 

shift in the balance of the “mixed wage work-subsistence” economy. After the termination of 

development, revenues to the NSB and local Native corporations would likely decline 

considerably. The rehabilitation work available may lead to a transient increase in 

employment, but this would likely be followed by a period of significant economic contraction, 

both because of decreasing NSB revenues and because of loss of direct jobs. As noted 

previously, economic depression and job loss are strongly associated with social pathology,

which would likely increase during this period. It is possible that subsistence resources could 

become more readily accessible after a period of adjustment, but this must be viewed as purely 

speculative. If this occurred, it would help offset effect of decreasing capital available for 

purchase and repair of hunting equipment and fuel purchase. The decline of these revenues is 

likely to have profound effects. It is not at all clear whether people will be able to resume their 

pre-development way of life, whether subsistence resources will have become depleted, 

contaminated, or displaced, or how people will continue to support a lifestyle which depends 

heavily on modern technology. Viewed from the perspective of the social determinants of 

health, this period will have substantial implications for health given the large-scale economic 

and employment transition anticipated. Another concern would come from the potential 

leakage of contaminants from wells and dumpsites: residents have expressed concern that if 

the area is less stringently monitored after development ceases, contamination of rivers, lakes,

and estuarine habitats could ensue and would be missed, with substantial implications for 

human health. 

Effects of Oil Spills 

Oil spills can affect human health in a number of ways. Direct contamination can produce 

toxicological effects; rashes and respiratory symptoms have been documented after acute

exposure (Lyons, Temple et al. 1999). Longer-term effects from contamination of subsistence 

resources by organic compounds such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons could lead to chronic

exposure-related illnesses such as cancer, birth defects, miscarriages, and endocrine disruption 

(AMAP 2002; San Sebastian, Armstrong et al. 2001, 2002). Social and psychological effects of 

large oil spills are also a significant source of morbidity. Residents in the vicinity of an oil spill 

have been shown to have higher rates of anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder 

(Palinkas, Petterson et al 1993; Lyons, Temple et al 1993) A large oil spill could result in a

significant decrease in subsistence activity, as was seen after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In 

turn, this would to marked changes in social organization, decreased social capital, decreased

consumption of subsistence foods, and an attendant increased risk of social pathology, injury, 

and diabetes and metabolic disorders (re. social capital and EVOS: Ritchie and Gill 2004). The 

magnitude of these problems would depend largely on the extent of the spill, and the degree to 

which it impacted local subsistence resources. Under Alternative D, the risk of a large spill is 

estimated to greater than under Alternative A, raising the chance that some of these health 

problems could occur. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-612 

Alternative D: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.6.19.3 Effectiveness of Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

The performance-based lease stipulations and ROPs developed for Alternative B would also

apply to Alternative D (see section 4.4.19.3 for an assessment of the effectiveness of the ROPs 

and lease stipulations). Under Alternative D oil exploration and development could occur over a 

wider area, in more sensitive areas and habitats, and in lakes. 

When considering the effectiveness of stipulations in mitigating public health effects, it must be 

recognized that because the Inupiat people continue to value this land deeply as a foundation of 

well-being and culture, any measure which contributes to minimizing the environmental 

impacts of development in the region can be seen as contributing positively toward overall 

health and well-being. On the other hand, North Slope residents and the North Slope Borough 

have expressed a great deal of concern that the new “adaptive management” strategy adopted in 

Alternatives B, C and D may result in considerable weakening of protections for the area, and

well as creating a situation of perpetual flux and uncertainty as the increased flexibility offered 

under the new system creates the opportunity for important protections to be overridden by 

economic and industry concerns. Hence, from this perspective, the entire adaptive management 

program may be seen as a significant stressor, with the attendant health problems as described 

in section 4.5.19.2 on social determinants of health above. 

Overall, the extent to which the Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures for

Alternative D mitigate human health concerns will be proportional first to the degree to which 

the flexibility they provide is enforced to protect the local environment; to the degree to which 

they prevent impacts to subsistence resource populations, displacement of subsistence 

resources, and displacement of hunters and their families; on the efficacy of controls on 

environmental contamination, and on measures taken to reassure the community regarding 

their concerns about environmental contamination; and on the degree to which they prevent the 

adverse consequences of sociocultural change and support the positive aspects associated with 

employment and economic opportunity. Overall, however, in the face of expanding 

development, particularly with the development of important subsistence areas, it is likely that 

there would be substantial unmitigated impacts to health and the social determinants of health. 

4.6.19.4 Conclusion 

Under Alternative D, the possibility of public health impacts would be substantially increased 

compared with Alternative A. These impacts would occur primarily through restriction in 

subsistence; influx of large numbers of outside workers; new access routes to the community; 

sociocultural and economic change; altered employment; and contaminants. Diabetes, 

hypertension, and related metabolic disorders would be expected to increase as subsistence is 

curtailed or as sociocultural changes lead to alterations in dietary patterns. Given that 

Alternative D involves substantially more development in and near particularly sensitive 

habitat and hunting and fishing areas, the risk of dietary change and the resultant increases in 

metabolic disorders would appear to be significantly greater. Cancer, lung disease, endocrine 

disruption, and neurodevelopmental delay are related to contaminants common to oil and gas 

development. Although at present no evidence exists to conclusively link rates of any of these 

problems to local oil development, because of both the increased total emissions projected under

this Alternative, and the location of operations within an important subsistence area, the risks 

of these problems would be increased under Alternative D. Mitigation includes stipulations 

which regulate discharges, and permits to comply with ADEC and CAA provisions, but 

exemptions for fine particulate and HAP make these regulations less effective. Social pathology 

4-613 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

could result from the economic changes anticipated; from increasing access to drugs and alcohol;

and from stress and maladaptive coping given the impacts to wider regions of important 

traditional use areas. While measures such as Stipulation 63 in Alternative A and ROP I-1 in 

Alternative D, which mandates a cultural orientation program, and stipulations and ROPs that 

protect subsistence resources would be partially effective, they would not offset the large-scale 

socio-economic effects discussed in the preceding sociocultural and public health sections. 

4.6.19.5 Potential New Mitigation Measures 

The same potential mitigation measures are proposed for this alternative as for Alternative B, 

as discussed in section 4.4.19.5. Under Alternative D, these measures would have similar 

benefits in terms of the range of public health effects they address. Measures 1 and 3 would 

establish a framework to ensure that potential public health effects are adequately evaluated 

during the planning process, and establish a mechanism for ongoing monitoring of public health 

effects. Owing to the greater extent of development predicted under Alternative D, these 

measures would provide similar but greater overall benefits than those described under 

Alternative A. Because development would be allowed over a greater region and within 

particularly important subsistence regions, however, there may also be greater residual overall 

health effects. Measure 2, Subsistence Harvest monitoring, would provide relatively greater 

benefit than that described under Alternative A, because of the greater potential for impacts to 

subsistence under Alternative D, but again with a potential for greater residual effects. 

Measure 4, Control of Contaminant-Related Health Risk, would provide protection for 

contaminant-related health problems as well as helping to reassure communities of the 

continued safety of subsistence resources. Because, under Alternative D, development would be

allowed in critically important subsistence areas, this measure would provide relatively greater 

benefit than under Alternative A. Certainly though, given the greater extent of development,

there could also be greater residual impacts, including both contaminant-related health 

problems, and problems related to decreased consumption of subsistence resources (including 

metabolic disorders and food insecurity, and social pathology and injury rates). Measures 6 and 

7, through adding health concerns into required orientation programs for industry employees, 

would have equivalent benefits under Alternative D to those described under Alternative A.

Owing to the slightly increased risk of oil spills under Alternative D, measure 8 would offer 

proportionally greater protection. 

Potential Effects on Oil and Gas Development 

The expense of the above potential mitigation measures varies widely, from insignificant to 

potentially millions of dollars. To the extent that the potential mitigation measures would add 

expense to oil and gas activities, they could discourage leasing, exploration, and development of

oil and gas. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-614 

Alternative D: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations require an 

assessment of the proposed action and other actions that have occurred in the past, are 

occurring in the present, or are likely to occur in the future, which together may have

cumulative impacts that go beyond the impacts of the proposed action itself. As defined by 40 

C.F.R. § 1508.7: 

“Cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other 

actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant 

actions taking place over a period of time. 

The purpose of this cumulative effects analysis is to determine if the effects of the action 

proposed in this Supplement, together with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions on the North Slope and eslewhere, have the potential to interact or accumulate 

over time and space, either through repetition or combined with other effects, and under what 

circumstances and to what degree they might accumulate. 

Because many of the actions considered in this Supplemental IAP/EIS to be reasonably 

foreseeable contributors to the cumulative impacts are the same as those described in the 

Amended IAP/EIS, many of the types of cumulative impacts are the same as those described in

that document. However, the analysis in this Supplement has been substantially revised in 

response to the finding of the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska that BLM failed to 

fully address the cumulative impact increased activity in the Northeast NPR-A planning area 

will have when combined with increased activity in the Northwest NPR-A planning area, and to 

update the cumulative oil and gas exploration and development scenarios to address the

intervening increase in the price for oil. The changes to the cumulative impact analysis address 

the court’s concern by focusing on the interrelationship of oil and gas leasing and development

activities, and resulting cumulative impacts, between the Northeast and Northwest NPR-A. 

This discussion can be found in section 4.7.3.3 and in the “Contribution of Supplement 

Alternatives to Cumulative Effects” sections of the subsections within section 4.7.7. The 

changes in the oil and gas scenarios (see section 4.7.3 for scenarios associated with cumulative 

impacts), which have increased the expected amount of exploration and development activities, 

have resulted in increases in the amount, but not generally the type, of impacts. In addition, 

the cumulative impact analysis has been revised to take into consideration new contributors to

cumulative impacts, most notably the Minerals Management Service’s proposed Chukchi Sea oil 

and gas lease sale 193 and the State of Alaska’s current initiative to have a gas pipeline built to 

deliver North Slope gas to market. The Supplemental IAP/EIS, however, deletes a road project

that would have connected Nuiqsut and NPR-A to the existing road network east of the Colville 

River from the list of reasonably foreseeable actions because the State is no longer pursuing 

that project. In addition, the Supplemental IAP/EIS’s cumulative impact analysis has 

incorporated relevant new studies, including some related to global climate change, and 

enhanced the discussion of potential public health impacts by adding a subsection specifically 

addressing those impacts. 

4-615 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: 

Structure of the Cumulative Impacts Analysis 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7.1 Structure of the Cumulative Impacts Analysis 

For this Supplement, the analysis of cumulative impacts is a four-step process that follows 

guidance provided in Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy 

Act (CEQ 1997) and Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska’s 

North Slope (NRC 2003): 

1. Specify the class of actions whose affects are to be analyzed; 

2. Designate the appropriate time and space domain in which the relevant actions occur; 

3. Identify and characterize the set of receptors to be assessed; and 

4. Determine the magnitude of effects on the receptors and whether those effects are 

 accumulating. 

4.7.1.1 Class of Actions Whose Affects are to be Analyzed 

Both non-oil and gas activities and oil and gas activities, advances in technology, and climate 

change are considered in the analysis. The assumptions and scenarios used by the resource 

specialists in the analyses of the cumulative impacts include those identified for the planning 

area in section 4.2, Introduction and Basic Assumptions for the Environmental 

Consequences Assessment. 

Non-Oil and Gas Activities 

Non-oil and gas activities include those activities that have occurred in the past, are presently 

occurring, or are likely to occur in the future. These include activities discussed in section 

4.2.1.1, Activities Not Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration and Development, that 

could occur within and outside of the Planning Area, and other North Slope activities, including 

resettlement and expansion of Native villages, and other residential, commercial, and industrial 

development on the North Slope, and military (DEW-Line) and other government sites. 

Oil and Gas Activities 

Oil and gas activities include those direct and indirect activities that have occurred in the past, 

are presently occurring, or are likely to occur in the future. These include the types of activities 

discussed in section 4.2.1.2 that could occur within the planning area and on the North Slope.

The activities likely to have the greatest effects vary by resource. For example, oil and gas 

activities considered in greatest detail in the cumulative impacts analysis for biological 

resources and subsistence users are: 

• Exploration activities, including seismic activities, off-road travel, and exploration 

drilling 

• Road construction (ice, peat, and gravel roads) 

• Industrial activity (oil field development and production and related infrastructure) 

• Oil spills 

• Marine-related activities 

• Site reclamation 

In contrast, employment and income are important activities to consider when evaluating the 

economy. Activities analyzed for each resource are identified in section 4.7.7. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-616 

Cumulative Effects: 

Structure of the Cumulative Effects Analysis 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Advances in Technology 

Over the past 2 decades, new technologies have been developed and applied to exploration, 

development, and production on the North Slope. Some technologies, such as the use of ice roads 

and ice pads for exploration wells, are unique to the Arctic and were largely developed in 

Alaska. Other advances, such as the use of coiled tubing, 3-D seismic-data acquisition, 

horizontal and multilateral drilling, measurement while drilling, low ground-pressure vehicles 

(Rolligons), and remote sensing were developed elsewhere. These technologies have been 

important in reducing cumulative effects to resources from oil and gas activities and are 

discussed in more detail in section 4.7.4. 

Global Climate Change 

This Supplemental IAP/EIS also considers the implications of global climate change in 

assessing cumulative effects. For example, the effects of past, current, and future activities on

the North Slope could be much greater on the permafrost landscape than would be the case if 

the climate were more stable. While impacts of global climate change are likely to be most 

evident in the Arctic, the causes and impacts of global climate change are global in scope. 

4.7.1.2 Appropriate Temporal and Spatial Domain 

Temporal Domain 

The analysis period covered by the cumulative effects analysis begins in approximately 1900, 

when first exploration on the North Slope began, and continues through about 2100. The ending 

date is based on the assumption that oil and gas fields will be discovered and developed in the 

planning area over approximately the next half century and that production and abandonment 

activities could last for approximately 50 more years. 

Developments for which no solid proposal has been submitted or which seem unlikely to occur 

within the foreseeable future are considered speculative. Speculative developments are not 

considered reasonably foreseeable and are not analyzed as part of the cumulative impacts 

associated with this IAP/EIS. 

Spatial Domain 

For individual resources and uses, the area of which an effect could be felt could be the 

“footprint” of the proposed action, but for others the effect may extend well beyond that space. 

For example, noise effects to wildlife can extend miles beyond the footprint of the development.

For purposes of this analysis and based on guidance from the National Research Council (NRC 

2003), the spatial domain for past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities is primarily 

the North Slope of Alaska and its adjacent marine waters. However, this Supplement also 

considers cumulative effects to resources that could occur outside of Alaska and its adjacent 

marine waters, primarily to migratory birds and mammals. 

4.7.1.3 Magnitude of Effects and Whether Those Effects are Accumulating 

The potential extent of the total cumulative effects (e.g., number of animals and habitat 

affected, jobs and revenues created or lost), and how long the effects might last (e.g., population

recovery time, duration of income flows) are estimated to determine the magnitude of effects 

that could accumulate for each resource. Where possible, the assessment of effects on a resource 

4-617 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: 

Structure of the Cumulative Impacts Analysis 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

is based on quantitative analysis (e.g., number of miles of gravel roads constructed; number of 

animals killed). However, many effects are difficult to quantify (e.g., animal behaviors; human 

perceptions) and a qualitative assessment of effects is made. 

As suggested by the CEQ (1997) handbook, Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act, this Supplemental IAP/EIS considers the following basic types of 

cumulative effects that might occur: 

• “Additive” (loss of sensitive resources from more than one incident), 

• “Countervailing” (negative effects are compensated for by beneficial effects), and 

• “Synergistic” (total effect is greater than the sum of the effects taken independently). 

Additive effects on specific resources often are difficult to detect and do not necessarily add up 

in the strict sense of one plus one equals two. It is much more likely that an additive effect 

would be greater than one but less than two. A synergistic effect, in theory, is a total effect that 

is greater than the sum of the additive effects on a resource. To arrive at a synergistic effect in 

this example (continuing with the numeric analogy), the total cumulative effect would need to 

end up greater than two. In the highly variable Arctic environment, where natural variations in 

population levels can exceed the impacts of human activity, such an effect would need to be

much greater than the hypothetical two to be either measurable or noteworthy. 

In the analyses that follows, effects should be considered to be additive in nature, unless 

otherwise noted. While synergistic impacts have been demonstrated in the laboratory (for 

certain types of chemical reactions, for example), there is almost no evidence of such impacts 

occurring when dealing with biological resources in the Arctic environment. Where synergistic 

impacts are not specifically accounted for in the analysis section, it is because there are neither 

studies nor information supporting the identification of such impacts. Resource analysts have 

striven to keep the cumulative analysis useful, manageable, and concentrated on meaningful 

potential effects. The cumulative analysis considers in greatest detail activities that are more 

certain to happen and that are geographically in or near the planning area. 

4.7.2 Activities Not Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development Considered in the Cumulative Effects Analysis 

This Supplemental IAP/EIS analyzes cumulative impacts associated with past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable non-oil and gas and oil and gas activities. Non-oil and gas actions 

include continued human activities such as sport and subsistence hunting and fishing, 

commercial fishing, tourism, and recreational activities. Such actions that would occur within 

the planning area are discussed in section 4.2.1.1. Other non-oil and gas activities that could 

occur on the North Slope include growth and development associated with villages and military 

sites on the North Slope. The history of non-oil and gas development is discussed in section 

4.7.2.1 below, and the effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable non-oil and gas 

development are discussed in section 4.7.7. (Note: The Amended IAP/EIS also considered

state-sponsored development of roads from the Dalton Highway, which were under

consideration during the early stages of developing the Amended IAP/EIS. The Supplement 

does not include analysis of impacts from such roads, however, because no permit applications 

have been filed and the road plans have become inactive. As such, we consider any such road 

development as speculative). 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-618 

Cumulative Effects: 

Structure of the Cumulative Effects Analysis 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7.2.1 North Slope Development 

There are presently seven North Slope villages being considered for this analysis: Point Lay, 

Wainwright, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Anaktuvuk Pass, and Kaktovik. While a number of 

these locations were occupied at various times throughout the human history on the North 

Slope, much of the occupation prior to 1900 consisted of seasonal dwellings. These villages have 

been established or reestablished since 1900, and the establishment and subsequent growth 

represent cumulative impact to the North Slope environment. Villages consist of dwellings and 

other buildings, sewage and water systems, gravel roads, gravel airstrips/airports, and other 

structures. Their establishment, current area, and population growth are described below 

(Table 4.7-A and Table 4.7-B). (Most information in this section is available on the Alaska 

Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development’s Community Database 

Online website at http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_BLOCK.htm and from the 

website of the North Slope Borough at http://www.north-slope.org/. Both websites were 

accessed on January 18, 2007). 

The village of Point Lay has not been incorporated under State law as a municipality, but has 

been incorporated as a Native Village under the Indian Reorganization Act by the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs. Since the early 1970s, the village’s population has grown from less than a few 

dozen residents to 260, of which approximately 86% were Iñupiat Eskimos. The village has 

gravel roads and an airstrip, cultural center, school, health clinic, police and fire stations, and 

local store. The NSB provides public electricity. The borough has recently provided a water and 

sewer project to the village. Transportation to the village is provided by scheduled airline and 

charter service at the local airport. 

Wainwright was established in 1904 when an Alaska Native Service built a school there. The 

community was incorporated as a second-class city in 1962. Wainwright has been one of the 

larger villages in the borough, having 353 residents in 1973 and 556 thirty years latter. The 

village has gravel roads and an airstrip, cultural center, school, health clinic, police and fire 

stations, and local store. The NSB provides all utilities. Transportation to the village is 

provided by scheduled airline and charter service at the local airport. 

The village of Atqasuk is at a site that has historically been the location of dwellings. Coal was 

mined in the community, then known as Meade River, in World War II and freighted to Barrow. 

The population dwindled in the 1960s but the village was re-established in the 1970s under the 

name Atqasuk, and incorporated as a second class city in 1982. Atqasuk has had a fairly 

consistent population since the late 1980s and in 2003 counted 250 residents, 91% of whom 

were Iñupiat Eskimos. The village has a public electricity system, a school, police and fire 

stations, airstrip, health clinic, and local store. About 85% of households have water piped to 

their house. Transportation to the village is provided by scheduled airline and charter service at 

the local airport. 

Nuiqsut was established in 1974 when 27 families moved to the present location. The new 

residents lived in a tent city for 18 months before permanent housing could be built. The village 

was incorporated as a second-class city in 1975. In 2003, there were 416 residents in the village; 

about 92% were Iñupiat. The village has a school, health clinic, store, police and fire station, 

and public transportation system. All but one of the Nuiqsut households had running water in 

2003. The village has a public utility (electricity) system and in late 2006 began receiving gas 

from the nearby Alpine oil field. Transportation to the village is provided by scheduled airline 

and charter service at the local airport. 

4-619 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Activities Not 

Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Barrow is the economic, transportation, and administrative center for the NSB and the largest

community, with a population in 2003 of 4,429, up from 2,267 in 1980 and 3,469 in 1990. The 

city was incorporated as a first class city in 1959. Most Barrow homes are heated by natural gas 

from nearby gas fields. Utilities are available through Barrow Utilities and Electric 

Cooperative. The community has schools including a community college, stores, hotels, police

and fire stations, and a bank. Transportation to and from Barrow is provided by the Wiley Post 

– Will Rogers Regional Airport, including jet service. 

The village of Anaktuvuk Pass was settled in the 1940s. The inland Nunamiut Eskimos were 

nomadic and largely vacated the Brooks Range area in the early 1900s due to a collapse in the 

caribou populations. By the 1940s, several Nunamiut families returned to the area and settled 

at the present village site. The community was incorporated as a second-class city in 1957. The 

village population has grown steadily, from 66 in 1950, to 134 in 1973, 203 in 1980, 259 in 1990, 

and 329 in 2003. Approximately 88% of the population in 2003 were Iñupiat. The village has a 

school and health clinic. In 2003, approximately 90% of the households had running water, up 

from only a quarter of the population in the late 1990s. Flush toilets have also reached 90% of 

the households thanks to recent completion of a water and sewer project by the NSB.

Transportation to the village is provided by scheduled airline and charter service at the local 

airport. 

The village of Kaktovik was incorporated as a second-class city in 1971. The village has a school, 

police and fire stations, water and sewer systems, a local store, and health clinic. The NSB 

provides all utilities. Just in the last decade running water has reached 90% of households. 

Transportation to the village is provided by scheduled airline and charter service at the local 

airport. 

Table 4.7-A. Physical Size of the North Slope Villages Considered in the Cumulative 

Effects Analysis

Village City Limits (acres) Tracts (acres) 

Kaktovik 620 149 

Anaktuvuk Pass 3,302 373 

Nuiqsut 5,760 649 

Atqasuk 27,353 328 

Barrow 13,866 3,028 

Wainwright 9,222 1,022 

Point Lay Not Incorporated 1,576 

Total 60,123 7,128 

Table 4.7-B. Population of North Slope Villages within the Cumulative Effects Analysis 

Area

Village 1939 1950 1973 1980 1988 1990 1993 1998 2003 

Kaktovik 13 46 144 165 227 224 230 256 284 

Anaktuvuk 

Pass 

NA 66 134 203 264 259 270 314 329 

Nuiqsut 89 NA 128 208 314 354 418 420 416 

Atqasuk 78 49 NA 107 219 216 237 224 250 

Barrow 363 951 2,167 2,267 3,335 3,469 3,908 4,641 4,429 

Wainwright 341 227 353 405 514 492 584 649 556 

Point Lay 117 75 31 68 132 139 192 246 260 

Total 1,001 1,414 2,957 3,423 5,005 5,153 5,839 6,750 6,524 

NA – Not available. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-620 

Cumulative Effects: Activities Not 

Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Projecting population growth is fraught with problems, particularly projections as far as the end

of this century when we project that oil and gas production from the planning area will be 

reaching its end. For analysis purposes, however, we assume that population would grow for 

approximately the next forty years at a rate of 2% per year and then level off. 

The estimate of the rate of growth is based on the population growth that occurred from 1988, 

by which time the major population influences of development of the giant Prudhoe Bay and 

Kuparuk oil fields had been realized, to 2003. The period from 1988 to 2003 represents a period 

of gradual expansion of oil and gas development. This development, primarily through tax

revenues to the North Slope Borough and profits to local corporations, helped support a roughly 

corresponding growth of populations in North Slope Borough communities. As depicted in 

Figure 4-5 in section 4.2.1.2, under all of the alternatives oil production from the planning area 

reaches a rough plateau in the mid 2040s which persists until 2070 to 2090, depending on 

alternative. Falling oil production and a declining tax base related to depreciating oil 

infrastructure in existing fields could offset these economic stimulants to population growth, 

just as gas production and development of other new fields, both onshore and offshore, could

reinforce these stimulants from development that may occur in the planning area. Depending 

on the amount of North Slope production that occurs during the middle and later parts of this 

century, population could continue to grow or begin to decline. For this analysis, however, we 

are assuming that these factors are roughly offsetting and that population growth would 

continue at the recent historic annual rate of 2% until almost the middle of this century (by 

which time the population would have approximately doubled) and then level off, perhaps 

declining at the end of the century. 

Also, for our analysis we are assuming that growth in the population of communities will 

translate to approximately the same amount of growth in the land within communities that are 

developed for housing, commercial and government structures, and other community 

infrastructure. Based upon review of aerial photographs and consultation with the NSB, BLM 

estimates that approximately 1,800 acres have been occupied to date by community 

development. Assuming community infrastructure and footprint grow at roughly the same pace 

as population, there would be approximately 3,600 acres of community footprint by the time 

population may level off in the 2040s. 

Military Development and DEW-Line Stations 

The DEW-Line is an integrated chain of radar and communications sites stretching across

Alaska, Northern Canada and Greenland. The DEW Line was initiated in 1954 when President 

Eisenhower signed a bill approving construction. Their purpose was to detect any incoming, 

over-the-pole, aircraft invasions emanating from the Soviet Union. Actual construction took

place between 1955 and 1957 and the system was declared operational on July 31, 1957. A total 

of 58 sites were constructed; 22 of them were in Alaska, of these 14 were located along the coast 

of the North Slope (Table 4.7-C; www.lswilson.ca/dewline.htm#C accessed January 18, 2007). 

Each DEW-Line site consisted of a gravel runway and road system, permanent housing, water 

and fuel storage tanks with pads, heating plants, and (petroleum/oil/lubricant [POL] and water) 

pipelines, garages, towers, and antennae. Military and civilian airlifts, sealifts during the 

summer, and cat trains distributed the materials to construct the permanent facilities. Land 

within the sites varied from 100 to 2,830 acres. There were three general types of stations, main 

stations (see Site Number column in Table 4.7-C), intermediate stations, and auxiliary stations. 

Main stations were larger and had more facilities and larger staff. Gravel runways were 5,000 

feet long and 142 feet wide at main stations, 3,000 feet long at auxiliary stations, and 1,000 feet 

4-621 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Activities Not 

Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

long at intermediate stations. During operation, auxiliary sites had staffs of about 25 persons 

each, but main stations had 225 to 250 employees. Intermediate stations were not manned. 

The DEW-Line program was discontinued in 1963. Most intermediate DEW-Line sites were 

closed at that time but were generally not restored until the late 1990s. The remaining stations 

(main and auxiliary DEW-Line stations) were subsequently converted to support the newer 

Northern Warning System (NWS) established in 1985. Alternating stations along the coastline 

were converted to long range (LRR) and short range radar (SRR) sites, respectively. The LRR 

stations were in operation by 1990, followed by the SRR stations in 1994. The LRR and SSR 

stations are still operating as of 2004. Some of these stations are still manned, but most were 

automated in the 1990s. 

Abandonment, conversion, and automation left the stations with unused facilities. Clean-up and 

restoration of the stations occurred in the late 1990s and continues today. Many of the sites had 

contaminated soils or expected contamination consisting of petroleum, lubricants, PCBs, and 

insecticides, along with considerable volumes of debris and general refuse. 

Table 4.7-C. DEW-Line Sites Constructed on the North Slope of Alaska 

Site Name Site 

Number1 

Size 

(acres) 

Present 

Status2 

Current 

Operation3 

NWS 

Established4

 Point Lay LIZ-2 (aux) 2,835 Closed abandoned 1989/1990

 Icy Cape LIZ-B (int) 218 Closed abandoned NA 5

 Wainwright LIZ-3 (aux) ND6 SRR automated 1994

 Peard Bay LIZ-C (int) 1,460 Closed abandoned NA

 Point Barrow POW-Main 268 LRR manned 1989/1990

 Cape Simpson POW-A (int) ND closed abandoned NA

 Lonely POW-1 (aux) 2,830 Closed abandoned 1994

 Kogru POW-B (int) 150 closed abandoned NA

 Oliktok POW-2 (aux) 2,325 LRR manned 1989/1990

 Pt. McIntyre POW-C (int) ND closed ND NA

 Flaxman Island POW-3 (aux) 620 SRR automated 1994

 Brownlow Point POW-D (int) ND closed abandoned NA

 Barter Island BAR-Main 4,500 LRR ND 1990

 Demarcation Bay BAR-A (int) 100 closed abandoned NA 

1 Main = Main station; aux = auxiliary station; and int = intermediate station. 2 LRR = Long Range Radar site, and SRR = Short Range Radar site. 3 Current operations are manned, operational but automated, or abandoned – not in operation. 4 Date Northern Warning System operations began at site. 5 NA = Not applicable (station closed, not converted to NWS). 6 ND = Not determined. 

Source: Lackenbauer et al. 2005 

Site clean-up of the Icy Cape Intermediate DEW-Line site was conducted in 1997 and included 

removal of two 20,000-gallon and six 300-gallon oil storage tanks, 800 feet of POL pipeline, a 

fuel pumping station, more than forty 55-gallon POL drums, a 240-feet unmarked tower, and 

1,500 cubic yards of contaminated gravel fill. Soil sampling for potential PCB-contamination 

was conducted on the site in 2003. Future planned restoration activities include analyzing PCB 

soil test samples. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-622 

Cumulative Effects: Activities Not 

Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

A Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) was conducted and identified six 

Installation Remedial Program sites at the Wainwright DEW-Line Station. The RI/FS 

determined the source and size of each of the Installation Remedial Program sites. Building 

Demolition and Debris Removal (BD/DR) activities are planned for 2008-2009. 

Site clean-up (restoration) of the Peard Bay Intermediate DEW-Line site was conducted in 1997 

and included the removal of a fuel pumping station, a 240-feet unmarked tower, and 

approximately 1,000 cubic yards of contaminated gravel fill on 5 acres. Soil sampling for 

additional petroleum-contamination and potential PCB-contamination was conducted on the 

site in 2003. 

The DEW-Line Station at Point Barrow has three Installation Restoration Program Sites which 

are scheduled for environmental restoration beginning in 2008-2009. 

Site clean-up of the Cape Simpson Bay Intermediate DEW-line site was conducted in 1998, and 

included removal of 12 (four 20,000-gallon and eight 300-gallon) oil storage tanks, two 1,000­

gallon propane tanks, a fuel pumping station, 25 batteries, buildings, a 240-feet unmarked 

tower, POL-contaminated soil, a contaminated gravel fill, and POL-contaminated surface water. 

Based upon historical usage and prior sampling events, 10 environmental impacted sites within 

the former Point Lonely DEW-line station have been identified as Areas of Concern. Major 

chemicals of concern are POL, PCB, general refuse, and insecticides. 

Site clean-up of the Kogru Intermediate DEW-line site was conducted in 1996 and included 

removal of eight 300-gallon oil storage tanks and more than sixty 55-gallon POL drums. 

Additional soil sampling was conducted in the field to verify there is not petroleum or PCB 

contamination. 

Seven environmentally impacted areas have been identified at the Oliktok DEW-Line Station. 

These areas are scheduled for restoration activities under Project Clean Sweep in 2007-2008. 

Major environmental concerns that have been identified at these areas are POL, PCB, general 

refuse, and insecticides. 

Five environmental areas of concern, within the former Flaxman Island DEW-Line station, 

have been identified with possible POL, PCB, and general refuse contamination. Project Clean 

Sweep has scheduled major BD/DR activities at these sites for 2008-2009. 

The Barter Island DEW-line station consists of 14 determined Installation Restoration Program 

sites. The U.S. Air Force’s (611 Civil Engineering Squadron) Project Clean Sweep has scheduled 

major BD/DR activities for 2008-2009. Building/structure demolition and disposal and 

environmental background sampling are currently being conducted. 

The Brownlow Point Intermediate DEW-Line site is currently abandoned. Most of the site has 

eroded into the Beaufort Sea. Site clean-up (restoration) conducted at the Brownlow Point site

included the removal of one 25-feet by 80-feet unsafe building and more than 500 POL 55-gallon 

drums scattered over 10 acres. Due to low priority, no work is scheduled in the next 2 years. An 

associated 456-acre portion of the Brownlow Point site, known as Collinson Point, underwent 

initial site-cleanup (restoration) in 1994 and final clean-up in 2000. Removed from the site were 

11 300-gallon to 550-gallon oil storage tanks, a fuel pumping station, a fuel pipeline, 

approximately 1,500 55-gallon POL drums, five buildings, a contaminated gravel fill, and 

4-623 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Activities Not 

Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

adjacent POL-contaminated soil. Planned future environmental activities include additional site

visits to determine if contamination has been cleaned up so the site can be closed. 

Site clean-up (restoration) of the Demarcation Bay (Nuvagapak Point) Intermediate DEW-Line 

site was conducted in 1994 and again (final clean-up) in 2000, and included removal of 19 oil 

storage tanks, 3,000 feet of petroleum/oil/lubricant pipeline, a fuel pumping station, five 

buildings, and more than 7,000 55-gallon POL drums. Additional soil sampling for petroleum 

and potential PCB contamination was conducted in 2003. 

Restoration has taken place at Manning Point. This 10-acre site served as a staging area for the 

Barter Island DEW-Line station from 1952 to 1957, after which there was no follow-up use of

the land. Restoration included removal of more than 10,000 55-gallon POL drums, 5 tons of 

combustible debris, and 25 tons of noncombustible debris. Planned future environmental 

activities include collection and analysis of additional soil samples so the site can be closed. 

Griffen Point served as a staging area for several DEW-Line stations from 1953 to 1957. The 

site is currently abandoned. Restoration activities have included removal of more than 1,000 55­

galllon POL drums scattered along 5 miles of the Arctic Ocean frontage. 

4.7.2.2 Climate Change Overview 

 “....the only certainties in this assessment are that there are various levels of uncertainty in 

the projections and that even if an attempt is made to estimate the magnitude of these 

uncertainties, surprise responses of ecosystems and their species to changes in climate and UVB radiation levels are certain to occur.” (ACIA, 2005; p 249) 

While climate change and its component impacts are reasonably foreseeable and thus included 

in the cumulative effects discussion, the uncertainty surrounding the direction and magnitude 

to say nothing of the timing inhibits the quantitative or qualitative addition of those effects to

the cumulative whole. The discussions provided in this Supplemental IA/EIS are to provide the 

reader and decision maker with context and where possible suggest possible outcomes, i.e. many 

of the physical components of the ecosystem such as soils and coastal erosion may react in 

predictable ways, but even then surprises will emerge. 

Change in global climate parameters is occurring at a rate and magnitude greater than any 

trend observed in the last 400 years. Change is disproportionately higher in the arctic (>60 

degrees North Latitude, sensu; ACIA 2005) than in other regions. The proximate effects of 

climate change in the arctic are being expressed as increased average winter and spring 

temperatures and changes in precipitation amount, timing, and type (Serreze et al. 2000). 

These changes in turn result in physical changes such as reduced sea ice, increased coastal 

erosion, changes in hydrology, depth to permafrost, and carbon availability (ACIA 2005). These 

changes are resulting, or are expected to result, in changes to the biological environment, 

causing shifts, expansion, or retraction of home range, changes in behavior, and changes in 

population parameters of plant and animal species. 

While it is possible to conclude in general terms that climate change will affect individuals, 

populations, and thus communities it is difficult to predict with any specificity how those effects 

will manifest themselves. The difficulties are related to uncertainty in feedbacks, thresholds, 

adaptation, resilience and component interactions (ACIA 2005, Hinzman et al. 2005) as well as 

substantial uncertainty around the models used to develop climate projections and the degree of 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-624 

Cumulative Effects: Activities Not 

Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

natural spatio-temporal variability in climate parameters characteristic of the Arctic (ACIA 

2005). 

Feedback to climate change can be positive (increasing the effects) or negative (decreasing or 

ameliorating the effects). Some feedback is already apparent. As warmer temperatures result

in reduced sea ice extent, less solar heat is reflected by the ice cover and more is absorbed by the 

sea, resulting in increased rates of melting, which further reduce sea ice cover, resulting in 

more warming (Holland et al 2006). Additional positive feedback may come from the release of 

“greenhouse gases” (carbon dioxide, CO2 and methane) from thawing permafrost and warming 

of ocean floors (ACIA 2005). Negative feedbacks could come from changes in salinity brought on 

by increased freshwater delivery to the ocean from ice melt and river discharge causing changes

in ocean circulations and reducing heat transported to the arctic. Increased available carbon 

coupled with northward movement of tree species may result in increased atmospheric CO2 

uptake, reducing greenhouse gas. There is even the possibility that societal feedback will result 

in decreases in greenhouse gas emissions (GME), thus decreasing the anthropogenic addition 

implicated in global climate change (IPCC 2007). 

Thresholds are lines that once crossed result in changes disproportionate to the increment that 

caused the threshold to be crossed. Climate change should not be expected to occur in a linear 

fashion with straight-line trends or smooth curves. Relatively abrupt changes should be 

expected as thresholds of resistance, resilience, and adaptation are crossed. Unfortunately

thresholds are difficult to identify before they are crossed, and due to response time lags 

difficult to identify until some time after they have been crossed (Noon 2003). 

Projected, near term (50-100 year) climate parameters fall within historic estimates. The latest 

occurring at the end of the Younger Dryas and lasting for about 1,300 years (ACIA 2005) with 

many switches between cold and warm phases of lower amplitudes and duration occurring in 

the intervening intervals between then and the present. Certainly many of the extant arctic 

species were present then and survived relatively unchanged to this period. These species

survived either because they were resilient to change or they were able to adapt behaviorally or 

physiologically; most likely some measure of both. The mechanism(s) of adaptation those 

individual species used are largely unknown, as is the strength of the species resilience. 

Individuals interact with the biological and physical components of the ecosystem they inhabit. 

Climate change may alter the strength and importance of those interactions in complex and 

unpredictable ways. Increased insect populations resulting from increased surface water and 

milder winters could increase insect harassment; however, predicted weather patterns may 

result in changes to predominant wind direction and increasing strength, thus suppressing 

insect flight. Earlier ice melt may increase nesting areas but changed environmental conditions

may reduce nest success or overwinter survival. Coastal erosion, vegetation change or other 

factors may eliminate or reduce reproductive areas in one place but create it in another;

however if that place is inaccessible or more easily accessible by predators it may have little or 

no value. 

Because not all changes or all species will react to changing conditions at the same rate, some 

species populations will decline/increase to some new level, others may decline towards 

extinction dependent on their level or resistance to change or adaptive capability. What can be 

assumed is that if the current crop of climate projections are correct, species mix, richness, 

population size, and range will be different than today. For some species, change can be 

predicted with more precision than others based on observed trends, e.g. the increased

terrestrial denning and eastward movement of female Southern Beaufort Sea polar bears likely 

4-625 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Activities Not 

Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

in response to changing ice condition (Amstrup or Regehr) may be expected to continue and it is 

likely that the worldwide population of polar bears will decline but whether they will continue 

to use the planning area, where and for what purpose is unknown. 

Given the level of uncertainty of the impacts of climate change, attempting to determine the 

effects of oil development, whose scale and location are unknown, on individuals in the context

of climate change is an exercise in speculation. Protected areas or reserves are of limited longterm value if the conditions within them are expected to change, possibly making them 

unsuitable or inaccessible. The only viable management response to climate change is to adopt 

desired outcomes and use adaptive management approaches to facilitate changes as warranted 

and possible to meet the desired outcomes. 

4.7.3 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities Considered 

in the Cumulative Effects Analysis 

This section discusses the history and projects the future of development in the region by 

identifying past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable oil and gas activities in the planning area 

and elsewhere on the North Slope. Oil development is the main agent of industrial change on

the North Slope. Oil and gas exploration and production activities have occurred on the North 

Slope since the early 1900s and production has occurred for more than 50 years. Associated 

industrial development has included the creation of an industry support community airfield at 

Deadhorse and an interconnected industrial infrastructure that includes roadways, pipelines, 

production and processing facilities, gravel mines, and docks. In 1977, the TAPS began to 

transport North Slope crude oil to a year-round marine terminal in Valdez, Alaska. Today, it 

continues to transport the North Slope’s entire production, and it is projected to do so for many 

years into the future. 

For this analysis, oil scenarios were developed based on estimates of future activities. The

scenarios are conceptual views of the future that include the timing and extent of future 

petroleum activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and on the North Slope. Estimates of 

anticipated production consider many factors, including the conventionally recoverable 

resources of the area, past industry leasing and exploration efforts, and future economic 

conditions. 

This cumulative impact analysis analyzes impacts of actions in the following categories: 

• Past Exploration, Development, and Production: Exploration, development, and 

production activities and associated infrastructure for existing oil operations on the

North Slope. This category involves construction and ongoing maintenance of present

infrastructure, including support facilities and transportation systems. 

• Present Exploration, Development, and Production: Exploration, development, and

production activities that may be currently under construction or are currently 

undergoing agency approval process prior to construction. This category includes other 

non-oil-field development, including support and transportation components. 

• Reasonably Foreseeable Future Exploration, Development, and Production: Exploration, 

development, and production activities, including support and transportation 

components, that would be associated with 1) extraction of discovered oil and gas that is 

not currently undergoing agency approval processes, or 2) discovery and extraction of

the great majority of undiscovered oil and gas in areas with existing oil leases or for 

which land managers are planning to hold lease sales (BLM considers production of 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-626 

Cumulative Effects: Activities Not 

Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

approximately 88% of undiscovered oil within onshore areas to be a reasonable estimate 

for reasons discussed in section 4.2.1.2). 

4.7.3.1 Past Exploration, Development, and Production on the North Slope and 

in the Planning Area 

The North Slope of Alaska is a very sparsely populated region of extreme climate, with 

abundant energy and other natural resources. Exploration and industrial development for 

extraction of the mineral resources of the region (principally oil and gas), which has been active 

over the past 80 years, is the primary man-induced change to the North Slope (Table 4.7-D). 

The most intense development activity to date occurred during the 1970s and early 1980s. It 

was during this period that the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk oil fields were developed, TAPS and 

the haul road (Dalton Highway) were constructed, and a large portion of the roads, drilling 

pads, gravel sources, collector pipelines, and production facilities were built. It was also a period 

of much activity in the NPR-A, with thousands of miles of seismic lines surveyed and dozens of 

exploratory wells drilled. Since then, additional North Slope development has occurred, but 

incremental physical disturbance to the environment has been reduced. 

4-627 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Table 4.7-D. Oil Exploration and Development on the North Slope 

Date Event 

Before Recorded 

History 

Visible oil seepages used by Native inhabitants of the North Slope. 

1882 U.S. government representatives hear of oil seepages while traveling in the 

area. 

1886 First non-Natives see seepages at Cape Simpson. 

1901 Peters and Schrader traverse the Brooks Range and North Slope recording the 

geology and geography of the region. 

1906-1914 E. Leffingwell mapped the Arctic Coast east of Barrow and much of the area

that now comprises the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 

1909 First description of Cape Simpson deposits published. 

1914 First oil-related claim staked. 

1921 Additional claims staked by individuals and industry. 

1921 Large deposits of oil discovered in Oklahoma and Texas and industry loses 

interest in the remote Arctic. 

1922 First industry-sponsored geological investigation of North Slope oil potential. 

1923 Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 (PET-4) established. 

1923-1926 First analysis of PET-4 potential. 

1943 Territory of Alaska Bureau of Mines sends field party to the North Slope to

investigate oil and gas seepages. 

1944 

Start of PET-4 petroleum exploration program; PET-4 headquarters 

established at Barrow; land north of the drainage divide of the Brooks Range 

withdrawn from pubic entry by the Secretary of the Interior; and Public Land

Order 82. 

1945 Thirty-one shallow core tests drilled at Cape Simpson and oil was produced. 

1945-1952 Numerous geophysical studies conducted across PET-4 find oil and gas. 

1947 Office of Naval Research establishes Arctic Research Laboratory. 

1949 High sulfur, heavy oil found at a test well drilled near Fish Creek, and gas 

discovered near Barrow. 

1953-1968 Federal geologic field studies continue in PET-4 and several major oil 

companies begin exploration. 

1957 Oil discovered in Cook Inlet (south-central Alaska). 

1958 Public Land Order 82 modified; Federal leasing begins on the North Slope; first 

industry-sponsored geological field programs; and Alaska Statehood Act 

passed. 

1959 Alaska becomes the 49th state in the Union. 

1962 First industry-sponsored seismic program. 

1963-1967 First industry exploration well drilled on the North Slope; 11 unsuccessful

wells drilled; and industry interest in the North Slope wanes. 

1964 First State of Alaska lease sale on the North Slope. 

1965 Area that eventually includes Prudhoe Bay leased. 

1967 Initial exploratory drilling at sites that would become Prudhoe Bay field. 

1968 ARCO announces the discovery of Prudhoe Bay oil field, the largest in North

America. 

1969 

Kuparuk, West Sak, and Milne Point fields discovered; Alaska State Lease 

Sale No. 23 held; and Federal lease sales suspended on the North Slope for the 

next 10 years because the Secretary of the Interior imposed freezes due to 

Native claims. 

1970 National Environmental Policy Act signed into law. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-628 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Date Event 

1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act passed. 

1974-1976 Federally-sponsored exploration along the Barrow Arch. 

1976 

PET-4 transferred from the Navy to the Department of the Interior and 

renamed the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska; sale of crude oil from 

Petroleum Reserves 1, 2, and 3 authorized; and major exploration effort 

launched by the USGS in the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska. 

1977 Trans-Alaska Pipeline System operational. 

1979 Initial leasing of portions of the state and Federal OCS waters of the Beaufort

Sea. 

1980 Alaska National Interests Land Conservation Act passed. 

1981 First OCS exploration well drilled. 

1982 Initial leasing of portions of the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska. 

1984-1985 Seismic exploration of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 Area 

conducted. 

1985 First industry exploration well drilled in the National Petroleum Reserve – 

Alaska. 

1986 Arctic Slope Regional Corporation well drilled within the coastal plain of the 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 

Various times Initial leasing of portions of Arctic Slope Regional Corporation lands. 

Early 1990s Last of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska leases from the initial leasing 

program are relinquished. 

1994 Discovery of the Alpine field. 

1998 Northeast National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska IAP/EIS ROD signed. 

1999 Lease sale held in Northeast National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska. 

2000 Alpine production begins. 

2001 Northstar field begins production; development of Liberty field suspended;

Phillips (successor of ARCO) announces discoveries in National Petroleum

Reserve – Alaska. 

2002 Lease sale held in Northeast National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska. 

2003 Beaufort Sea Sale 186 held. 

2004 Northwest National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska IAP/EIS ROD signed. 

2004 Lease sale held in Northwest National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska. 

2004 Alpine Satellite Development Plan EIS ROD signed. 

2005 Beaufort Sea Sale 195 held. 

2006 Northeast NPR-A Amended ROD signed. 

2006 Startup of the Alpine satellite oil production pad known as Fiord or CD-3. 

2006 Lease sale held in Northwest National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska. 

2006 Beaufort Sea Sale 202 proposed. 

2006 MMS Chukchi Sea Planning Area O&G Lease Sale 193 Draft EIS released. 

2006 Startup of the Alpine satellite oil production pad known as Nanuq or CD-4. 

Source: NRC (2003) and USDOI BLM (2006). 

4-629 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

More recent fields have generally been developed in areas adjacent to existing producing areas, 

reducing the amount of additional support infrastructure (roads, pipelines, and processing 

facilities) needed to support additional production. At the same time, changes and 

improvements in technology have generally decreased the physical disturbance caused by more 

recent exploration, development, and production activities. 

The following section discusses the history of exploration and development on the North Slope, 

and is summarized from information in NRC (2003) and in the Geology and Exploration of the 

NPR-A, 1974 to 1982 (Gryc 1988). 

Pre-1900s 

Oil seepages that are seen today along the Arctic Coast, from Skull Cliff on the Chukchi Sea to 

Brownlow Point on the Beaufort Sea, were the first evidences of potentially significant 

petroleum deposits on the North Slope of Alaska. Especially important were the active ponds of 

oil and layers of tar at Cape Simpson, just east of Barrow, likely known to the Native

inhabitants long before recorded history. In 1881-1883, John Murdoch, a member of the U.S. 

Navy’s International Polar Expedition, visited Point Barrow and vicinity, and in 1892 reported 

that the expedition heard stories of a lake of tar on an island a one-day sail east of Point 

Barrow, most likely Cape Simpson (Murdoch 1892). In August of 1886, the first non-Native 

people to see the Cape Simpson seepages could have been Charles Brower and his partner

Patrick Grey while on a hunting trip (Brower 1942). The North Slope’s potential as a significant 

oil province was further shown when Ensign W. L. Howard found a pebble-sized piece of oil 

shale along the Etivuluk River in 1886 (Smith and Mertie 1930). 

1900 to 1940 

In 1904, W. Peters and F. Schrader, a topographer and a geologist, published the first recorded 

systematic geologic and geographic traverse of the Brooks Range and the North Slope (Schrader 

and Peters 1904). In 1901, the researchers traveled by way of the John, Anaktuvuk, and the 

Colville rivers, naming and describing the Lisburne Formation of the Mississippian age and the 

Cretaceous rocks in the area. They noted the anticlinal structures in the foothills of the Brooks 

Range and numerous coal seams along the Colville and Anaktuvuk rivers. They also described

the coal exposures along the northwest coast, which were mined by Alaska natives and whalers 

for many years. 

From 1906 to 1914, E. Leffingwell mapped the Arctic Coast east of Barrow and much of the 

inland area of what is now the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (Leffingwell 1919). He described 

and named the rock formations that were later discovered as the oil-bearing rocks at Prudhoe 

Bay and noted the seepages at Cape Simpson. He concluded that, “Even if an oil pool were

found in the northern region, there is serious doubt of its availability under present conditions, 

though it might be regarded as a part of the ultimate oil reserves that would some time be 

developed.” 

From 1909 to 1921, individuals and industry representatives staked claims, under the extant 

mining laws, at Cape Simpson, Peard Bay, and along the Meade, Kukpowruk, and Kokolik 

rivers. During that time, large deposits of oil were discovered in Oklahoma and Texas and 

industry shifted their interest to those new places of production rather than the North Slope 

(Van Valin 1941). 

About 1920, the U.S. Navy began to convert their engines from coal to oil, and an oil shortage 

was already being predicted. In 1923, in order to provide for the increased oil needs, the Naval 

Petroleum Reserve No. 4 (PET-4) was established by Executive Order No. 3797-1. The early 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-630 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

reporting of oil seepages at Cape Simpson, Ensign Howard’s discovery of oil shale along the 

Etivuluk River, the description of resources found in the North Slope by Peters and Schrader, 

and Leffingwell’s mapping of the area, were all used to decide on the borders of PET-4. 

However, the geology and the geography of the PET-4 interior areas were still largely unknown, 

and it was necessary to increase the level of mapping and data gathering on the area. 

From 1923 through 1926, USGS parties crossed the Brooks Range and PET-4 and mapped the 

geology and geography along many of the larger rivers, including the Kuk and Utukok rivers in 

the west and the Etivuluk, Killik, and Colville rivers in the east (Smith and Mertie 1930). 

The USGS team, P. Smith and J. Mertie, also analyzed the petroleum potential of the Reserve.

They concluded that the best possible sources of petroleum were in the apparently widespread

oil shales, while the sources of oil in the Paleozoic rocks were problematic. They did not believe 

the Cretaceous rocks held much potential for petroleum, as they thought the rocks were small 

and sparse. Additionally, they concluded that the Cretaceous source rock in the Brooks Range 

was too deep for practicable drilling. They recommended that evaluating the petroleum 

potential in the PET-4 would be best realized by drilling for stratigraphic and structural 

information near Cape Simpson, and then by pursuing additional geologic field studies and 

drilling in other favorable areas. 

1940 – 1968 

Government-Sponsored Exploration and Development Activities 

In 1943, the Bureau of Mines sent a field party to the North Slope to investigate oil and gas 

seepages, in response to inquires from the Alaska Defense Command and Territory of Alaska 

officials. The field party examined and sampled the Cape Simpson seepages, as well as several 

additional sites along the Arctic Coast. Samples were collected from 12 separate sites, and 

seepages were confirmed along Skull Cliff, Dease Inlet, Cape Simpson, Fish Creek, Brownlow 

Point, Manning Point, and Umiat Mountain. 

In 1944, the first modern program of exploration, drilling, and geophysical and geological 

surveys was started by the U.S. Navy, and USGS geologic traverses began along the Colville 

River, later expanding to all major north-flowing rivers of the North Slope. In 1946, overland 

travel was necessary for the detailed structural geologic mapping. Weasels, military-style 

tracked vehicles were used to cross the Brooks Range by four different routes, covering much of 

interior area of the PET-4. By 1950, almost every stream capable of floating by boat was also 

traversed. Helicopters were first used for geologic studies in the Anaktuvuk Pass area; aerial 

photographs of over 70,000 square miles of the PET-4 and adjacent areas helped geologists 

interpret the possible geologic structure of the area, and a special series of photos were also

used to analyze and plan field surveys by the USGS. 

Between 1945 and 1952, geophysical studies, including experimental airborne magnetometer

and gravity and seismic surveys, were completed and covered a large part of the Reserve. The 

seismic surveys covered about 67,000 square miles, which included areas outside of PET-4, the 

gravity-meter surveys covered about 26,000 square miles, and the airborne magnetometer 

surveys covered 75,000 square miles, nearly all of the ACP and much of the foothills of the 

North Slope. Travel and housing of the geophysical crews was by tractor-sled trains, smaller 

tracked vehicles, and small aircraft. 

In 1944, the first drilling locations were determined by the presence of the seepages at Cape 

Simpson and a reconnaissance of the Umiat Anticline. It was decided that drilling should be 

limited to depths less than 10,000 feet, thought to be the economic limit at the time. In 

4-631 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

February and March of 1945, supplies were sledded to Umiat, where a drilling and logistic 

support camp was established and drilling began. The Umiat oil field, however, was not 

discovered until 1950, and still remains undeveloped. However, Umiat is still an important 

operating base for air transportation and geophysical and geological operations. 

Also in 1945, 31 shallow core tests were drilled at Cape Simpson. Oil was produced, but the 

estimated reserves were considered too small to justify additional development. By 1948, 

geophysical surveys indicated the presence of a large basement high under the Barrow high and

led to drilling near the top of the high. Gas was discovered, but neither oil nor hard rock 

basement was found at a depth of 2,500 feet. This area is now referred to as the Barrow Arch, 

the north limb of the Colville Basin. 

In 1949, high sulfur, heavy oil was found at a test well drilled near the Fish Creek seepage at a 

depth of 3,000 feet. However, no structure was found and no reserve estimate was made, and 

continued geophysical exploration around the Barrow high found no significant oil reserves. 

Given the discovery of oil at Umiat, and the mapping of several closed anticlinal structures in 

and adjacent to PET-4, it was thought that further potential was in the northern foothills. 

Therefore, 10 shallow test holes were drilled on 6 structures; 1 gas field and 3 prospective gas 

fields were discovered; and 2 closed structures were mapped in the western part of PET-4. Test 

wells were drilled, one, Meade, of which showed strong gas, and one, Kaolak, of which was dry. 

From 1945 through 1952, 45 core tests and 36 well tests were drilled within and adjacent to 

PET-4. The results showed one large oil field, Umiat, one large gas field, Gubik, one small gas 

field, Barrow, three prospective gas fields, Mead, Square Lake, and Wolf Creek, and two small 

oil deposits, at Cape Simpson and Fish Creek. 

In 1947, the U.S. Navy, Bureau of Yard Docks, established and developed a research facility in 

the Seabee (Navy Construction Battalion) detachment, at Barrow. This was an important 

development for the Barrow community and for the exploration and development of the North

Slope petroleum reserves. By May of 1947, a building program began to provide housing and 

laboratory facilities for the Arctic Research Laboratory (ARL), Office of Naval Research (ONR), 

and in August of 1947, ONR occupied these new facilities. To more fully acknowledge the U.S. 

Navy’s contribution to Arctic research, ARL became the Naval ARL (NARL) in the mid-1960s. 

In 1949, the discovery of gas at Barrow was likely the most significant result of the PET-4 

project to the people of Barrow. The South Field is the oldest producing gas field in Alaska and

the South and East Gas fields are the farthest north producing oil or gas fields in North 

America. When the PET-4 project arrived in 1944, Barrow was home to about 400 inhabitants; 

the exploration activities provided employment opportunities for the local people and the 

population quickly increased. 

In 1953, the PET-4 program was unexpectedly halted. By then, additional drill sites had been 

selected and supplies had started to arrive at a location east of PET-4, in the southern foothills 

near the head of the Shaviovik River and at another location at the head of the Utukok River in 

the southwest corner of the Reserve. Most of the supplies were later returned to Barrow and

Umiat. 

In 1964, Congress granted permission to extend the gas supply to Barrow, and the village was 

completely converted to natural gas by 1965. The gas was supplied by the U.S. Navy at a 

subsidized cost and use was unlimited, which the Barrow community was dependent on for heat 

and power. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-632 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

After the PET-4 program was recessed in 1953, the entire camp facility was turned over to ONR 

until December 1954, when the Air Force took over the management of the base camp to 

support the DEW-Line program. The Air Force continued to operate the base camp through 

civilian contractors until October 1971, when the operation was returned to the U.S. Navy. 

During that period, ONR continued to manage the laboratory through a contract with the 

University of Alaska. 

In 1980, the NARL was decommissioned and the camp and all facilities were turned over to the 

USDOI. From 1980 through 1984, the laboratory and camp facilities were managed by the 

USGS and their contractor, primarily as a base of operation for the Barrow Gas Fields. In 1984, 

NARL and the base facilities were tuned over to the local Native corporation, Ukpeagvik 

Iñupiat Corporation (UIC). 

State and Federal Leasing and Industry-Sponsored Exploration Activities 

In the mid- to late 1950s and early 1960s, a number of factors led to the beginning of industry 

actively exploring the North Slope for oil and gas resources. Although industry was aware of 

and interested in the North Slope, the lack of land availability, remoteness, and high costs 

associated with operating in the area had previously precluded industry participation. 

The factors that contributed to the entry of industry into the North Slope exploration scene

were an overall encouragement of regional geological studies, the PET-4 program, the discovery 

of commercial quantities of oil and gas in Cook Inlet, and the end of the land availability 

moratorium on the North Slope, the latter of which was likely the most important factor in 

attracting industry to the area. The oil and gas found in the Cook Inlet demonstrated that it 

was economically feasible to explore for, develop, and sell hydrocarbons in and from Alaska. In 

1957, ARCO made the initial discovery of Alaskan oil at Swanson River, on the Kenai 

Peninsula, which contributed significantly to Alaska statehood in 1959 and provided incentive 

to industry for the exploration of other sedimentary basins in the state. 

After the Federal government’s decision, through BLM, to make lands available for leasing, a 

total of 18,862 leases were offered in sales held in 1958, 1964, 1965, and 1966 (Jamison et al. 

1980). Most of the sales were to the east and southeast of PET-4, however the lease sale in 1966 

contained 3,022,716 acres to the west of PET-4. 

In addition to the Federal government lease sales, the State of Alaska selected 1,616,745 acres 

across the northern tier between the Colville and Canning rivers, to be offered for lease between 

1964 and 1967. In 1964, the State’s first lease sale on the North Slope offered 650,000 acres in 

the Colville River Delta area, and 196 tracts totaling about 475,000 acres were leased. In 1965, 

the State’s second North Slope lease sale offered 754,000 acres, and 151 tracts totaling 380,000 

acres were leased. Richfield-Humble acquired 28 blocks on what is now the crest of the Prudhoe

Bay oil field, and British Petroleum acquired 32 blocks on the flanks. During the third State 

lease sale, in 1967, Richfield-Humble acquired 7 of the 13 tracts offered and leased; the 7 tracts 

covered the remainder of the crestal area of the Prudhoe Bay field. 

In 1958, Sinclair operated a 3-month field program out of Umiat in preparation for the Federal 

lease sale that year. In order to gain a better understanding of the subsurface geology and the 

hydrocarbon potential of the region, many companies began to gather geological data during 

summer field programs and geophysical, primarily seismic, during winter seismic operations. 

Following Sinclair, an average of five to seven companies were in the field during the 1959 

through 1961 seasons, and up to 10 companies per year were operating geological field 

4-633 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

programs from 1962 through 1964. Field programs began to decline after 1964 and only two or 

three companies were in the field per year. 

In 1962, Sinclair and BP operated the first industry program, with the first seismic season 

consisting of about 6.5 crew-months. The crew-months grew to about 29 in 1963, peaked at 

about 53 in 1964, and decreased to about 27 in 1965. There was little seismic acquisition 

between 1965 and 1968, until the season following the Prudhoe Bay discovery (discussed below). 

In 1963, industry began exploratory drilling, based on leasing, geologic field work, and seismic 

acquisition. A total of 11 dry wells were drilled between 1963 and 1968. Colorado Oil and Gas 

Company drilled in the Gubik area, followed by seven other private wells, all of which were 

drilled on leases acquired in the first round of Federal lease sales. No discoveries were made. 

The wells were located in the foothills, within 30 miles of either the Umiat or Gubik discoveries, 

near the areas that had shown the most promise during the Navy’s previous exploration efforts. 

After the initial failure of the drilling programs in the Umiat-Gubik area, industry shifted 

efforts to the north and east areas of the North Slope. During 1966 and 1967, Sinclair and 

Union each drilled a well on the eastern flank of the Colville High; both wells were dry. During 

the same period, ARCO-Humble drilled another dry well, Susie No. 1, in the northern foothills 

of the Brooks Range. The decision was made to take the rig 60 miles north to drill in the 

Prudhoe Bay area, rather than releasing the rig and ceasing any further drilling. 

In April of 1967, drilling began for Prudhoe Bay State No. 1. In January of 1968, ARCO-Humble 

announced the discovery of oil and gas with a recoverable economic reserve estimate of 9.6 Bbbl 

of oil and 26 Tcf of gas. 

At this time, there were little to no geologic and seismic programs on the North Slope and, other

than Prudhoe Bay State No. 1, all drilling activity had ceased. However, with the discovery at 

Prudhoe Bay, and the State’s announcement for an additional lease sale in the fall of 1969, 

industry substantially increased the level of exploration activities on the North Slope. The

geological and geophysical programs surpassed the 1967 levels to 12 geological crew-months 

and 24 seismic acquisition crew-months in 1968 and 20 and 97 crew-months, respectively, in 

1969 (Jamison et al. 1980). Additionally, in 1969, several other oil accumulations were 

discovered: the Kuparuk, West Sak, and Milne Point fields. 

In September of 1969, the Alaska State Competitive Lease Sale No. 23 was held, offering 179 

tracts totaling 450,858 acres−the unleased portion of the State’s 1,600,000-acre allotment for 

the Statehood Act. With an average price per lease of $2,181.66 per acre, high bids on the 164 

of the 179 tracts totaled more than $900,000,000. This was the last sale on the North Slope for 

10 years (ADNR 2001a). 

1969-2007 

Between 1969 and 1979, there were no additional lease sales held on the North Slope or the 

adjacent waters of the Beaufort Sea, making land accessibility the limiting factor for industry 

activity. Beginning in 1979, however, the shallow State waters and Federal OCS areas of the 

Beaufort Sea were made available through a series of lease sales, and additional onshore sales 

were held in the Colville-Canning area. The State offered 71 tracts (341,140 acres) and granted 

leases on 62 tracts (296,308 acres). This sale marked the first major venture into offshore 

leasing in the Arctic by either the State or Federal governments. The State continued to offer 

lease sales through the 1980s and 1990s. The State of Alaska has offered areawide sales on the 

Beaufort Sea since 2000, with their latest lease sale in 2006. The tracts offered are located 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-634 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

within the North Slope Borough and consist of State-owned tide and submerged lands in the 

Beaufort Sea between the Canadian Border and Point Barrow. The 2006 sale received bids on 

76 tracts for approximately 231,680 acres, which was twice the acreage received in 2004 

covering 113,570 acres. To date, approximately 21 tracts are leased in Harrison Bay, east of 

Lake Teshekpuk, and 31 tracts have been leased in the Smith Bay area, northwest of Lake 

Teshekpuk (ADNR 2006). 

In the 1980s, 1999, 2002, 2004, and 2006 the Federal government, through BLM, opened 

portions of the NPR-A to leasing. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has not been open to 

leasing, although there are Native inholdings, and a land trade with Native corporations was 

considered in the mid-1980s. Also, at various times, the ASRC made portions of their lands 

available to companies under exclusive exploration/leasing agreements. 

Table 4.7-E lists the discoveries, date of initial production, and 2005 production and reserves for 

oil and gas fields on the North Slope. Individual oil pools have been developed together as fields

that share common wells, production pads, and pipelines. Fields have been grouped into

participating areas (or production units) sharing common infrastructure, such as processing

facilities, roads, and pipeline systems. Table 4.7-F provides information on the existing 

infrastructure. A map showing the location of these developments and the general 

infrastructure interconnecting them is shown in Map 3-2. All of these fields, with the exception 

of Northstar, Endicott, Sag Delta North, and Eider, are onshore on state leases. The Niakuk, 

Point McIntyre, and Badami oil pools are mainly offshore, but are produced from onshore sites.

If the Point Thomson field, which is included in the list of future projects, is developed, it is 

expected that the proposed Point Thomson pipeline would tie into Badami’s common-carrier

pipeline. In 2005, Exxon Mobil was found to be in default for delaying development of Point 

Thomson by submitting a plan without any sure date for production to begin. In November 

2006, the Point Thomson leases were revoked due to Exxon Mobil’s lack of a viable plan to 

develop the oil and gas prospect, although litigation has been initiated to reverse this decision. 

Over the last three decades, Exxon Mobil has filed 22 development plans for the 106,200 acre 

Point Thomson unit with no commercial oil or gas operations conducted to date. The revoked

leases will be reoffered pending resolution of the current litigation. (Associated Press, 2006). 

The following discussion of the post-Prudhoe Bay activity focuses on four geographic areas that 

have different degrees of accessibility and economics. These are the Colville-Canning

area/shallow State waters, the Beaufort Sea OCS, National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska, and

the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The onshore areas frequently contain 

some combination of state/Native or Federal/Native land ownership. 

Colville-Canning Area/Beaufort Sea State Waters 

Through the 1970s, the area between the Colville and Canning rivers, from the Beaufort Sea 

south to the Brooks Range, was the sole area of industry exploration on the North Slope. 

Because of limited land availability and the success at and near Prudhoe Bay, this area has 

been the focus of exploration activity since the discovery well was drilled in 1968. The bulk of 

exploration and drilling has been concentrated in the northern portion of the area, near 

Prudhoe Bay and east and west along the coastline, following the structural trend of the Barrow 

Arch. The State leasing program that began in 1979, in the shallow state waters of the Beaufort 

Sea, is generally confined to a 3-mile-wide strip seaward from the shoreline and from Barrow to 

the Canadian border. The issue of ownership becomes somewhat irregular in the vicinity of the 

barrier islands and major inlets. 

4-635 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Seismic activity was at a high in 1970 with 96 crew-months. This decreased to 8 crew-months in 

1972, and then grew back to 54 crew months in 1974. Following the high level of activity 

generated by the Prudhoe Bay discovery, geological and geophysical crew activity decreased 

sharply in the early 1970s and then slowly increased and stabilized to 25 crew-months by the 

late 1970s. In the early 1970s, geological field programs averaged about 20 crew-months per 

year. By 1974, this decreased to 6 crew-months and averaged 5 to 6 crew-months through the 

remainder of the 1970s (Jamison et al. 1980). During the 1980s and 1990s, the amount of 

fieldwork varied considerably, but the activity never reached the levels seen in the 1960s and

1970s. Over the last decade, geological activity has averaged 1 to 3 crew-months per year. 

Unlike seismic acquisition and exploration drilling, geological field activity frequently takes 

place external to the principal area of exploration interest. Much of the fieldwork was carried

out in the Brooks Range to the south and in the Sadlerochit and Shublik Mountains of the

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 

Since 1980, the level of seismic acquisition has varied, but likely averaged less than 20 crewmonths per year. One of the major reasons for this decrease has been the departure of several 

companies and the merger of former competitors. Also, the existing regional seismic grid was 

found to be of sufficient quality to allow companies to more finely tune their seismic acquisition 

and focus on specific areas. The more recent seismic acquisitions tend to be 3-D programs that 

provide a more detailed image of the subsurface than do the 2-D surveys. Seismic 3-D programs 

are too costly to be acquired on a truly regional scale and are generally limited to a maximum of 

500 to 600 square miles. 

From 1970 to the present, there have been at least 35 discoveries on state lands (ADNR 2001b). 

These range from the currently uneconomic Kavik (discovered in 1969) and Kemik (discovered 

in 1972) gas fields in the east-central portion of the Colville-Canning province to large oil

discoveries at Endicott (discovered in 1978) and Alpine field (discovered in 1994). A significant 

undeveloped resource is the Point Thomson oilfield (discovered 1977) . The field is located just 

to the west of the mouth of the Canning River and contains reserves estimated at 5 Tcf of gas 

and 360 MMbbl of oil. 

Twenty-five of the 35+ discoveries are either developed and on production, or are currently 

being developed (i.e., Northstar, located offshore). At least seven or eight of the discoveries are 

satellite fields and would not have been developed if they were not adjacent to a large field with 

an existing infrastructure. Tabasco and the Midnight Sun/Sambuca fields are satellites, each of 

which has oil reserves of 30 to 70 MMbbl. 

The most recent fields to be developed in this region are associated with the Alpine oil field. The

Alpine oil field and satellite developments encompass approximately 890,000 acres of Federal, 

state, and private lands in the central ACP of the North Slope. This area includes the Colville 

River Delta and the portions of the Tingmiaksiqvik River, Judy Creek, Fish Creek, Kalikpik 

River, and Kogru River drainages in the easternmost part of the planning area. During 1996, 

ARCO announced that the Alpine Prospect in the Colville River Delta was producible and 

contained an estimated 365 MMbbl of oil. More recent estimates of Alpine oil field reserves, 

however, are near 500 MMbbl. In November of 2000, production began in the Alpine field. 

Combined production from the original Alpine field (CD1 and CD2) and the two satellite fields 

(CD3 and CD4) is expected to peak at 135,000 BOPD in late 2007. Oil handling and seawater 

injection facilities were expanded in 2004 to allow for 140,000 BOPD. 

Alpine field oil reserves are extracted from four production pads (CD-1 through CD-4). The CD-1

pad serves as an oil processing facility and is connected to CD-2 by a 3-mile long road. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-636 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Infrastructure at the existing CD-1 pad fully supports the ongoing drilling and production 

operations, including activities at the CD-2 field and satellite fields (CD-3 and CD-4). Oil is 

transported back from the satellite pads to the central processing facility at CD-1 through 

utility pipelines. Facilities and equipment currently installed include processing facilities, 

production wells, camp facilities, sanitation utilities (water and wastewater), a drilling mud 

plant, an airstrip, a maintenance complex, warehouse buildings, disposal wells, an emergency 

response center, and communications, power generation, and various mobile equipment (USDOI 

BLM 2004c). Oil is transported through a 34-mile pipeline to a CPF in the Kuparuk River Unit, 

where Alpine field oil production is commingled with that of other fields in the area. Alpine field

oil is then transported via the main Kuparuk River Unit pipeline to Pump Station 1 of TAPS. 

The Alpine oil field pipeline to the Kuparuk River Unit crosses under the Colville River channel. 

Ice roads and bridges provide access during the winter; otherwise there are no overland routes 

to this isolated field. There are no gravel roads connecting the road system in Kuparuk River 

Unit to the Alpine oil field. The footprint of the Alpine oil field infrastructure, excluding the 

pipeline to the Kuparuk River Unit, is approximately 170 acres. 

Since the first commercial discovery at Prudhoe Bay in 1968, at least 35 discoveries have been 

made on State leases and 25, nearly all in the immediate Prudhoe-Kuparuk area, were or are 

being developed. With existing infrastructure in place, this area has been, and will continue to

be, the primary exploration ground for oil and gas. 

Federal OCS and Beaufort Sea 

The Beaufort OCS was unavailable to industry until the joint State of Alaska/Federal lease sale 

of 1979, which, along with subsequent sales, provided access to waters beyond the 3-mile limit, 

stretching from Point Barrow in the west to the Canadian border in the east. Including the 1979 

lease sales, the Beaufort OCS has been the site of at least nine lease sales over a 26-year period 

(USDOI MMS 2005). The most recent sale, Sale 202, was held in April 2007. Over 800 leases 

have been issued in the Beaufort Sea, totaling over 3.7 million acres. Additional lease sales are 

scheduled for 2009 and 2011 (USDOI MMS. 2006e). 

The data acquisition issue is somewhat different in the case of the OCS regions. There is little 

or no geologic field work conducted exclusively for the purposes of developing a better 

understanding of the offshore subsurface geology. Rather, the subsurface well control from

onshore drilling activities and secondarily outcrop geology is tied into the seismic grids to 

extend the geologic interpretations into the offshore areas and assist in the definition of 

potential prospects. 

Seismic acquisition in the OCS is not well documented; however, commencing in the mid- to late 

1970s, both summer marine and winter ice programs were acquired to correlate the better 

explored and understood onshore geology into the Beaufort Sea. Most, if not all, of the existing

seismic data are 2-D, with little if any 3-D acquisition outside of the areas of existing discoveries

or prospects that are being prepared for drilling within the next few seasons. While the per 

season or total line miles are not known, the totals are easily in excess of 5,000 line-miles. In 

summer 2006, roughly 6,500 kilometers of 2D seismic survey were collected along the northern 

coasts of both Alaska and Canada.(Petroleum News, 2006b). 

The existing seismic grid extends across state waters and ties into onshore wells or wells in the 

shallow near-shore portions of the Beaufort Sea. The acquisition area extends from near Point 

Barrow on the west to near the Canada border on the east. 

4-637 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

The first OCS exploration well was the Beethy Point No.1 in 1981, and the most recent 

exploration well was the McCovey No. l in 2002. The peak of exploration drilling was in 1985 

through 1986, when 11 of the 30 exploration wells were drilled. A secondary drilling phase 

occurred during 1991 through 1993, when seven wells were drilled. 

Depending on water depth, the OCS exploration wells are either drilled from man-made ice 

islands or large, heavy, bottom-anchored, ice-resistant drilling rigs. If a discovery is made and 

the field developed, a more permanent structure is built to provide the base for long-term

operations. 

Eleven of the OCS exploration wells are determined to be capable of production (USDOI MMS 

2001b). Of these, five are termed significant discoveries, of which four are in the OCS waters: 

Tern/Liberty (discovered in 1983), Hammerhead (discovered in 1985), Sandpiper (discovered in 

1986), and Kuvlum (discovered in 1992). The fifth well is the Northstar field (Seal well), which 

underlies both Federal and state acreage (ADNR 2000, USDOI MMS 2001b). 

Tern/Liberty, Sandpiper, and Northstar lie offshore from the well-established Kuparuk and 

Prudhoe Bay fields and their infrastructure. The Hammerhead and Kuvlum discoveries are well 

to the east of the Prudhoe Bay field, in relatively deep water. Hammerhead is offshore from the

Point Thomson and Flaxman discoveries. The Kuvlum discovery is to the east of the Canning 

River and offshore from the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Northstar 

field has been developed and began production in late 2001. 

Federal OCS and Chukchi Sea 

The Chukchi OCS area has been offered previously in 1988 and 1991. The 1988 sale offered 

4,694 lease blocks with a total of 25,631,122 acres, leasing 350 lease blocks for a total of 

1,976,912 acres. The 1991 sale offered 3,476 lease blocks with a total 18,987,976 acres, leasing 

28 lease blocks for a total of 159,213 acres (USDOI MMS, List of Alaska Region Lease Sales. 

September 2006). There have been no active leases in the Chukchi since 1998. Proposed lease 

sale 193 (initially planned for 2007, but currently delayed), differs from the previous sales in 

that a 25-mile buffer has been added along the coast making those lands unavailable for 

leasing. Additional lease sales for the Chukchi are planned for 2010 and 2012. 

Five exploration wells were drilled from 1989-1991 (Diamond, Popcorn, Crackerjack, Burger, 

and Klondike), with the Burger well having a significant gas show (approximately 14Tcf and 

724 MMbbl of condensate (USDOI MMS, 2001d). No additional wells were drilled to delineate 

the prospect. No development has taken place. 

In summer 2006, roughly 6,500 kilometers of 2D seismic survey were collected along the 

northern coasts of both Alaska and Canada (Petroleum News, 2006b). 

National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska 

In 1974, the high prices of oil and the discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay renewed interest in PET4. The U.S. Navy began a small exploratory program, and in 1975, the Navy awarded a 5-year 

contract to Husky Oil, Inc., to manage and conduct a full-scale petroleum exploration program 

in PET-4. The focus of the exploration work was in the northeastern portion of the Reserve 

where it was believed that it would be most likely to encounter an extension of the Prudhoe Bay 

productive zones. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-638 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

In 1976, PET-4 was renamed the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska, oversight of the 

Reserve was transferred from the Navy to the USDOI, and the USGS was assigned several 

tasks, including (1) continuing the program of exploration begun by the Navy, (2) continuing 

operation and management of the Barrow gas fields, and (3) completing the cleanup program,

begun by the Navy, of the Reserve and adjacent areas. Between 1974 and 1982, 28 test wells 

were drilled, and although indications of oil or gas were found in nearly all of the test wells, no 

deposits were found that warranted development. In addition, six exploratory and development 

wells were drilled in the Barrow area to supplement the local gas supply. Exploratory drilling 

by the USGS ended in 1981 when the NPR-A was opened up to leasing. 

Nearly 15,000 miles of seismic survey was completed and interpreted between 1974 and 1982. 

Seismic activities covered 1,440 miles in 1976. In 1977, seismic surveys covered approximately 

1,500 miles, primarily in the Foothills Province; this area and the Brooks Range were again 

explored in 1978 when 1,916 miles were surveyed. In 1979, 1,900 miles of seismic survey was 

obtained, including use of the Vibroseis method, rather than explosives. Much of the work was 

focused in the foothills area between Umiat and the western boundary near Icy Cape. In 1980, 

1,096 miles of seismic surveys were run, with one party in the coastal area and the other in the 

foothills and Brooks Range. Most of these surveys were for fill-in reconnaissance. During 1980 

and 1981, seismic activities slowed, as it became apparent that Congress would open the NPR-A

to private exploration, which occurred in December 1980. 

The Federal leasing program in the NPR-A commenced in 1982 with two lease sales in January 

and May. Most of the acreage was located in the south and southeastern portions of the NPR-A. 

A total of 271 tracts, totaling 5,035,772 acres, were offered in the two sales, and 38 tracts, 

totaling 927,965 acres, were leased. The leased activity was focused in the areas west of 

Nuiqsut, west of Umiat, and west of the Lisburne well. In both sales, the lessees appeared to be 

pursuing Umiat play-types. In July of 1983, a third sale was held, where 84 tracts and 

2,195,845 acres were offered, spread across the northern portion of the NPR-A; 20 tracts, 

totaling 419,618 acres, were leased (USDOI BLM 1990b). These tracts appear to have been 

selected to evaluate Prudhoe Bay play-types and were largely concentrated in the area between 

Admiralty Bay and the Chukchi Sea. A fourth sale was scheduled for July 1984, but was 

cancelled after no bids were submitted on the 64 tracts and 1,550,677 acres offered (Weimer 

1987, Banet 1991). 

The leasing in the early 1980s resulted in the drilling of only one industry exploration well 

within the NPR-A, located in the western portion about 40 miles south-southwest of Point 

Barrow. The hole was dry and all other plans to drill were abandoned. 

After the discontinuance of leasing in 1984, a 15-year hiatus in leasing activity and exploration 

in the NPR-A took place. It was not until after the 1994 discovery of the Alpine field in the 

Colville River Delta area that the government recognized the renewed industry interest in the 

NPR-A. After the discovery of the Alpine field, and in preparation for pending sales in the NPRA, the major participants in ongoing North Slope exploration began to conduct 2-D and 3-D 

seismic programs in the probable sale area. The total line-miles of seismic data acquired are not 

known. There were at least seven 2-D programs acquired between 1992 and 1997 totaling 2,615 

line-miles. A single 3-D program was shot in 1996 and covered an area of 152 square miles 

(Konbrath et al. 1997). There were additional 2-D and 3-D programs acquired since 1997; 

however, the number of programs and coverage are not known. 

BLM re-instituted leasing in the Northeast NPR-A in May 1999. Approximately 3.9 million 

acres were offered, drawing 133 high bids on 867,721 acres. The bulk of the leased areas are in 

4-639 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

the vicinity of Nuiqsut and between Teshekpuk Lake and the Ikpikpuk River. After the 1999 

sale (Sale No. 991), the industry began a drilling program in the northeastern portion of the 

NPR-A. Three wells were drilled in the winter of 2000, six wells were drilled in 2001, and an 

additional four wells were drilled in 2002. Most, if not all, of these wells were probably targeting 

Alpine-style prospects. An additional sale was held in 2002, where a total of 60 tracts with 

579,269 acres were leased. This leased acreage is generally to the south and west of previously 

acquired leases. Subsequent to the 2002 sale, eight wells were drilled over the next four years, 

all but one in Northeast NPR-A. Four wells were drilled in the 2007 winter season, one of which 

was in the Northeast NPR-A. The remainder of the wells are located in the Northwest NPR-A 

planning area. 

Following signing of the Northwest IAP/EIS ROD, BLM held a lease sale in 2004 for 484 tracts 

of land within the Northwest NPR-A and another 22 tracts that are combinations of Northwest 

NPR-A and planning area lands, totaling approximately 5.8 million acres. Bids were received on 

123 of the tracts, totaling 1,403,561 acres. Another lease sale was held for the Northwest NPRA in 2006. The sale offered 478 tracts totaling 5.4 million acres. Bids were received on 81 tracts 

totaling approximately 940,000 acres. 

At least five of the post-1999 exploration wells drilled in the NPR-A have discovered oil and/or 

gas. The sizes of the discoveries have not been made public, but the operators have indicated 

that the oil reserves are at least equal to those of the Alpine field. 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (1980) established the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In Section 1002 of that Act, Congress deferred a decision regarding 

future management of the 1.5-million acre coastal plain (1002 Area) in recognition of the area’s 

potentially enormous oil and gas resources and its importance as wildlife habitat. A report on 

the resources (including petroleum) of the 1002 Area was submitted in 1987 to Congress by the 

USDOI. The 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has numerous active oil seeps, 

exposures of oil-stained sandstone, and large attractive structures. However, these lands are 

currently closed to industry and can only be opened for exploration and potential development 

by an act of Congress. 

Because ANILCA prohibits it, there has been no leasing in the 1002 Area. However, in 1987, the 

Reagan administration proposed to trade land/exploration rights in the 1002 Area for Native 

corporation inholdings in National Parks and other sensitive areas. Six Native corporations 

were found qualified to participate and each chose an industry partner. The industry partners 

were to supply technical expertise and have exclusive right to explore any lands acquired by 

their Native corporation partners. 

The Federal government proposed and developed a tract selection/trade process and the Native 

corporations and their industry partners proceeded to bid on 71 complete or partial tracts; 

tracts were 4-square-mile parcels. Virtually all the prospective trade lands identified in the 

process were either along or to the east of the Marsh Creek Anticline. Unpublished industry 

evaluations tended to place a greater portion of the areas potential resources in the deformed

area, including the Marsh Creek Anticline and areas to the east. This land trade, however, was 

never carried through to completion, nor were the lands transferred. 

Data acquisition in the ANWR has been largely restricted to geological field parties in the 

Brooks Range, south of the 1002 Area, and to the limited seismic acquisition program conducted 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-640 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

under government oversight in 1984 and 1985. These two seasons produced approximately 

1,400 line-miles of mostly poor to moderately good data quality. 

Since there has been no leasing within the 1002 Area, there has been no exploration drilling. 

However, Kaktovik Iñupiat Corporation holds surface title to some lands, and the city of 

Kaktovik lies within the boundaries of the refuge. British Petroleum/Chevron drilled a well on 

Native lands through an exclusive exploration agreement with the Native corporation. The 

information from this well is held in confidentiality since it was drilled in 1986. 

Furthermore, since there has been no drilling within the 1002 Area, there have been no 

discoveries. There were two discoveries, however, west of the Canning River that abut the 1002 

Area. It is possible that either the Sourdough or Point Thomson fields may extend eastward into 

the 1002 Area. If and when they are developed, they may have the potential to drain oil and/or 

gas from beneath the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 

Native Corporation Lands 

The ASRC and its various village corporations have extensive land holdings across the slope. 

These extend from Barter Island in the east to the Chukchi Sea in the west and from the 

Beaufort Sea in the north to the crest of the Brooks Range in the south. The regional 

corporation and several of the village corporations have entered into exploration agreements 

with various petroleum companies. These agreements have generally required some form of 

initial monetary commitment, specific work commitments, and an agreement to lease potential 

acreage or forfeit the right to explore at an agreed upon date. One or more exploratory wells are

also required if the company elects to go to lease. 

There is no competitive leasing process utilized to make lands available to industry. The 

negotiations are generally confidential. Chevron, Texaco, ARCO, and Unocal have had such 

agreements in the past. Anadarko Petroleum and its partners currently have an exclusive 

exploration agreement with ASRC for nearly 3 million acres in the foothills of the Brooks 

Range. 

The data acquired on Native corporation lands, especially seismic and geophysical data, are 

usually kept confidential, with the data only available to the corporation and its industry 

partners. However, with the recent interest in a gas pipeline, there is increased activity in the 

Brooks Range foothills, and the Native corporation lands are being reevaluated for both oil and 

gas. This has resulted in a recent increase and refocus of geologic field efforts in the foothills 

belt. Similarly, new seismic data were acquired during recent winter seasons. These seismic 

programs included both 2-D and 3-D acquisition technologies. 

Through ASRC's exploration agreements with various companies, exploration wells have been

drilled on Native corporation lands on the North Slope (ADNR 2001b). Some of these Native 

corporation holdings are in the form of inholdings within national parks, national monuments, 

and wildlife refuges. This has afforded those companies with Native corporation exploration 

agreements the opportunity to drill and evaluate areas that are not otherwise accessible and are 

off limits to the rest of the industry. These wells were drilled on inholdings within the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge and the NPR-A, as well as in the foothills of the Brooks Range south of

the state acreage in the Colville-Canning area. There were also wells drilled on ASRC lands to 

the west of the NPR-A, and there was one discovery associated with ASRC lands in the Colville 

River Delta. The Alpine field extends beneath leases jointly held with the state and BLM. 

4-641 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Table 4.7-E. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Oil and Gas Development on the N

Unit/Area Field/Satellite Year Discovered Year Began 

Oil and Condensate Natural Gas 

2005 

(bbl)1 

Cumulative 

(bbl)2 

Reserves/ 

Resources 

(MMbbl)3 

2005 (Mcf) Cumulative 

(Mcf) 

Reserve 

(Bcf)3 

Past Production and Development Duck Island 

Endicott 1973 1987 6,398,000 438,716,615 1174 139,143,000 2,084,748,702 843 

 Sag Delta North 1989 1989 -- -- -- -- -- -- Eider 

1998 1998 32,000 2,753,804 -- 1,160,000 26,485,486 -- 

Ivishak 

-- -- 43,000 8,053,673 32,000 6,585,522 

Prudhoe Bay 

Prudhoe Bay 1967 1977 118,552, 

000 

10,908,568,865 2497 2,823,514,000 53,455,648,73 

7 

23,000 

 Lisburne 1968 1981 3,050,000 145,984,886 43 57,695,000 1,568,531,189 1,000  Niakuk 1985 1994 2,621,000 84,565,838 21 2,481,000 72,181,367 26  West Beach 1976 1994 1,000 3,361,555 17,000 20,028,884  North 

Prudhoe Bay 1970 1993 1,000 1,985,858 35,000 6,651,042 

 Pt. McIntyre 1988 1993 11,789,000 395,596,487 205 76,822,000 757,820,250 500  Pt. McIntyre 

und. 

1988 1997 33,480 

30,008 

 Midnight Sun 1998 1999 2,132,000 15,557,443 4265 5,759,000 49,548,318 Aurora 1999 2001 3,452,000 18,663,094 8,663,000 67,705,494 Borealis 1999 2001 7,077,000 43,662,827 5,610,000 38,490,533 Orion 2001 2003 2,897,000 5,206,000 3,703,000 6,219,000 Polaris 

1999 2001 1,248,000 5,607,929 1,280,000 4,455,000 

 Niak IV-SR 65,388 504,427 Raven 

2004 2005 14 1,015,000 1,015,000 72 

Kuparuk River Kuparuk 1969 1981 50,442,000 2,067,614,940 864 97,292,000 2,574,041,078 1,000 Tabasco 

1992 1998 1,531,000 12,698,032 14 345,000 2,010,241 

Tarn 

1992 1998 8,085,000 79,673,640 47 13,366,000 116,603,495 50 

 West Sak 1969 1998 4,175,000 26,479,396 461 2,743,000 13,094,811 100  Meltwater 2000 2001 2,103,000 11,163,535 14 5,368,000 26,812,132 Palm 2001 2002 94 Milne Point 

Milne Point 1969 1985 9,508,0006 198,290,1866 3917 5,894,000 103,553,340 14 

Cascade 

1993 1996 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-642 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities
Unit/Area Field/Satellite Year Discovered Year Began 

Oil and Condensate Natural Gas 

2005 

(bbl)1 

Cumulative 

(bbl)2 

Reserves/ 

Resources 

(MMbbl)3 

2005 (Mcf) Cumulative 

(Mcf) 

Reserve 

(Bcf)3 

 Schrader Bluff 1969 1991 6,408,000 49,219,747 5,285,000 32,141,580 Sag River 1968 1994 88,000 1,779,538 125,000 1,828,255 Ugnu 

2003 2,212 1,606 242 3,370 

Badami Badami 1990 1998 <1,000 4,979,350 2 1,120,000 28,213,106 Colville River Alpine 1994 2000 43,797,000 226,447,647 341 49,433,000 261,494,365 60 

Fiord 1999 2006 1,772,912 1,772,912 50 1,128,132 1,128,132 Nanuq 2000 2006 26,815 26,815 40 303,318 303,318 

Northstar Northstar 1984 2001 22,421,000 108,513,279 115 142,131,000 509,870,080 450 Past 

Production and Development 

National Petroleum Reserve Alaska 

East Barrow 1974 1981 80,000 8,162,000 5 South Barrow 1949 1950 53,000 22,538,000 4 Walakpa 1980 1993 1,255,000 15,168,000 25 Umiat 1946 405368 709 

Total 395,224,945 16,652,061,413 5,807 3,452,850,692 61,883,614,262 27,149 Present Develop

ment and Production 

Colville River 

Alpine West (CD-5) Lookout (CD6) Spark (CD-7) 

Reasonably Foreseeable Oil and Gas Development Western Group 

Kalubik 1992 Offshore Thetis Island 1993 Offshore 250Oooguruk 2003 Offshore Nikaitchuq10 2004 Offshore 

Central Group 

Gwydr Bay 1969 Offshore 

320 

Pete’s Wicked 1997 Onshore Sandpiper 1986 Offshore 

Eastern Group 

Point Thomson 1977 Offshore 

Liberty 

1983 Offshore 

Mikkelson 

1978 Onshore 

4-643 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Unit/Area Field/Satellite Year Discovered Year Began Oil and Condensate Natural Gas 

2005 (bbl)1 Cumulative (bbl)2 Reserves/ Resources (MMbbl)3 2005 (Mcf) Cumulative (Mcf) Reserve (Bcf)3 

Sourdough 1994 Onshore Yukon Gold 1994 Onshore 1,000 Flaxman Island 1975 Offshore Stinson 1990 Offshore Hammer

head 1985 Offshore

 Kuvlum 1987 Offshore 

Undiscovered Onshore 11,150 1 Annual production of oil in barrels (bbl) in 2005 (ADNR 2006). 2 Cumulative oil production in barrels (bbl) and natural gas in t

housand cubic feet (Mcf) since discovery through 2005 (ADNR 2006). 

3 Past Production and Develop

ment: Remaining reserves of oil in million barrels (MMbbl) and of natural gas in billion cubic feet (Bcf) as of Decem

Division of Oil and Gas (ADNR 2006), except where noted. Present Development and Production: Undeveloped reserves (MMbbls) from Alpine Sa

(US

DOI BLM 2004c). Reasonably Foreseeable Oil and Gas Development: Resource estimates (1,570 MMbbls) for Western-Central-Eastern catego

IAP/EIS (USDOI BLM and MMS 2003). Resource estimates for the Undiscovered Onshore category includes 4,050 MMbbls from Northeast NatioAlaska (Alternative C; for Alternatives A, B, and D t

his figure would be reduced to 2,900 MMbbls, 3.350 MMbbls, and 3,700 M

Mbbls, respectively

Northwest National Petroleu

m Reserve – Alaska Preferred Alternative, and 3,520 million bbls from unnamed fields in the central arctic area east 

4 Endicott reserves include those in Endicott, Sag Delta North, Eider, and Ivishak. 5 Includes reserves for the Prudhoe Bay satellites Midnight Sun, Aurora, Borealis, Orion, and Polaris. 6 Milne Point includes Cascade annual and cumulative production. 7 Combined Milne Point Unit. 8 Total of oil produced on formation tests from Umiat test wells 1946-1952 (Collins 1958). 9 Kumar, et al. (2002). 10 Unit application approved April 29, 2004 (ADNR 2004c). 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-644 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Table 4.7-F. North Slope Oil Infrastructure (1968-2001) 

1968 1973 1977 1983 1988 1994 2001 

Gravel Roads 

Oil field (miles) 

Oil field (acres) 

Dalton Highway (miles)1 

Dalton Highway (acres)

 1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

100 

677 

170 

332 

139 

1,002 

170 

332 

294 

2,029 

170 

332 

358 

2,448 

170 

332 

370 

2,536 

170 

332 

400 

2,745 

170 

332 

Gravel Pads 

Production, processing, support, 

 exploration (facilities) 

Production, processing, support, 

 exploration (acres) 

Airstrips 

Airstrips (acres) 

Offshore islands 

Offshore islands (acres) 

4 

14 

1 

6 

0 

0 

100 

901 

15 

136 

0 

0 

158 

1,981 

19 

252 

2 

5 

277 

4,570 

20 

287 

12 

54 

325 

5,552 

20 

313 

15 

133 

341 

5,692 

20 

313 

16 

149 

353 

5,811 

20 

287 

17 

155 

Gravel Mines 

In rivers (acres) 

In tundra (acres) 

25 

0 

4,732 

34 

4,996 

151 

5,011 

745 

5,063 

1,179 

5,061 

1,186 

5,082 

1,283 

Pipeline Corridors (miles) 

Oil field2 

Trans-Alaska Pipeline3 

NA 

0 

NA 

166 

NA 

166 

NA 

166 

NA 

166 

NA 

166 

450 

166 

Tundra Impacted Areas (acres) 

Gravel footprint areas4 20 1,714 3,240 6,940 8,446 8,690 8,998 

Other impacted areas5 308 1,388 1,552 1,694 1,698 1,762 1,765 

Gravel mines 25 4,766 5,146 5,756 6,241 6,247 6,364 

Total Disturbed Area (acres) 353 7,868 9,938 14,390 16,385 16,689 17,127 

1

 Does not include portions of the highway south of the North Slope. 2

 Multiple pipelines are included in some corridors, e.g., 366 miles have 1-5 pipelines and 73 miles have 6-11 

pipelines. 3 A buried gas pipeline (10 inches in diameter for 34 miles and 8 inches for 110 miles) roughly parallels the oil 

pipeline south to Pump Station No. 4; mileage only includes those on the North Slope. 4 Includes gravel roads, gravel or paved airstrips, and offshore and onshore gravel pads/islands. Excludes 

causeways. 5

 Includes exploration site-disturbed area around gravel pad, exploration airstrip, peat roads, tractor trail, 

exploration roads, and gravel pad removed. 

NA – Not available. 

Source: NRC (2003). 

Cleanup and Rehabilitation Activities on the North Slope 

Concurrent with exploration in the 1970s was a greater awareness of the need to protect the 

Arctic environment from exploration activities and to clean up debris left from earlier 

exploration activities. Equipment and supplies that were previously hauled by D-8 Cat trains, 

sometimes during the summer with the blade down, were now moved in winter by 

rolligons−large vehicles with low-pressure balloon-like tires. In 1975, the Navy began preparing 

an EIS for activities in the northeastern portion of PET-4; this EIS would later expand to cover 

the entire Reserve and was completed in spring 1977. As part of the Final EIS, the Navy, in 

cooperation with the USGS, drew up stipulations concerning winter road and trail construction. 

4-645 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

In 1976, drilling fluids from a site near Teshekpuk Lake broke through a retaining berm and 

flowed into Teshekpuk Lake. Although the amount of damage to the environment was minimal, 

all future reserve pits were designed to contain the total estimated volume of drill cuttings and 

muds below the level of the original tundra surface. 

In 1976, a cleanup program was initiated, based out of Point Lonely and Barrow. During the 

summer of 1976, over 23,500 drums were retrieved and 750,000 pounds of debris collected. In 

1977, another 26,500 drums and 485 tons of debris were collected. In 1978, over 2 million 

pounds of debris were collected, primarily from the Skill Cliff Air Force Tower site and the 

Navy’s Topagoruk and East Topagoruk test well sites. In 1979, another 1.8 million tons of 

debris were collected at old Navy sites and other sites in the NPR-A. 

Rehabilitation of pads and other disturbed sites began in the late 1970s, with the focus on 

lowering the drill pads and obliterating their straight edges, filling reserve pits, and 

revegetating sites. Germination success varied depending upon growing conditions during the 

summer; wet and foggy summers usually resulted in poor germination. It is estimated that 

about 550 acres were disturbed during the 1975-1982 USGS exploration program, that 

revegetation was attempted on 440 acres, and that vegetation became well established on 

nearly 400 acres by 1982. 

In 2004, continued erosion of the northern coastline threatened J.W. Dalton Test Well #1. 

Approximately 600 feet of coastline eroded into the Beaufort Sea over the previous two years. 

Mobilization of well plugging equipment, excavation of the reserve pit soil and plugging of the 

well took place over the following winter. The reserve pit had been sampled prior to the onset of 

winter and it was determined that a portion of the pit required excavation due to environmental 

concerns. The soil was brought to Lonely (3 miles west), bagged into Supersacks, then 

transported by barge for proper disposal during late summer 2006. 

4.7.3.2 Present Development and Production on the North Slope and in the 

Planning Area (2007-2010) 

Present Development and Production (within the next few years) includes fields that are in the 

final planning stages for development or are under construction but have not yet begun 

production (Table 4.7-E). Infrastructure components, scheduling, and reserve estimates are

fairly well defined, although reserve volumes are likely to be revised as information is obtained 

during production operations. Because many new developments on the periphery of existing 

infrastructure would be tied to these facilities, continued operation of current production 

facilities and transportation systems is vital to new development projects. 

The Alpine Satellite Development Plan would develop five new fields (CD-3 through CD-7) and 

tie these remote pads to the existing Alpine oil field infrastructure (USDOI BLM 2004c). In 

2003, ADNR estimated the CD-3 through CD7 pads, corresponding with former exploratory well 

locations, could produce a total of 330 MMbbl of oil in the next 2 decades (ADNR 2003). Two of 

these satellite fields (CD-3 and CD-4) are now producing oil. The remaining fields in this project 

are in the permitting stage. In August 2004, ConocoPhillips announced a proposed expansion of 

the CD-2 field, with original oil in place in the expansion area estimated at 31 to 55 MMbbl 

(Petroleum News Alaska 2004a). In August 2006, ConocoPhillips applied for a pad expansion to 

allow room for an additional 18 wells at CD-2 (Petroleum News, 2006c). The expansion will 

permit development of the Qannik oil reservoir and provide additional storage areas for the

Alpine CD projects. Plans for CD-5 are in the permitting stage, however, there are some 

unresolved issues with development due to outstanding permits and an increasing project cost. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consquences 4-646 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

(Petroleum News. The Explorers 2006 – Conoco’s exploration plans shaping up. Kay Cashman. 

Vol 11, No.46. Nov 12, 2006) It is projected to be online by 2009. ConocoPhillips has considered 

drilling the CD-5 wells from the CD-2 pad, however, there are no drill rigs on the North Slope 

capable of accomplishing that, nor is it cost effective (Petroleum News, 2006c). 

Produced fluids from the production pads (CD-2, CD-3, CD-4) are transported by pipeline to the 

Alpine CPF (CD-1) for processing. All CD pads are connected or have proposed connections by 

gravel roads to existing Alpine infrastructure with the exception of CD-3, which is accessible by 

a gravel airstrip.Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained

from the existing ASRC Mine Site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. The gravel pads are 

or are projected to be at least 5 feet above the surrounding tundra. A 1,200-foot bridge across 

the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. The proposed

bridge is designed to support up to 350,000 lbs per lane for heavy equipment. Proposed field CD6 and its access road and pipelines would be within a 3-mile setback from Fish Creek, 

established by the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD (Lease Stipulation 39[d]). Consistent with the 

requirements of the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD, the Alpine Satellite Development ROD 

grants an exception to allow this infrastructure within the setback. Additional exceptions are 

granted to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies (Lease Stipulation 41)

and to allow roads between separate oil fields (Lease Stipulation 48). Above ground pipelines 

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

VSMs. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSMs; cable trays 

would not hang below the pipelines. Both industry and local residents would use the gravel 

roads. 

Other projects likely to come into production in the next few years include additional 

development at two drill sites in the Kuparuk River Unit West Sak oil field, where production 

would increase by approximately 45,000 bbl per day in 2007 (Petroleum News Alaska 2004b). 

4.7.3.3 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Development and Production 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Development and Production projects could develop discoveries 

that are listed in Table 4.7-E. The developments most likely to occur and those that would occur 

soonest generally would be near existing fields, where infrastructure systems could be shared.

Below under the heading of “Northwest National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska,” there is a scenario

for the gravel footprint and other attributes of development of the Northwest NPR-A. BLM 

provides specific Northwest NPR-A scenario information for two reasons. First, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Alaska found that BLM’s Northeast NPR-A Amended IAP/EIS 

failed to fully address the cumulative impacts increased activities in the Northeast NPR-A 

planning area will have when combined with increased activity in the Northwest NPR-A 

planning area. Second, BLM has updated its projections for oil extraction from the Northwest 

NPR-A and the development that would be associated with such oil production from what was 

presented in the Northwest NPR-A IAP/EIS and used in the Northeast Amended IAP/EIS. For 

both of these reasons, BLM believes it is important to present a detailed and updated 

description of potential development in the Northwest planning area. 

Development scenarios for the Northeast NPR-A IAP/EIS for Alternatives A through D are

presented in section 4.2.1.2. To assist in estimating impacts from other North Slope oil and

gas development, BLM is assuming that the growth of the future gravel footprint outside of 

Northeast NPR-A and Northwest NPR-A due to oil and gas development would continue at a 

rate exhibited in recent years related to onshore development in the area east of NPR-A. Prior 

to 1988, during which the main North Slope road system and most of the pads for the Prudhoe 

4-647 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Bay and Kuparuk oil fields were built, the average annual gravel footprint growth was 421 

acres. Between 1988 and 2001, the average growth rate was 42 acres per year. (Table 4.7-F) 

For analysis purposes, BLM in this Supplemental IAP/EIS is assuming that the total growth in 

the oil and gas gravel footprint on the North Slope through this century could be the sum of 1) 

the footprint attributed to development in Northeast NPR-A described for each alternative in 

section 4.2.1.2, 2) the footprint attributed to development in the Northwest NPR-A described 

below, and 3) 42 acres per year attributable to all other North Slope oil and gas development. 

Projecting the growth of the gravel footprint far into the future is very problematic. BLM’s 

projections for the growth of the gravel footprint in Northeast and Northwest NPR-A exceed the 

recent growth rate on the North Slope. Each of these two BLM planning areas would average 

about 60 acres of new gravel footprint per year from about 2020 to some point in the later half of 

this century according to the scenarios presented in this Supplemental IAP/EIS. This is due to 

a variety of factors, including a possible over-estimate of oil production from these areas (and

thus of development) and development scenarios for these planning areas that are designed to 

not underestimate the acreage attributed to future development. Also, the larger average 

footprint growth in these two NPR-A planning areas is consistent with what may be expected as 

development occurs farther from existing infrastructure. As development moves into previously 

undeveloped area, there will be a need to duplicate some of the infrastructure, such as airstrips 

and storage areas on CPFs, that exist at Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk and which are shared by 

development closer to those major fields. Thus, to some extent, in beginning to develop oil and

gas in the previously undeveloped NPR-A, growth in the gravel footprint may reflect the larger 

initial rate of footprint expansion that occurred in the early years of development of the 

Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk oil fields. 

There is also great uncertainty regarding what future development may occur outside 

Northeast and Northwest NPR-A that could affect the amount of additional gravel footprint and

what amount of the gravel footprint will be abandoned and undergo restoration. A question

could legitimately be raised whether annual growth of the gravel footprint in the area east of 

NPR-A from 1988 to 2003 would still need to be that large in that area nearly a century from 

now. However, gas development on the North Slope could require gravel footprint increases

that may be larger than reflected in recent gravel footprint increases related to oil development 

in the established oil fields in the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk area. Because of these potentially 

offsetting influences on development and other rationale described above, BLM is, for analysis 

purposes, assuming 42 acres of new gravel footprint annually through the end of the century on

lands outside the Northeast and Northwest NPR-A planning areas. Thus, by approximately the 

end of this century the additional gravel footprint would be approximately: 

1. Northeast NPR-A (Alternative C): 3,850 acres

2. Northwest NPR-A: 3,500 acres 

3. Rest of North Slope: 3,850 acres. 

Total: 11,200 acres 

Assuming a ratio of one acre of gravel pit for every five acres of gravel footprint, this 

assumption would indicate that approximately 2,200 acres of additional gravel pits will be 

required. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consquences 4-648 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Northwest National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska 

The Northwest NPR-A IAP/EIS evaluated the potential for oil and gas development in the 

Northwest NPR-A (USDOI BLM MMSA 2003). The January 2004 ROD made all BLM lands 

within the Northwest NPR-A available to oil and gas leasing, though leasing of 1,570,000 acres 

in the Wainwright area were deferred for 10 years and 440,000 acres in the Colville River 

Special Area within the Northwest planning area were deferred until a Colville River 

Management is completed. This left approximately 77% of the Northwest NPR-A immediately 

available for leasing. 

The Northwest NPR-A has a much lower economic potential on a per-acre basis than the 

Northeast Planning Area. The Northwest NPR-A is nearly twice as large as the planning area, 

but has only an estimated 46% (4,100 MMbbls) of the combined total undiscovered,

conventionally recoverable oil resources (using the mean value) found in the NPR-A. Under the 

provisions of the Northwest NPR-A ROD all lands could ultimately be made available for oil and 

gas leasing, but an estimated 20 MMbbls would not be accessible because of surface occupancy 

restrictions. As in this Supplemental IAP/EIS’s analysis of the amount of oil that might be 

produced from the Northeast NPR-A (See discussion in section 4.2.1.2), this document assumes

that approximately 88% of the risked mean technically recoverable undiscovered oil estimated 

to be in the planning area that is available for leasing and accessible to drilling would be 

produced. To develop the projected amount of accessible oil within Northwest NPR-A, BLM 

anticipates the following amount of development: 

94 exploratory wells 30 ice runways 1,400 2-D camp train miles (5,100

acres) 

71 delineation wells 6,800 miles ice roads 14,500 2-D surveying acres 

6 CPFs (540 acres) (20,600 acres) 625 3-D camp train miles (2,300 

acres) 

30 satellite production pads (300 

acres) 

300 miles gathering line 165,000 3-D surveying acres 

3 staging bases (150 acres) 295 miles of sales 

pipeline 

83 MMbbls peak oil 

production/year 

6 gravel runways (66 acres) 6 pump stations (120 

acres) 

300 miles gravel roads (2,325 

acres) 

13 gravel pits (650 acres) 

Under very favorable conditions for oil development in the Northwest NPR-A, including very

high oil prices or discovery in the Northwest NPR-A of an oil accumulation that is so large that 

its development does not depend on infrastructure in the Northeast NPR-A, there will not be 

any difference in the amount of oil developed from the Northwest NPR-A no matter which of the 

alternatives considered in this document for the Northeast NPR-A is adopted. Under other 

circumstances, including lower oil prices, there could be marginal differences in the amount of, 

or at least the timing of, oil produced from Northwest NPR-A and, by extension, the impacts to 

the environment from that development. Alternatives B, C, and D all are projected to result in 

more oil production and development in Northeast NPR-A than under Alternative A. If these 

heightened production levels result in stretching infrastructure closer to Northwest NPR-A, 

then development of oil in Northwest NPR-A could be more cost efficient and either come into

existence sooner than under Alternative A or occur under Alternatives B, C, or D while it would 

not under Alternative A. (Among the action alternatives, Alternative C would be the most 

likely to enhance the chance or speed production in Northwest NPR-A and Alternative B the 

4-649 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

least likely, but the differences in likelihood among the action alternatives are marginal.) 

Similarly, by making it possible to construct a pipeline north of Teshekpuk Lake, the action

alternatives under lower oil prices could make production in northeastern Northwest NPR-A 

more economically feasible. 

Differences in the chance of development in the Northwest NPR-A among the alternatives 

considered in this Supplemental IAP/EIS are more likely to be reflected in the northeast corner 

of Northwest NPR-A than in any other portion of the Northwest NPR-A Planning area. To 

illustrate, consider the following. If a very large accumulation of oil in the neighborhood of 

750MMbbls were discovered in the northeast corner of Northwest NPR-A, it might prove 

economically attractive to develop whether the investment strategies of the oil industry were

based on oil prices that were higher or lower than they are today, regardless of which Northeast 

NPR-A alternative is chosen, or whether development occurs in Northeast NPR-A or not. If, 

however, the northeastern part of Northwest NPR-A is found instead to have a much smaller 

accumulation, such as 50MMbbls, but a very large accumulation exists in an area that is not 

available for leasing under Alternative A in northwestern Northeast NPR-A, but would be 

available under the other alternatives, the outcome could be different among the alternatives. 

Under A, the large accumulation would not be discovered. Unless there was other development 

that would be economic and bring infrastructure near the small accumulation in northeastern

Northwest NPR-A, that small accumulation would be unlikely to be developed, especially under

lower oil prices. In contrast, under the other alternatives, the large accumulation of oil in 

northwestern Northeast NPR-A could be discovered and developed. With this large

accumulation justifying bringing infrastructure nearby, the smaller accumulation in the 

Northwest NPR-A would be more likely to be developed. 

Development in the Chukchi Sea that would require a pipeline across Northwest NPR-A (see 

discussion below, Chukchi Sea Planning Area), could help support development within 

Northwest NPR-A, as development in Northwest NPR-A could help the economics of a 

development in the Chukchi Sea. BLM, however, does not believe that the infrastructure in 

Northwest NPR-A that would occur to support development in both areas would exceed the 

combined development described for each area separately. Indeed, it is quite conceivable that 

the infrastructure to develop the two areas would be less than additive, since some 

infrastructure, such as pipelines, could be shared. 

Chukchi Sea Planning Area 

The MMS has produced a hypothetical development scenario as part of the Chukchi Lease Sale

193 Draft EIS. The scenario assumes an abrupt increase in the level of activity compared to the 

past. The Chukchi is viewed as one of the most petroleum-rich offshore provinces in the country

with a mean conventional recoverable oil resource of 12 Bbbl. The actual size and location of 

future oil and gas developments in the Chukchi are uncertain. However, for purposes of 

analysis, the MMS estimated that one oil field containing 1 billion barrels (Bbbl) would be 

developed as a result of Sale 193. The scenario for new petroleum development in the Chukchi 

took into account existing infrastructure on the North Slope because it is likely that future 

projects in northern Alaska will be tied into these facilities. Under this scenario, production 

from the Chukchi lease sale area could begin in 2020 with peak oil production rate from the first 

offshore field assumed to be approximately 225,000 bbl per day. This would constitute a 25% 

increase to the current rate through TAPS, which is assumed to carry oil production from the 

Chukchi. The MMS believes this increase would require upgrading the pipeline and pump

stations because many of the pump stations have been idle due to declined volumes flowing 

through TAPS. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consquences 4-650 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Approximately, 100,000 line miles of 2-D seismic data has been collected to date. Exploration 

will continue including 3-D seismic surveys to define prospective drill locations. These surveys 

will take place during the open water season (May-September). Typical 3-D survey operations 

will consist of a large seismic vessel that tows the airgun and receiving cable arrays and a 

smaller support boat. Survey times will average 20 to 30 days (with downtime) to cover a 200 

sq-mi area. Under normal vessel speeds, the airgun array would produce a sound signal every

20-30 seconds. The 3-D surveys could commence prior to lease sale 193. Up to 4 surveys could 

take place during each open water season. During exploration seismic surveys, the vessels are 

largely self-contained, so there would be a minimum amount of helicopter flights (assume one 

per day) to transport personnel, seismic data, and light supplies. 

Data from seismic will be used to drill and delineate a commercial field. The scenario projects 

an additional 7 to 14 wells before development will occur. A large, bottom-founded platform 

would be constructed to withstand the water depths and constant ice movement. The platform 

would hold 1-2 rigs and serve as a central processing facility. Subsea wells would be completed 

in templates of 4 wells with flowlines connecting the wells with the central processing platform. 

An 18” oil pipeline would be trenched in the seafloor between the platform and landfall (30-150 

miles). This work would take place during the ice-free months. At the landfall location, a pump 

station would be constructed, possibly between Icy Cape and Point Belcher. Additional pump

stations may be required along the corridor and would be co-located with oil fields along the

corridor. The exact route of the overland pipeline is unknown, but will likely be routed south of 

Lake Teshekpuk and avoid sensitive areas where possible. 

There is no infrastructure in NPR-A at the present time, so a new large-diameter gathering line 

would have to be constructed from the Chukchi coast to the Prudhoe Bay area. The pipeline and 

communication lines would be constructed on elevated vertical supports during the winter to 

connect with the western extent of the TAPS pipeline infrastructure (no greater than 300 

miles). Pump stations would be needed at about 100-mi intervals and where possible would be 

co-located with oil field facilities along the corridor. The size and location of the overland 

pipeline(s) will be influenced by future discoveries and development in the NPR-A, but it is 

logical to assume that they would be oriented west-east in the shortest corridor to Pump Station 

No. 1. Separation of associated-dissolved gas and produced water from the offshore field would

be done on a central production platform in the Chukchi Sea. Natural gas would not be 

transported across NPR-A until a transportation system is constructed from the North Slope to 

Outside markets. Development in the Chukchi Sea that would require a pipeline across much 

of NPR-A could help support development in northern NPR-A, as development in NPR-A could 

help the economics of a development in the Chukchi Sea. BLM, however, does not believe that 

the infrastructure in northern NPR-A that would occur to support development in Northeast 

NPR-A, Northwest NPR-A, and the Chukchi Sea would exceed the combined development 

described for each area separately. Indeed, it is quite conceivable that the infrastructure to 

develop the three areas would be less than additive, since some infrastructure, such as 

pipelines, could be shared. 

Leasing to production would take approximately 15 years. The total life-cycle of the offshore

project could last 30-40 years with 25 years of oil production. Upon abandonment, offshore 

pipelines would be decommissioned by cleaning, plugging both ends and leaving it in place

buried in the seabed. The overland pipe is likely to be in use by other oil fields in NPR-A, so it 

would remain in operation. If it was not used or there was no plan to use it then it would be 

decommissioned and abandoned with removal and rehabilitation similar to that described in 

section 4.7.4.4. The offshore platform would be disassembled and removed and the seafloor will 

4-651 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

be restored to a pre-development condition. The abandonment process could take several years 

with environmental studies continuing beyond that. 

The MMS’s Draft EIS also describes anticipated transportation in support of exploration and

development in the Chukchi. During exploration drilling, operations would be supported by 

both helicopters and supply vessels. Helicopters would probably fly from Barrow at a frequency 

of 1-3 flights per day. Support vessel traffic would be 1-3 trips per week, also out of Barrow. 

Construction of a new shorebase would begin after a commercial discovery is made. Heavy 

equipment and materials would be moved to the coastal site using barges, aircraft, and perhaps

winter ice roads. Transportation activities would be more frequent during the construction 

phase, beginning about 3 years after the discovery is made and will take another 3 years for 

completion of the new facility. During this construction phase, there could be 1-2 barge trips 

(probably from either West Dock or Nome) in the summer open water season. Aircraft (C-130 

Hercules or larger) trips could be up to 5 per day during peak periods. The overall level of 

transportation in and out of the shorebase would drop significantly after construction is 

completed for both the shore base and offshore platform. During production operations aircraft 

would generally be smaller with less frequent flights (2 per day). Ice road traffic would be

intermittent during the winter months. 

If drilling, cutting, and spent mud from subsea wells to be disposed at an onshore disposal 

facility, it is estimated one barge trip per subsea template (4 wells). This means that there could 

be 2 barge trips (during summer) to the new onshore facility over a period of 6 years. 

Onshore Between NPR-A and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 

Additional amounts of oil could be produced by enhanced recovery technology from existing 

fields and from undeveloped or undiscovered satellite pools adjacent to existing production 

areas east of NPR-A. Some of this production would replace declining production at existing 

fields. It is reasonable to assume that a portion would be brought into production in the 

foreseeable future. Consistent with this Supplemental IAP/EIS’s treatment of undiscovered oil 

within NPR-A, this analysis assumes for analysis purposes that approximately 88% of the 

estimated undiscovered oil in the area would be brought into production in the foreseeable 

future. 

Enhanced recovery and some satellite fields would be developed largely from existing 

infrastructure, including existing pads, roads, and pipelines, and much of the oil would be

processed in existing processing facilities. Oil that cannot be reached with extended reach 

drilling from existing pads would require construction of new pads. Oil accumulations near 

existing infrastructure may be developed with a gravel road connecting to the existing 

infrastructure and utilize much of the existing oil processing facilities, worker facilities, 

maintenance equipment, and storage, as was done in the recently constructed Meltwater and 

Drill Site 3S production pads. Accumulations farther from existing infrastructure might be 

developed similar to the Alpine and Badami fields, which are not linked to the infrastructure at 

Prudhoe Bay by road and have their own oil processing, personnel, maintenance, and 

equipment storage facilities. Access would most likely be provided by a mix of ice roads, air, 

and, if on the coast, barge. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consquences 4-652 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Beaufort Sea 

Geophysical exploration has occurred in the Beaufort Sea for decades with practices similar to 

those described above for the Chukchi Sea. These practices, which are anticipated to be 

continued in the Beaufort, include use of seismic vessels, ice breakers, support vessels, and 

aircraft or helicopters. Geophysical operations would be conducted between April and October 

during open water. 

Depending on water depth, exploration wells in the Federal and state waters in the Beaufort 

Sea would either be drilled from man-made ice islands or large, heavy, bottom-anchored, iceresistant drilling rigs. Artificial ice islands may be employed as drilling platforms in less than 

about 10 to 15 m of water, and their construction and supply would be supported by ice-roads. 

In deeper water, bottom-founded structures would likely be employed to support drilling 

operations. Gravel islands, constructed in winter, could be employed for exploratory and

delineation drilling activities in nearshore waters. Gravel would come from an onshore location 

and be transported to the site via ice road. 

If a discovery is made and the field developed, a permanent facility would be built on an existing 

island or manmade gravel island, such as that constructed for the Northstar development,

which began production in 2001. The platform would include several production wells, water 

injectors, gas injection wells, and a waste disposal well. Some of the natural gas produced would 

be used to power equipment on the facility, but most would be re-injected to maintain reservoir 

pressure. Produced water would also be reinjected (ADNR 2000). The offshore production pad

would be accessed by helicopter, barge, and, periodically, ice road. A subsea pipeline would 

bring the oil to land, where it would be processed, either in existing facilities or, if too distant 

from existing facilities, new processing facilities. Only if the field was a great distance from

shore, as is the scenario contemplated by MMS in the Chukchi Sea, is it likely that processing 

would occur offshore. Once processed, the oil would pass through existing or new pipelines, 

with new pump stations, if necessary, to TAPS. 

At high oil prices, it would not make a difference which alternative is adopted in the

Supplemental IAP/EIS. However, alternatives B, C, and D all make development of a pipeline

and other infrastructure north and east of Teshekpuk Lake more feasible. Consequently, at

lower oil prices or in the case of smaller oil accumulation in the offshore north and east of the 

Teshekpuk Lake area, development would be accelerated or become more likely under these

action alternatives. 

Gas Pipeline and North Slope Gas Development 

Development of North Slope gas is a long-time dream of many Alaskans. As long ago as 1977

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission completed an environmental impact statement for

the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System (ANGTS) and three years later issued a 30-year 

lease for the project that would have brought North Slope gas south to Delta Junction and then 

to Alberta parallel the Alaska Highway. Other projects have been proposed. Most notable 

among these was the Trans-Alaska Gas System (TAGS), for which an EIS was completed in 

1988 and a 30-year lease issued by BLM in 1995. It would have brought gas to Valdez where it 

would be converted to liquefied natural gas for shipment (FERC, 2006). But no development 

has occurred. 

North Slope oil wells also produce natural gas and water but, without a gas pipeline to market, 

industry re-injects the gas that is not used for field operations back into the oil producing 

4-653 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

reservoir to improve oil recovery (but where it also remains available for commercial

production). There is, however, a possibility that substantial steps will be taken to bring about 

a gas pipeline before this Supplemental IAP/EIS is completed or shortly thereafter. Concurrent 

with the drafting of this Supplemental IAP/EIS, the Governor of Alaska is undertaking a 

process designed to identify a prospective pipeline licensee to build a gas pipeline. Governor 

Sarah Palin’s plan has taken the form of a bill—the Alaska Gas Inducement Act—introduced in

the 2007 legislative session. Under Governor Palin’s plan, the state will put out requests for 

applications to prospective licensees at approximately the same time as this Draft 

Supplemental IAP/EIS is available for public review. At about the time that the Final 

Supplemental IAP/EIS is set for publication, the governor intends to announce her choice of the 

licensee. And at about the time that a lease sale could be offered in Northeast NPR-A under a 

new ROD based on the Supplemental IAP/EIS, the licensee is anticipated to undertake

investigative fieldwork. Submission of applications for Federal and state permits and actual 

construction may commence within the following few years (Anchorage Daily News, 2007). As a 

consequence, BLM is considering commercial gas pipeline and North Slope gas development 

outside of the planning area as reasonably foreseeable and including analysis of their impacts 

within the cumulative impact analysis. 

Because there is no proposal before any agency for a gas pipeline and there is neither a 

commercial gas development on the North Slope to serve as an example of such a development,

nor a proposal for one, the descriptions of these facilities and their impacts are necessarily less 

specific in some aspects than are the scenarios for oil development. Nevertheless, the 

descriptions provided in this section are based upon several recent projections of a future gas 

pipeline and associated North Slope developments and provide the reader with a detailed

understanding of the potential impacts a gas pipeline and North Slope gas development would 

entail. 

The following description of a gas pipeline from the North Slope to markets is derived primarily 

from the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System R/W Lease: Commissioner’s Analysis and

Proposed Decision and Action (ADNR, 2004d). This State of Alaska Department of Natural 

Resources document describes one proponent’s plan for a pipeline. It is the most thorough 

recent description of such a gas pipeline. It may differ in some respects from plans of other 

proponents of a gas pipeline—for instance, it contemplates a 48-inch pipeline while the North 

Slope leaseholders indicate that they are contemplating constructing a 52-inch pipeline. In 

general terms, however, it represents a realistic scenario for a gas pipeline from the North

Slope, particularly for its route and characteristics in the northern part of the state where a gas 

pipeline may most reasonably be expected to contribute to any cumulative impacts on resources 

and uses in the Northeast NPR-A. 

A commercial gas pipeline would have its origins at Prudhoe Bay. Gas would first be processed 

in an as-yet-to-built gas conditioning plant. From there a pipeline would follow the TAPS and 

the Dalton Highway in a southerly direction from Prudhoe Bay, probably passing from the 

North Slope through the Brooks Range at Atguin Pass. The buried pipeline would meet the 

requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 49, Part 192 and API-5L, Grade 

X80. It would be approximately 50 inches in diameter with approximately 1-inch-thick walls. 

Its annual average daily capacity would range from 4,500 to 5,900 million standard cubic feet 

per day. The maximum allowable operating pressure is anticipated to be 2,500 pounds per 

square inch. One metering station would occupy about 5 acres at Prudhoe Bay. One, and 

possibly more, compressor stations of 25- to 35-acres (fenced gravel pads) would be located on

the North Slope, with five or more additional compressor stations placed further south on the 

gas pipeline route. The ANGTS plan states that its compression equipment would consist of “a 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consquences 4-654 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

44,000 HP (ISO) Dry Low Emission (DLE) gas turbine powered single stage centrifugal 

compressor with dry gas seals.” The compressor package would be equipped with “’low noise’ 

compressor intake and exhaust, and a sound reducing unit enclosure and compressor building.” 

ANGTS proponents anticipate that the gas pipeline would be placed adjacent to the Dalton 

Highway along most of its route in the North Slope, passing under the road more than a half 

dozen times before leaving the region. 

The pipe would be externally and internally coated and a combination of external coating and a 

cathodic protection system would provide corrosion control. Mainline block valve assemblies 

would be provided at a nominal spacing of 20 miles and at compressor station locations. 

Launchers and receivers for pipeline in-line inspection devices (pigs) would be installed at 

compressor and metering stations. The ANGST pipeline system would be controlled remotely 

using a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system, based out of a central gas 

control center possibly located in Calgary, Alberta. The ANGST compressor stations and 

pipeline operating conditions would also be monitored from an operations and maintenance 

station that might be located near Fairbanks. In addition, compressor stations and mainline 

block valves would have local control systems, which could shut down the compressor station or 

close a mainline block valve automatically in the event of an emergency. 

Prior to the start of construction, the builder would finalize surveys, locate the centerline and 

construction workspace, and complete land or easement acquisition. The right-of-way would be 

surveyed and staked, and existing utility lines would be located and marked to help prevent 

accidental damage during pipeline construction. Construction support activities, which would 

include double jointing pipe, stockpiling pipe, clearing, aggregate processing, camp mobilization, 

and some access road construction, would commence a year prior to mainline construction 

activities. Existing roads would provide access to the pipeline route, though some temporary 

access roads may be required and, if not already available, some permanent, high-grade access

roads would be needed to provide access for compressor station sites. Clearing of the pipeline 

right-of-way would generally be completed the winter prior to mainline construction activities. 

Vegetation would be removed by mechanical cutting. 

During construction, camps would be utilized for crews and construction supplies and 

equipment. Camps may house 250 to 1,700 workers, depending on location and the work to be 

accomplished. Old TAPS construction camp sites, such as Franklin Bluffs, Happy Valley, 

Toolik, Galbraith, Atigun, and camps farther south would likely be reestablished. 

North Slope and most other Alaskan construction of the gas pipeline would occur in winter 

when snow and ice would provide the work surface. Chain trenchers would be used for ditching 

through permafrost areas and where geotechnical conditions permit. The use of chain trenchers 

eliminates the need to drill and blast in most permafrost and reduces the amount of imported 

backfill. Hard rock, however, would be drilled and blasted, then the broken rock removed by 

backhoes. In non-permafrost areas, conventional ditching methods would be used, which would 

include the use of backhoes and wheel trenchers. The trench would be dewatered, cleaned of 

debris, and padded as necessary before the pipe would be lowered into the trench. If the

excavated material is rocky, the pipe would be padded with select fill from material sites or by 

separating suitable material from the existing trench spoil. 

Cleanup and restoration of the construction areas would begin after backfilling and it would 

likely be the intent that all cleanup and restoration (except reseeding) be accomplished in the 

same winter season as trenching and laying of the pipeline. After backfilling, the work areas 

would be graded and restored to approximate pre-construction contours. Surplus construction 

4-655 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

material and debris would be removed and recycled. Permanent erosion controls (water bars or 

slope breakers) would be installed as conditions warrant. Construction work areas would be 

seeded the following summer when conditions would be suitable. 

Access to the pipeline for routine inspection and maintenance would to a very large extent 

involve travel on existing access roads. This could be the case along the majority of the route on

the North Slope where the gas line would be placed in very close proximity to the Dalton 

Highway. Where the pipeline is not adjacent to an existing road, ice or snow roads may be 

constructed for winter access to perform routine work. In the event of an emergency situation 

where equipment would need to access an off-road area, proponents of the ANGTS plan that 

“temporary work pads and roads would be utilized and specialized techniques would be used to 

reduce potential impacts.” Access to any permanent gravel access road to gas pipeline 

infrastructure would be restricted to prevent unauthorized access and potential environmental 

damage caused by vehicle travel. The right-of-way would be monitored, and erosion or unstable 

conditions would be repaired in accordance with any permits issued by the various authorizing 

agencies. 

Presuming a gas pipeline is completed, commercial gas development could occur onshore in or 

near existing fields between NPR-A and ANWR and in parts of NPR-A outside the current

planning area, and offshore in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Much of the initial gas that 

might be produced on the North Slope and nearby offshore areas would come from existing oil 

fields and would rely as much as practicable on the existing roads, pads, and other 

infrastructure. But the presence of a commercial gas pipeline would also spur additional 

development that could contribute both oil and gas production. Where gas accumulations occur

near existing infrastructure (but not close enough to be efficiently tapped by drilling from 

existing pads), they may be developed with new gravel pads and gravel roads connecting to the

existing infrastructure. In such a case, they could utilize existing oil, or new centralized gas, 

processing facilities, worker facilities, maintenance equipment, and storage facilities. Gas 

accumulations farther from some then-already-existing infrastructure might be developed as 

stand-alone facilities, with their own processing, personnel, maintenance, and equipment 

storage facilities. Access would most likely be provided to these stand-alone developments by a 

mix of ice roads, air, and, if on the coast, barge. 

North Slope gas development would in time cause geographic expansion of onshore oil and gas 

infrastructure. Completion of a commercial pipeline from the North Slope would likely prompt

development of Point Thomson far to the east of existing infrastructure. Industry has also 

exhibited interest in gas prospects south of existing oil infrastructure in the foothills of the 

Brooks Range. As described in the Northwest NPR-A IAP/EIS, gas could be developed from new 

infrastructure (much of it also associated with new oil production) in both the northern and 

southern parts of that planning area in NPR-A. The as-yet-unplanned portions of the 

remainder of NPR-A outside of Northeast and Northwest NPR-A, is thought to have more than 

a quarter of the gas endowment of the Petroleum Reserve and, if made available following 

NEPA review, would also be a possible area for gas development. 

While there is good reason to believe that some of the earliest gas to be delivered through a 

commercial gas pipeline would originate from gas deposits readily accessible from existing 

infrastructure, timing of gas production from specific existing infrastructure and known gas 

accumulations, and the development of new infrastructure to reach more distant gas 

accumulations will involve complex technical, economic, and corporate considerations. 

Although it may be assumed that as a rule, gas accumulations closer to existing infrastructure, 

using existing infrastructure, would be produced sooner than other accumulations, and that gas 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consquences 4-656 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

accumulations farthest from existing infrastructure would be produced last, this may not 

always be the case. 

Development of gas from the Chukchi Sea, areas of NPR-A west of the planning area, and areas 

of the Beaufort Sea north of NPR-A would all have particular relevance for cumulative impacts 

associated with the Northeast NPR-A. First, the future management decision for the planning 

area may have ramifications for development in adjacent areas. There may be a better chance 

for gas development to occur in northeastern Northwest NPR-A and areas of the Beaufort Sea 

directly north of Teshekpuk Lake under Alternatives B, C, or D of the Supplemental IAP/EIS 

than would be the case under Alternative A. The reasons for this are the same as described in 

Northwest NPR-A and Beaufort Sea discussion of section 4.7.3.3 for different chances for oil 

development in these areas depending on which alternative is chosen for Northeast NPR-A. 

Second, development in the area north and west of the planning area also could cause or 

facilitate development in the planning area. Offshore development north of the planning area 

would likely rely on some onshore facilities in the planning area. Any offshore development in 

the Chukchi or Beaufort seas north or west of NPR-A would almost certainly rely on a gas 

pipeline across the planning area, as would gas development in NPR-A west of the planning 

area. As well as creating direct impacts in the planning area from construction and operation of 

the pipeline, such a pipeline might also encourage oil and gas development within the planning 

area, though not in excess of what is already analyzed for each respective alternative in 

sections 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6. 

Finally, development in these lands and offshore areas could affect resources that also utilize 

the planning area. A few examples illustrate the point. A number of bird species and the 

Teshekpuk Lake and Western Arctic caribou herds use both the planning area and other parts 

of NPR-A. And marine mammals may be impacted both by barge traffic associated with 

planning area development and by gas activities that could occur offshore or indirectly by 

actions in support of onshore gas development in NPR-A west of the planning area. 

4.7.3.4 Speculative Development 

Speculative developments are those that BLM does not consider reasonably foreseeable. They 

may include projects that are discussed in the public arena, but which are currently prohibited 

by law or for which there is no current concrete proposal before an authorizing land 

management agency. In this analysis, approximately 12% of estimated technically recoverable 

undiscovered oil on the North Slope is considered speculative. Speculative developments are 

not considered in the cumulative impact analysis. 

4.7.3.4.1 Factors Contributing to Uncertainty 

There are many factors that contribute to uncertainty regarding future oil development. 

Prices 

The price structure and stability for oil will play a pivotal role in the future of the petroleum 

industry in Alaska. With low oil prices, the high cost of producing a barrel of oil in Alaska places 

North Slope crude oil at a disadvantage relative to the OPEC cartel and other low-cost

producers. It also tends to use up funding for Alaskan projects by the producing companies who 

can realize a greater return on investments in lower-cost environments. When oil prices are 

higher the return on investment is much greater and exploration and development

opportunities become more attractive to industry on the North Slope. 

4-657 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Land Availability

Even with sustained high oil prices, there will be no significant reserve additions without 

attractive exploration opportunities. These opportunities only exist when there is a continued

and diverse offering of exploration acreage. A successful exploration effort requires that a broad 

mixture of potential play types of a size sufficient to provide economically viable targets be 

made available in a predictable and systematic manner. In such a scenario, exploration would 

provide a spectrum of field sizes such that the larger accumulations generate the demand for 

the infrastructure, which would in turn create an environment in which smaller fields 

(satellites) may be profitable to develop. 

In the near future, the available relatively low-cost operating areas near existing infrastructure 

will have been reasonably well explored. They will be deemed to no longer have the potential to 

yield discoveries of sufficient size to replace the production lost due to decline of the older major

fields. This realization accounts for industry interest in making new acreage available for 

leasing, because without new discoveries, the region’s oil production will continue to decline, a

decline that will eventually lead to the shutdown of operations and of the TAPS pipeline. 

Reserve Estimates 

When exploration begins in a new area, like in the North Slope in the 1960s, no one has direct 

evidence of the true nature and distribution of potential reservoirs in the subsurface, let alone 

the presence or volume of hydrocarbons that may be present. Seismic data used to determine 

the presence of potential structures and traps, and outcrop exposures, often tens or hundreds of 

miles away, are the sole source of possible reservoir data. Based on these bits of information, a 

first prediction is made as to the probability of oil or gas being present, and then if the 

assumptions regarding structure, trap, reservoir, and source are reasonable, what range of 

hydrocarbon volumes the feature could contain. The reality of potential volumes, as revealed by 

exploration drilling, may be different from the pre-drill predictions. Original predictions for the 

size of some fields have turned out to underestimate (Prudhoe Bay, Kuparuk, and Endicott) or

overestimate (Lisburne as well as numerous drilled dry holes) the actual oil endowment. The 

development of infrastructure such as occurred at Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk and with the

TAPS, made exploration for previously unrecognized or ignored nearby small accumulations 

feasible. This again contributed to a larger total reserve estimate. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consquences 4-658 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7.3.4.2 Speculative Developments 

Developments listed below are considered speculative. Consequently, impacts of these 

developments are not considered in this Supplemental IAP/EIS. 

South National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska 

BLM began conducting a plan in the South NPR-A in 2005. However, after considering the 

results of scoping, the agency determined in May 2007 not to pursue the plan. As a 

consequence, development of this part of NPR-A is not considered reasonably foreseeable. 

Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 

The Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP)/EIS (April 2006) 

addressed multiple uses of 13 million acres of BLM-managed lands. The plan included a 

scenario for oil development only because it is BLM’s policy that RMPs, when considering oil 

and gas leasing in frontier areas, project a minimum level of exploration and development 

activity for impact analysis. The RMP/EIS stated that development would be unlikely. The 

estimated mean technically recoverable amount of oil was about 200MMbbls and likely 

scattered in small accumulations. Development of such small amounts of oil approximately 350 

miles from any oil infrastructure and approximately 100 miles from the area in Northwest 

NPR-A considered to have even moderate oil potential is considered infeasible under any 

foreseeable circumstance. Consequently, the oil attributed to the plays in the Kobuk-Seward 

Peninsula is considered speculative rather than reasonably foreseeable, and its development is 

not included in the cumulative analysis for this Supplemental IAP/EIS. 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Much of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on the North Slope has been designated as 

Wilderness. Wilderness areas are not open to oil and gas exploration and development. In 

addition, Section 1003 of ANILCA prohibits leasing within all of the refuge, including that part 

along the coastal plain commonly called the 1002 Area after the section in ANILCA that 

required studies and reports on the area. Section 1003 states that “no leasing or other 

development leading to production of oil and gas . . . shall be undertaken until authorized by an 

Act of Congress.” Despite repeated attempts in Congress, no such legislation has been enacted 

and signed into law. As a consequence, development of this area is not considered reasonably 

foreseeable. 

Road to the Dalton Highway 

The State of Alaska during the administration of Governor Frank Murkowski considered

construction of several roads from the existing Dalton Highway to promote development on the 

North Slope. A couple proposals would have connected the highway—one through a foothills 

route and one through the oil industry’s spine road—to NPR-A via a bridge near Nuiqsut. The 

latter project, which entailed constructing less new roadway than the foothills route, was 

projected to cost $120 to $150 million (Alaska Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities, 

2004). The state on December 12, 2003 submitted an application to the Corps of Engineers for a 

Sec. 404 permit under the Clean Water Act for spine road project. The Corps responded on 

March 2, 2004 that an EIS would be necessary to consider such a permit. The state has not 

pursued this action further with the Corps and no Notice of Intent has been issued to consider

the proposal. Consequently, the cumulative impact analysis does not consider them reasonably 

foreseeable. 

4-659 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7.3.5 Oil Production on the North Slope of Alaska 

4.7.3.5.1 Production Through 2006 

From 1977 to the end of 2006, North Slope developments produced 15.1 Bbbl of oil and natural 

gas liquids (Alaska Division of Oil and Gas 2006). Production on the North Slope peaked in 1988 

at 2.0 MMbbl of oil per day, declining to its current rate of approximately 0.8 MMbbl per day 

(Petroleum News Alaska, 2007). Of the producing fields on the North Slope, the most productive 

(in order of productivity) are Prudhoe Bay, Kuparuk River, Alpine, and Point McIntyre. 

4.7.3.5.2 Future Oil Production Estimates 

Table 4.7-G provides resource estimates used in the cumulative impact analysis. These 

estimates include anticipated production from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable oil 

developments listed in Table 4.7-E. 

State Lease Sales Considered in This Cumulative Effects Analysis 

Since December 1959, the State of Alaska has held more than 50 oil and gas lease sales 

involving North Slope and Beaufort Sea leases. More than 9.8 million acres have been leased; 

some areas have been leased more than once because some leases expired or were relinquished.

Historically, less than half of the tracts offered in state oil and gas lease sales have been leased. 

Of the leased tracts, about 10% have actually been drilled, and about 5% have been developed 

commercially (Map 3-2). About 88% of the leased areas are onshore or nearshore and about 12% 

are offshore. From the early 1960s through 2003, 402 exploration wells were drilled in State of 

Alaska onshore and offshore areas (S. McMains, AOGCC, pers. comm). During this period, the 

number of exploration wells drilled annually has ranged from two to 35. During the 1960s, 58 

wells were drilled, 97 wells were drilled in the 1970s, and 105 wells were drilled in the 1980s. 

From 1990 through 2003, 142 wells were drilled and the number of exploration wells drilled 

annually averaged 10. Fifty-three of the exploration wells have resulted in discoveries, a success 

ratio of about 13%. 

The State of Alaska develops and approves an oil and gas-leasing plan for a 5-year period, 

reassesses the plan, and publishes a schedule every year. Except for Northstar, all of the North

Slope and Beaufort Sea’s commercially producible crude oil is on 986 active state leases (as of 

December 2006) broken down as follows: 1.35 million acres onshore along the Slope; 498,000 

acres offshore in the Beaufort Sea; and 456,000 acres of active leases that straddle onshore and 

offshore acreage. Production through 2006 from state leases totals 15.1 Bbbl. The latest state 

lease sales—North Slope Areawide and Beaufort Sea Areawide—were held in October 2006 

(Alaska Division of Oil and Gas 2006). Between the end of 2006 and 2010, the State of Alaska is 

expected to hold the following annual areawide lease sales annually: 

• Beaufort Sea Areawide sale including unleased state (within 3 miles of coastline) 

waterbottoms from Barrow to the Canadian border each October; 

• North Slope Areawide sale, including unleased state lands between the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge and the NPR-A each October; and 

• North Slope Foothills Areawide sale, extending into the foothills of the Brooks Range 

each May. 

The state has not yet estimated oil and gas resources involved in these future lease sales, but 

informal industry estimates project 4 Bbbl in undiscovered resources on state lands on the 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consquences 4-660 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

North Slope, which include both leased and unleased state properties. Most are expected to be

producible only as satellites. 

The State of Alaska is continuing efforts to drill a stratigraphic test well offshore of Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge. The state also recently developed a new mitigation measure 

(Mitigation Measure 18) to ensure that exploration, development, and production activities are 

conducted in a manner that prevents unreasonable conflicts between oil and gas activities and 

subsistence whale hunting. The lessee has to consult with the NSB and Alaska Eskimo Whaling 

Commission to discuss how siting, timing, and methods of proposed operations can be planned

and carried out to avoid potential conflicts with subsistence whale hunting (Petroleum News 

Alaska 2004c,d). 

Federal Lease Sales Considered in This Cumulative Effects Analysis 

In this analysis, lease sales for the Federal OCS and the NPR-A are considered. Although 

Northstar production from the Federal OCS is small (1,131,639 bbl to May 2002), possible 

future production from Sale 186 is estimated at 460 MMbbl. 

Since December 1979, the USDOI has held nine lease sales in Federal waters of the Beaufort 

Sea and two lease sales in Federal waters of the Chukchi Sea. The latest Beaufort Sale 195, was 

held in March 2005. Over 800 leases have been issued in the Beaufort Sea, totaling more than 

3.7 million acres. Additional lease sales are scheduled for 2009 and 2011. There have been no 

active leases in the Chukchi since 1998. Additional lease sales for the Chukchi are proposed for 

2007, 2010 and 2012. 

About 30 wells have been drilled on Federal offshore leases, with 9 wells determined to be 

producible. All wells have been plugged and abandoned, because field economics have not

favored production. There are 64 active leases on Federal submerged lands in the Beaufort Sea. 

The Kuvlum and Kaktovik (formerly Hammerhead) units are potentially producible. Kaktovik 

is estimated to contain 100-200 million barrels of oil (Petroleum News, 2006d). It will be 

reevaluated in 2008. There are no resource estimates for Kuvlum. The Northstar Unit 

comprises two Federal tracts. These tracts contain less than 20% of Northstar’s estimated 158 

MMbbl of oil reserves. 

4-661 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Table 4.7-G. Production, Reserves, and Resource Estimates Used in the Cumulative

Analysis1

Timeframes and Field or Area Oil (Bbbl)1 

Past and Present (total) 7.37 

Onshore–past 6.69 

Offshore–past 0.35 

Onshore–present 0.33 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future (total) 12.72 

Discovered Onshore and Offshore 1.57 

Undiscovered Onshore 11.152 

Total 20.09 

1 Production and reserve data are as of December 2003. 2 Includes approximately 88% of the mean technically recoverable undiscovered oil in Northeast NPR-A (4.05

Bbbl under Alternative C), Northwest NPR-A (3.58 Bbbl), and lands between NPR-A and ANWR (3.52 Bbbl). 

Sources: USDOI BLM and MMS (2003), USDOI MMS (2003c), and AOGCC (2004). 

From a historical standpoint, only about one-third of the Federal sales originally scheduled in 

the Beaufort Sea were held, and only a small fraction of the tracts offered in the sales were 

leased (less than 7%). Few of those leases were actually tested by drilling (30 wells on 20 

prospects). Most discoveries (11 wells determined to be producible) were too small or too costly 

to become viable fields. One field (Northstar, discovered in 1984) started production in 2001, 

while another (Liberty, discovered in 1982) is being considered for development. 

BLM held lease sales in the planning area in the early 1980s. Recent lease sales by BLM 

include leasing 133 tracts in 1999, and leasing an additional 60 tracts in 2002. Industry has 

drilled 20 wells, with announced discoveries of gas, oil, and condensate in five wells. 

BLM held an oil and gas lease sale on June 2, 2004, for 484 tracts in the Northwest NPR-A, and 

for 22 tracts that combine lands from the Northwest and Northeast NPR-A along the Ikpikpuk 

River that had not been offered previously. About 5.8 million acres were offered. Five companies 

submitted bonus bids totaling $53,904,491 to win rights to develop 123 oil and gas lease tracts. 

The single largest bid was $13,745,000 for tract D-19 near the Ikpikpuk River. 

BLM held an oil and gas lease sale on September 27, 2006, for the Northwest NPR-A. The sale 

offered 478 tracts totaling 5.4 million acres. Bids were received on 81 tracts totaling 

approximately 940,000 acres. The sale offered 108 new tracts that were not available in the 

2004 sale. Four companies submitted bonus bids totaling $13,763,715. The single largest bid

was $2,280,100 for tract 272. 

4.7.3.6 Infrastructure and Transportation 

Production of any North Slope petroleum reserves would not occur without a means of exporting

the production to market. The transportation infrastructure system for any project includes four 

components: pipelines from the production pads to a CPF, pipeline from the CPF to TAPS, 

TAPS from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, and seagoing tankers that travel from Valdez to ports on the

west coast of the U.S. and in Asia. 

Given the decline of production in existing Prudhoe Bay fields, the existing oil transportation 

system (including TAPS) is expected to be able to transport oil produced by development of new 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consquences 4-662 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

reserves on the North Slope, as well as additional enhanced recovery from the Prudhoe Bay 

fields during the cumulative analysis period. New fields would use infrastructure at the edge of

the core area to transport processed crude oil to the TAPS pipeline. This existing infrastructure 

at the edge of the core area includes the Western Group (including existing Alpine, Kuparuk, 

and Milne Point infrastructure), which would accommodate new production from the NPR-A;

the Central Group (including Northstar and other fields near the Beaufort coastline); and the 

Eastern Group (including numerous discoveries in the Point Thomson area and adjacent 

offshore; see Map 3-2). 

The cumulative impacts of operating the TAPS transportation system were evaluated in the 

Final EIS for Renewal of the Federal Grant for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System Right-of-Way 

(USDOI BLM 2002). These impacts included consideration of continuing use of the crude oil 

transportation system to transport current and future production. It also considered the 

probability and consequence of spills from various elements of the system. The conclusions 

about the cumulative impacts associated with transportation of crude oil from the North Slope

presented in the TAPS Renewal FEIS are equally applicable to this Supplemental IAP/EIS, and 

are incorporated into this cumulative analysis. A copy of the TAPS Renewal EIS can be 

reviewed on-line at http://tapseis.anl.gov/; the findings are summarized below.

The TAPS Renewal FEIS made the following conclusions on impacts from continued operation 

of the pipeline and tanker transportation system: 

• Paleontology, Air Quality, Transportation, Waste Management, Terrestrial Vegetation 

and Wetlands, and Cultural Resources – TAPS would have no or a very minor impact. 

• Soils and Permafrost – Increased throughput could expand thaw bulbs and ground 

settlement near TAPS. Reduction in throughput could cause frost heaves. Overall, TAPS 

would be a minor contributor to cumulative effects related to soils and permafrost. 

• Sand, Gravel, and Quarry Resources – The TAPS would be a minor contributor to 

requirements for these resources.

• Surface Water Resources – Impacts to surface waters would be localized unless an oil 

spill occurred, in which case impacts could be substantial. The TAPS operation would 

have a very small effect on surface water quality. 

• Groundwater – An oil spill from TAPS or oil development activities could impact 

groundwater quality to a small or large extent, depending on the spill’s size, and 

location, and the effectiveness of response activities. 

• Physical Marine Environment – The marine environment could be affected by spills from 

tanker and other forms of marine transportation in Prince William Sound or along 

Pacific transportation routes. Reasonably foreseeable spills would be small, rapidly 

cleaned up, and of local consequence. Larger, less probable spills could take longer to 

clean up and result in widespread contamination of the marine environment. 

• Noise – All activities would have the potential to produce local impacts on noise. 

• Human Health and Safety – No substantial health impacts would be expected from the

inhalation of industrial air emissions in the Valdez area. The Valdez Marine Terminal 

operations contribute to, but are not the sole source of, organic air pollution emissions in 

the Valdez area. The general public would be exposed to more vehicle emissions over the

next 30 years unless additional controls were placed on such emissions. Accidental 

releases of hazardous materials and spills into the marine environmental also could 

have small impacts on public health. 

• Fish – Risks of large spills with large consequences would be minor; however, a major 

spill into a waterway could be severe and possibly long term. 

4-663 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

• Birds and Terrestrial Mammals – Impacts from many activities could be large in local 

areas but would be minor on the population level. 

• Threatened, Endangered, and Protected Species – Impacts are anticipated to be

negligible to minor and are not anticipated to threaten population viability, unless a lowprobability, high-volume spill from oil transportation occurred in Prince William Sound 

or along Pacific transportation routes. Such a spill might cause impacts that would be 

high on a local level. 

• Subsistence – There would be minor impacts on subsistence, except on the North Slope 

where impacts would be moderate. Contributions from TAPS to these cumulative 

impacts are expected to be relatively small. 

• Sociocultural Systems – In sociocultural systems founded on cooperation and 

subsistence, cumulative impacts might accompany their continued interaction with 

modern American society and the continued growth in the importance of a cash 

economy. However, these changes occurring throughout Alaska are not attributable 

solely to cumulative actions considered in the EIS. The contribution of TAPS to these 

cumulative impacts would be relatively small. 

• Land Use and Coastal Zone Management – The contribution of the TAPS operation to 

these cumulative impacts is expected to be relatively small. However, an oil spill to 

marine waters from marine transportation or from oil production could impact 

implementation of Coastal Management Plans. 

• Recreation, Wilderness, and Aesthetics – Oil or gas spills associated with TAPS 

operations could impact recreation, aesthetic, and wilderness values. Because spills 

could result in long-term impacts, aesthetic impacts along TAPS could be major. 

• Economics – Continued production of North Slope petroleum reserves, including 

transportation, would make a substantial, though declining contribution to domestic oil 

production and would continue to reduce the need for foreign oil imports, thus improving 

national energy security and the overall balance of trade. Substantial Federal tax 

revenue would be generated with continued TAPS operation, together with marine and 

shipbuilding employment and employment in the economy as a whole. 

Tanker Traffic and Routes 

On November 28, 1995, President Clinton signed legislation (30 USC § 185(s)) that authorized 

the overseas export of crude oil from Alaska’s North Slope in U.S. flag tankers, unless the 

President finds exports are not in the national interest. Tankers traveling to the Far East could

carry up to 1.8 MMbbl each; however, such shipments are highly speculative because they 

depend on opportunities for short-term contracts. The route to the Far East would keep the 

tankers more than 200 miles offshore of the Aleutian Islands, a distance that would minimize 

the potential for oil spills due to strandings and protect the biological resources of the Aleutian 

Chain from pollution. In addition, there are LNG shipments from an LNG plant at Nikiski, 

Alaska. Every 10 days, the Nikiski plant loads a tanker with 80,000 cubic meters of LNG for 

Tokyo, which it has been doing since 1968 without a major incident. Because LNG boils off and 

disperses quickly when exposed to normal air temperatures and winds in the North Pacific, it is 

not a major environmental threat along the tanker route. 

4.7.4 Advances in Technology 

When exploration of the North Slope began, knowledge about of the effects of exploration and

construction techniques on permafrost was limited. From early exploration through the 1950s, 

trails often were cut directly into frozen ground. Large tractors and tracked vehicles traveled 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consquences 4-664 

Cumulative Effects: Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Activities 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

over thawed ground in the summer, often leaving deep ruts, and sometimes road builders 

removed the vegetation mat completely, causing deep thermokarst (Bliss and Wein 1972, 

Hemandez 1973, Chapin and Chapin 1980). Trails commonly became wetter than the natural 

habitat and were colonized by species more adapted to wet sites. Higher biomass and changes in

nutrient concentrations occurred in the trails (Chapin and Shaver 1981). At times, subsidence 

and erosion created trails as deep as 16 feet (Lawson et al. 1978). Some old trails and seismic 

surveys made by government contractors in the 1940s are still clearly visible because they are 

deeply rutted, often flooded, and filled with vegetation that is quite different from the 

surrounding tundra (Hok 1969, 1971; Lawson et al. 1978). 

In the 1960s, peat roads were built by scooping the active layer from two sides of an area and 

piling it in the center to form an elevated surface. This method also resulted in severe 

thermokarst. By the 1970s, gravel had replaced peat in road construction. Now in many cases, 

ice is used. 

Over the past 2 decades, new technologies have been developed and applied to exploration, 

development, and production on the North Slope. Some technologies, such as the use of ice roads 

and ice pads for exploration wells and the Arctic Drilling Platform, are unique to the Arctic and 

were largely developed in Alaska. Other advances, such as the use of coiled tubing, 3-D seismicdata acquisition, horizontal and multilateral drilling, measurement while drilling, low groundpressure vehicles (Rolligons), and remote sensing, were developed elsewhere and adapted for 

use on the North Slope. Although some of those newer technologies have been used extensively,

and the newer fields (such as the one at the Alpine field) use them almost exclusively, older 

technologies are still integral parts of the older portions of the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk fields. 

An understanding of the development and use of newer technologies is important in 

understanding what effects to resources accumulate on the North Slope, and the likelihood and

magnitude of these effects in the future. 

4.7.4.1 Seismic/Off-road Travel/Exploration 

The new exploration-related technologies reduced the overall use of gravel and presently 

eliminated it from the exploration-drilling process, provided data for better siting of facilities, 

and reduced the number of wells required to find and evaluate a new field. Although the 

physical effects have been greatly reduced by the use of these technologies, there are still valid 

concerns regarding the potential for some amount of damage to the environment. 

The environmental effects of the older road and pad construction techniques and seismic trails 

are matters of concern. In some instances, the effects have not diminished with the passage of 

time; in others, a natural but slow recovery is occurring. The visual impact, in some cases, will 

be evident for years, if not for decades. 

The density of 3-D seismic activities can cause short-term visual impact. In areas where there is

little snow cover or steep vegetated terrain, damage to the tundra and shrubs can be locally 

significant and long lasting. Long-term studies of the trails built for the closely spaced 3-D 

acquisitions are required to document the potential effects. Improvements in 3-D seismic-data 

acquisition and other exploration technologies allow geologists to identify higher quality 

prospects and to improve success rates by as much as 50% or more. In 1970, the success rate for 

exploration wells in the U.S. was about 17%. In addition to the advances in data quality and 

acquisition procedures, there have been important advances in the engineering of the vehicles 

used to move the camp equipment and to acquire the data. The major changes have been in the

development of new “light-weight” rubber tracked caterpillar-type vehicles and vibrators that do 

4-665 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Advances in Technology 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

less damage to the tundra and shrubs than the older vintage steel-tired vehicles. With the use 

of 3-D seismic-data acquisition, success rate increased to 48% in 1997 (USDOE 1999, Revkin 

2001). 

Three-D seismic technology was introduced about 25 years ago. Data, acquired in a grid-like 

manner with the individual lines spaced only a few hundred feet apart, are computer 

manipulated to create multidimensional representations of the subsurface. The result is a far 

better understanding of the geologic structures and continuity of the potential hydrocarbonbearing formations. As with the older generation 2-D seismic data, onshore 3-D seismic data are 

acquired during winter, after freeze-up. Vibrators are used and these energy sources and the 

crews, camps, and other support facilities are carried on and/or are usually towed by low-impact 

tundra travel vehicles (Lance 2000). Most offshore 2-D and 3-D seismic data are acquired during 

the open water season using airguns rather than vibrators. Some offshore data, in the area of 

bottom-fast ice, are acquired during winter using land technology. 

The older, land-based 2-D seismic technology consisted of long, intersecting seismic lines that 

used either dynamite or vibrators as the energy source. In the early stages of acquisition on the

North Slope, much less care was taken to protect the tundra from damage during data 

acquisition. Damage, then as now, can result from inadequate snow cover and inappropriate 

equipment. 

Offshore seismic data are acquired using patterns and spacing similar to those used in onshore 

acquisition. These data can be acquired only when the sea is relatively ice-free and boats can 

maintain long uninterrupted traverses. A high noise level is associated with marine acquisition, 

and it negatively affects marine organisms, especially whales. 

Four-D visualization adds the element of time to 3-D seismic databases. A reservoir’s fluid 

viscosity, saturation changes, temperature, and fluid movements can be analyzed by time-lapse 

monitoring in three dimensions (USDOE 1999). The time-lapse picture is built out of data rerecorded, compared, and plotted by computer onto the 3-D model. Additional data, such as well 

logs, production information, and reservoir pressures, may be integrated into the time-lapse 

imagery. The resulting information provides geologists and others with data that are valuable 

for both exploration for and management of existing resources. The exploration element comes 

from the greater ability to predict the best locations for exploratory drilling. 

The 3-D seismic-data acquisition and 4-D visualization technologies provide a number of 

environmental benefits (USDOE 1999). They include more accurate exploration well-siting that 

reduces the number of dry holes, the number and length of ice roads, and the number of ice pads

that have to be built; generation of less drilling waste and decreased volumes of materials, 

thereby lessening the possibility of a spill or other accident; better understanding of flow 

mechanics so that less water is produced relative to oil or gas; and increased ability to tailor 

operations to protect sensitive environments. Overall, fewer wells are required in order to

evaluate and produce the reserves. 

Nonetheless, considerable concern has existed regarding the effects of any seismic activity 

conducted either on land during winter or at sea during the open water season (Van Tuyn 

2000). Land-based seismic-data acquisition with its large vehicles and numerous traverses 

across the tundra has left scars of the vehicle paths, some of which have been slow to heal and

recover. At sea, migrating bowhead whales have been deflected by noises generated by seismic

exploration and drilling. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-666 

Cumulative Effects: Advances in Technology 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

The 3-D seismic-data acquisition programs require more closely spaced grids, a few hundred 

feet between lines as opposed to several thousand feet with standard 2-D seismic programs. 

This closer spacing has the potential to affect a greater amount of the tundra surface. These

trails are often highly visible the following summer, in part because the old dead vegetation has 

been flattened by the vehicles and the green new vegetation can be more readily seen in sharp

contrast to the undisturbed surrounding areas. 

The closer spacing of the seismic traverses may also increase the risk that denning polar bears 

may be disturbed. This risk could be lessened by studies of bear denning sites and planning the 

acquisition programs accordingly. 

Ice Roads and Pads 

Arctic tundra is easily disturbed and slow to recover from damage. Disruption of tundra may 

also have a pronounced effect on permafrost and result in thawing and erosion. Historically, 

roads to exploration well sites were built of peat, bladed bedrock, or gravel, causing long-term 

damage to tundra that remains evident after 40 or more years. Drilling pads were similarly 

built of gravel or bulldozed bedrock in some areas of the NPR-A during the Navy exploration 

efforts in the 1940s and 1950s. Because of these factors, and potential damage from 

transporting equipment across the tundra either in the summer or winter, ice roads have 

replaced gravel roads and have become the means of access to most isolated drilling locations. 

In a similar fashion, ice pads have become the standard for exploration drilling sites, 

eliminating the need for gravel to build pads and cleanup after drilling. All onshore exploration 

drilling is done during winter and all materials necessary for drilling a well, including the 

drilling rig, are moved to and from well locations on ice roads. 

An ice road 6 inches thick and an average 30 to 35 feet wide, would require 1 million to 1.5 

million gallons of water per mile of length (Van Tuyn 2000); ice roads on the North Slope are 

generally 12 to 18 inches thick. Frequently, exploration activity within a specific area requires 

more than one drilling season; therefore, more than one ice road may be built from the staging 

area(s) to the same drilling site or prospect. To avoid possible damage from multiyear usage of 

the same area, any subsequent ice road is offset by at least a road width from previous ones. 

A 6-acre drilling pad, 12 inches thick, would require approximately 500,000 gallons of water 

(Van Tuyn 2000). The ice pads provide a solid, stable base from which to drill an exploration 

well. Upon completion and abandonment or testing of the well, the rig and all support facilities 

are moved off location and the pad is allowed to melt. The result is a very low impact operation, 

and usually the only indication of the drilling activity is the abandoned wellhead. 

In special situations, specifically where drilling and evaluation are expected to require either an 

extended drilling season or two drilling seasons, insulated ice pads have been utilized. BP 

Exploration used such a system when drilling the Yukon Gold No. 1 and Sourdough No. 2 wells 

in the 1993-1994 drilling season (USDOE 1999). A 190- by 280-feet ice pad was built in March 

1993 and covered with wind-resistant insulating pads. The pads remained in place over the 

summer and were removed in October. Drilling began in mid-November, 2 months ahead of 

conventional Arctic practice. With this advanced drilling start, the Yukon Gold well was 

completed, and the rig moved to the Sourdough site and the well completed, all in the same 

season. This would have been impossible with a conventional ice pad. 

To save time on equipment move-in, Phillips Alaska stacked a rig over the summer west of 

Teshekpuk Lake (120 west of Kuparuk) on an insulated ice pad during 2003-2004. The pad of 

4-667 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Advances in Technology 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

ice was constructed toward the end of the winter and covered with wind-resistant insulating 

panels over the summer months. The drilling rig was then moved to the insulated pad site the 

following winter. A drilling season can be increased by 50 to 70 days by employing this method 

(CRS Report for Congress, 2006). 

There is the potential for some level of short-term damage in areas that have either experienced

low snow fall or removal of snow by high winds, thus creating substandard snow cover 

conditions. However, in most instances, there is little evidence of either the ice road or ice pad

once the snow cover is gone. 

The use of ice road and ice pad technology reduces the need for gravel during the exploration 

phase of oil and gas activity. Smaller volumes of gravel are mined during the history of a given 

field, less area is covered by gravel, and there is little recognizable damage to the tundra. The

use of an insulated pad allows the drilling of more wells in a single season, reducing the need to 

build ice roads in two seasons to serve the same general area. 

The older technologies had greater potential to seriously disrupt tundra, thaw permafrost, and 

mar the viewscape. These effects can persist for many years and many damaged sites have not 

been adequately remediated. Although the use of ice roads and pads has largely eliminated

those problems, a different set of potential effects has been identified. Insulated ice pads have 

some degree of influence on the underlying tundra, because the area loses a growing season, but 

these effects have not been studied. 

The construction of ice roads and pads relies on a ready and plentiful supply of water. Water is 

withdrawn from rivers or lakes, and existing ice is crushed or chipped and spread along the 

prescribed roadway or pad site. Concern has been expressed that the extraction of such large

volumes of water may endanger fish and drinking water resources. Areas such as the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge have low lake densities and a reliable source for water to build ice 

roads/pads may not be present. At this time, there are few reliable data that address the 

controversy over the appropriate use levels for water in the construction of ice pads/roads. 

Rolligons and the Arctic Drilling Platform 

Potential problems associated with exploration drilling in areas with limited freshwater supply 

or shortened ice road seasons may be alleviated by the use of low ground-pressure vehicles 

(Rolligons) and the Arctic Drilling Platform. Low ground-pressure vehicles put 1 to 5 pounds per 

square inch (psi) of footprint pressure on the tundra. The vehicles with 1.0-2.0 psi are used for

building snow trails. (Lewellen Arctic Research and Polar Alpine, Inc., 2000). Once the lowest 

pressure vehicles have compacted the trail, higher pressure vehicles can be used. This can 

effectively extend the off-road winter season on the North Slope. Low-ground pressure vehicles 

have been used to move drilling rigs to remote locations. Their primary use would likely be to

access locations that are far from current infrastructure and where the economies of the 

operation favor their use over the costs and the associated delays of building an ice road. 

Anadarko field-tested a new drilling system, the Arctic Platform, which has potential for use in 

the NPR-A, although this is unlikely due to the “pioneering” nature of this technology. The 

Arctic Platform is like an offshore platform, but is used on land. A self-contained drilling system 

and crew quarters sit atop a deck made of interlocking modules that rest on pilings set into the 

permafrost below the tundra. The platform is elevated approximately 12 feet off the tundra, 

eliminating the need for gravel or ice pads, and rests on a base of shallow containers that 

capture any deck fluids or other spillage. Surface use of this technology could allow operators to 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-668 

Cumulative Effects: Advances in Technology 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

perform exploration drilling outside the winter season, since ice pads would not be required. 

This technology could also allow access to remote areas, to areas where water to build ice roads 

is scarce, and to areas where steep grades make it difficult to set a rig. The Arctic Platform 

concept may have promise for exploration drilling and as a production unit. At this time, 

however, it is still in the experimental or developmental stage and, consequently, for the 

purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that this drilling system will not be used. 

Seismic exploration is expanding southward into the foothills of the Brooks Range. Current

technology and regulations governing seismic-exploration permits and other off-road travel have 

reduced but not eliminated damage to the tundra. The nature and condition of permafrost in the 

foothills is poorly characterized, and the hilly topography increases the likelihood that vehicles 

would damage vegetation, especially on knolls and riverbanks, causing increased erosion, 

exposing bare soil, and creating thermokarst. In addition, future exploration would be carried

out in a climate that is likely to continue to warm, with milder winter temperatures and shorter 

periods of freezing. 

4.7.4.2 Drilling and Completion Technologies 

An oil reservoir is part of a porous and permeable layer of rock in which the oil is trapped. On 

the North Slope, each production well is designed to produce from a subsurface area of at least 

80 acres. Wells are located on gravel pads and are drilled vertically through approximately 

2,000 feet of permafrost. Once through the permafrost, the bit is directed toward the desired 

bottom hole location. The number of wells per pad generally ranges from 16 to 40 (BP 

Exploration Alaska, Inc. and ARCO Alaska, Inc. 1997). The size of the pad and associated 

facilities is largely governed by the spacing between wells, and the number of pads is a function 

of the size of the area that can be drained by the wells on a pad. Historically, production wells 

were both straight or deviated holes and the number per pad was limited; hence, the number of 

pads needed to drain a specific area was high. The lateral reach of deviated holes rarely 

exceeded the true vertical depth (TVD) of the well. New technologies have done much to 

improve the lateral reach of a well and to reduce the size and number of well pads. 

The technologies developed over the last 2 decades have greatly reduced the size of the footprint 

left when developing an oil field. Wells may be much more closely spaced, far larger areas 

developed from a single small pad, the mud systems are less toxic, and reserve pits have been

eliminated. 

Coiled Tubing 

The use of coiled tubing is particularly valuable in sensitive environments such as the North 

Slope. Coiled tubing technology is quieter and has far less impact on a drilling site than 

conventional equipment (USDOE 1999). The technology dates from the 1950s, but only after 

rapid technological advances in the late 1980s did it come into common use. The tubing is 

mounted on a large reel and is a continuous flexible coil that is fed into the hole. The use of

coiled tubing does not require the repeated “tripping” out of the hole to add additional pipe

segments. One of the byproducts of coiled tubing drilling is a significant reduction in the 

volumes of drilling fluids compared with conventional drilling. Coiled tubing mud volumes are 

commonly less than half those required or generated by conventional drilling practices. In many 

wells, conventional methods are used to drill the initial hole and then coiled tubing is utilized to 

drill horizontal segments or multilateral completions. The coiled tubing technology is also 

commonly used for slim-hole drilling (i.e., a rotary borehole of 5 inches or less, or a drill hole of 

the smallest practical size) and reentry projects. 

4-669 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Advances in Technology 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

The use of coiled tubing technology has substantial environmental advantages over the 

conventional drilling technology. The primary benefits include: reduced mud volumes and 

drilling waste; cleaner operations, no connections to leak mud; reduced operations noise; 

minimized equipment footprints and easier site restoration; reduced fuel consumption and 

emissions; reduced risk of soil contamination due to increased well control; and better well-bore 

control. These advantages clearly support the use of coiled tubing whenever it is technically 

feasible. Many of the newer fields, such as the Alpine field, use this technology almost 

exclusively in conjunction with extended-reach horizontal drilling. No detrimental 

environmental effects are known to be associated with the introduction of coiled tubing 

technology to the North Slope. 

Horizontal Drilling 

Horizontal drilling became a reality in the 1970s due to advances in computers, steerable downhole motor assemblies, and measurement-while-drilling tools. A horizontal well is drilled from 

an initially vertical well-bore at an angle between 70 and 110 degrees. Vertical, or near vertical 

wells, drain oil from a single hole and have limited contact with the oil-bearing interval (usually 

limited to the vertical thickness of the rock unit). Horizontal wells penetrate the formation up to 

5 miles or more from the vertical well bore, allowing more oil to drain into the well. 

The results are a greater number of wells per pad, closer well spacing on the pad, and fewer

well pads than using the old technology. Well spacing has decreased from 120 feet or more to as 

little as 10 to 15 feet between wells (BP Exploration Alaska, Inc., and ARCO Alaska, Inc. 1997). 

Pad size and radius of reach of the wells on the pad have undergone remarkable changes since 

the start-up of the Prudhoe Bay field in the 1970s. 

The marked increase in drillable area per pad, as demonstrated at the Alpine field, is largely 

due to the extensive use of horizontal drilling technology. The environmental benefits include 

smaller footprints requiring less gravel and fewer wells to produce the same volume of 

hydrocarbons. These more effective drilling programs require less water and subsequently 

generate less drilling waste. Horizontal drilling results in smaller and fewer pads than did the 

older technologies, but gravel is still needed and effects on tundra and permafrost may result 

from gravel mining and emplacement. The closer spacing of well-bores has the potential to 

increase the rate at which permafrost thaw bulbs form, reducing surface stability and causing 

subsidence. 

Multilateral Drilling 

Multilateral drilling, a variant of the horizontal drilling technology, creates an interconnecting 

network of separate, pressure-isolated and reentry accessible horizontal or high-angle boreholes

surrounding a single major borehole (USDOE 1999). Multilateral drilling is most effective in 

reservoirs that have isolated accumulations in multiple zones, have oil above the highest 

perforations, have lens shaped pay zones, are strongly directional, contain distinct sets of 

natural fractures, and are vertically segregated with low transmissibility. 

The environmental benefits are similar to those achieved with horizontal drilling and include 

fewer drilling sites and smaller footprints, less drilling fluids and cuttings, and protection of 

sensitive habitats and wildlife. Multilateral drilling poses no additional recognized risks to the 

environment other than those associated with horizontal drilling. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-670 

Cumulative Effects: Advances in Technology 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Measurement-While-Drilling (MWD) 

Conventional down-hole logging practices consist of running a variety of remote sensing tools

down a borehole prior to setting the surface casing, before any intermediate casing strings, and 

prior to completing the well at total depth. These tools are attached on wire-lines and are 

lowered into the uncased hole and pulled back to the surface. The tools record specific types of 

data as they are withdrawn from the hole. These data are then used to evaluate the rock type, 

reservoir properties, hole integrity, and the other features concerning the physical environment 

of the well-bore. The procedure is routine, but it can be a risky because irregularities in the hole

can result in stuck or even lost tools. Conventional logging can be especially risky in a highly 

deviated or horizontal hole where there is an increased probability that the tool, while being 

pulled out of the hole, may become snagged on a resistant rock projection or become buried by 

loose debris collapsing into the hole. 

Additionally, these important data are not available to the geologist until some time after the 

well or interval has been drilled. This delay may vary from hours to days or even weeks. An 

example would be the desire to correlate the drilled section with that seen in a well some 

distance away, in order to predict a coring point or anticipate stray high-pressure sandstone. 

Measurement-while-drilling (MWD) technology can provide data virtually as the intervals are 

drilled. Additionally, sensors provide directional information and other key data that facilitate 

more effective geosteering and trajectory control (USDOE 1999). The recording sensors and 

other necessary equipment are housed in the drilling assembly at the bottom of the pipe-string, 

just a few feet above the drill bit. 

Because of its real time capability, the MWD technology can be used to avoid formation damage 

by alerting the rig crew of problems before they become too serious to correct; similarly there is 

a reduced possibility of blowouts and improved overall rig safety. This technology is also a 

contributing factor in the reduction of drilling waste volumes because it facilitates horizontal 

and multilateral drilling practices and provides better well-bore directional control. The 

technology also reduces the potential for loss of a tool assembly, reducing waste and shortening

the duration of the drilling process. 

Light Automated Drilling System (LADS) 

As discussed earlier, the construction of ice roads and ice pads in remote areas requires an 

abundant water supply. There is legitimate concern regarding means of access in areas that 

lack sufficient water and/or fresh-water ice to build roads or if global climate change were to 

prevent the use of ice roads. 

A possible solution to this problem, the Light Automated Drilling System (LADS), is in the 

research phase and is being considered for use on the North Slope. This potential drilling 

system is expected to be a light-weight drilling rig that can be easily broken down into several 

components and transported across tundra in winter by light impact vehicles that would not 

require ice roads. This system, or others like it, could be adapted to work in areas that lack 

sufficient water for ice roads or during mild winters when it would not be possible to build an 

ice road, transport a rig to a drilling location(s), and return it to the staging area. 

The principle benefit of LADS would be to reduce the need for water to build ice roads. The 

primary drawback from the environmental perspective would be the increased risk of damage to 

the tundra while transporting rigs between locations in the absence of adequate snow cover. 

4-671 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Advances in Technology 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

The same concerns exist as are presently expressed for seismic activity, but on a much reduced

scale. 

4.7.4.3 Development and Production 

Production and associated operations are the longest-term activities in an oil field. The life of 

major oil fields on the North Slope could be expected to be on the order of 30 to 40 years, 

occasionally as much as 50 years. During this time pipelines, production facilities, waste 

disposal systems, water treatment plants, injection facilities, road systems, and other 

specialized units continue to operate. 

Industry attempts to produce the maximum amount of oil/gas at the least cost in order to

remain competitive and viable in the event of competition for funding or a low oil/gas price 

environment. The most cost efficient technologies are the obvious choice of the operators. It is 

not surprising that in the early phases of development and production some of these choices 

have proven to be less than optimal from an environmental perspective. The use of reserve pits 

for the disposal of used drilling muds, cuttings, and other waste is one such example. 

Today, on the North Slope, as fields continue to be discovered, developed, and produced, there 

continues to be the need for new pipelines, production facilities, waste disposal wells, etc. To 

reduce the environmental effects of these activities, new technologies have been developed or

adapted for use on the North Slope. New methods do not eliminate the need for gravel, water,

and other materials, but they reduce their use and cause fewer disturbances, therefore reducing

the potential negative effects associated with wastes and road and pipeline construction. 

Enhanced Oil Recovery 

This technology involves the injection of formation/source water, natural gas, and miscible 

fluids into the producing reservoir to maximize recovery of hydrocarbons. In this process, not 

only is more oil recovered per well, but much of the waste water associated with oil production 

is reintroduced into the reservoirs from which it was produced. Many problems that formerly 

were handled by surface or reserve pit disposal techniques are solved. 

The principal environmental benefits are greater recovery of oil without a proportionately 

greater number of wells and their associated waste, environmentally friendly disposal of 

produced water, and reduction of emissions that would be associated with the flaring of excess

produced gas. Few negative environmental effects are associated with Enhanced Oil Recovery. 

The primary concern is in regard to spills of produced water and the remote possibility that a 

reservoir may be over-pressured through the injection process, causes fracturing to the surface, 

and allows oil and other fluids to escape to the pad and/or tundra. 

Waste Disposal 

From the 1940s to the 1980s, most well-associated wastes were either stored in reserve pits or 

handled through other surface disposal means such as incineration. The reserve pits were prone 

to seepage and spills, and they contained undesirable metals and volatile organic compounds. 

These did, and still do present environmental risk, especially at old, unclosed remote 

exploration sites. 

The reserve pit closure program was instituted in 1996. To date, 50% of approximately 600 

reserve pit sites have been closed. Down-hole disposal of wastes by injection into subsurface 

disposal intervals is utilized in all present-day exploration wells and producing fields. This 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-672 

Cumulative Effects: Advances in Technology 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

mode of waste disposal is an effective and non-contaminating method of removing many 

unwanted materials from the surface environment. The grind-and-inject project was 

undertaken to dispose of drilling muds and cuttings stored in reserve pits. Other wastes 

processed through the grind-and-inject plant include Class II, RCRA-exempt oily wastes, and 

drilling muds and cuttings from ongoing drilling operations. 

Annular injection is an environmentally safe method of disposing of drilling muds and cuttings, 

and the injection of Class I and Class II materials into discrete disposal zones has provided a 

mechanism for the handling of produced formation waters and other associated wastes (NRC 

2003). However, a large number of unclosed reserve pits remain at remote exploration wellsites. No adequate plan is in effect to handle the possible pollution and resultant damage from

poorly sealed and covered pits. The annular injection process has some potential to create or 

take advantage of poor casing or cement jobs and result in leakage to the surface. This has 

occurred on several occasions, but with no contamination of permafrost. Worries regarding 

subsidence and marine contamination have been expressed, but the existing evidence indicates 

that subsidence is not a concern and disposal units are effectively and naturally isolated from

any contact with the ocean or seafloor. 

Gravel Use 

Gravel in the area of Alaska north of the Brooks Range has been used for a variety of 

construction and maintenance purposes. These historical uses include construction of the 

following: 

• Dalton Highway/Haul Road in support of the development of the North Slope oil fields

and TAPS; 

• Pads for camps, exploration drilling, development and production drilling sites, and 

operations and maintenance facilities; 

• Airports in oil field areas and in the communities of the NSB; 

• Roads in oil field areas and in the communities of the NSB; 

• Man-made islands for offshore exploration drilling and for development and production 

facilities; 

• Docks and causeways; and 

• Beach nourishment in several of the NSB communities. 

From 1974 to 1999, more than 205 million tons of gravel was mined to meet the industrial and 

community construction and maintenance needs in the area that includes the Brooks Range, 

the area north of the Brooks Range to the Beaufort Sea coast (the North Slope), the Chukchi 

Sea coast north of Cape Krusenstern, and NSB communities (NRC 2003). Most of the gravel 

was mined from the floodplains of rivers. About 180 million tons of the gravel (88% of the total) 

was mined from 1974 to 1985. During this time, the Haul Road/Dalton Highway and pads, 

roads, and airfields were constructed for the facilities to develop the Prudhoe Bay, Kuparuk 

River, Lisburne, Milne Point, and Endicott oil fields. From 1986 to 1999, the amount of gravel 

mined annually in the Northern Region ranged from 0.56 to 4.5 million tons. 

The portion of the oil-field network that is connected by roads stretches to 60 miles from the 

Endicott field in the east to the Tam oil field in the west. Most of the expansion of the road

network was done before 1988, the development phase of the field, during which the rate of 

growth was about 24 miles per year. Since 1988, the rate of growth in the road network has 

been about 3 miles per year (NRC 2003). 

4-673 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Advances in Technology 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

The total gravel-covered area increased from about 20 acres in 1968 to about 9,200 acres in 2001 

(NRC, 2003) The rate of gravel placement declined noticeably after 1988, because the main road 

network and most of the pads in the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk oil fields had already been built. 

The average rate of growth was 780 acres per year before 1988 and 57 acres per year after 1988. 

Most of the gravel-covered areas are associated with onshore drilling and construction pads. 

Offshore gravel islands support production operations. The Endicott islands are connected to 

each other and to the mainland by a 5 mile causeway and are situated in waters generally less 

than 7 feet deep (AOGA 2001). The shallowness of the Beaufort Sea in the Prudhoe Bay 

prevents large vessels from docking there. Three gravel causeways were constructed to facilitate 

docking, to provide access to artificial-gravel production islands, and to draw seawater for 

waterflooding. 

The ADFG, Habitat and Restoration Division, developed guidelines for siting, design, operation, 

and reclamation of North Slope gravel pits. The area disturbed by gravel mines and fill 

placement is a fraction of the area north of the Brooks Range. The North Slope covers about 57 

million acres, and the ACP covers about 13 million acres (Gilders and Cronin 2000). The area 

that would be disturbed by gravel mines and fill placement in 2010, assuming construction of 

Alpine satellites CD-5, CD-6 and CD-7 is projected to be about 18,680 acres, or about 0.14% of 

the ACP (Table 4.7-H). 

Table 4.7-H. Past, Present, and Near Future Production and Development Total 

Disturbed Areas for the North Slope (in acres)

1968 1973 1977 1983 1988 1994 2001 20101 

Gravel footprint areas 20 1,714 3,240 6,940 8,446 8,690 8,998 9,680 

Other impacted areas2 308 1,388 1,552 1,694 1,698 1,762 1,765 1,900 

Gravel mines 25 4,766 5,146 5,756 6,241 6,247 6,364 6,430 

Dalton Highway 332 332 332 332 332 332 332 332 

Total disturbed area 685 8,200 10,270 14,722 16,717 17,031 17,459 18,342 1 Includes disturbed areas associated with the Alpine Satellite Development. 2 Disturbed area around gravel pad, peat roads, tractor trails, exploration roads, gravel pad removal site, etc. 

Sources: NRC, 2003; BLM, 2004 

Surface deposits within the NPR-A consist mostly of fine-grain clay, silt, and sand. Gravel is 

located along the slopes of the Brooks Range, the Colville River, and some scattered areas along 

the Arctic coast. West of the Colville River, gravel sources may become increasingly rare 

because of the low-relief, poorly drained character of the ACP. Meandering rivers have low

energy and a low capability of transporting coarse clastic material (gravel) from higher 

elevations. The Brooks Range is far from the coast on the western North Slope. Consequently, 

suitable gravel sources are far more difficult to locate. Because long hauls are often required to 

bring in gravel, gravel from existing work/drill sites is reused (Gryc 1985). This lack of gravel 

would be an important consideration in the development of permanent oil and gas facilities west 

of the Colville River. Although there are no specific proposals, there is ongoing discussion about 

the potential need for inter-community roads west of the Colville River. Such roads would also 

require large amounts of fill material (gravel and sand), since gravel roads require 60,000 cubic 

yards per mile. (For this Supplemental IAP/EIS, such a community road is not considered 

reasonably foreseeable). 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-674 

Cumulative Effects: Advances in Technology 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

In general, North Slope gravel usage for oil fields has been declining. Large fields (such as 

Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk) that require a large number of production well pads are no longer

being discovered. There also is a trend toward consolidating facilities and using technological 

advances that minimize the surface area disturbed (Gilders and Cronin 2000). Overall, the 

footprint of oil fields is getting progressively smaller because wells are closer spaced and on-pad

structures are minimized. A smaller footprint equates to less gravel use. 

Other developments that have reduced the amount of gravel needed to develop or maintain oil 

and gas production facilities have utilized the following practices: 

• Use of ice pads instead of gravel for exploratory well-drilling pads (onshore and offshore 

in shallow waters, where appropriate); 

• Use of mobile steel or concrete bottom-founded structures to drill exploratory wells in 

shallow waters; 

• Use of ice roads instead of gravel roads for pipeline construction; 

• Development of fields without a gravel road connection to the Prudhoe Bay/Deadhorse

area (Badami and Alpine); 

• Reduction of the spacing distance between development wells, which reduces the size of 

the development pads; 

• Use of extended-reach drilling, which reduces the amount of gravel needed to develop 

new reservoirs that lie near established facilities; 

• Recycling of gravel from roads, airfields, or pads that are no longer used; and 

• Use of clean drill cuttings in place of gravel. 

Future oil field development would be based on refined variants of the Alpine model. Pads 

would be small and few in number and construction would be largely a winter activity with 

transportation via ice roads. The use of gravel would be appreciably reduced but would likely 

still be necessary to connect satellite developments with the larger pads that contain housing, 

airstrip, and the production facility. 

Pipeline Construction and Spill Prevention 

Among the standard practices utilized in the construction of pipelines are gravel maintenance 

and construction roads, elevated river crossings, and block valves to reduce the likelihood and

sizes of leaks and spills. Recent developments have lessened the environmental effects of 

pipeline construction, the hazards to the pipeline due to flooding, the probability and severity of 

leaks, and impediments to caribou movement. These new approaches were all used in the 

design and construction of the Alpine field oil pipeline (Lance 2000), which was built largely 

during the winter using ice roads. The lack of a gravel maintenance road removes one potential 

barrier to caribou movement, and reduces the volumes of gravel required for the Alpine fieldlike projects and the amount of tundra impacted by burial. 

The Colville River pipeline crossing posed a considerable challenge. During breakup and the 

associated flooding, the river is almost a half-mile wide and could destroy an above ground 

pipeline or erode deeply enough to expose and rupture a line buried in a surface trench. ARCO 

Alaska, Inc., elected to use horizontal directional drilling to position the pipeline deep beneath 

the river channel (Lance 2000). More than 4,000 feet of pipeline were placed 100 feet below the 

river. 

4-675 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Advances in Technology 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

After conducting an oil-spill isolation strategy study that reviewed ways of meeting Federal 

leak-containment regulations, ARCO Alaska, Inc., elected to use 39 to 46 feet high vertical loops 

on the Alpine field pipeline in lieu of the more conventional block valves. The study concluded

that when used in tandem with emergency pressure-letdown valves or divert valves, vertical 

loops would contain drain-down-related spills as well as block valves, while offering operations 

and maintenance efficiencies (Pavlas et al. 2000). 

The loops are better than manual block valves for reducing catastrophic failures and they 

provide protection levels similar to those achieved by remotely-actuated valves for leaks of all 

sizes. They are not potential leak sites, as valves are, but they do not provide any substantial 

benefit over block valves for pinhole leaks. With approval from the Department of 

Transportation, the loops were placed at river crossings and high points along the line. 

These new pipeline construction methods greatly reduce the environmental effects on tundra, 

provide for a safer line, and lessen the probability of spillage due to river-induced pipeline 

damage. They also more effectively limit the size of catastrophic spills. However, the placement 

of a pipeline at depth beneath a river could make detection and cleanup of a spill in the buried 

segment difficult. The preexisting and predominant North Slope pipeline technology presents

impediments to caribou movement when in close proximity to roads, and river crossings are 

sites of potential severe environmental consequences if a spill occurs. The accumulation of

effects of continued construction of pipelines and road systems could increase the magnitude of 

displacement of the calving caribou away from the coastal strip and prime forage/insect-relief 

areas. 

Remote Sensing 

Remote-sensing techniques such as infrared photography, have been used to design and locate 

roads and facilities, such as development facilities and ice roads and ice pads, to reduce effects 

on the environment. Satellite infrared photography has been utilized to facilitate habitat 

mapping in the Alpine field (Lance 2000). The environmental benefits come from the avoidance 

of critical habitat and better design of facilities that must be placed within less than ideal 

locations. No negative consequences have been identified with the use of this technology. 

4.7.4.4 Abandonment and Restoration 

The factors leading to a decision to abandon a field can differ for each field, but declining 

production rates and oil price are usually the two key considerations. Abandonment occurs 

when the field is no longer economically viable. 

To date, very little abandonment (except for single exploration or development wells) has 

occurred anywhere on the North Slope. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO; 

2002), as of December 2001, no production pads have been abandoned, as all of the production 

wells associated with the pad must first be plugged and abandoned, which has not taken place. 

Restoration of other types of facilities, such as gravel extraction sites and older exploration 

pads, has taken place at a small scale at several locations on state lands on the North Slope 

outside of the planning area (Jorgenson et al 1992; McKendrick et al 1992; Herlugson et al 

1996; McKendrick 1996). These restoration efforts are being closely monitored in an effort to 

determine the most appropriate and effective methods for restoration. 

As the infrastructure ages or is abandoned, other unintended environmental effects can result. 

Aging increases the likelihood of failure, which can lead to accidental discharges (spills) or to 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-676 

Cumulative Effects: Advances in Technology 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

other accidents. Abandoned roads and other structures can degrade from melting permafrost

and continue to alter the visual environment, especially if the climate continues to warm. 

Most North Slope oil-field equipment dates from the last quarter of the 20th century.

Components that could fail include pipelines through corrosion, subsurface safety valves, and 

safety systems to suppress fires and explosions. The older oil-field areas, such as Prudhoe Bay, 

will be most susceptible to aging. Thus, age-related maintenance demands will increase as oil

revenues from declining oil fields decrease. As an aging field’s production declines and the cost 

of extracting oil increases, the economic incentive to postpone or eliminate maintenance and 

replacement will increase. The environmental effects of aging infrastructure will depend on 

interactions between the economics of declining fields, increased replacement and maintenance 

costs, the regulatory regime, and other factors equally hard to predict. 

The oil industry and many public landowners use the term “dismantlement, removal, and 

restoration,” or DR&R, to refer to dismantlement and removal of infrastructure and restoration 

of the land following removal activities. The DR&R can range from complete restoration to a 

natural state approaching original condition to simply removing structures (GAO 2002). 

The State of Alaska has adopted general DR&R requirements that contain no specific 

stipulations on what infrastructure must be removed or to what condition the lands must be 

restored once oil production ceases (GAO 2002). The state specifies that oil companies must 

return the land to the condition that is satisfactory to the state, a condition that has not been 

defined. Other entities, such as the USACE, NSB, and Native landowners, have the authority to 

impose DR&R requirements, but generally defer to the state to impose these requirements.

Under existing funding mechanisms, only a small portion of the funds needed would be 

available to dismantle, remove, and restore oil and gas facilities. The State of Alaska requires

companies to post bonds or other forms of financial assurance as a condition for obtaining a 

lease and drilling permits. However, companies are required to maintain only $500,000 in 

assurances to cover all of their leases in the state; it is estimated that it will cost billions of 

dollars to conduct DR&R for existing infrastructure on the North Slope. 

BLM’s overall restoration goal for the NPR-A is to return it to its previous use, which includes 

fish and wildlife habitat, after oil production ceases; however, BLM has yet to develop specific 

DR&R requirements for companies to use. On the other hand, the MMS, has specific DR&R

requirements for offshore drilling. Both agencies have the authority to require financial 

assurances to fund DR&R. The MMS has an escalating bond structure that considers, among

other things, the future costs of reclamation, increasing the likelihood that future DR&R costs 

would be covered by the bond. 

By the terms of Federal and state leases and permits, it is the responsibility of the 

lessee/applicant to remove facilities and rehabilitate the land upon field abandonment or 

expiration of a lease or oil and gas-related permit to the satisfaction of the land management 

authority (Lease Stipulation 58 [Alternative A]; Lease Stipulation G-1 [Alternatives B, C and 

D]). Abandonment plans would be developed at the time of abandonment or expiration of the 

lease or permit, in consultation with appropriate local, state, and Federal agencies, and would 

be subject to Federal (BLM, USACE and/or USEPA) and state approval. The AO would take

into consideration alternative uses for the infrastructure and the impacts of removing

infrastructure and alternative means to rehabilitate the land. Federal agencies would 

undertake appropriate NEPA analysis of any such abandonment and rehabilitation decision at 

the time of abandonment or expiration of a lease or permit. All costs associated with 

abandonment, removal, and restoration are the responsibility of the lessee. 

4-677 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Advances in Technology 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

The AO may require any range of abandonment and rehabilitation steps for roads. For gravel

roads, these steps could include: 1) leaving roads in place and maintained for continued use; 2) 

revegetating roads either naturally or actively by the permittee, removing bridges and culverts,

and breaching roads to facilitate more natural water flow; or 3) removing roads, with gravel 

either being placed back into gravel pits or reused for other development in the area. 

Abandonment of the proposed pipelines could include demolition and removal of the facilities 

and restoration of disturbed ground. It is anticipated that pipeline removal would be consistent 

with that described for TAPS in the TAPS Right of Way (ROW) Renewal EIS. Based on TAPS, it 

is assumed that abandonment could include the following: 

• All aboveground pipelines, valves, and supporting structures would be removed to a 

depth that would prevent frost heave action lifting the remnant to the surface. 

• Any below-ground pipeline segments would be cleared, cleaned of oil and other residues, 

capped, and left in place in locations where they would not interfere with other

abandonment activities or planned land uses. 

• Central production facilities would be used as work camps and staging areas to support 

pipeline abandonment activities. 

• Residual, surplus, and scrap materials would be reused or recycled to the extent

possible, and waste materials would be disposed of in accordance with applicable 

regulations. 

It is assumed that aboveground facilities would be removed and wells plugged and capped. 

Equipment could be retrofitted for other North Slope use, or removed from the North Slope for 

subsequent reuse or scrap. Just as with roads, the ultimate fate of the gravel pad would not be 

known until closer to end of the production pad life. Permitting agencies could require that 

gravel be removed, in part or total, and the tundra revegetated. If other uses are determined by 

the permitting agencies to be preferable, the agencies could allow the permittee to leave the 

gravel pads in place, either revegetated or not revegetated. Removed gravel either would be 

disposed of or reused for another development. 

Abandonment of airstrips could occur in conjunction with abandonment of pads. The gravel

airstrips would be managed in a similar manner, depending on the decisions made by land 

managers and permitting agencies at the time of abandonment. Gravel airstrips would either be 

removed and the tundra revegetated, revegetated but otherwise left in place, or left in place and 

maintained for public use. 

As with roads, abandonment of bridges and culverts would occur once the economic life of the oil 

fields had passed. Because the bridges and culverts are an integral portion of the proposed road

network, the fate of the bridges would likely be determined by the fate of the road network. If 

bridges were removed, bridge superstructures would be taken apart and transported out of the 

area for recycling or disposal of the materials. Bridge piles likely would be cut off below the 

lowest anticipated scouring elevation from either natural scouring or a flood-induced event. The

area of bridge abutments would be revegetated in a manner similar to that of the roadbed after 

gravel removal. If roads were left in place, but not with the intention that they be maintained 

for continued use, culverts could be removed and the gravel pads breached to facilitate water 

flow. 

Abandonment activities would occur during winter months, when ice roads could be constructed 

to allow the removal of equipment. Overall, abandonment operations would take many years, as 

revegetation and environmental monitoring studies would continue to document the long-term 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-678 

Cumulative Effects: Advances in Technology 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

effects of operations at a particular site. Monitoring abandonment would require periodic 

revisits to gather information on environmental parameters related to natural bedding and to

document the success of abandonment actions. Normally, one helicopter with a crew of three 

would visit the sites annually for the first 5 years, followed by visits with increasing time gaps 

over the next 10 years. Site visits would include a maximum of 1 day per visit, and one visit per 

year. A series of permitting and inspection activities would be associated with any oil field

abandonment, and would involve visiting the site as needed until satisfactory revegetation 

occurred. 

Technical and Natural Constraints to Reclamation 

The North Slope presents special technical challenges to restoration and recovery. Extremely 

cold temperatures, meager precipitation (5 to 7 inches per year), and the short growing season

lengthen recovery times substantially beyond those possible elsewhere in the United States. 

Natural recovery of disturbed sites to original soil and plant conditions has been estimated to 

require 600 to 800 years for upland sites and 100 to 200 years for marsh sites (AOGA 2001). 

Recovery of disturbed sites on the North Slope is complicated by the fact that any disturbance of 

the insulating vegetative mat can melt the underlying permafrost, a process that is extremely 

difficult to reverse and that can continue long after the initial disturbance ends. Finally, gravel

pads and roads, which account for the vast majority of the directly affected habitat on the North 

Slope, retain moisture and nutrients poorly and thus slow recovery processes. 

Recovery times in the Arctic, as elsewhere, depend in part on the nature and extent of

disturbance and the type of habitat affected. For example, wet sites tend to recover quickly from

light oil spills; dry sites affected by diesel fuel spills recover exceedingly slowly, with little 

recovery occurring after several decades (Walker 1996). Disturbed areas that would recover 

relatively quickly in more temperate climates (such as those caused by Caterpillar tractor 

tracks), can persist for many decades because of melted permafrost. 

Reclamation Research 

During the past few decades, considerable industry research has examined the feasibility of 

rehabilitating areas disturbed by oil field activities (McKendrick 1997). Until recently, work 

focused on revegetating sites with exotic grasses to avert erosion. More recent efforts have 

focused on the use of native grasses and forbs and on the restoration of habitat processes and

aesthetics, all of which are much more challenging goals (AOGA 2001). 

A variety of rehabilitation strategies has been developed, including flooding of gravel mine sites 

to create overwintering habitat for fish; creation of wetlands in ponds perched on overburden 

stockpiles; revegetation of thick gravel fill and overburden to compensate for lost wildlife 

habitat; removal of gravel fill to help restore wet tundra habitats; restoration of tundra on less 

severely modified habitat; and remediation of areas contaminated by oil spills, seawater spills, 

and drilling mud (Jorgenson and Joyce 1994). The oil industry is conducting experiments at 

several sites throughout the Prudhoe Bay oil field and at old well sites in the NPR-A. 

Preliminary results indicate that, if cost is not a factor, a productive and diverse vegetative 

cover can be established even on sites with severe ecological limitations. Most of the studies 

suggest that natural recolonization occurs relatively rapidly on thin fill and on organic rich fill 

where moisture and nutrients are not severely limiting (Jorgenson 1997). Low temperatures 

near the coast, however, reduce the number of species available and the rate at which 

recolonization occurs. A survey of 12 revegetated pads in the NPR-A showed that, on average, 

4-679 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Advances in Technology 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

only 3 native species were found on pads at the cold coastal sites, 10 were found on inland 

coastal plain pads, and 24 were found on relatively warm foothills sites (McKendrick 1987). 

Fertilization and seeding with normative species appears to delay natural recolonization 

(Jorgenson 1997). 

More costly methods are required for rehabilitating the gravel roads, pads, and mine sites that 

dominate disturbed land. Construction of berms and basins, application of topsoil, and use of

various plant cultivation techniques are required on these sites. However, only a very limited 

amount of topsoil has been stockpiled for future use in the oilfields (Jorgenson 1997). Sewage 

sludge is being considered as an alternative source of organic material. Native legumes with 

nitrogen-fixing ability could be essential for sustaining the long-term productivity of those sites. 

Removal of gravel fill has recently been done in wetlands, and preliminary studies suggest that 

wetland mosaics of vegetation can be restored, if only partially, although the method is

expensive and finding acceptable locations for the fill can be difficult (Kidd et al., 2004). 

Open-pit gravel mine rehabilitation typically involves converting mine sites to lakes, with a 

channel usually cut between the pit and a stream or river so the site can be accessible to fish. 

Such sites create potential overwintering habitat for fish, but they also result in the permanent 

loss of the original habitats. 

4.7.5 Resource Protection Measures Considered in the Cumulative 

Effects Analysis 

The cumulative impacts assessment assumes that ROPs and lease stipulations developed for 

the alternatives (see Table 2-2) would be adopted to protect environmental and social resources 

in the planning area. The effectiveness of these protections has been addressed under each

resource area for each alternative in sections 4.3 through 4.6, and in Table 2-2. 

In addition, a number of Federal, state, NSB, and Alaska Native resource management and 

monitoring programs have been established to protect environmental resources and, in cases

where there is existing environmental impairment, to effect restoration. The assessment of 

cumulative impacts must recognize the existence of these programs and assume that the 

mandate under which each program was established will continue. The practical effect of these 

programs is that they are assumed to require avoidance or mitigation of the environmental 

impacts that they are designed to address. The programs assumed to continue for the

cumulative impact assessment are the same as those listed in the Amended IAP/EIS and are 

described by the resource that they manage or protect in the following sections: 

4.7.5.1 Air Quality 

Air quality is regulated under the Federal Clean Air Act, as implemented by the State of 

Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air Quality, with oversight by 

EPA Region 10. In addition, ADEC may establish regulations which are more (but not less) 

stringent than the Federal requirements. Under both the Clean Air Act and FLPMA, BLM may 

not conduct or authorize activities which do not comply with all applicable local, state, tribal, 

and Federal air quality laws, regulations, standards, and implementation plans. Climate 

activities focus on monitoring observed conditions and predicting potential changes due to

global increases in greenhouse gasses. The State Climatologist is located at the Alaska State 

Climate Center on the University of Alaska campus in Fairbanks. Currently, there are no 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-680 

Cumulative Effects: Advances in Technology 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

regulations applicable to climate or climate change, although there is much discussion 

regarding potential limits of fossil carbon emissions. 

4.7.5.2 Water Quality 

Water quality on the North Slope is regulated and/or monitored through various permitting and 

regulatory programs administered by the USEPA, ADNR, ADEC, ADFG, and NSB. These 

programs have been established to protect against the significant degradation of water quality 

associated with specific human and development activities. In evaluating the cumulative effects 

to water quality, collective impacts associated with regulated and non-regulated activities and 

naturally occurring events are considered. 

4.7.5.3 Wetlands and Floodplains 

Wetland impacts are mitigated through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, administered by 

the USACE. The objective of mitigation for unavoidable impacts is to offset environmental 

losses. Under a Memorandum of Agreement between the USEPA and USACE, it is recognized

that in areas such as the North Slope of Alaska, avoidance or compensatory mitigation may not 

be practical due to the high proportion of land that is wetlands. The USEPA and USACE are

working with industry to develop alternate methods to satisfy necessary compensation 

requirements for loss of wetlands on the North Slope. 

4.7.5.4 Essential Fish Habitat 

The amended Magnuson-Stevens Act requires Federal agencies that authorize, fund, or conduct 

activities that may harm Essential Fish Habitat to work with NOAA Fisheries Service to

develop measures that minimize damage to EFH. By providing EFH conservation

recommendations before an activity begins, NOAA Fisheries Service may help prevent habitat 

damage before it occurs, rather than restoring habitat after the fact, which is less efficient, 

unpredictable, and often more costly. 

4.7.5.5 Caribou 

The ADFG, NSB and BLM monitor caribou by population censuses; calving, composition and 

yearling survival surveys; and caribou movement and distribution studies. These monitoring 

efforts provide a means of determining whether cumulative effects on caribou have occurred, or 

are occurring, on the North Slope, and help in developing measures to minimize effects. 

4.7.5.6 Marine Mammals 

The management of seals by NOAA Fisheries Service and polar bears by the USFWS under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 provides for protecting these species’ populations and 

mitigating the potential effects of development on these species. For example, the USFWS 

implements measures to protect polar bear den sites through a Letter of Authorization under 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

4.7.5.7 Threatened and Endangered Species 

The potential effects from all Federal actions on listed species would be identified and potential 

mitigation offered by NOAA Fisheries Service and the USFWS as required by Section 7 of the 

ESA. 

4-681 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Resource Protection Measures 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7.5.8 Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations, and an accompanying Presidential memorandum 

require each Federal agency to make the consideration of environmental justice part of its 

mission. The existing demographics (race and income) and subsistence consumption of fish and 

game would be discussed, disproportionate environmental and health effects on Alaska Natives 

would be evaluated, and mitigating measures and their effects would be presented in any EIS 

considering Federal actions. 

4.7.5.9 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 

requires consultation with Native tribal governments on “actions that have substantial direct 

effects on one or more Indian tribes.” Future Federal actions will also be subject to this 

procedure that would assure tribal concerns are heard. 

4.7.6 Other Information Considered in Cumulative Effects Analysis 

The assessment of cumulative impacts from oil and gas activities also considered the following

information: 

• More rigorous environmental standards and more environmentally prudent industry 

practices exist than ever before, including smaller facility footprints, fewer roads, 

directional drilling, elimination of most surface discharges into the water, practices that 

avoid damage to the tundra, and better working relations with the local residents. 

• Current industry practices and the environmental state of the North Slope/Beaufort Sea 

region are continually observed and assessed, and much of this information is available 

to the public. This information, along with the ongoing dialogue between all levels of 

government and the interested public about environmental issues should continue to

increase environmental awareness and encourage environmentally sound practices that, 

in turn, help reduce the potential for environmental damage. 

• A key element in the development of North Slope/Beaufort Sea oil is the means of 

transporting the oil to outside markets−TAPS. The TAPS pipeline is 800 miles long,

stretching from Pump Station 1 at Prudhoe Bay to the Valdez Marine Terminal. 

Assuming a corridor width of about 100 feet, it represents an area of about 16 square 

miles. This pipeline is expected to continue to serve as infrastructure for all oil 

production in the foreseeable future, eliminating the need for the construction of new oil 

pipelines other than feeder pipelines. 

• Following the Exxon Valdez oil spill, substantive improvements have been made in 

tanker safety to reduce the potential for oil spills from tanker accidents, such as a 

mandatory phase-in of double-hulled tankers, better navigational systems, and tanker 

escorts. In addition, oil spill response capabilities for tanker-related oil spills have been 

increased substantially through the addition of equipment, personnel, training, and 

exercises. These initiatives were developed specifically to reduce the potential for future 

tanker accidents and to lessen their effects, should spills occur. 

• If a large oil spill were to occur, such as occurred on the North Slope in March 2006, 

additional safeguards would likely be put in place and new ideas of pipeline placement 

and design would be researched. With these safeguards in place, the likelihood of an

additional oil spill occurring from the same causative factors and impacting the same 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-682 

Cumulative Effects: Resource Protection Measures 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

resources would be reduced. This emphasis on preventing a similar incident would 

further ensure the full recovery of those resources from the initial spill. 

• Actual activities and the size and location of future oil and gas developments on the 

North Slope and in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas are uncertain; this Supplemental 

IAP/EIS presents a best estimate of what those activities and effects would be. It is 

unlikely that actual activities and effects would exactly match the scenarios developed 

for this IAP/EIS. Some past efforts to foresee future activities have over-stated the level 

of those activities in the projected scenario. Effective corrective measures have come out 

of ongoing monitoring by industry, government, and environmental groups. Subsequent 

discoveries and developments and other changes not accounted for in this scenario may 

need to be reassessed, as appropriate and as required by NEPA. 

4-683 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects: Other Information 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7.7 Cumulative Impacts 

4.7.7.1 Air Quality and Climate 

Cumulative air quality impacts may result from the emissions of fugitive dust (PM), byproducts 

of combustion (CO, NOx, and SO2), and evaporation of hydrocarbons (VOC). These emissions 

are primarily associated with industrial and residential activity, and to a lesser extent with 

exploration activities, road and pad construction and use, and abandonment and reclamation. In 

addition to these criteria pollutants, certain hazardous air pollutants (HAP) may also be 

emitted, however an accurate determination of specific HAP quantities and potential impacts is 

not feasible at this stage, given that particular site-specific development activities and pollution

controls are not yet able to be predicted. Air quality impacts would also result if a well blowout, 

or an oil spill occurs, especially if spilled oil is burned to mitigate the impacts of the spill. In 

addition to direct impacts to human health and welfare, indirect impacts include global climate 

change. Technology has played an important role in reducing air emissions from oil and gas 

facilities, and will continue in the future. These impacts may be regionally additive (e.g., 

increased concentrations from multiple facilities) or synergistic (e.g., photochemical reactions 

that form ozone). 

4.7.7.1.1 Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Ambient air quality on the North Slope of Alaska is generally good as a result of few pollution 

sources and good dispersion created by frequent winds, and neutral to unstable conditions in 

the lower atmosphere, even though oil and gas exploration, development, and production have

been under way for more than 30 years. Historical emission sources consist mainly of dieselfired generators in small villages, residential heating, snow machines, all-terrain vehicles, 

occasional small aircraft, limited local vehicle traffic, and occasional open burning. In addition, 

oil and gas related emissions originate in field production and drilling areas, such as gas−fired 

turbines and heaters, incinerators and flaring, diesel-fired power generators, storage tanks, 

fugitive hydrocarbon emissions, and mobile sources (vehicle traffic and aircraft). Regional 

sources of emissions consist of oil and gas production facilities east of the planning area, 

including Kuparuk, Milne Point, Prudhoe Bay, North Star, Endicott, and Alpine fields. Trace 

amounts of air pollutants, including metals, have been detected in vegetation at very low levels. 

Given its high latitude, the planning area is also subject to occasional “Arctic haze” resulting 

from elevated concentrations of fine particulate matter, primarily from emission sources in 

northern Europe and Asia (and to a lesser extent, northern Alaska.) 

4.7.7.1.2 Future Effects and Their Accumulation 

Emissions on the North Slope are expected to decrease as the result of an overall downward 

trend in oil production and advances in technologies which decrease emissions; therefore, air 

quality impacts from local sources is likely to be reduced. Greater reliance on technologies that 

reduce the need for permanent roads and pads, and reduce the size of the facility footprint, 

would specifically reduce PM emissions. 

The types and relative amounts of air pollutants generated by oil and gas operations vary 

according to the phase of activity. During the exploration phase, emissions are produced by 1) 

diesel-fired equipment required for drilling exploratory and delineation wells; 2) vehicles used 

in support of drilling activities; and 3) intermittent operations such as mud degassing and well 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-684 

Cumulative Impacts: Air Quality and Climate 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

testing. Air pollutant emissions from combustion processes consist primarily of NOx, CO, and 

SO2, with lesser amounts of PM. 

During the development phase, the primary emission sources are 1) internal combustion 

engines or turbines used to provide power for drilling, 2) heavy construction equipment used to 

install modules and pipelines, and 3) various vehicles and aircraft. The principal developmentphase emissions consist of NOx, with lesser amounts of CO, PM, and SO2. 

During the production phase, the primary source of emissions is power generation for heating,

oil pumping, and water injection. The emissions consist primarily of NOx, with smaller amounts 

of CO and PM. Another source of air pollutant emissions is evaporative losses of VOC from 

oil/water separators, pump and compressor seals, valves, and storage tanks. Venting and flaring 

also contribute to VOC and SO2 emissions. 

In addition to these criteria pollutants, certain hazardous air pollutants (HAP) may also be 

emitted. Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes are common HAP associated with 

volatilization of oil and gas resources, as is formaldehyde from compressor engines. Depending

on conditions, hydrogen sulfide may also be found in oil, however an accurate determination of 

specific HAP quantities and potential impacts is not feasible at this stage, given that particular 

site-specific development activities and pollution controls are not yet able to be predicted. 

Abandonment and rehabilitation activities would have impacts similar to those of construction 

since similar equipment and vehicles would be used. Because abandonment would occur at 

single locations for a short length of time, air quality impacts would be minor and short term. 

Impacts could be less than those associated with construction if gravel fill was left in place, due 

to less use of vehicles and machinery. Particulate matter emissions would also be reduced at 

sites that are re-vegetated. 

Potential impacts from future oil and gas activities would be scattered over a large regional 

area. Emissions associated with routine program activities would increase, although all 

applicable standards would continue to be met. Maximum concentrations of air pollutants will 

occur close to facility boundaries, and dissipate rapidly as distance from the facility increases. 

Thus, it is unlikely cumulative interaction between developments would occur. 

However, until air pollution emissions in Asia and Europe decline, Arctic haze is likely to 

persist or get worse. 

4.7.7.1.3 Global Climate Change 

The assessment of so-called “greenhouse gas” emissions and climate change is in its formative 

phase, and it is not yet possible to know with confidence the net impact to climate. However, the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) recently concluded that “Warming of 

the climate system is unequivocal” and “Most of the observed increase in globally average 

temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in 

anthropogenic [man-made] greenhouse gas concentrations.” 

However, potential impacts to air quality due to climate change are likely to be varied. For 

example, if global climate change results in a warmer and drier climate, increased particulate 

matter impacts would occur due to increased wind blown dust from drier and less stable soils. 

Alternatively, reclamation efforts may be more successful with more favorable conditions for 

4-685 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Air Quality and Climate 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

plant growth. Warmer temperatures are also likely to reduce emissions from combustion 

sources used for residential heating, and may enhance dispersion of air pollutants. 

4.7.7.1.4 Contribution of the Supplemental Alternatives to Cumulative Effects 

Although potential increases in air pollutant emissions would occur under any of the

Alternative scenarios analyzed, given the dispersed nature of satellite well pad and central 

production facilities from each other and from residential communities, resulting cumulative air 

quality impacts on the North Slope are not likely to be significant. 

Of the four Alternatives, Alternative A (No Action) would emit these least amount of air 

pollutants. Air pollutant emissions associated with Alternative B would represent a 17 to 19 

percent increase, Alternative C emissions would be 38 to 40% higher, and Alternative D 

emissions would be approximately 23 to 26% greater than Alternative A emissions. 

If oil and gas development is allowed North of Teshekpuk Lake as contemplated in Alternatives 

B through D, overall air quality and climate impacts in Northwest NPR-A and the Beaufort Sea 

would not change significantly. However, if the availability of infrastructure and facilities 

within the adjoining sections of the planning area were to facilitate additional oil and gas 

activities, air pollutant emissions from those areas are likely to increase. It is also possible that 

the timing of impacts could occur sooner due to improved access. In addition, site-specific 

NEPA analyses would be required to demonstrate both direct and cumulative (regional) air 

quality impacts would comply with applicable local, state and Federal air quality requirements. 

4.7.7.1.5 Conclusion 

For the North Slope area as a whole, air quality should improve in those areas where oil 

production currently is the greatest, and would decline somewhat in areas where future 

development is expected to occur. It is likely that new development would be distributed 

throughout the planning area, keeping regional impacts small, except for localized 

concentrations in the immediate vicinity of production facilities. 

The cumulative effects of all activities affecting the North Slope of Alaska in the past have 

caused minor deterioration in air quality, well within legal limits. Improvements in air pollution 

control technology would help to reduce emissions from historic levels, as would emission 

reductions due to overall declining production on the North Slope. Regional air pollutant 

emissions generated would remain near current levels; approximately 30% less than emission

levels in the late 1980s. Each proposed individual facility will be required to disclose its 

potential air quality impacts thorough site-specific NEPA analyses, and demonstrate its 

continued compliance with applicable local, state and Federal air quality requirements. As 

facilities are shut down, they would no longer contribute to North Slope air emissions. 

Particulate matter emissions would also be reduced at sites that are reclaimed. 

4.7.7.2 Paleontological Resources 

Paleontological resources (plant and animal fossils) are nonrenewable. Once they are impacted

or displaced from their natural context, the damage is irreparable and cumulative. While much 

of the planning area and North Slope is underlain by paleontological resources, most of these 

resources are of the marine plant and invertebrate variety and are so numerous that the 

potential impacts addressed in this Supplement do not present a substantial threat. However, 

vertebrate fossils are much less common and are more likely to be impacted by the activities 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-686 

Cumulative Impacts: Air Quality and Climate 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

associated with non-oil and gas activities and oil and gas exploration and development on the 

North Slope. 

While oil and gas exploration and development are the primary contributing activities in terms 

of cumulative effects on paleontological resources on the North Slope, other contributing factors 

may also be important. These factors include permitted activities such as non-oil and gas 

development, overland moves, scientific data gathering, and recreation, and global climate 

change. 

4.7.7.2.1 Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Non-oil and gas activities, including camps associated with scientific studies, recreational use,

overland moves by transport vehicles, and use of OHVs such as four-wheel vehicles and

snowmachines, have likely impacted near-surface paleontological resources. Where Caterpillar 

or similar tractors have been used, or the vegetation has been bladed, vegetation scars persist to

this day. An estimated 250 acres of tractor trail/tundra scars were created before 1973; about 50 

acres remain evident today (NRC 2003). 

Paleontological research and excavation, necessary for the recovery of scientific data, have 

contributed minimally to the displacement of paleontological resources. Recreational activities 

and past exploration of the North Slope led to legal and illegal collecting and inadvertent 

damage, especially prior to the 1970s when there was less concern for protecting these 

resources. Most paleontological material is buried considerably deeper than archaeological 

material and is therefore not regularly encountered by chance. Some Pleistocene-age animal 

remains could be recovered in archaeological deposits if the deposit were old enough. 

Construction of DEW-Line and other military sites, and village-related development on the 

North Slope, have also likely contributed to the loss of paleontological resources, either from

removal or destruction. Approximately 2,500 acres have been impacted by these developments. 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Ground-disturbing activities associated with oil and gas exploration and development have

likely impacted paleontological resources. The older, land-based 2-D seismic technology 

consisted of long, intersecting seismic lines that used either dynamite or vibrators as the energy 

source. In the early stages of seismic data acquisition on the North Slope, much less care was 

taken to minimize damage to the tundra during data acquisition. Damage, then as now, can

result from inadequate snow cover and inappropriate equipment. Early roads were bladed in 

the tundra, and over 500 acres of roads were constructed by mounding peat (NRC 2003). Thus, 

near-surface paleontological material could have been lost. Use of ice roads and improvements 

in seismic gathering techniques (3-D technologies and use of low-ground-pressure vehicles) have 

resulted in fewer impacts to the ground surface, and potentially to paleontological resources, 

than occurred in the past. 

The excavation of gravel to construct roads, pads, and other facilities since the late 1960s has 

added to the loss of paleontological resources. Most mammalian fossils are of Quaternary age, 

which also is the age and origin of most North Slope gravel sources. Therefore, the more gravel 

deposits that are excavated for development activities, the greater possibility that impacts to 

paleontological resources would occur. Through 2001, over 6,300 acres have been disturbed for 

4-687 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Paleontological Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

gravel mines on the North Slope, with over 5,000 acres of disturbance occurring along rivers 

where paleontological resources are often exposed or close to the surface. 

During the past several decades, greater reliance on technologies that reduce the need for 

gravel to construct permanent roads and pads and reductions in the size of the facility footprint,

and a slowing of oil development activities, have substantially reduced the amount of area 

disturbed annually to extract gravel resources. In addition, state and Federal regulations that 

require surveys for and prohibit the removal of paleontological resources have also slowed the 

cumulative loss of paleontological resources. 

Summary of Past and Present Impacts and Their Accumulation 

Paleontological research and excavation, non-oil and gas development, recreation, and oil and 

gas exploration and development have contributed to the loss of paleontological resources on the 

North Slope, either from removal or destruction. If paleontological resources removed in the 

past have been preserved in museum or private collections, their losses would not accumulate. 

If they have been lost forever, the impacts of this lost resource persist today. Approximately 

2,500 acres have been disturbed or covered with gravel for non-oil and gas development. 

Approximately 1,750 acres have been disturbed from bladed and peat roads, exploration sites, 

and airstrips. Gravel mining has disturbed over 6,300 acres, much of this area along rivers 

where paleontological resources are often exposed or are close to the surface. Another 9,200 

acres have been covered with gravel to create pads and roads. Paleontological resources in these 

areas could be damaged, destroyed, or buried under gravel. Recent technological developments, 

including use of ice roads and pads, Rolligons, horizontal drilling, and development that does 

not require a gravel road linkage to the Prudhoe Bay-Kuparuk infrastructure have reduced the 

amount of surface disturbance associated with exploration and development activities, with 

likely benefits to near-surface paleontological resources. 

4.7.7.2.2 Future Effects and Their Accumulation 

Vertebrate paleontological resources are distributed unevenly across the North Slope and 

deposits are often unknown until some sort of disturbance occurs, making it difficult to assess 

potential cumulative impacts to the resource. The more oil and gas associated activities that 

occur, the larger the area affected and the greater the possibility that vertebrate paleontological

resources would be impacted. Non-Quaternary age paleontological material is usually deeply 

buried and therefore protected from most oil and gas related activities. From the standpoint of 

vulnerability in most settings, paleontological resources, especially non-Quaternary materials, 

are well protected by nature. In other instances, particularly with Quaternary fossils, they are 

located on or near the ground surface and are very susceptible to impacts. In most cases, surface 

or near-surface paleontological resources are more likely to be impacted as the result of 

exploration activities than by development, since most exploration-related operations occur in

the low-light conditions of winter. Although snow cover may offer some protection, it also 

disguises surface manifestations, making them difficult to recognize and avoid. 

Increased oil and gas development activities on the North Slope would result in an increased

need for gravel for infrastructure construction. The excavation of up to 2,200 acres of gravel by 

the end of this century for well pads, roads, and airstrips could impact cultural resources. Many 

Quaternary age paleontological deposits are located in gravel deposits, which are not common in 

the northern portion of the NPR-A. As a result, a gravel deposit in the region will be highly 

valued and may be associated with paleontological remains. Therefore, the more gravel deposits 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-688 

Cumulative Impacts: Paleontological Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

excavated for the construction of permanent facilities associated with development, the higher

chance that impacts to paleontological resources would occur. 

New innovations in technology that reduce the amount of surface disturbance associated with 

oil and gas activities and a slowing of oil and gas development on the North Slope, would

contribute the future protection of paleontological resources and slow their cumulative loss. 

Assessments to identify and protect cultural resources also identify paleontological resources

and therefore should minimize or avoid the loss of these resources. However, if a pipeline to

take gas to market is constructed, burial of such a pipeline and of any pipelines that would 

bring gas to the northern terminus of the gas pipeline would inevitably result in risks of loss or 

at least disturbance of paleontological resources. 

Effects of Natural Events 

Most paleontological material is exposed as a result of natural erosion. Typically, erosion occurs

as a result of the action of flowing water, but also can occur as a result of wind, seasonal 

freezing and thawing, ground subsidence due to the thawing of unstable permafrost, and the 

movement of soil down slopes as it thaws. Natural erosion, and its impact on paleontological 

resources, is difficult to assess because in most cases it is regarded as positive as it facilitates 

discovery rather than as a negative impact to the resource. Some of the most important 

paleontological resources are associated with river bank cuts and drainages. 

Effects of a Large Oil Spill 

The effects of a large oil spill on a paleontological deposit would be directly related to the time of

year and the setting of the resource. If the spill were to occur during the time of year when the 

ground is not frozen, then the potential level of impact would be substantially higher. In an 

unfrozen setting, surface or near-surface paleontological resources would be impacted primarily 

from contamination that would affect radiocarbon and biomolecular analysis of the fossil 

material. Contamination would occur as a result of the cleanup rather than the actual spill. 

Impacts from both the spill and spill cleanup would be considerably less when the ground was 

frozen, although warm oil could melt the snow and permafrost and damage underlying

paleontological resources. In the case of deeply buried paleontological deposits, neither the spill 

nor the subsequent cleanup (regardless of the time of year) would impact the resource. 

4.7.7.2.3 Global Climate Change 

Climate change could cause changes to the environment and habitats of the North Slope that 

could affect vertebrate paleontological resources (ACIA 2004). Climate change could result in 

changes to vegetation coverage and type and the physical structure of the landscape itself 

(ACIA 2004). The thawing of permanently frozen ground could result in the erosion of river 

banks and beach bluffs, which would result in impacts to known and undocumented vertebrate 

paleontological deposits. In addition, the thawing of permanently frozen ground could result in 

decreased preservation of subsurface materials particularly in areas with little or no organic 

soil and sparse vegetation. The action of flowing water, seasonal freezing and thawing 

(cryoturbation), thermokarsting, pingo and patterned earth formation, and solifluction can 

reveal paleontological deposits, but can also cause impacts as well. Climate change will also 

cause the alteration of weather patterns and an increase in the frequency and intensity of 

spring and fall storms is likely to occur adversely effecting near-shore paleontological deposits. 

4-689 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Paleontological Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7.7.2.4 Contribution of Supplement Alternatives to Cumulative Effects 

The greatest potential for cumulative effects would occur under Alternative C, as the greatest

portion of the planning area would be available for leasing, and the amount of development 

proposed under the alternative is greater than for the other alternatives. The potential for 

cumulative effects under Alternative B would be about 20% less than C while Alternative D 

would be about 10% less than C. Much of the northeastern portion of the planning area would 

be closed to leasing under Alternative B. Teshekpuk Lake would be deferred from leasing under

Alternative D, but the likelihood of any vertebrate paleontological resources being found in the 

lake would be small. However, RSO restrictions on permanent facilities in caribou habitat 

protection areas and the Goose Molting Area would limit the amount of surface disturbance that 

could occur north and east of Teshekpuk Lake; these restrictions would reduce the likelihood of 

cumulative effects to vertebrate paleontological resources within the planning area. Under 

Alternative A, about 600,000 acres in the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area would be closed to 

leasing. 

Also to be considered is the potential contribution to regional cumulative impacts generated by 

the Northeast NPR-A Alternatives that could increase the possibility of adverse affects on 

vertebrate paleontological resources in the northeastern portion of Northwest NPR-A. Because 

Alternative A does not allow oil and gas infrastructure north of Teshekpuk Lake, an area 

believed to be of high oil and gas potential, it would probably serve to reduce/slow development 

in adjacent Northwest NPR-A in comparison with the other Northeast NPR-A Alternatives. 

Alternative C has the greatest potential for increasing cumulative impacts on cultural resources 

in northeastern Northwest NPR-A followed by Alternatives D and B. 

Lease stipulations and ROPs developed for the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD and this 

Supplement would reduce the likelihood of oil and gas exploration and development activities

impacting paleontological resources. These include actions that require operators use lowground-pressure vehicles and cease operations when the spring melt of snow begins; require 

setbacks along rivers, streams, lakes, cabins and the coast, providing additional protection for

paleontological resources and through an orientation program for personnel that would include 

instruction on the importance of not disturbing paleontological resources; and require surveys

prior to any ground disturbing activity. If paleontological resources are identified during 

surveys, BLM guidelines and policy require that all potential effects to the resources be 

mitigated to the satisfaction of the land manager. 

4.7.7.2.5 Conclusion 

Ground-disturbing activities, including non-oil and gas development and oil and gas exploration 

and development, have impacted paleontological resources to some degree. However, because of 

their unpredictable location, isolated and rare occurrence, and varying depth of deposit, the

level of past and future impacts is difficult to assess. If lease stipulations were to continue to 

apply to survey and inventory prior to exploration and development activities, the cumulative 

impact to paleontological resources would be expected to be minor in the planning area; similar 

state and Federal regulations would help to limit impact to these resources elsewhere on the

North Slope. Paleontological resources are nonrenewable, and once displacement or

contamination impacts them, their value may be greatly and irreversibly compromised. 

Cumulative impacts to paleontological resources across the North Slope and in the planning 

area in the future are expected to be minor, given the small amount of area impacted and

implementation of measures to avoid river drainages and other areas with known or likely

paleontological resources. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-690 

Cumulative Impacts: Paleontological Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

In the case being considered here, Alternative A would contribute the least toward cumulative 

impacts with the potential to directly and indirectly generate adverse affects on on-shore 

paleontological resources on the North Slope. Alternatives B, C and D have a greater potential 

for creating cumulative impacts because all of those Alternatives allow more area of high oil and

gas probability to be leased (submerged off-shore paleontological resources, if present, would 

generally not be threatened by off-shore oil and gas exploration/development activities). 

4.7.7.3 Soil Resources 

4.7.7.3.1 Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Non-oil and gas activities, including archaeological and paleontological digs, camps associated 

with scientific studies, recreational use, overland moves by transport vehicles, and use of offhighway vehicles such as four-wheel vehicles and snowmachines, have likely caused soil loss 

and erosion on less than 100 acres in the planning area. In most cases, loss of soil and erosion 

would be temporary, lasting only a few years. Where Caterpillar or similar tractors have been 

used, or the vegetation has been bladed, scars in the soil persist to this day. An estimated 250 

acres of tractor trail/tundra scars were created before 1973; about 50 acres remain evident today 

(NRC 2003). 

DEW-Line sites and other military facilities, villages, public roads, airstrips, and other non-oil 

and gas infrastructure have been developed using gravel pads or on bare ground. Approximately 

2,500 acres have been impacted (about 700 acres for DEW-Line sites and related development, 

and 1,800 acres for villages), and this loss of soil and soil productivity are likely to persist into 

the indefinite future. 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Seismic Activities and Exploration. Much of the ACP has been surveyed since 1940, and soil 

was disturbed to varying degrees depending upon the soil and vegetation type, vehicle type, 

operator vigilance, and amount of snow cover. Studies of seismic and camp-move trails created

in the 1980s showed that only a small portion of seismic trails were still evident 8 years later, 

yet 5% of camp-move trails still showed moderate to high disturbance. The greatest damage 

occurred where the vegetative mat was destroyed and the underlying soil was exposed. This 

resulted from tracked vehicles or sleds on skids cutting into hummocks, or from Caterpillar 

operators making a tight turn and dropping the blade too deeply into the snow. About 50 acres 

of tractor trail/tundra scars persist today. 

Use of newer technologies, including use of vehicles that apply less pressure to the ground and

restricting travel to periods when there is frozen ground and adequate snow to protect 

vegetation, have reduced the level of impacts to soil. In 2001, a study conducted the summer 

following seismic work, found little to no impacts to tundra under seismic lines on 30% of the 

plots studied (Jorgenson et al. 2003). Minor impacts were found on 66% and moderate impacts 

were found on 4% of the plots; no plots were highly impacted. Camp move trails in this study 

had little or no impacts on 18%, minor impacts on 54%, moderate impacts on 29%, and high 

impacts on none of the plots. Impacts to soil were minor in areas with good tundra cover. This 

4-691 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Paleontological Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

study suggested that improvements in the equipment and procedures used for seismic surveys 

have reduced the amount of impact to tundra and soil. 

Other sources of soil loss include exploration sites with gravel pads, disturbed areas around 

these pads, exploration airstrips, and gravel exploration roads. Based on Cumulative 

Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska’s North Slope (NRC 2003), in 2001, 

approximately 1,700 acres had been impacted by these sites in the past, and 1,130 acres of 

disturbance were still evident. Most of these sites were developed before 1977, thus their effects 

on the landscape have persisted for decades, and are likely to persist for several more.

However, exploration activities are now limited to the use of ice roads and ice pads that greatly 

reduce long-term impacts to soils from these activities compared to gravel roads and pads. 

Oil and Gas Infrastructure. Peat and gravel roads and pads, and gravel mines have caused 

the direct loss of soil, and also led to the indirect loss of soil from thermokarst and alteration of 

natural drainage patterns. Through 2001, over 500 acres of peat roads still showed evidence of 

disturbance, even though most of these roads were constructed over 30 years ago. Gravel has 

been used to construct approximately 9,000 acres of roads and pads, while gravel mines have 

impacted approximately 6,000 acres. Other impacted areas cover approximately 2,000 acres 

(NRC 2003, p.44). The total area impacted on the North Slope from this infrastructure adds up

to approximately 17,500 (500 + 9,000 + 6,000 + 2,000) acres. Of this amount, approximately

4,500 acres of gravel mines have been reclaimed, but only 70 acres of pads and roads (NRC 

2003). Even though the lakes left behind by former gravel mines are considered reclaimed due 

to their value as aquatic habitat, the loss of soil resources is permanent. Thus, impacts to soil 

and soil productivity persist on approximately 17,500 acres. 

Construction of gravel pads, roads, and airstrips has altered the moisture regime of tundra near 

the structure by changing natural drainage patterns and areas where snow accumulates. 

Snowdrifts caused by gravel structures have increased the wintertime soil surface temperature 

and increased thaw depth in soils near the structures. These impacts have been exacerbated by 

dust deposition and by the formation of impoundments. These factors combine to warm the soil, 

deepen thaw, and cause thermokarst adjacent to roads and other gravel structures (NRC 2003). 

In flat, thaw-lake plains on the North Slope, one study published in 1987 found that past gravel 

construction resulted in upslope water impoundment and thermokarst erosion equivalent to 

twice the area directly covered by gravel (Walker et. al. 1987). However, cumulative impacts 

recently reported by the National Research Council found that the ratio of direct to indirect 

impacts from gravel structures such as roads was about one to one (NRC 2003, p 95). If so, the 

condition of an additional 17,500 acres of soil may have been altered due to hydrologic changes 

on the North Slope. Based on this information, the total of direct and indirect long term

impacts to soils from past and present oil and gas activities on the North Slope covers

approximately 35,000 (17,500 direct + 17,500 indirect) acres. 

Recent technologies, including development not dependent upon a gravel road connection to the 

Prudhoe Bay-Kuparuk infrastructure, horizontal drilling, closer spacing of wells on pads, and a 

slowing of oil field development, have greatly reduced the amount of surface disturbance needed

to develop and produce oil. As a result, the annual amount of surface disturbance associated 

with gravel roads and pads has slowed substantially during the past two decades. 

Spills. Overall, the effects of spills on soil have not accumulated on the North Slope because all 

but two of the spills have been small and cleanup and rehabilitation efforts have generally been 

successful (NRC 2003). The largest spill in the North Slope oilfields (over 200,000 gallons) 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-692 

Cumulative Impacts: Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

occurred in March of 2006; it is likely that some soil was damaged during the clean-up and 

remediation efforts, which are still ongoing. 

Summary of Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Based on the above analysis, approximately 2,500 acres of direct impacts to soil from non-oil 

and gas activities persist today. Oil and gas activities have caused approximately 17,500 acres 

of direct impacts to soil that persist today; another 17,500 acres of indirect impacts have also 

occurred, some of which persist today. Therefore, a total of approximately 37,500 (2,500 + 

17,500 + 17,500) acres of soil resources on the North Slope still show impacts from all past 

activities. Since most of these impacts are associated with ongoing non-oil and gas residential 

and commercial development, and oil and gas activities, these impacts to soil are additive to 

future impacts and would be likely to persist for several decades or more. However, the rate at 

which soil is disturbed by development has slowed substantially in recent years due to advances 

in technology and a slowing of oil field development on the North Slope. 

4.7.7.3.2 Future Effects and Their Accumulation 

Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

It is anticipated that villages will continue to expand in the future due to population growth and 

to provide services and infrastructure to support new oil and gas development on the North

Slope. The amount of area that would be disturbed by new development is projected to increase 

by 2% annually for the next 40 years or so and then level off (see section 4.7.2.1). Assuming

community infrastructure and footprint grow at roughly the same pace as population, there 

would be approximately 3,600 acres of community footprint by the time population may level off 

in the 2040s. 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Seismic Activities and Exploration. Based on past seismic activity on the North Slope, BLM 

assumes continuation of the recent experience of three to four seismic crews active there each

winter and that the miles of 2-D and 3-D surveys, the associated camp-move miles, and the 

proportion of 2-D and 3-D surveys anticipated in Northeast NPR-A will over time approximate 

the average throughout the North Slope. Based on these assumptions, approximately 86,400 

acres would be covered annually by seismic activities, including camp moves, on the North

Slope. Soil and vegetation recovery studies have shown that most impacts to soil from seismic 

activities and exploration should be minor and short term (NRC 2003). However, approximately 

125 acres of that yearly total may still show moderate to high levels of disturbance a decade 

later. 

Oil and Gas Development and Production. Future development and production could occur 

on the North Slope in Northeast NPR-A, Northwest NPR-A, the Chukchi Sea Planning Area, 

onshore between NPR-A and ANWR, and in the Beaufort Sea (see 4.7.3.3). New development,

especially for economically marginal fields of oil, would most likely occur near existing fields so 

that infrastructure systems could be shared. Additional long-term impacts to soil resources 

would occur as a result of this development. 

Oil and gas development and operation would affect soils by compacting and damaging soils 

under gravel pads, gravel roads, and gravel airstrips; excavating material sites; constructing 

VSMs for elevated pipelines; and excavating trenches for buried pipelines. These impacts would 

4-693 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

be long-term. Construction of gravel pads, roads, and airstrips could also result in indirect 

effects to soils by altering the moisture regime of tundra near the structure due to changing 

natural drainage patterns and areas where snow accumulates. Snowdrifts caused by gravel 

structures would increase the wintertime soil surface temperature and increase thaw depth in 

the soil near the structures. These impacts would be exacerbated by dust deposition and by the 

formation of impoundments. These factors could combine to warm the soil, deepen thaw, and

cause thermokarst adjacent to roads and other gravel structures. This can result in 

approximately one acre of indirect impacts to soil for each acre of direct impact (NRC 2003, p 

95). 

Offshore development associated with leases in the Beaufort Sea could impact small areas along 

the coast for staging and storage of materials, but is unlikely to impact large areas of soil. 

Similarly, development in the Chukchi Sea could require a pipeline across Northwest and 

Northeast NPR-A. However, long-term impacts to soils from elevated pipelines are mainly 

associated with VSMs that create only small areas of soil disturbance. For example, in

Northeast NPR-A it is estimated that approximately 400 miles of elevated pipeline would create 

only 2 acres of long-term, direct surface disturbance from VSMs (Table 4.2-G). Additional areas 

of soil would be impacted if some buried pipelines were required. 

Additional development and production could also occur east of Northeast NPR-A between NPRA and ANWR. This analysis assumes that approximately 88% of the estimated undiscovered oil

in the area would be brought into production in the foreseeable future (see 4.7.3.3). No 

estimates are currently available for the amount of additional infrastructure needed to produce 

this oil or gas, if a gas pipeline is constructed to deliver North Slope gas to markets. However, 

production would likely use a combination of existing infrastructure and new infrastructure 

resembling the Alpine field. Although the footprint would be relatively small compared with 

the total area, some additional areas of long-term disturbance to soils would be required for 

gravel staging areas, gravel roads, gravel pads, and other semi-permanent infrastructure. 

Under Alternative C, which opens the entire planning area to oil and gas development in the 

Northeast NPR-A Supplemental EIS, long-term direct impacts to soil resources could occur on

approximately 3,850 acres (excluding material sites, Table 4.2-G). Approximately 3,500 acres of

soil could be directly impacted by gravel footprint if future development occurs in the Northwest 

NPR-A (see section 4.7.3.3). In addition, approximately 42 acres per year of gravel footprint 

can be attributable to all other North Slope oil and gas development for a total in these other 

areas of approximately 3,850 acres (see section 4.7.3.3). Therefore, the total area of soil 

resources on the North Slope directly impacted by future gravel footprint is estimated at 11,200 

(3,850 + 3,500 + 3,850) acres (see section 4.7.3.2). Assuming a one to one ratio for direct to

indirect impacts, a total of approximately 22,400 (11,200 + 11,200) acres of soil could be 

impacted long term by gravel footprint from future oil and gas development on the North Slope. 

Excavation of material sites to supply the gravel would also impact soil resources on the North

Slope. Assuming a ratio of one acre of gravel pit for every five acres of constructed gravel 

footprint, approximately 2,200 (11,200/5) acres of soil would be removed at material sites. 

Trenching to bury gas pipelines, both one from the North Slope to Outside gas markets, and

pipelines on the North Slope to bring gas to the beginning of that market pipeline, would alter 

the soil profile for all the area excavated. Based on estimates of disturbance associated with 

burying pipeline in the planning area and extrapolating that very roughly to other areas, it is

estimated that approximately 500 acres of soil would be disturbed by being excavated to bury 

gas pipelines on the North Slope. An additional area would be disturbed by equipment and 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-694 

Cumulative Impacts: Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

temporary overburden storage in the course of burying the pipelines. Assuming a one to one

ratio of direct to indirect impacts from buried pipelines, a total of 1,000 (500 + 500) acres could 

be impacted by construction of future gas pipelines on the North Slope. 

The total future direct and indirect impacts to soil resources from future oil and gas 

development on the North Slope would be the sum of impacts from the gravel footprint, 

excavation of material sites, and construction of elevated and buried pipelines described above. 

Therefore, the total area of long term impacts to soils from future development would be 

approximately 26,000 (22,400 gravel footprint + 2,200 material sites + 1,000 pipelines) acres. 

These impacts are additive to the impacts to soil on approximately 35,000 acres that have 

accumulated from past and present oil and gas activities that persist today (see Summary of 

Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation above). 

Oil Spills. The projected increase in activity levels combined with the potential problem of 

aging pipelines could result in more spills. However, the recent large spill in March 2006 caused 

by pipeline corrosion may lead to better overall maintenance, oversight, and prevention of 

potential problems that can lead to spills. Overall, the effects of spills on soil have not 

accumulated on the North Slope because the spills have generally been small and cleanup and 

rehabilitation efforts have generally been successful (NRC 2003). 

Abandonment. As more oil and gas development and production occur on the North Slope, the

more need there will eventually be for abandonment of infrastructure and rehabilitation of soil 

resources. Removal of aboveground facilities, pipelines, bridges, and power poles would have a 

minor impact on soils and permafrost. Soils and permafrost would remain unaffected for as long 

as gravel structures such as pads and roads were maintained. Once maintenance of the roads 

and pads ceased, thaw subsidence in ice-rich areas could result in settling of the gravel 

structures into thermokarst troughs. Removal of the roads and pads would accelerate thaw 

subsidence, but would also accelerate the reclamation process. 

The North Slope presents special technical challenges to restoration and recovery. Extremely 

cold temperatures, meager precipitation (5 to 7 inches per year), and the short growing season

lengthen recovery times substantially beyond those possible elsewhere in the United States. 

Natural recovery of disturbed sites to original soil and plant conditions has been estimated to 

require 600 to 800 years for upland sites and 100 to 200 years for marsh sites (AOGA 2001). 

4.7.7.3.3 Global Climate Change 

Permafrost. The primary effect to soil resources that could occur as a result of a warming 

climate in the arctic is thawing of the permafrost. The entire planning region is underlain by 

cold, deep permafrost that varies from 660 to 2,130 feet on the North Slope (NRC 2003). Nearsurface temperatures of this permafrost have been slowly rising and temperatures now range

from -10 oC to -6 oC. A study of permafrost temperature measured in boreholes showed an 

increase of 2 to 4 Celsius degrees over a period from a few decades to a century (Lachenbruch

and Marshall 1986). If this warming continues, the depth of the active layer is likely to 

increase. As the climate warms, the permafrost will thaw to an increased depth each season 

which will cause varying degrees of impacts on subsidence, soil moisture, and vegetation. 

However, because of the great depth of the permafrost on the North Slope it would take several 

decades of warming at the predicted rate before it would transition into discontinuous 

permafrost (NRC 2003, p.59). 

4-695 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Since oil and gas activities can also cause local thawing of permafrost, the effects of a warming 

climate would add to the thawing effects of direct and indirect impacts from oil and gas 

development activities on the North Slope. These cumulative effects would occur locally in 

areas of surface disturbance described earlier. If the climate continues to warm, the period in 

which there would be adequate snow and frost on the ground to support seismic and other 

exploration and development activities would decrease, and the potential for these activities to

disturb the soil would increase. The effects of changing climate on permafrost are difficult to 

predict, and predicting how oil and gas development effects to permafrost might accumulate is 

more uncertain than predicting climate change (NRC 2003, p.59). However, if the permafrost 

continues to warm, its ability to support structures would diminish, which could affect 

development on the North Slope. Thicker gravel may be needed to support structures, and

abandoned work pads and roads could become unusable as they are cut up by deep polygonal 

troughs over thawing ice wedges, or by other thermokarst degradation. 

The potential for many shallow streams, ponds, and wetlands in the Arctic to dry out under a 

warming climate is increased by the loss of permafrost (ACIA 2004). However, as noted above, it 

would take many decades at the predicted rate of warming for permafrost in the North Slope to

become discontinuous and create this effect. In other areas, warming of the surface permafrost 

could increase the formation of ponds, wetlands, and drainage networks, especially in areas 

with heavy concentrations of ground ice. Such thawing could lead to increases in soil erosion

and sediment being deposited in rivers, lakes, and coastal marine environments. Another 

potential effect to soil resources from climate warming is an increased rate of decay of organic 

matter in the soil. Experimental studies have shown that a warming of the soil could lead to 

increased turnover of soil organic matter and redistribution of nitrogen from soils to vegetation 

(Nadelhoffer et al. 1992 in NRC 2003). If warming were accompanied by decreased soil 

moisture, there could be a long-term loss of both carbon and nitrogen from the system, and 

potential losses of mineralized nitrogen from leaching. Many of these potential effects from a 

warming climate to soils could make it more difficult to prevent degradation of, or rehabilitate, 

areas disturbed by oil and gas activities on the North Slope. 

Coastal Erosion. Another adverse effect to soil resources and permafrost as a result of climate 

warming is increased erosion along coastal boundaries. Rising temperatures are altering the 

Arctic coastline and changes are projected to continue during this century as a result of reduced 

sea ice, increased impacts from ocean waves, thawing permafrost, and sea-level rise (ACIA 

2004). Thinner, less extensive sea ice creates more open water, allowing stronger wave 

generation by winds and increasing wave-induced erosion along Arctic shores. 

Increased wave activity and storm surge combined with seal level rise would inundate marshes 

and coastal plains, accelerate beach erosion, and force salt water into bays, rivers, and 

groundwater. Coastal regions with underlying permafrost are especially vulnerable to erosion

as ice beneath the seabed and shoreline thaws from contact with warmer air and water. The 

projected increase in air and water temperature, reduction in sea ice, and increase in height and 

frequency of storm surges are expected to have a destabilizing effect on coastal permafrost, 

resulting in increased erosion. Since oil and gas activities can also cause local thawing of 

permafrost, the effects of a warming climate would add to the thawing effects of direct and 

indirect impacts from oil and gas development activities along coastal boundaries. These 

cumulative effects could occur locally in areas of surface disturbance near coastal boundaries. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-696 

Cumulative Impacts: Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7.7.3.4 Contribution of Supplement Alternatives to Cumulative Effects 

Depending on the alternative selected in the Northeast NPR-A Supplemental EIS, long-term 

direct and indirect impacts to soil resources could occur on 6,000; 6,800; 8,500; or 8,100 acres 

under Alternatives A, B, C, or D respectively. The alternative selected could also affect the 

development of oil and gas in other areas outside the planning area. This development in turn 

could impact soil resources inside, and in areas adjacent to, Northeast NPR-A. 

As noted above, new development, especially for economically marginal fields of oil and gas, 

would most likely occur near existing fields so that infrastructure systems could be shared. 

Alternatives B, C, and D would open the northwest portion of the planning area to leasing. 

Infrastructure such as pipelines and CPFs developed in this area would make marginal

discoveries in the adjacent northeast portion of Northwest NPR-A more likely to be developed in 

the foreseeable future. Therefore, impacts to soil resources from oil and gas development in the 

northeast portion of Northwest NPR-A would be more likely to occur in the foreseeable future

under Alternatives B, C, and D. However, if infrastructure for adjacent areas is planned 

concurrently, a reduction in the total footprint could occur compared to planning for 

development separately. Under Alternative A, development of marginal fields in the northeast 

portion of Northwest NPR-A, and resulting impacts to soil resources, would be less likely to 

occur. 

Existing pipelines and infrastructure as a result of Alternatives B, C, or D could also make it 

more feasible to develop offshore leases in the Beaufort Sea north of Teshekpuk Lake. This may 

require additional pipelines to connect to existing pipelines in the planning area. However, 

long-term impacts to soils from elevated pipelines are mainly associated with VSMs that create 

only small areas of soil disturbance. Additional areas of soil would be impacted if some buried 

pipelines were required. 

4.7.7.3.5 Conclusion 

Cumulative impacts to soils on the North Slope would occur from activities associated with non 

oil and gas development and oil and gas development. Impacts from non oil and gas 

development are relatively small compared to those from oil and gas development and have 

impacted approximately 2,500 (1,800 villages + 700 DEW sites) acres. The amount of area that 

would be disturbed by expansion of villages is projected to increase by 2% annually for the next 

40 years or so and then level off (see section 4.7.2.1). Assuming community infrastructure and

footprint grow at roughly the same pace as population, there would be approximately 3,600 

acres of community footprint by the time population may level off in the 2040s. In addition, 

approximately 700 acres of soil impacted by DEW line sites are expected to persist. Therefore 

the total long term cumulative impact to soil resources on the North Slope from non oil and gas 

activities (past, present, and foreseeable future) would be approximately 4,300 (3,600 villages + 

700 DEW sites) acres. 

The total of direct and indirect, long term impacts to soils from past and present oil and gas 

activities on the North Slope covers approximately 35,000 acres. Impacts to soil resources from 

future oil and gas development include exploration activities and construction of gravel pads, 

gravel roads, gravel airstrips, gravel staging areas, excavation of material sites, oil pipelines, 

and possible gas pipelines (both to market outside the North Slope and within the North Slope). 

The duration of the impacts would range from short term (< 1 to 5 years) if the soil was lightly 

disturbed (i.e. most seismic activity, ice roads, and ice pads) up to several decades or longer if 

the soil was covered by gravel, removed, or permafrost was thawed creating thermokarst. 

4-697 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Impacts associated with exploration and development activities in the planning area would be 

additive with impacts from activities in other portions of the NPR-A and across the North Slope. 

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the northwest portion of Northeast NPR-A is more likely to be 

developed. Infrastructure such as pipelines and CPFs developed in this portion of the planning 

area would also make marginal discoveries in the adjacent northeast portion of Northwest NPRA, and offshore areas to the north of Teshekpuk Lake, more likely to be developed in the 

foreseeable future. This would create a greater area of soil disturbance than under Alternative 

A. Overall, the area of soils impacted long term by past, present, and foreseeable future oil and

gas development would be approximately 61,000 (35,000 past and present + 26,000 future) 

acres. The North Slope region is approximately 57 million acres. Therefore, compared to the 

area of the North Slope, this would be a relatively small area of soils impacted (about 0.1%), 

even with the entire planning area open for development (Alternative C). If global climate

change persists, the cumulative effects to soil from oil and gas development, and non oil and gas 

development, on the North Slope could be greater than predicted. 

Numerous technological advancements have been made during the decades of operations on the

North Slope that have allowed current development activities to proceed with less 

environmental impact to soil resources than previous operations (NRC 2003). However, some 

short-term disturbance and permanent long-term impacts to soils are inevitable. New 

innovations in technology that reduce the amount of surface disturbance associated with oil and 

gas activities, enforcement of regulations that require the assessment and protection of soil 

resources before ground-disturbing activities can occur, and a slowing of oil and gas 

development on the North Slope, would contribute to the future protection of soil resources and

slow their cumulative loss. Some soil would be restored as sites are abandoned and reclaimed. 

However, due to the harsh Arctic climate, it could take several hundred years for soil

productivity to reach pre-disturbance levels on abandoned pads and roads. 

4.7.7.4 Water Resources and Water Quality 

Minor cumulative effects to water resources have occurred from non-oil and gas activities on the 

North Slope. Cumulative effects to water resources from oil and gas exploration and 

development in the planning area and across the North Slope could result from: 1) potential 

disturbance of stream banks or lake shorelines from oil and gas operations and the possible 

subsequent melting of permafrost (thermokarst erosion); 2) temporary blockages of natural 

channels and floodways during construction of roads and pipelines that would result in the 

disruption of drainage patterns; 3) increased erosion and sedimentation in rivers and lakes; 4) 

the removal of water from lakes for ice roads and pads; 5) increased use of the tundra for both 

oil and gas and non-oil and gas activities; 6) an increased amount of seismic surveys; 7) spills; 

and 8) removal of gravel from riverine pools and lakes. 

4.7.7.4.1 Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Activities not related to oil and gas exploration have the potential to impact water resources. 

Non-oil and gas activities, including scientific excavations, temporary tent camps, overland 

moves by transport vehicles, aircraft landings and use of gravel strips, boats, use of OHVs such 

as four-wheel vehicles, snowmachines, hazardous material or debris removal, legacy well 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-698 

Cumulative Impacts: Soil Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

plugging, and spills, all have the potential to impact water resources and quality. These impacts 

are usually localized and result in short-term impacts for up to a few years. 

DEW-Line sites and other military facilities, villages, public roads, airstrips, and other non-oil 

and gas infrastructure have been developed using gravel pads or on bare ground. Approximately 

2,500 acres have been impacted, and these activities have impacted water quality and altered 

natural drainage patterns. These effects on water resources are likely to persist into the 

indefinite future. 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Seismic Activities and Exploration. Much of the NPR-A has been surveyed since 1940, and

seismic activities have disturbed the soil, vegetation, and water over much of the NPR-A.

Studies of seismic and camp-move trails created on the eastern part of the North Slope in the 

1980s showed that only 3% of seismic trails were still evident 8 years later, and none of this 

showed moderate to high disturbance. Yet 10% of camp-move trails still showed minor 

disturbance, 4% showed moderate disturbance, and 1% showed high disturbance (Jorgenson et 

al. 1996). The greatest damage occurred where the vegetative mat was destroyed and the 

underlying soil was exposed. This resulted from tracked vehicles or sleds on skids cutting into 

hummocks, or from Caterpillar operators making a tight turn and dropping the blade too deeply 

into the snow, leading to localized thermokarst with scars persisting to this day. An estimated 

250 acres of tractor trail/tundra scars were created before 1973; about 50 acres remain evident 

today (NRC 2003). It is likely that this disturbance has impacted nearby water bodies. Use of 

newer technologies and procedures, including use of vehicles that apply less pressure to the 

ground and restricting travel to periods when there is adequate snow and frost cover to protect

soil and vegetation, have reduced the likelihood of thermokarst erosion and impacts to water

quality. 

Other potential water quality impacts are associated with older exploration sites with gravel 

pads, disturbed areas around these pads, exploration airstrips, and gravel exploration roads. 

Based on Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska’s North Slope 

(NRC 2003), in 2001, approximately 1,700 acres had been impacted by these sites in the past, 

and 1,130 acres of disturbance were still evident. Most of these sites were developed before 

1977, thus their effects on the landscape, including soil erosion and sedimentation into nearby 

water bodies, have persisted for decades, and are likely to persist for several more. Over 500 

acres of peat roads still showed evidence of thermokarst, even though most of these roads were 

constructed over 30 years ago. 

To date, approximately 100,000 line miles of 2-D seismic data has been collected in the Chukchi 

Sea Planning area. Geophysical exploration has also occurred in the Beaufort Sea for decades. 

These surveys have taken place during the open water season. No impacts on water quality 

from spills have resulted from these surveys. 

Water Withdrawals and Use. Ice roads and pads, drilling operations and camps used 

extensively for winter exploration drilling and testing require substantial amounts of fresh 

water from nearby lakes. This water is somewhat saline because of the exclusion of ions during 

the freezing of the upper part of the lake. When this water is used for ice roads and pads it can 

slightly increase salinity locally as it melts. Local snowmelt quickly mixes with and dilutes this 

water. Depending on how far water is transported, some portion of the removed water will 

return to the lake from which it was removed or flow into an adjacent drainage area. 

4-699 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Ice roads require about 1 to 1.5 million gallons (MG) of water per linear mile while ice pads for 

individual drill sites can require up to 2 MG of water to prepare a 1 foot thick pad. Within NPRA approximately 513 MG of water from 126 lakes were used to drill 20 wells and construct 23 

ice drill pads and roads from 1999-2006. This is in contrast to a permitted volume of 2000 MG 

from 376 lakes for the same period (USDOI BLM 2006). This averages to 75 MG of water per 

year or 26 MG per well. Drilling requires water for making drill mud slurries which provide 

general lubrication, cool the bit, transport rock cuttings to the surface, prevent sloughing from

the sides of the drill hole, and provide a weighting medium to prevent the migration of oil and 

other fluids into the well. Potable water is also used for drinking and other domestic uses in the 

camp that accompany drill rigs. 

Water withdrawals from lakes have the potential to lower water levels if the removed water is 

not recharged by snowmelt, rainfall, or inundation by rivers following the removal. Lake 

chemistry changes during winter periods are dominated by ice-formation processes in shallow 

lakes (Hinzman et. al. 2006). Water withdrawals monitored by previous studies have shown 

only minor short-term impacts from water withdrawals and lakes monitored have all fully 

recharged by the end of the following summer after winter water removals (Baker, 2002; 

Hinzman et al, 2006). 

Drainage Patterns. Drainage patterns have been altered by the construction of roads or pads

in or across wetlands or drainage areas. To date, over 9,200 acres of gravel pads and roads, and 

over 400 miles of roadways (excluding the Dalton Highway), have been constructed in 

association with oil-field development on the North Slope. Much of the gravel fill has been in 

wetlands where drainage has been blocked by road construction. During spring ice break-up, 

there is substantial flow across expansive wetlands into lakes and streams. When long stretches

of gravel roads or pads interrupt flow, the difference in water surface elevation from one side of 

the pad or road to the other can create temporary or permanent impoundments which produce 

high-velocity water flow in the cross-pad or road drainage structures, usually culverts, resulting 

in localized streambank and thermokarst erosion, channel scour and downstream deposition of 

sediment. Improper placement or sizing of gravel fill has resulted in erosion from pads or 

roadbeds adjacent to streams or lakes. Long-term effects would be changes in channel 

morphology and in the composition of lake and stream bottom materials. 

Through 2001, nearly 1,400 culverts and 17 bridges had been installed on the North Slope (NRC 

2003). If culverts are not properly installed or sized, water flows can be affected, ice jams form 

or temporary or permanent impoundments created. Typically, bridges are used where flows 

exceed 500 cfs, and 60-inch-diameter line pipes are proposed, instead of culverts, for the Alpine 

Satellite Development (USDOI BLM 2004c). If not correctly sized, engineered, or constructed, 

impacts to water resources and quality from impoundments, scour, sedimentation, and 

thermokarst erosion, associated with bridges, culverts, and pipes would persist and accumulate 

Gravel Structures. Peat and gravel roads and pads, and gravel mines have caused the direct 

loss of soil and also led to the indirect loss of soil from thermokarst and alteration of natural 

drainage patterns. Through 2001, over 500 acres of peat roads still showed evidence of 

disturbance, even though most of these roads were constructed over 30 years ago. Gravel has 

been used to construct approximately 9,000 acres of roads and pads, while gravel mines have 

impacted approximately 6,000 acres. Other impacted areas cover approximately 2,000 acres 

(NRC 2003, p 44). The total area impacted on the North Slope from this infrastructure adds up

to approximately 17,500 (500 + 9,000 + 6,000 + 2,000) acres. Of this amount, approximately

4,500 acres of gravel mines have been reclaimed, but only 70 acres of pads and roads (NRC 

2003). Even though the lakes left behind by former gravel mines are considered reclaimed due 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-700 

Cumulative Impacts: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

to their value as aquatic habitat, the loss of soil resources is permanent. Thus, impacts to soil 

persist on approximately 17,500 acres. 

Construction of gravel pads, roads, and airstrips has altered the moisture regime of tundra near 

the structure by changing natural drainage patterns and areas where snow accumulates. 

Snowdrifts caused by gravel structures have increased the wintertime soil surface temperature 

and increased thaw depth in soils near the structures. These impacts have been exacerbated by 

dust deposition and by the formation of impoundments. These factors combine to warm the soil, 

deepen thaw, and cause thermokarst adjacent to roads and other gravel structures (NRC 2003). 

In flat, thaw-lake plains on the North Slope, one study published in 1987 found that past gravel 

construction resulted in upslope water impoundment and thermokarst erosion equivalent to 

twice the area directly covered by gravel (Walker et. al. 1987). However, cumulative impacts 

recently reported by the National Research Council found that the ratio of direct to indirect 

impacts from gravel structures such as roads was about one to one (NRC 2003, p.95). If so, the 

condition of an additional 17,500 acres of soil may have been susceptible to thermokarst erosion 

and alteration of natural drainage patterns due to hydrologic changes on the North Slope. 

Based on this information, the total of direct and indirect long term impacts to soils from past 

and present oil and gas activities on the North Slope covers approximately 35,000 (17,500 direct 

+ 17,500 indirect) acres. 

Gravel Mines. Improper siting of gravel-removal pits has resulted in changes to the

configuration of stream channels or lakes, stream-flow hydraulics or lake dynamics, erosion and

sedimentation, and ice damming and aufeis formation. Gravel removal for permanent gravel 

roads and drill pads has resulted in over 6,430 acres of surface impacts, with 5,080 of these 

acres associated with rivers. However, over 4,550 of these river-associated acres have been 

rehabilitated by conversion into functional habitat for plants and animals, reducing cumulative 

effects to water resources on the North Slope and, at some sites, providing fish habitat. 

Spills and Other Contaminants. Overall, the effects of spills on soil have not accumulated on 

the North Slope because all but two of the spills have been small and cleanup and rehabilitation 

efforts have generally been successful (NRC 2003) and ecosystems have generally recovered 

(Jorgenson 1997). The largest spill in the North Slope oilfields (over 200,000 gallons) occurred in 

March of 2006. This two acre site met cleanup criteria by May 2006 after backfilling and 

covering of veggie-mat was completed. This resulted in essentially no impacts to water quality 

due to the timing of the spill, which allowed cleanup to take place before the spring melt. Longterm monitoring will gauge the success of the restoration efforts. No notable spills into the 

marine environment have occurred. 

Drilling Waste Disposal. In recent years, drilling wastes, which previously were stored in 

environmentally undesirable surface pits, have been injected into subsurface aquifers for

permanent disposal. Although much of the water in aquifers below the impermeable permafrost

is too saline to meet standards for a legally protected drinking water, some is not. The North

Slope of Alaska is largely classified as wetlands underlain by permafrost, which separates the 

surface-water system-active layer, lakes, streams-from the relatively isolated and little 

understood groundwater system of sub-permafrost formations (Williams 1970, Sloan 1987). 

Although water appears plentiful on the surface, the North Slope has an arid climate, and if a 

significant supply of fresh water exists in deep aquifers, it could be a valuable resource. There is 

little known about the effect of drilling waste disposal on subsurface aquifers and its cumulative 

effect (NRC 2003). 

4-701 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Marine Waters. Offshore activity in the Beaufort Sea has been limited. Activities that affect 

the quality of marine waters and flow patterns have included construction of gravel islands and 

causeways and discharges of materials. Only a few small spills have occurred in marine waters 

to date, but mechanical recovery, the method allowed by current regulations, is not efficient and 

only removes a small fraction of the spilled oil, especially in broken ice. Concerns about 

contamination of marine waters center primarily on the potential effects on marine organisms 

(NRC 2003). 

There have been three permitted types of discharges to the Beaufort Sea over the life of the oil 

fields. First, individual facilities have discharges permitted under USEPA NPDES program. 

Second, small or localized discharges have been permitted under the North Slope General 

NPDES Permit. Third, exploratory drilling discharges were permitted under the Arctic General 

(or Beaufort General) NPDES Permit under either coastal effluent guidelines or offshore 

effluent guidelines (Wilson 2001). 

Permitted NPDES discharges include effluents from seawater-treatment plants, desalination 

plants, sanitary-waste-processing units, deck drainage sumps (from offshore production 

facilities, such as Northstar), temporary construction dewatering, and occasional tests of fire 

suppression with water. These discharges are permitted for a specific facility, and there are 

monitoring and reporting requirements. The largest discharges under this program are ocean 

water and peat detritus (Wilson 2001). 

Exploratory drilling discharges are covered under the USEPA Beaufort Sea General Permit and 

include disposal of drill cuttings and fluids from well-drilling operations. Although muds and 

cutting cannot be discharged onshore, offshore guidelines still allow discharges of muds and

cuttings. Monitoring is frequently required as a condition of discharge permits to ensure that 

discharges do not exceed water quality standards, are not toxic to marine organisms, do not 

degrade water quality, and do not pose a threat to human health. It is unknown if impacts from 

discharges to marine water have accumulated. 

Past Clean-Up Efforts in the Planning Area. In 1976, a cleanup program was initiated, 

based out of Point Lonely and Barrow. During the summer of 1976, over 23,500 drums were 

retrieved and 750,000 pounds of debris collected. In 1977, another 26,500 drums and 485 tons of 

debris were collected. In 1978, over 2 million pounds of debris were collected, primarily from the 

Skill Cliff Air Force Tower site and the Navy’s Topagoruk and East Topagoruk test well sites. In 

1979, another 1.8 million tons of debris were collected at old Navy sites and other sites in the 

NPR-A. Removal of this material lessened the likelihood of hazardous materials further 

impacting local water bodies. 

Rehabilitation of pads and other disturbed sites began in the late 1970s, with the focus on 

lowering the drill pads and obliterating their straight edges, filling reserve pits, and 

revegetating sites. Germination success varied depending upon growing conditions during the 

summer; wet and foggy summers usually resulted in poor germination. It is estimated that 

about 550 acres were disturbed during the 1975-1982 USGS exploration program, that 

revegetation was attempted on 440 acres, and that vegetation became well established on 

nearly 400 acres by 1982. 

In 2004, continued erosion of the northern coastline threatened J.W. Dalton Test Well #1. 

Approximately 600 feet of coastline eroded into the Beaufort Sea over the previous two years. 

Mobilization of well plugging equipment, excavation of the reserve pit soil and plugging of the 

well took place over the following winter. The reserve pit had been sampled prior to the onset of 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-702 

Cumulative Impacts: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

winter and it was determined that a portion of the pit required excavation due to environmental 

concerns. The soil was brought to Lonely (3 miles west), bagged into Supersacks, then 

transported by barge for proper disposal during late summer 2006. 

Summary of Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Based on the above analysis, approximately 2,500 acres of direct surface disturbance from nonoil and gas activities have impacted water bodies and drainage patterns. By 2001, oil and gas 

activities will have caused approximately 17,500 acres of direct impacts to lands on the North 

Slope, and indirect impacts to water resources may have occurred on another 17,500 acres. 

Since most of these impacts are associated with ongoing non-oil and gas residential and 

commercial development, and oil and gas activities, these impacts to water are additive to 

future impacts and would be likely to persist for several decades or more. Water withdrawals 

are required for all oil field operations. Permit regulations have maintained water quality and 

quantity in lakes as natural recharge processes have been sufficient to recharge the lakes each

year. Over 400 miles of oilfield roads (excluding the Dalton Highway) have been constructed by 

2001, resulting in approximately 1400 culvert locations and 17 bridges. Streambank erosion, 

scour and sedimentation have been experienced at stream crossings due to inadequate design in

the placement of structures, culverts, or bridges. This has altered natural sediment transport 

and deposition, creating scour holes or channel bars and impounding water. Several spills have 

occurred on the North Slope, but their effects have been minor and have likely not accumulated.

Effects of discharges from offshore facilities and subsurface injection of drilling wastes are 

largely unknown, but likely have had little cumulative effect on water quality on the North

Slope. Large amounts of debris was left on the North Slope from exploration and military 

activities from 1940 to 1970 that impacted water quality, but clean-up efforts since the 1970s 

have removed some of the remaining debris. 

4.7.7.4.2 Future Effects and Their Accumulation 

Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Non-oil and gas activities will continue to have minor impacts on water resources and water 

quality. Activities include scientific excavations, temporary tent camps, overland moves by 

transport vehicles, aircraft landings and use of gravel strips, boats, and use of OHVs such as 

four-wheel vehicles, and snowmachines, hazardous material or debris removal, and spills, all 

have the potential to impact water resources and quality. These impacts are usually localized 

and result in short-term impacts for up to a few years. DEW-Line sites and other military 

facilities, villages, airstrips, and other non-oil and gas infrastructure located on the North Slope 

(nearly all located outside the planning area) are likely to persist into the indefinite future, and

for villages, are likely to double from approximately 1,800 acres now to 3,600 acres in the 2040s, 

causing additional water resource impacts outside the planning area. 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Future impacts to water resources and water quality will result from thermokarst erosion from 

seismic exploration and placement of gravel structures, use of lakes as a water source for ice 

roads, altered drainage patterns, dust effects created by additional traffic on existing roads, 

spills, drilling waste disposal, discharges to marine waters, clean up efforts, and abandonment. 

Offshore oil and gas operations and the use of tankers to transport oil from the TAPS to west

coast refineries could have a cumulative effect on marine and estuarine water resources. 

4-703 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Seismic Activities and Exploration. It is expected that three 2-D and two 3-D surveys (see 

section 4.2.1.2 for a description of these activities) would be estimated to impact a maximum of

approximately 108,000 acres during the life of the activity. The Northwest NPR-A Planning 

Area IAP/EIS estimates that the total acreage impacted by seismic activity would be 

approximately 185,000 acres combined for 2-D and 3-D seismic surveys and associated camp 

train moves over the life of the activity. 

To analyze the cumulative impacts of seismic surveys on the North Slope, BLM assumes 

continuation of the recent experience of up to four seismic crews active there each winter and 

that the miles of 2-D and 3-D surveys, the associated camp-move miles, and the proportion of 2­

D and 3-D surveys anticipated in Northeast NPR-A will over time approximate the average 

throughout the North Slope. Based on these assumptions, approximately 86,400 acres would be 

disturbed annually on the North Slope, with approximately 125 acres of that total potentially 

experiencing thermokarst erosion due to moderate to high levels of disturbance a decade later. 

Thermokarst erosion would also result from the cumulative effect of seismic activity on the 

tundra during winter months. These impacts would accumulate and be additive to past effects 

to water bodies on the North Slope. 

Seismic activity has occurred for many years in the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea Planning Areas 

and is expected to continue in the future during the open water season (April and October) Off 

shore seismic work includes the use of ice breakers, seismic vessels, support vessels and 

helicopters. Survey times in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area are expected to average 20 – 30 

days and to cover a 200 sq-mi area. Off shore seismic surveys are conducted using an airgun 

and receiving cable arrays. Impacts to water quality from spills are possible. 

Water Withdrawals and Use Oil and gas exploration and development would require 

substantial volumes of water from lakes. Future water withdrawals are difficult to estimate 

since locations and amount of drilling activity will greatly determine the amount of ice roads 

built. From 1999-2006 water use for exploration in NPR-A averaged 75 million gallons (MG) of 

water per year or 26 MG per well. If 193 wells are drilled over the life of this activity plan, then 

5,020 MG of water may be withdrawn using these averages. Water withdrawals from lakes have 

the potential to lower water levels if the removed water is not recharged by snowmelt, rainfall, 

or inundation by rivers following the removal. Previous studies have shown lakes to have fully 

recharged the following breakup after water removals in the winter (Baker, 2002; Hinzman, 

2006). Because the best oil prospects within the planning area and the North Slope are located 

in specific zones, lakes along these primary exploration and development zones would be used

extensively for water during the winter months until permanent development is planned. The

possibility remains that pumped lakes may not fully recharge the following summer, but is 

unlikely since most have sufficient recharge areas or connections to other streams or lakes. If 

any lakes are not fully recharged or have water quality changes, future withdrawals from these 

lakes will not be permitted until conditions return to a normal state. However, extensive use 

may have a long-term cumulative impact on the planning area, especially if water is withdrawn 

from a majority of lakes in a concentrated area. 

Water removed for ice roads, pads, drilling and camps, is somewhat saline because of the 

exclusion of ions during the freezing of the upper part of the lake. When this water is used for 

ice roads and pads it can slightly increase salinity locally as it melts. Local snowmelt quickly 

mixes with and dilutes this water. Depending on how far water is transported, some portion of 

the removed water will return to the lake from which it was removed or flow into an adjacent 

drainage area. Cumulative impacts are not expected since the impacts will be localized and very 

small. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-704 

Cumulative Impacts: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Drainage Patterns. Although most roads would be built during the winter months as ice 

roads, long-term oil and gas development in the planning area and the North Slope would

require permanent gravel roads. A total of 320 miles of roadways are projected for developments 

within Northeast NPR-A. These will likely be in wetlands where drainages are easily altered by 

road construction and temporary or permanent impoundments are created which divert, 

impede, or block flow in stream channels, lakes, or shallow-water tracks. Impounded water can

produce high flows through culverts which is likely to produce streambank and thermokarst 

erosion, channel scour and downstream deposition of sediment if culverts are improperly placed

or sized. Long-term effects in channel morphology and in the composition of lake and stream 

bottom materials could result. 

The long-term effect of thermokarst erosion on water resources and quality would persist, and

new thermokarst erosion would be associated with new disturbance, especially in areas where 

the wave action of the water would accelerate the removal of the protective soil and vegetative 

cover. Fine-grained sediments melting out of the ice-rich permafrost would result in increased 

sediment erosion and changes to stream channel and bed morphology. Assuming that some 

culverts, bridges and pipes will not be correctly sized, engineered, or constructed, impacts to 

water resources and quality from impoundments, scour, sedimentation, and thermokarst 

erosion would persist and accumulate. Since roads pose the single greatest impacting factor 

(diversions, impoundments, and increased sediment runoff), limiting the length of the roads, or

the repeated use of roads, would provide a substantial reduction in impacts to water resources. 

Gravel Structures. Development activities that could contribute to cumulative effects to

water resources and quality on the North Slope include oil and gas development in other areas, 

including the Northwest NPR-A; Federal and state offshore oil development (through the 

construction of supporting onshore infrastructure); state onshore oil development; oil and gas 

transportation; road construction; and a pipeline to take North Slope gas to market, as well as 

gas pipelines, assumed in most cases to be buried, to gather North Slope gas to a conditioning 

plant near the northern terminus of the market gas pipeline. All of these activities involve 

construction of infrastructure that would impact wetlands within the immediate footprint of the

project and indirectly affect water quality through dust, flooding, changes in natural drainage 

patterns, snow drifting, increased water and air pollution, and oil and chemical spills. 

Besides thermokarst and drainage alteration, erosion and sedimentation would be caused by 

construction activities or vehicular crossings, especially during periods of high stream flow or 

lake levels. Given that over 95% of the primary proposed development area (Barrow Arch) is 

comprised of water bodies, numerous bridge and culvert crossings would be needed where roads 

and pads are constructed. If culverts were properly sized and engineered, impacts to water flow

from ice-blocking and other obstructions should be minimized. The major rivers should not be 

affected because lease stipulations would require bridges rather than culverts at crossings. 

Additional construction outside of the planning area necessary to support oil and gas 

exploration and development in the Planning Area would include an increased number of ice 

roads and new pipelines. Additionally, interconnected oil and gas infrastructure that extends 

westward across the planning area may increase the likelihood of development in the Northwest 

NPR-A Planning Area and, at least under alternatives B through D, in the Beaufort and 

Chukchi Seas. Impacts may result from water withdrawals and direct loss of wetlands or 

indirect disturbance associated with construction of a pipeline. 

Impacts from pipeline construction and the accompanying gravel extraction, with its resultant 

erosion and sedimentation, would be similar to those described under the action alternatives. 

4-705 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Though dependent on the actual level and location of implementation, the increase in the 

overall effect of construction-related activities in the cumulative case would accumulate, but 

would have a minor affect on water quality. 

Gravel Mines. Approximately 2,200 acres of gravel mines may be created by the end of the 

century. Improper siting of gravel-removal pits could result in changes to the configuration of

stream channels or lakes, stream-flow hydraulics or lake dynamics, erosion and sedimentation, 

and ice damming and aufeis formation. Those changes would in turn result in long-term 

changes in stream channel and lakeshore sand and gravel-bar formation. While new gravel sites 

on the North Slope would require permits from the ADFG, it is possible that impedance and

diversion of floodwaters, increased erosion and sedimentation, and increased thermokarst 

erosion adjacent to the material sites could occur. Most recent gravel pits have been sited on the 

tundra, rather than in rivers to minimize the effects described above. Gravel removal for 

permanent gravel roads and drill pads, however, would still present a long-term cumulative 

impact to the planning area and to the North Slope in general. 

Spills and Other Contaminants. Overall, the effects of spills on soil have not accumulated on 

the North Slope because all but two of the spills have been small and cleanup and rehabilitation 

efforts have generally been successful (NRC 2003). The largest spill in the North Slope oilfields 

(over 200,000 gallons) occurred in March of 2006; remediation efforts have been completed and 

long-term monitoring is now occurring. The projected increase in activity levels combined with 

the potential problem of aging pipelines will result in more spills. Cumulative effects would 

depend on the location, number, size, and seasonal timing of the spills, and concentrations of 

hydrocarbons. The quality of freshwater within the planning area should not be affected by any 

of the developments considered in this cumulative analysis, unless there was a large oil spill 

within or near a fish-bearing lake. The effects of construction activities should be short term 

and have the greatest impact in the immediate vicinity of the activity. Construction activities 

are not expected to introduce or add any chemical contaminants. Removal of water from lakes 

during the winter months should not affect water quality. Only a large oil spill within or near a 

fish-bearing lake would present a possible impact to long-term water quality. 

Gas Development. If commercial gas development occurs on the North Slope, additional 

impacts could occur to water resources. Gas pipelines, both the large-diameter pipeline that 

would take gas south over the Brooks Range to market and those smaller pipelines that would

take gas from CPFs to a conditioning plant at the northern terminus of the gas pipeline, would 

most likely be buried. Buried gas pipelines have the potential to cause thermokarst, 

subsidence, and erosion problems that could persist beyond the construction phase. If all work 

on the pipelines is done during winter, these impacts would be greatly reduced 

Abandonment. Removal of facilities, particularly roads, bridges, and culverts, would likely 

cause increased sedimentation and thermokarst erosion immediately after removal. Leaving 

pads, airstrips, roads, bridges, and culverts in place, particularly without future maintenance, 

however, would result in longer-term, higher levels of erosion, sedimentation, and upslope 

impoundment. Leaving the roads in place, but removing bridges and culverts and breaching the 

roads where culverts had been placed, would reduce upslope impoundment. Ponds could be 

formed from melting of ice wedges or other ice underlying the gravel facilities. Recovery of 

disturbed sites on the North Slope is complicated by the fact that any disturbance of the 

insulating vegetative mat can melt the underlying permafrost, a process that is extremely

difficult to reverse and that can continue long after the initial disturbance ends. Recovery times 

in the Arctic, as elsewhere, depend in part on the nature and extent of disturbance and the type 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-706 

Cumulative Impacts: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

of habitat affected. Reclamation of oil fields, even over a long period of time, would reduce some

of the cumulative effects of impoundments. 

Drilling Waste Disposal. Drilling wastes are injected into subsurface aquifers for permanent 

disposal. Although much of the water in aquifers below the impermeable permafrost is too

saline to meet standards for a legally protected drinking water, some is not. There is little 

known about the effect of drilling waste disposal on subsurface aquifers and its cumulative 

effect (NRC 2003). 

Marine Waters. Offshore activity in the Beaufort Sea has been limited and no oil and gas 

development has yet occurred in the Chukchi Sea. Activities that affect the quality of marine 

waters and flow patterns have included construction of gravel islands and causeways and

discharges of materials. Only a few small spills have occurred in marine waters to date, but 

mechanical recovery, the method allowed by current regulations, is not efficient and only 

removes a small fraction of the spilled oil, especially in broken ice. Concerns about 

contamination of marine waters center primarily on the potential effects on marine organisms 

(NRC 2003). 

There have been three permitted types of discharges to the Beaufort Sea over the life of the oil 

fields. First, individual facilities have discharges permitted under USEPA NPDES program. 

Second, small or localized discharges have been permitted under the North Slope General 

NPDES Permit. Third, exploratory drilling discharges were permitted under the Arctic General 

(or Beaufort General) NPDES Permit under either coastal effluent guidelines or offshore 

effluent guidelines (Wilson 2001). Monitoring is frequently required as a condition of discharge 

permits to ensure that discharges do not exceed water quality standards, are not toxic to marine 

organisms, do not degrade water quality, and do not pose a threat to human health. Thus, 

impacts from discharges to marine water have been minor, are likely to remain that way for 

future similar development, and are not likely to accumulate. Similar regulation of Chukchi 

Sea development, should it occur, is anticipated to provide similar protection. 

Clean-Up Efforts. Water resources and quality may be impacted through future remediation 

efforts which may involve plugging of abandoned wells, excavation of reserve pits and 

contaminated soil, removal of drums and debris and subsequent rehabilitation of affected soils. 

Removal of this material lessens the likelihood of hazardous materials further impacting local 

water bodies but may result in localized short-term impacts during clean-up operations and for 

some time afterwards. 

4.7.7.4.3 Global Climate Change 

Permafrost. Much research in recent years has focused on the effects of naturally-occurring or

man-induced global climate regime shifts and the potential for these shifts to cause changes in 

habitat structure over large areas. Although many of the forces driving global climate regime

shifts may originate outside the Arctic, the impacts of global climate change are exacerbated in 

the Arctic (ACIA 2004). Temperatures in the Arctic have risen faster than in other areas of the 

world as evidenced by glacial retreat and melting of sea ice. 

The increasing thickness of the active layer above arctic permafrost is likely to cause changes in

moisture regimes and the distribution of vegetation types over much of the Arctic in coming 

years. Thawing of the permafrost may result in increased amounts of surface water in some

areas. Areas of permafrost with substrates composed of fine-grained materials may be

susceptible to drying, erosion, and desertification (ACIA 2004). Increases in sea level may 

4-707 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

inundate low lying tundra areas, increasing salt marsh, aquatic and wet tundra vegetation 

types and erosion of coastal bluffs (ACIA 2004). Such impacts of climate change could accelerate

or exacerbate changes in soil thermal regimes that occur with development, potentially leading 

to greater impacts associated with thermokarst. Global climate change could lead to increased 

evaporation and, in turn, to increased precipitation. Over the Arctic as a whole, annual total 

precipitation is projected to increase by roughly 20% by the end of this century, with most of the 

increase coming as rain. However, while there is high confidence that temperatures will rise 

and total annual precipitation will increase, it is not known whether the increase in 

precipitation will keep up with the warming and rate of evaporation. If precipitation does not 

keep up with the rate of evaporation, land areas could dry out. 

Since oil and gas activities can also cause local thawing of permafrost, the effects of a warming 

climate would add to the thawing effects of direct and indirect impacts from oil and gas 

development activities on the North Slope. These cumulative effects would occur locally in 

areas of surface disturbance described earlier. If the climate continues to warm, the period in 

which there would be adequate snow and frost on the ground to support seismic and other 

exploration activities would decrease, and the potential for seismic activities to disturb the soil 

would increase. The effects of changing climate on permafrost are difficult to predict, and 

predicting how oil and gas development effects to permafrost might accumulate is more 

uncertain than predicting climate change (NRC 2003, p 59). However, if the permafrost 

continues to warm, its ability to support structures would diminish, which could affect 

development on the North Slope. Thicker gravel may be needed to support structures, and

abandoned work pads and roads could become unusable as they are cut up by deep polygonal 

troughs over thawing ice wedges, or by other thermokarst degradation. 

Coastal Erosion. Another adverse effect to water resources and quality as a result of climate 

warming is increased erosion along coastal boundaries. Rising temperatures are altering the 

Arctic coastline and changes are projected to continue during this century as a result of reduced 

sea ice, thawing permafrost, and sea-level rise (ACIA 2004). Thinner, less extensive sea ice 

creates more open water, allowing stronger wave generation by winds and increasing waveinduced erosion along Arctic shores. 

Rising sea level is very likely to inundate marshes and coastal plains, accelerate beach erosion,

and force salt water into bays, rivers, and groundwater. Coastal regions with underlying 

permafrost are especially vulnerable to erosion as ice beneath the seabed and shoreline thaws 

from contact with warmer air and water. The projected increase in air and water temperature, 

reduction in sea ice, and increase in height and frequency of storm surges are expected to have a 

destabilizing effect on coastal permafrost, resulting in increased erosion. Since oil and gas 

activities can also cause local thawing of permafrost, the effects of a warming climate would add 

to the thawing effects of direct and indirect impacts from oil and gas development activities 

along coastal boundaries. These cumulative effects could occur locally in areas of surface 

disturbance near coastal boundaries. 

4.7.7.4.4 Contribution of Supplemental Alternatives to Cumulative Effects 

If development occurred in the northern portion of the planning area where much of the high 

potential for oil exists, 95% or more of the impacted area would likely be wetlands. Impacts 

from ice road construction would occur on 15,642 to 21,763 acres during the life of the plan, 

while impacts from ice pads and ice airstrips would occur on another 1,126 to 1,700 acres; these 

impacts to water quality due to water withdrawals and melting of ice roads and pads would be 

short-term and would not accumulate. Long-term impacts to water quality from seismic surveys 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-708 

Cumulative Impacts: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

in the planning area would occur under all alternatives but amount to less than 125 acres per 

year. Development in the planning area from roads and pads could directly impact water 

quality on approximately 2,720, 3,060, 3,850, 3,680 acres and have equal indirect impacts to the 

same acreage for Alternatives A through D, respectively (Table 4.2-G). Gravel mines would also 

add additional direct impacts of 550, 660, 800, and 700 acres to each of the plans. These impacts 

would be long-term and would accumulate. 

Alternatives B, C, and D would open the northwest portion of the planning area to leasing. 

Infrastructure such as pipelines and CPFs developed in this area would make oil and gas 

production in the adjacent northeast portion of Northwest NPR-A and Beaufort Sea more likely 

to be developed in the foreseeable future. The additional effects of any such development in 

Northwest NPR-A on water resources would be minimal and difficult to discern from existing 

effects already analyzed; however synergistic impacts to water resources associated with 

Beaufort Sea development could be considerable in that a pipeline traversing the northern 

portion of the planning area may otherwise provide the only means to process and transport oil 

and gas extracted in offshore areas north and east of Teshekpuk Lake of to TAPS and a gas 

pipeline, thus supplying a critical prerequisite to offshore development. (See discussion of

Northwest NPR-A and Beaufort Sea under section 4.7.3.3). Consequently, development would 

be accelerated or become more likely under these action alternatives compared to Alternative A. 

4.7.7.4.5 Conclusion 

It is anticipated that villages will continue to grow in the future due to population growth and 

to provide services and infrastructure to support new oil and gas development on the North

Slope. The amount of area that would be disturbed by new development is projected to increase 

by at least 2% annually for the next few decades. These impacts are additive to the impacts to 

water bodies that have accumulated in the past and persist today, but in the context of the 

NPR-A and North Slope, these cumulative impacts would be small. Of this, gravel mining for oil 

and gas development would account for about 2,200 acres by the year 2100. These actions have 

the potential to add to the cumulative loss and degradation of water resources. Impacts to water 

resources and water quality would be additive to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future impacts on the North Slope. The majority of the impacts would result from oil and gas 

development activities, with construction of roads, permanent drill pads, and water use from 

lakes during the winter months being the major contributors. Impacts from activities other than 

those associated with oil and gas development (including any oil and gas-related roads) would 

be minor. Because of the abundance of water resources on the North Slope, the overall 

cumulative impact to water resources on the North Slope and in the planning area would 

probably be small in magnitude and most impacts would be local in nature. These local impacts 

could be substantial and long term because of the concentration of promising oil and gas plays 

in specific areas. There could be synergistic effects on water resources and quality that would 

take place in the Northwest NPR-A and Beaufort Sea. This would occur if a large discovery in 

the northwest part of the Northeast NPR-A Planning Area would make economic the 

development or expansion of an oil field in the northeast part of Northwest NPR-A which would

not otherwise have been economically developable, or provide the means to process and

transport offshore oil and gas and thus possibly supply a critical prerequisite to offshore 

development. The implementation of the lease stipulations and ROPs required for protection of

water resources under each alternative should reduce the cumulative effect to water resources 

from oil and gas, and non-oil and gas, activities in the planning area to an acceptable level. 

4-709 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Water Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7.7.5 Vegetation 

Vegetation is a renewable resource; impacts to vegetation do not necessarily accumulate and are 

often reversible. However, due to the harsh climate and short growing seasons on the North

Slope, it may take plants decades to centuries to recover from a disturbance. Oil and gas 

exploration and development in the planning area are the primary contributing activities, in 

terms of cumulative effects, on vegetation on the North Slope. The greatest impacts occur where

vegetation is removed or buried under gravel or other material that destroys the vegetation. In 

the long term, global climate change may have a greater and more persistent effect on 

vegetation on the North Slope than oil and gas activities. Other factors that contribute to the 

cumulative loss or disturbance of vegetation include permitted activities such as non-oil and gas 

overland moves and development, scientific data gathering, and recreational use by the public. 

Additional vegetation may be lost by indirect effects associated with dust from gravel roads and 

pads, and from alteration of natural drainage flows resulting from development. 

4.7.7.5.1 Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Non-oil and gas activities, including archaeological and paleontological digs, camps associated 

with scientific studies, recreational use, overland moves by transport vehicles, and use of OHVs

such as four-wheel vehicles and snowmachines, have likely caused the loss of less than 100 

acres of vegetation in the planning area. In most cases, loss of vegetation would be temporary,

lasting only a few years. Where Caterpillar or similar tractors have been used, or the vegetation 

has been bladed, vegetation scars persist to this day. An estimated 250 acres of tractor 

trail/tundra scars were created before 1973; about 50 acres remain evident today (NRC 2003). 

DEW-Line sites and other military facilities, villages, public roads, airstrips, and other non-oil 

and gas infrastructure have been developed using gravel pads or on bare ground cleared of 

vegetation. Approximately 2,500 acres (1,800 acres of village and public facilities, and 700 acres 

of military facilities) have been impacted, and this loss of vegetative cover is likely to persist 

into the indefinite future. 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Seismic Activities and Exploration. Much of the ACP has been surveyed since 1940, and 

vegetation was disturbed to varying degrees depending upon the soil and vegetation type, 

vehicle type, operator vigilance, and amount of snow cover. Studies of seismic and camp-move 

trails created on the eastern part of the North Slope in the 1980s showed that only 3% of 

seismic trails were still evident 8 years later, and none of this area showed moderate to high 

impacts. Yet 10% of camp-move trails still showed minor and 5% showed moderate to high 

disturbance (Jorgenson et al. 1996). This compared to values of 11% little to no impact, 64% 

minor, 23% moderate and 2% high on seismic trails just one to two summers following the 

activity, and 22%, 52%, 24% and 2%, respectively, for camp-move trails. The greatest damage 

occurred where the vegetative mat was destroyed and the underlying soil was exposed. This 

resulted from tracked vehicles or sleds on skids cutting into hummocks, or from Caterpillar 

operators making a tight turn and dropping the blade too deeply into the snow. As noted earlier,

about 50 acres of tractor trail/tundra scars persist today from even earlier work. 

Use of newer technologies, including vehicles that apply less pressure to the ground and 

restricting travel to periods when there is adequate snow and frost cover to protect vegetation, 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-710 

Cumulative Impacts: Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

has reduced the level of impacts to vegetation. In 2001, a study conducted the summer following 

seismic work, found little to no impacts to tundra under seismic lines on 30% of the plots 

(versus 11% above) studied (Jorgenson et al. 2003). Minor impacts were found on 66% (versus 

64% above) and moderate impacts were found on 4% of the plots (versus 23% above); no plots

were highly impacted (versus 2% above). Camp move trails in this study had little or no impacts 

on 18%, minor impacts on 54%, moderate impacts on 29%, and high impacts on none of the plots 

(similar numbers to the above study). This study suggests that improvements in the equipment 

and procedures used for seismic surveys has reduced the amount of impact to tundra, resulting 

in a higher percentage of tundra in categories of low or little to no impacts and few, if any, 

highly impacted sites. However, no significant improvement in camp-move technology is 

evident. Longer-term studies are needed to determine if these impacts persist for more than a 

few years and accumulate. 

Other sources of vegetative loss include exploration sites with gravel pads, disturbed areas 

around these pads, exploration airstrips, and peat and gravel exploration roads. Based on 

Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska’s North Slope (NRC 

2003), in 2001, approximately 1,700 acres had been impacted by these sites in the past, and 

1,130 acres of disturbance were still evident. Most of these sites were developed before 1977, 

thus their effects on the vegetative landscape have persisted for decades, and are likely to

persist for several more decades. Over 500 acres of peat roads still showed evidence of 

disturbance, even though most of these roads were constructed over 30 years ago. 

Oil and Gas Infrastructure. Gravel roads and pads, and gravel mines have caused the direct 

loss of vegetation, and also led to the indirect loss of vegetation and soil from thermokarst and

alteration of natural drainage patterns. For the North Slope as a whole, it is expected that by 

2010 gravel will have been used to construct about 9,680 acres of roads and pads in the oil

fields, 332 acres of the Dalton Highway, 1900 acres will have been impacted by other oil field 

related disturbances, and gravel mines will have impacted another 6,430 acres (Table 4.7-H). 

Approximately 4,500 acres of gravel mines have been rehabilitated but only 70 acres of gravel 

pads (NRC 2003). Rehabilitation of gravel mines produces primarily fisheries habitat, not 

tundra vegetation, and rehabilitation of gravel pads has produced mixed results that have not 

restored areas to original conditions. Thus, direct impacts to vegetation by 2010 will persist on 

about 18,342 acres (Table 4.7-H). 

Construction of gravel pads, roads, and airstrips has altered the moisture regime of tundra near 

the structure by changing natural drainage patterns and areas where snow accumulates. 

Snowdrifts caused by gravel structures have increased the wintertime soil surface temperature 

and increased thaw depth in soils near the structures. These impacts have been exacerbated by 

dust deposition and by the formation of impoundments. These factors combine to warm the soil, 

deepen thaw, and cause thermokarst adjacent to roads and other gravel structures (NRC 2003). 

The passage of vehicle traffic over gravel pads and roads results in dust and gravel being 

sprayed over vegetation within about 30 feet of the pad or road, and a noticeable dust shadow 

out to 150 feet or more. Within 30 feet of gravel structures, the dust and gravel can smother 

vegetation. The effects of dust on vegetation include early snowmelt, reduced soil nutrient 

concentrations, lower moisture, an altered soil organic horizon, and higher bulk density and 

depth of thaw (Everett 1980; Walker and Everett 1987; Auerbach et al. 1997). These studies 

found that plant species richness was reduced near gravel structures, particularly in naturally 

acidic soils. A decrease in acidophilus mosses, some lichen species, and certain heath taxa 

altered species composition (Walker and Everett 1987). In areas that experience heavy dust 

fallout, native plant communities have been killed and replaced by early-successional colonizers 

4-711 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

and species more tolerant of the altered site conditions. The magnitude of these effects depends 

on the duration of dust exposure (i.e., traffic intensity) and the distance from the source. Traffic 

volume and speed are generally low on in-field roads, which have limited dust impacts to 

vegetation, but are higher along the Dalton Highway. In addition to dust effects, hydrologic 

changes due to road induced changes in surface flow can occur. In general, most changes in the 

plant community and soil around gravel structures would occur within 164 feet of the structure

(Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1983). The ratio of spatial extent of indirect effects (roadside 

flooding, dust, debris, thermokarst) to spatial extent of direct effects (gravel fill) vary from 8.6:1 

to 2.4:1 with an average of 6:1 (NRC 2003). This may be a conservative figure for general 

application since it was based on studies done primarily in heavily developed portions of the 

Prudhoe Bay oil field. Using it across North Slope oil facilities in general would suggest that 

about 60,000 acres have been indirectly affected by gravel fill (9,680 acres gravel footprint plus 

332 acres Dalton Highway, times six; Table 4.7-H). These impacts are likely to persist as long as

gravel fill remains and vehicle travel occurs on the pads and roads. 

The material used for gravel fill can also impact vegetation near gravel structures. Saline 

material used as fill increases the salinity of water draining off of or leaching through the 

structure. Increased salinity at a site could alter the species composition of the plant community 

in the immediate vicinity of the gravel structure, shifting the community toward one comprised 

of species that are more tolerant of saline conditions (McKendrick 2000). 

Spills. Overall, the effects of spills on vegetation have not accumulated on the North Slope 

because the spills have been small, cleanup and rehabilitation efforts have generally been 

successful (NRC 2003) and ecosystems have generally recovered (Jorgenson 1997). 

Air Quality. The effects of air quality on vegetation near industrial facilities on the North 

Slope appear to be minimal (Kohut et al. 1994; NRC 2003), although few studies have been 

conducted. Air quality currently meets Federal and state air quality standards. Based on the 

few studies that have been conducted, these standards appear to be sufficient to have protected 

vegetation on the North Slope, although impacts to lichens from SO2 have been shown to occur 

at concentrations well below the 3-hour standard (BLM/MMS 1998), and the protection these 

limits on emissions provide to lichen species have been questioned (NRC 2003). 

Summary of Past and Present Impacts and Their Accumulation

Based on the above analyses, approximately 2,500 acres of direct impacts, and 15,000 acres of 

indirect impacts to vegetation from non-oil and gas activities persist today. By 2010, oil and gas 

activities will have caused approximately 18,342 acres of direct impacts, and 60,000 acres of 

indirect impacts to vegetation. Whether these impacts are associated with non-oil and gas 

residential and commercial development, or oil and gas activities, these impacts to vegetation 

are additive to future impacts and would be likely to persist for several decades or more. 

4.7.7.5.2 Future Effects and Their Accumulation 

Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Non-oil and gas activities on the North Slope, including archaeological and paleontological digs, 

camps associated with scientific studies, recreational use and other activities, overland moves

by transport vehicles, and use of OHVs such as four-wheel vehicles and snowmachines, would

continue to cause the loss of minor amounts of vegetation. In most cases, loss of vegetation 

would be temporary, lasting only a few years. DEW-Line sites and other military facilities, 

villages, airstrips, and other non-oil and gas infrastructure are likely to persist into the 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-712 

Cumulative Impacts: Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

indefinite future, and for villages, are likely to increase in size, causing the loss of additional 

vegetation. The amount of area that would be disturbed by new development on the North Slope 

in villages and other public facilities is projected to increase by about 2% annually, 

approximately doubling by 2045 when human population may level off. 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Seismic Activities and Exploration. To analyze the cumulative impacts of seismic surveys 

on the North Slope, BLM assumes continuation of the recent experience of three to four seismic 

crews active there each winter and that the miles of 2-D and 3-D surveys, the associated campmove miles, and the proportion of 2-D and 3-D surveys anticipated in Northeast NPR-A will 

over time approximate the average throughout the North Slope. Based on these assumptions, 

approximately 86,400 acres of vegetation would be disturbed annually on the North Slope, with 

125 acres of that total still showing moderate to high levels of disturbance a decade later. 

Other sources of vegetative loss include exploration sites with gravel pads, disturbed areas 

around these pads, exploration airstrips, and gravel exploration roads. These have been 

replaced in recent years by ice roads, airstrips, and drilling pads to reduce costs and 

environmental effects of gravel construction (Johnson and Collins 1980, Hazen 1997). As a 

result, only a small amount of vegetation is likely to be effected in the long term by exploration 

sites and facilities. 

Oil and Gas Infrastructure. Development activities that could contribute to cumulative 

effects to vegetation on the North Slope include oil and gas development in other areas, 

including the Northwest; Federal and state offshore oil and gas development (through the 

construction of supporting onshore infrastructure); state onshore oil and gas development; oil 

and gas transportation; and road construction. All of these activities involve construction of 

infrastructure that would destroy vegetation within the immediate footprint of the project and

indirectly affect vegetation through dust, flooding, changes in natural drainage patterns, snow 

drifting, increased water and air pollution, and oil and chemical spills that could cause changes 

in the plant species composition and community types. 

The increase in the amount of area disturbed by oil and gas development on the North Slope has

slowed in recent years. Before 1988, the oil field road network grew by about 24 miles per year, 

but only 3 miles per year since 1988. The average rate of all gravel placement was about 421 

acres per year before 1988, and only 42 acres per year between 1988 and 2001 (NRC 2003; Table 

4.7-F). If the current rates continue into the future for areas outside the Northwest NPR-A and

the Northeast NPR-A Planning Area, and the ratio of gravel mine acres to gravel footprint acres 

remains about 5:1 (see section 4.2.1.2), about 1,050 additional acres would be covered by 

gravel, and 210 acres impacted by gravel mines, in the next 25 years. Approximately 6,300 acres 

would be indirectly affected by dust, changes in hydrology, and thermokarst. To carry these

same assumptions through, another 1,260 acres of vegetation could be destroyed by gravel 

placement or gravel mines for oil and gas activities between 2035 and 2060, and another 6,300 

acres could be indirectly impacted by development. The 42 acres per year increase since 1988 

has been in an area where the main road network had already been built. There are currently 

no roads in the planning area or Northwest NPR-A to support oil field development. Thus per 

year growth in the planning area (as detailed previously for each of the four alternatives, 

sections 4.3.5, 4.4.5, 4.5.5 and 4.6.5) and Northwest NPR-A (described in the table in section 

4.7.3.3) would be expected to proceed at a faster rate. 

4-713 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Thus impacts to vegetation will accumulate from the following sources: past non-oil/gas 

activities, non-oil/gas activities from now until about 2045, past oil/gas activities outside of the 

planning area and Northwest NPR-A, future oil/gas activities outside of the Northeast and

Northwest NPR-A up to 2060, future oil/gas activities in the Northwest NPR-A, and future 

activities in the Planning Area (Northeast NPR-A). All future impacts are additive to the 

impacts to vegetation that have accumulated in the past and persist today, but in the context of 

the entire ACP and North Slope, these cumulative impacts would be relatively small. Based on 

direct (33,962 acres) and indirect (132,401 acres) impacts that could still persist in 2060, direct 

and indirect impacts to vegetation from activities on the North Slope would impact 

approximately 1.3% of the ACP and 0.29% of the North Slope. These estimates do not take into

account the quality of the vegetation that would be impacted on the North Slope. If rare plants 

or unusual or scarce plant communities are harmed or lost, impacts to vegetation could be 

greater based on qualitative factors. Nor do these figures take into account impacts from

construction of a natural gas pipeline from the North Slope to market or burial of gas pipelines 

within the North Slope from new commercial gas developments. If a natural gas pipeline was 

built from the North Slope, approximately 23,200 acres would be disturbed during construction, 

about 4,800 acres of that on the North Slope (TAPS Renewal EIS, p. 4.7-80). Additional acreage 

would be disturbed through burial of gas pipelines that ultimately deliver gas to a conditioning 

plant and the gas pipeline that delivers gas from the North Slope. Revegetation along the route

of these buried pipelines would occur over several years to decades, or even to over a century in

some, usually dryer, areas. 

Spills. The amount of oil produced on the North Slope under the reasonably foreseeable future

scenario is likely to continue to trend downward. As oil production slows, coupled with 

improvement in spill prevention and control technologies and training, the potential for effects 

to vegetation should decline over time. This trend could be countered, however, by an aging 

pipeline system if that should lead to an increase in pipeline leaks. 

Air Quality. Emissions on the North Slope are expected to decrease as the result of an overall 

downward trend in oil production. Greater reliance on technologies that reduce the need for

permanent roads and pads, and reduce the size of the facility footprint, also would result in 

lower levels of particulate matter emissions. Still, impacts to vegetation from past and future 

air pollutants could accumulate. 

Sensitive Plant Species. Development would be unlikely to have a substantially negative 

effect on plant species or communities as a whole. However, if facilities were constructed in an 

area containing a population of a rare plant species, the impacts to that species could be high. 

Five rare North Slope plant species are known to occur in the planning area, and other rare 

species are known to occur on the North Slope but have not been documented in the planning 

area. False semaphoregrass is an aquatic grass that rarely occurs between the pendent grass 

and sedge zones in lakes and ponds. This species is known in Alaska from only a few locations 

north and northeast of Teshekpuk Lake. This area would be open to development under 

Alternatives C and D, but not under Alternative A and only partly under Alternative B. 

Fewflower draba is known from a few coastal sites from Pitt Point to Barrow. All alternatives 

provide a buffer protection zone (from development) along the coast, but this species could be

further imperiled by accelerated coastal erosion. Drummond’s bluebell, Eurasian junegrass and 

Alaskan bluegrass all occur in dry habitats associated with bluffs, floodplains, river terraces,

sand dunes, and rock outcrops. These habitats are potentially sources of gravel fill used during 

construction and development (NRC 2003) and could be impacted by development in these 

areas. Because of the limited number of plants comprising these populations, loss of one or more

plant populations could be a significant cumulative impact to the species. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-714 

Cumulative Impacts: Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Abandonment. The North Slope presents special technical challenges to restoration and

recovery. Extremely cold temperatures, meager precipitation (5 to 7 inches per year), and the 

short growing season lengthen recovery times substantially beyond those possible elsewhere in

the United States. Natural recovery of disturbed sites to original soil and plant conditions has 

been estimated to require 600 to 800 years for upland sites and 100 to 200 years for marsh sites 

(AOGA 2001). 

Recovery of disturbed sites on the North Slope is complicated by the fact that any disturbance of 

the insulating vegetative mat can melt the underlying permafrost, a process that is extremely 

difficult to reverse and that can continue long after the initial disturbance ends. Finally, gravel

pads and roads, which account for the vast majority of the directly affected habitat on the North 

Slope, retain moisture and nutrients poorly and thus slow recovery processes. 

Recovery times in the Arctic, as elsewhere, depend in part on the nature and extent of

disturbance and the type of habitat affected. For example, wet sites tend to recover quickly from

light oil spills; dry sites affected by diesel fuel spills recover exceedingly slowly, with little 

recovery occurring after several decades (Walker 1996). Disturbed areas that would recover 

relatively quickly in more temperate climates (such as those caused by Caterpillar tractor 

tracks), can persist for many decades because of melted permafrost. 

Reclamation of oil fields, even over a long period of time, would reduce some of the cumulative 

effects of vegetative loss. 

4.7.7.5.3 Global Climate Change 

Temperatures in Alaska, and throughout the Arctic, are thought to have fluctuated considerably 

over the last few centuries (Mann et al. 1999). Despite this fluctuation, the last 100 years 

appear to have been the warmest century in the last 400 years (Overpeck et al. 1997; IPCC 

2001; ACIA 2004). As predicted by global climate models, Alaska’s surface air temperature has 

warmed throughout much of the state since at least the mid-1970s (IPCC 2001, ACIA 2004). 

Continued warming of the climate could have major effects on the ecosystems of Alaska, 

particularly the North Slope. However, the large amount of natural variation inherent in the 

system limits our current understanding of the consequences of climate change. 

Chapin et al. (1995) suggested that climate change might be altering the species composition of 

the Alaskan Arctic tundra. A warmer, wetter environment with a longer growing season could 

greatly affect the productivity and growth form composition of tundra by causing a more rapid 

release of nutrients from decomposing soil organic matter (Nadelhoffer et al. 1991). Similarly, 

changes in the water table, which alter decomposition and nutrient availability, substantially 

alter the carbon balance of tundra and taiga microcosms (Billings et al. 1983; Funk et al. 1994). 

These changes may eventually lead to shifts in the composition of Arctic tundra toward 

increased shrub height and cover extent (Chapin et al. 1995; Sturm et al. 2001; Walker et al. 

2006) and increased grass and sedge species. These increases would likely be at the expense of 

lichen and moss cover (Chapin et al. 1995; Cornelissen et al. 2001; Jorgenson and Buchholtz 

2003; Epstein et al. 2004; Walker et al. 2006). These changes have already been observed to 

some extent on the North Slope. Warmer soil temperatures are likely to increase thermokarst, 

and increases in sea level may inundate low lying tundra areas, increasing salt marsh, aquatic 

and wet tundra vegetation types and erosion of coastal bluffs (ACIA 2004). Such impacts of 

climate change could accelerate or exacerbate changes in soil thermal regimes that occur with 

development, potentially leading to greater impacts to vegetation from changes associated with 

thermokarst. 

4-715 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7.7.5.4 Contribution of Supplement Alternatives to Cumulative Effects 

Impacts from ice road construction would occur on 15,642 to 21,763 acres during the life of the 

plan, while impacts from ice pads and ice airstrips would occur on another 1,126 to 1,700 acres; 

these impacts to vegetation would be short-term and would not accumulate. Long-term impacts 

to vegetation from seismic surveys in the planning area would occur on approximately 150 acres 

under all alternatives. Development in the planning area could directly impact approximately 

3,270, 3,716, 4,649, and 4,378 acres, and indirectly impact 9,343, 10,178, 13,001, and 12,961 

acres of vegetation for Alternatives A through D, respectively. These impacts would be longterm and would accumulate. Total, long-term, direct and indirect impacts to vegetation from

exploration and development combined would occur on 0.28% (Alternative A) to 0.39% 

(Alternative C) of the planning area. 

The impacts in the planning area would increase the total amount of vegetation on the North 

Slope impacted by all oil and gas development, and generally would be additive in nature. 

Exceptions may occur in relation to development in the Northwest NPR-A and Beaufort Sea.

Depending on oil prices and where and how much oil is ultimately developed in the planning 

area, there could be synergistic effects on acreage of vegetation affected in the Northwest NPRA. This would occur if a large discovery in the northwest part of the planning area would make 

economic the development of an oil field in the northeast part of Northwest NPR-A which would

not otherwise have been economically developable. (See discussion of Northwest NPR-A under 

section 4.7.3.3). This potential scenario is least likely under Alternative A because less 

acreage in the northwest portion of the planning area would be made available to leasing under 

this than the other three alternatives. 

Synergism could similarly result if development north of Teshekpuk Lake resulted in offshore

development being more economically feasible. Such offshore development would likely result in 

additional vegetation impacts from developments built onshore in support of the activities 

offshore. This would most likely affect the northern portion of the planning area or the Beaufort

Sea coastal portions of the Northwest NPR-A. This scenario is unlikely under Alternative A, 

because very little coastal area in the planning area would be available for lease and even less 

for surface development. It would be most likely under Alternative C, somewhat less under 

Alternative D because of development constraints, and less yet under Alternative B because of 

lands unavailable for lease. 

4.7.7.5.5 Conclusion 

The area of vegetation impacted by oil and gas exploration and development, compared to the 

amount of available habitat on the ACP in Alaska and on the North Slope as a whole, is 

relatively small. The four alternatives differ in the acreage of vegetation that would be 

impacted. Alternative A would contribute a smaller amount to cumulative vegetation loss across 

the North Slope than the action alternatives. Alternative C would result in the greatest loss of 

vegetation. 

Impacts to vegetation on the North Slope from future oil and gas exploration and development 

are expected to be additive with respect to impacts from other past, present, and future non-oil 

and gas activities and past and present oil and gas activities. The impacts in the planning area 

would increase the total amount of vegetation impacted by all oil and gas development, and 

would be additive in nature except in the following potential cases where synergism is likely. If 

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

additional developments in the Northwest NPR-A or offshore more economically feasible, 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-716 

Cumulative Impacts: Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

resulting in additional vegetation impacts in the Northwest and Northeast NPR-A. This 

possibility is more likely under Alternative B, C or D than Alternative A. 

4.7.7.6 Wetlands and Floodplains 

In compliance with Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands and Executive Order 11988, 

Floodplain Management, BLM has prepared an impact analysis on those areas within the 

planning area that are considered to have the function and value of wetlands and floodplains, as 

described in section 3.3.2, Wetlands and Floodplains. Approximately 95% of the planning 

area would be considered wetlands according to established criteria for determining wetland 

status. It is likely and therefore assumed that all ground-disturbing actions will be impacting 

wetlands for the purposes of calculating short and long-term impacts. Resources included in the 

summary discussion below are used to classify impacts on the function and value of wetlands 

and floodplains on the North Slope. Impacts to the soil, water, or vegetation resources 

described below can be interpreted as impacting wetlands to some extent. In floodprone areas, 

impacts described for soil, water, and vegetation resources can also be interpreted as impacting 

floodplains. The reader should read the soil (section 4.7.7.3), water resources and water 

quality (section 4.7.7.4), and vegetation (section 4.7.7.5) resource sections for more detailed 

information on the cumulative effects to these resources. 

4.7.7.6.1 Summary of Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Soil Resources 

Based on the analysis for soil resources, and assuming approximately 95% or more of past 

disturbance areas on the North Slope were wetlands, approximately 2,500 acres of direct 

impacts to wetland soil from non-oil and gas activities persist today. Oil and gas activities have 

caused approximately 17,500 acres of direct impacts to soil that persist today; another 17,500 

acres of indirect impacts have also occurred, some of which persist today. Therefore, a total of 

approximately 37,500 (2,500 + 17,500 + 17,500) acres of soil resources on the North Slope still 

show impacts from all past activities. Since most of these impacts are associated with ongoing 

non-oil and gas residential and commercial development, and oil and gas activities, these 

impacts to soil are additive to future impacts and would be likely to persist for several decades 

or more. 

Water Resources and Water Quality 

Direct and indirect impacts to wetlands and floodplains from non-oil and gas and oil and gas 

activities are similar in acreage to those listed within the soil resources section above. Over 400 

miles of oilfield roads (excluding the Dalton Highway) have been constructed by 2001, resulting 

in approximately 1400 culvert locations and 17 bridges. Within floodplains, streambank erosion, 

scour and sedimentation have been experienced at stream crossings due to inadequate design in

the placement of structures, culverts, or bridges. This has altered natural sediment transport 

and deposition, creating scour holes or channel bars and impounding water. Several spills have 

occurred on the North Slope, but their effects on water have been minor and have likely not

accumulated. Water withdrawals monitored by previous studies have shown only minor shortterm impacts from water withdrawals, and lakes monitored have all fully recharged by the end 

of the following summer after winter water removals (Baker, 2002; Hinzman et al, 2006). 

Effects of discharges from offshore facilities and subsurface injection of drilling wastes are 

largely unknown, and it is also unknown what cumulative effect on water quality this has on 

the North Slope. Large amounts of debris left on the North Slope from exploration and military 

4-717 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Vegetation 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

activities from 1940 to 1970 have possibly impacted water quality, but clean-up efforts since the 

1970s have removed much of this debris and reduced effects to water. 

Vegetation 

Approximately 2,500 acres of direct impacts, and 15,000 acres of indirect impacts to wetland 

vegetation from non-oil and gas activities persist today. By 2010, oil and gas activities will have 

caused approximately 18,300 acres of direct impacts, and 60,000 acres of indirect impacts to 

wetland vegetation that will persist after 2010, for a total of 78,300 acres. Since most of these 

impacts are associated with non-oil and gas residential and commercial development, and oil 

and gas activities, these impacts to wetland vegetation are additive to future impacts and would 

be likely to persist for several decades or more. 

4.7.7.6.2 Summary of Future Effects and Their Accumulation 

Soil Resources 

Cumulative impacts to soils on the North Slope would occur from activities associated with non 

oil and gas development and oil and gas development. Impacts from non oil and gas 

development are relatively small compared to those from oil and gas development and have 

impacted approximately 2,500 (1,800 villages + 700 DEW sites) acres. The amount of area that 

would be disturbed by expansion of villages is projected to increase by 2% annually for the next 

40 years or so and then level off (see section 4.7.2.1). Assuming community infrastructure and

footprint grow at roughly the same pace as population, there would be approximately 3,600 

acres of community footprint by the time population may level off in the 2040s. In addition, 

approximately 700 acres of soil impacted by DEW line sites are expected to persist. Therefore 

the total long term cumulative impact to soil resources on the North Slope from non oil and gas 

activities (past, present, and foreseeable future) would be approximately 4,300 (3,600 villages + 

700 DEW sites) acres. 

The total of direct and indirect, long term impacts to soils from past and present oil and gas 

activities on the North Slope covers totals approximately 35,000 acres. Impacts to soil resources

from future oil and gas development include exploration activities and construction of gravel 

pads, gravel roads, gravel airstrips, gravel staging areas, excavation of material sites, oil 

pipelines, and possible gas pipelines (both to market outside the North Slope and within the 

North Slope). The duration of the impacts would range from short term (< 1 to 5 years) if the 

soil was lightly disturbed (i.e. most seismic activity, ice roads, and ice pads) up to several 

decades or longer if the soil was covered by gravel, removed, or permafrost was thawed creating 

thermokarst. Impacts associated with exploration and development activities in the planning 

area would be additive with impacts from activities in other portions of the NPR-A and across 

the North Slope. 

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the northwest portion of Northeast NPR-A is more likely to be 

developed. Infrastructure such as pipelines and CPFs developed in this portion of the planning 

area would also make marginal discoveries in the adjacent northeast portion of Northwest NPRA, and offshore areas to the north of Teshekpuk Lake, more likely to be developed in the 

foreseeable future. This would create a greater area of soil disturbance than under Alternative 

A. Overall, the area of soils impacted long term by past, present, and foreseeable future oil and

gas development would be approximately 61,000 (35,000 past and present + 26,000 future) 

acres. The North Slope region is approximately 57 million acres. Therefore, compared to the 

area of the North Slope, this would be a relatively small area of soils impacted (about 0.1%), 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-718 

Cumulative Impacts: Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

even with the entire planning area open for development (Alternative C). If global climate

change persists, the cumulative effects to soil from oil and gas development, and non oil and gas 

development, on the North Slope could be greater than predicted. 

Water Resources and Water Quality 

Existing and future North Slope development has the potential to cumulatively affect wetlands 

and floodplains in three ways: by altering the landscape, by withdrawing water for construction 

and operations use, and by pollution from spills. Further landscape alteration can occur as a 

direct result of either development or thermokarst action. 

Development of oil and gas facilities and associated transportation systems have, and will 

continue to affect wetlands and floodplains. These impacts are most likely to be related to road 

development. There is currently approximately 570 miles of road development (including the 

Dalton Highway) on the North Slope outside of villages. However, these potential impacts can 

be minimized by proper siting of roadways and bridges and by using construction methods that 

minimize streambed alteration and erosion impacts. 

No cumulative impact to North Slope water supplies from withdrawal of water for construction 

and operation of any of the alternatives is expected because the annual yield (runoff and refill of 

lakes) is many times greater than the amount withdrawn. Further, water use peaks during 

construction, which is a temporary, non-permanent activity and is generally not consumptive, so

a continuous minimal increase in water use is not expected. Localized and temporary impacts 

may occur at those lakes used for water supply. 

It is anticipated that villages will continue to grow in the future due to population growth and 

to provide services and infrastructure to support new oil and gas development on the North

Slope. This will result in increased water use by these villages as they draw from local surface 

water sources, potential developments within the floodplains, and filling of wetlands as village 

boundaries are extended. The soils section above describes acreages impacted by village 

growth. 

Cumulative impacts to wetlands and floodplains from a historically small release of petroleum 

hydrocarbons during oil spills and contamination from hazardous materials, while they may 

occur, are also expected to be localized, limited in extent and persistence, and have minimal 

impact to the environment. However, with aging oil and gas infrastructure and increased oil 

and gas development, it is estimated that oil spills will become more frequent. 

These impacts are additive to the impacts to water bodies that have accumulated in the past 

and persist today, but in the context of the NPR-A and North Slope, these cumulative impacts 

would be small. Of this, gravel mining would account for about 2200 acres by the year 2100. 

Since the 1980’s gravel mines have been sited in upland areas and outside of active floodplains. 

Impacts to soil resources from future oil and gas development include exploration activities and

construction of gravel pads, gravel roads, gravel airstrips, gravel staging areas, excavation of 

material sites, oil pipelines, and possible gas pipelines (both to market outside the North Slope

and within the North Slope). Acreages of future affected areas from direct and indirect impacts 

are the same as those listed within the soil section above. 

4-719 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Vegetation 

Gravel roads and pads, and gravel mines have caused the direct loss of wetlands, and also led to

the indirect loss of wetlands from dust, thermokarst and alteration of natural drainage 

patterns. Based on direct (33,962 acres) and indirect (132,401 acres) impacts that could still 

persist in 2060, direct and indirect impacts to vegetation from activities on the North Slope 

would impact approximately 1.3% of the ACP and 0.29% of the North Slope. 

Impacts to floodplains could occur from river channel crossings by pipelines and roads, which 

could destroy vegetation where bridge pilings or VSMs were required for the crossing. 

Construction of a buried pipeline for gas or for an oil pipeline under a river channel would also 

have impacts to floodplain vegetation in portions of the floodplain where the pipeline was 

buried. These impacts would be additive with impacts from other developments occurring on the

North Slope. Nor do these figures take into account impacts from construction of a natural gas 

pipeline from the North Slope to market or burial of gas pipelines within the North Slope from

new commercial gas developments. If a natural gas pipeline was built from the North Slope, 

approximately 23,200 acres of wetlands would be disturbed during construction, about 4,800 

acres of that on the North Slope (USDOI BLM, 2002a). Additional wetland acreage would be 

disturbed through burial of gas pipelines that ultimately deliver gas to a conditioning plant and 

the gas pipeline that delivers gas from the North Slope. Revegetation along the route of these 

buried pipelines would occur over several years to decades, or even to over a century in some, 

usually dryer, areas. 

Much of the gravel used for past construction of roads, pads, and airstrips on the North Slope 

has been obtained from deposits in river floodplains. Impacts from these activities include 

habitat modifications, caused by increased braiding and spreading of flows (Woodward-Clyde

Consultants 1980, NRC 2003). Established guidelines have largely restricted gravel mining to 

deep mining in upland pits, which may be flooded upon abandonment to create aquatic habitat 

including fish overwintering areas (NRC 2003). Approximately 2200 acres of wetland vegetation 

would be disturbed by the establishment of gravel extraction sites on the North Slope. These 

impacts would be additive with other impacts to floodplains across the North Slope, but the

extent of impact would depend on the availability of gravel from upland areas. 

Abandonment 

The North Slope presents special technical challenges to restoration and recovery. Extremely 

cold temperatures, meager precipitation (5 to 7 inches per year), and the short growing season

lengthen recovery times substantially beyond those possible elsewhere in the United States. 

Natural recovery of disturbed sites to original soil and plant conditions has been estimated to 

require 600 to 800 years for upland sites and 100 to 200 years for wetland sites (AOGA 2001). 

Recovery times in the Arctic, as elsewhere, depend in part on the nature and extent of

disturbance and the type of habitat affected. For example, wet sites tend to recover quickly from

light oil spills; dry sites affected by diesel fuel spills recover exceedingly slowly, with little 

recovery occurring after several decades (Walker 1996). Disturbed areas that would recover 

relatively quickly in more temperate climates (such as those caused by Caterpillar tractor 

tracks), can persist for many decades because of melted permafrost. 

Removal of gravel fill has recently been done in wetlands, and preliminary studies suggest that 

wetland mosaics of vegetation can be restored, although the method is expensive and finding 

acceptable locations for the fill can be difficult. Open-pit gravel mine rehabilitation typically 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-720 

Cumulative Impacts: Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

involves converting mine sites to wetlands, including lakes, with a channel usually cut between 

the pit and a stream or river so the site can be accessible to fish. Such sites create potential 

overwintering habitat for fish, but they also result in the permanent loss of the original 

habitats. Reclamation of oilfields would reduce some of the cumulative effects of wetlands loss. 

4.7.7.6.3 Global Climate Change 

The potential for many shallow streams, ponds, and wetlands in the Arctic to dry out under a 

warming climate is increased by the loss of permafrost (ACIA 2004). In other areas, warming of 

the surface permafrost could increase the formation of ponds, wetlands, and drainage networks, 

especially in areas with heavy concentrations of ground ice. Such thawing could also lead to 

large increases in sediment being deposited in rivers, lakes, and coastal marine environments,

potentially impacting aquatic organisms. 

Global climate change could alter species composition, increasing the prevalence of deciduous 

shrubs and decreasing the prevalence of wetland sedges and grasses, and could greatly 

influence wetlands through hydrological changes. Chapin et al. (1995) suggested that climate 

change might be altering the species composition of the Alaskan Arctic tundra. Global climate 

changes may eventually lead to shifts in the composition of Arctic tundra toward more shrub 

species at the expense of grass and sedge species. Warmer soil temperatures are likely to 

increase thermokarst and increases in sea level may inundate low lying tundra areas increasing 

aquatic and wet tundra vegetation types and increase erosion of coastal bluffs (ACIA 2004). 

Such impacts of climate change could accelerate or exacerbate changes in soil thermal regimes 

that occur with development potentially leading to greater impacts to vegetation from changes 

associated with thermokarst. 

Another adverse effect to soil resources and permafrost as a result of climate warming is 

increased erosion along coastal boundaries. Rising temperatures are altering the Arctic 

coastline and changes are projected to continue during this century as a result of reduced sea 

ice, thawing permafrost, and sea-level rise (ACIA 2004). Thinner, less extensive sea ice creates 

more open water, allowing stronger wave generation by winds and increasing wave-induced 

erosion along Arctic shores. 

Rising sea level is very likely to inundate marshes and coastal plains, accelerate beach erosion,

and force salt water into bays, rivers, and groundwater. Coastal regions with underlying 

permafrost are especially vulnerable to erosion as ice beneath the seabed and shoreline thaws 

from contact with warmer air and water. The projected increase in air and water temperature, 

reduction in sea ice, and increase in height and frequency of storm surges are expected to have a 

destabilizing effect on coastal permafrost, resulting in increased erosion. Since oil and gas 

activities can also cause local thawing of permafrost, the effects of a warming climate would add 

to the thawing effects of direct and indirect impacts from oil and gas development activities 

along coastal boundaries. These cumulative effects could occur locally in areas of surface 

disturbance near coastal boundaries. 

4.7.7.6.4 Contribution of Supplemental Alternatives to Cumulative Effects 

There could be synergistic effects on acreage of wetland vegetation, soils, and water affected in 

the Northwest NPR-A from the decision reached in this Northeast NPR-A Supplemental 

IAP/EIS. This would occur if a large discovery in the northwest part of the planning area would 

make economic the development of an oil field in the northeast part of Northwest NPR-A which 

would not otherwise have been economically developable (see discussion of Northwest NPR-A 

4-721 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

under section 4.7.3.3). This potential scenario is least likely under Alternative A because less

area in the northwest portion of the planning area would be made available to leasing compared 

to the other alternatives. 

Synergism could similarly result if development in the Planning Area north of Teshekpuk Lake 

resulted in offshore development being more economically feasible. Such offshore development

would likely result in additional wetland vegetation, soil, and water impacts from developments 

built onshore in support of the activities offshore. This would most likely affect the northern

portion of the planning area or the Beaufort Sea coastal portions of the Northwest NPR-A. This 

scenario is unlikely under Alternative A, because very little coastal area in the planning area 

would be available for lease and even less for surface development. It would be most likely 

under Alternative C, somewhat less under Alternative D because of development constraints, 

and less yet under Alternative B because of lands unavailable for lease. 

If development occurred in the northern portion of the planning area where much of the high 

potential for oil exists, 95% or more of the impacted area would likely be wetlands. Impacts 

from ice road construction would occur on 15,642 to 21,763 acres during the life of the plan, 

while impacts from ice pads and ice airstrips would occur on another 1,126 to 1,700 acres; these 

impacts to wetlands and floodplains would be short-term and would not accumulate. Long-term

impacts from seismic surveys in the planning area would occur under all alternatives but 

amount to 153 acres. Development in the planning area from roads and pads could directly 

impact approximately 3,270, 3,716, 4,649, and 4,378 acres and indirectly impact 9,343, 10,178, 

13,001, and 12,961 acres for Alternatives A through D, respectively (Table 4.2-G). Up to 800 

acres (Alternative C) of wetland vegetation are likely to be disturbed by the establishment of 

gravel extraction sites in the planning area. These impacts would be additive with other 

impacts to floodplains across the North Slope, but the extent of impact would depend on the 

availability of gravel from upland areas. Total, long-term, direct and indirect impacts to 

vegetation from exploration and development combined would occur on 0.28% (Alternative A) to 

0.39% (Alternative C) of the planning area. 

Impacts to floodplains could occur from river channel crossings by pipelines and roads, which 

could destroy vegetation where bridge pilings or VSMs were required for the crossing. 

Construction of a buried gas pipeline or an oil or gas pipeline under a river channel would also 

have impacts to floodplain vegetation in portions of the floodplain where the pipeline was 

buried. Compared to Alternatives A, B, and D, the increased development under Alternative C

would likely result in greater impacts, since additional river crossings would probably be 

necessary and the likelihood of buried river crossings (or possibly of buried gas pipelines) would 

also increase. These impacts would be additive with impacts from other developments occurring

on the North Slope. 

4.7.7.6.5 Conclusion 

Approximately 95% of the ACP in the planning area consists of wetlands; a similar percentage 

of wetland area was assumed for the North Slope. The ACP is also the area where the most 

significant oil and gas discoveries have occurred, and where future major discoveries are most 

likely. In addition, most non-oil and gas development associated with villages and military 

facilities occurs within this area. Thus, wetlands and floodplains have been affected by past 

activities, and will be susceptible to effects from future development. New technologies, 

including use of low-impact equipment and less reliance on gravel roads and pads have reduced 

the potential for impacts to wetlands and floodplains. Cumulative effects from human-induced 

activities on the North Slope, coupled with the potential cumulative effects of climate change in 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-722 

Cumulative Impacts: Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

the arctic, could result in substantial alteration of North Slope wetland soil, water, and 

vegetation in the future. 

The area of wetland vegetation impacted by oil and gas exploration and development, compared

to the amount of available habitat on the ACP in Alaska and on the North Slope as a whole, is 

relatively small. Impacts to wetlands on the North Slope from future non-oil and gas and future

oil and gas exploration and development are expected to be additive with respect to impacts 

from other past and present activities. The area impacted by oil and gas development, relative 

to the amount of available habitat on the ACP in Alaska and on the North Slope as a whole, is 

relatively small, even if development occurs in the planning area. 

Under Alternatives B, C, and D marginally economic fields in the northeast portion of

Northwest NPR-A, and offshore areas to the north of Teshekpuk Lake, are more likely to be 

developed. Additional development in these areas would create a greater area of disturbance to

wetlands and floodplains. However, the cumulative area of wetlands and floodplains impacted

from future oil and gas development in the North Slope under any of the alternatives would still 

be minor compared to the total area of the North Slope. 

4.7.7.7 Fish 

4.7.7.7-a. Freshwater, Anadromous/Amphidromous, and Marine Fish 

The life cycles of freshwater and diadromous fishes on the North Slope are adapted to the

region’s long winters and low productivity (Craig 1984, 1989a, b; Power 1997). After break-up, 

fish move quickly during the brief summer into many habitats, often at great distances from the 

wintering area. For example, Arctic cisco from the Colville River can return to spawning areas 

more than 370 miles from the wintering area (Gallaway and Fechhelm 2000) and many broad 

whitefish and Arctic grayling make intra-annual migrations between major river drainages 

(Morris 2003; Morris et al. 2006a). Locating a suitable wintering area at the end of the summer 

is critical to survival. Craig (1989a, b) estimated that substantially less than 5% of stream 

habitat remains available to fish by late winter. These widespread movements, and the greatly 

restricted area of habitat available to fish in winter, make many of these species highly

vulnerable to the effects of oil and gas exploration and development. 

Marine fish are much less vulnerable to impacts from oil and gas exploration and development 

in the planning area. Because all scenarios considered within this document deal only with 

onshore, rather than offshore, actions, there are a limited number of activities that may affect 

marine species. However, some marine fish that heavily utilize the coastal zone and make 

migrations into freshwater, such as fourhorn sculpin and Arctic flounder, will be more exposed 

to potential impacts. 

A number of effects could impact fish on the North Slope and accumulate. These include 

subsistence fishing; disturbance of fish during seismic operations; loss and alteration of habitat 

due to exploration and development, including effects from altering drainage patterns, water 

quality, water withdrawals, and causeways; spills; and global climate change. 

4-723 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Wetlands and Floodplains 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7.7.7-a.1 Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Non-oil and gas activities, including archaeological and paleontological digs, camps associated 

with scientific studies, recreational use, overland moves by transport vehicles, and use of OHVs

such as four-wheel vehicles and snowmachines, have likely caused surface disturbance on less

than 100 acres in the planning area (NRC 2003). Where Caterpillar or similar tractors have 

been used, or the vegetation has been bladed, scars in the vegetation persist to this day. An 

estimated 250 acres of tractor trail/tundra scars were created on the North Slope before 1973; 

about 50 acres remain evident today (NRC 2003). 

Of the 17 species taken by subsistence fishermen on the North Slope, Arctic cisco and broad

whitefish have the highest subsistence value. Most subsistence fishing occurs during the 

summer and fall and is especially important to the coastal villages. An average of 40,800 pounds 

of Arctic cisco was harvested annually from the Colville River Delta each fall from 1985 to 1998, 

with an additional 7,100 to 8,800 pounds taken near Kaktovik (Craig 1987; Fuller and George 

1997). The broad whitefish harvest by North Slope villages is estimated to be more than 62,000 

pounds annually (Fuller and George 1997; Hepa et al. 1997), although in some years fish 

harvests can be considerably larger. Despite the long history of the Arctic cisco subsistence

fishery conducted by Nuiqsut residents, harvest rates from 2004 to 2006 were some of the 

highest observed during twenty years of monitoring (MJM Research 2005f, 2006a; personal 

communication with Larry Moulton, 2007). Similarly, broad whitefish continue to be harvested 

at substantial levels year after year in the Teshekpuk Lake region. 

Based on surveys conducted in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Barrow residents harvested from 

50,000 to 110,000 pounds of fish per year, or about 11% of the total subsistence harvest (see 

Appendix J). The estimated harvest of whitefish for Barrow in 1989 was over 90,000 pounds 

(SRBA and ISER 1993). Atqasuk residents harvested approximately 12,000 pounds of fish 

annually, or 37% of their subsistence harvest. Nuiqsut residents harvested from 50,000 to 

90,000 pounds of fish annually, or 30% of their subsistence harvest. Only a few thousand 

pounds of fish were harvested annually by Anaktuvuk Pass residents. Small numbers of fish are 

caught by recreational fishermen during float trips on the Colville River and fishing near 

villages. Fish harvested for subsistence and recreational purposes comprise only a small portion 

of the fish population and these effects to fish at the population level do not appear to

accumulate based on the current high productivity of the subsistence fishery. 

Some fish habitat has been lost due to construction of DEW-Line sites and other military 

construction, and residential, commercial, and industrial development associated with villages 

and airstrips. Approximately 2,500 acres have been disturbed by these developments, but since 

these sites were often located on high ground, there would have been only minor loss of fish 

habitat. 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Seismic Activities and Exploration 

When seismic exploration was conducted with explosives, there was potential for harming fish 

that were exposed to large, rapid changes in ambient pressure. The advent of vibrating 

equipment has reduced this concern, because the energy it generates is much less than the 

energy generated by explosives. The ADFG blasting standards require that the instantaneous 

change in pressure resulting from any explosion must remain below 0.02 megapaseals (Mpa; 2.7 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-724 

Cumulative Impacts: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

psi). Results of a recent field test involving vibrators on ice, over water, indicate that peak 

pressure changes below a vibrator can be as low as 0.01 Mpa (1.57 psi). A study by ADNR 

(Morris and Winters 2005) that exposed fish to Vibroseis noise observed no mortalities and 

found no indication of physiological damage. Acute mortality from acoustic energy may be a 

problem primarily associated with explosive-based sources (Wright 1982; Cott et al. 2003), a 

method that has not been used in recent years in the Alaskan Arctic. Mortalities that may have 

occurred from seismic exploration conducted with explosives would have been localized and not 

discernible at the population level. Regardless of method, throughout the history of seismic

exploration it is unlikely that impacts to fish populations have accumulated from seismic 

surveys. 

As discussed above, seismic vehicles have impacted the tundra and could have impacted some 

fish habitat. Use of newer technologies, including use of vehicles that apply less pressure to the 

ground and restricting travel to periods when there is adequate snow and frost cover to protect

vegetation, have reduced the level of impacts to tundra and potential fish habitat. Lease 

stipulations that require operators to avoid streams or cross at shallow, frozen sections and

minimize damage to riparian areas also benefited fish. 

Other potential sources of fish habitat loss included exploration sites with gravel pads, 

disturbed areas around these pads, exploration airstrips, and gravel exploration roads. 

Approximately 1,200 acres have been impacted by these sites in the past, and 740 acres of 

disturbance were still evident in 2001. Most of these sites were developed before 1977, thus 

their effects on the landscape have persisted for decades, and are likely to persist for several 

more. 

Habitat Loss 

Peat and gravel roads and pads as well as gravel mines have caused the direct loss of fish 

habitat, and also led to the indirect loss of fish habitat due to erosion and sedimentation along 

streams and rivers, and alteration of natural drainage patterns. Through 2001, over 500 acres 

of peat roads still showed evidence of disturbance, even though most of these roads were 

constructed over 30 years ago. Gravel has been used to construct over 9,200 acres of roads and 

pads, while gravel mines have impacted another 6,360 acres. Although much of this 

development would have occurred in upland areas, over 5,000 acres of mines were associated 

with streams and rivers (NRC 2003). 

Drainage Patterns 

Drainage patterns are altered by the construction of roads or pads in or across wetlands or 

drainage areas. To date, over 9,200 acres of gravel pads and roads, and over 600 miles of 

roadways, have been constructed in association with oil-field development on the North Slope.

In addition to causing the loss of some fish habitat, much of the gravel fill has been in wetlands 

where cross-pad drainage has been blocked by road construction. During spring ice break-up, 

there is substantial flow across expansive wetlands into lakes and streams. When long stretches

of gravel road or pad interrupt flow, the difference in water surface elevation from one side of 

the pad or road to the other can produce high-velocity water flow in the cross-pad/road drainage 

structures, usually culverts, which can inhibit upstream fish movements and delay migration to 

various summer habitats. The delays are particularly problematic for Arctic grayling, which 

spawn shortly after break-up and often undertake long, rapid migrations from wintering areas 

to spawning sites. 

An opposite effect can occur in mid- to late summer when stream flow is low. Fish that disperse 

during or after break-up must leave small drainages and shallow lakes to reach wintering areas 

4-725 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

before those waters freeze because there are often limited or no opportunities for overwintering 

within the habitats used for summer feeding. Fish that cannot leave would freeze. An

inadequate number or improper placing of culverts or modifications to the stream bed can cause 

flow to go below the surface or to be spread too shallow to allow downstream movement when 

flow levels are reduced in late summer. 

Through 2001, nearly 1,400 culverts had been installed on the North Slope (NRC 2003). If not 

properly installed or sized, water flows can be affected or ice jams can form, impacting fish 

habitat. Recent investigations into stream crossing structures in the North Slope oilfields found 

a number of crossings had problems that likely impair or impede fish passage beyond the 

structures (Morris and Winters 2004, 2007). Typically, bridges are used where flows exceed 500 

cfs, and 60-inch-diameter line pipes are proposed, instead of culverts, for the Alpine Satellite 

Development (USDOI BLM 2004c). If not correctly sized, engineered, or constructed, impacts to 

fish associated with bridges, pipes, and culverts would persist and accumulate. 

Approximately 4,500 acres of gravel mines have been reclaimed, some to provide deepwater 

habitat for fish; much of the gravel was obtained from gravel deposits within floodplains. But 

concerns arising from this practice prompted the USFWS to study the effects of floodplain 

gravel mining on the floodplains physical and biotic processes (Woodward-Clyde Consultants 

1980). The study identified numerous examples of habitat modification, including increased 

channel braiding, loss of wintering areas, spreading of flow, and restriction of fish movements, 

such as fish mortality caused by stranding. The study also set forth guidelines for gravel mining

to minimize floodplain damage (Joyce et al. 1980). In response to agency concerns, and the 

results of the USFWS study, new gravel mines have primarily been sited in upland sites since 

the 1980s. Of the 5,080 acres of gravel mines sited in rivers, all but 350 acres were developed 

before 1973. One benefit of these pits is that they provide freshwater wintering habitat for fish. 

Since 1989, Arctic grayling have been stocked in several deep gravel pits that now provide fish 

habitat. According to the NRC (2003), the positive effects to fish from gravel pits likely outweigh 

the negative effects, and these effects persist today where gravel pits once were. 

Water Withdrawal 

Use of fresh water has increased in recent years because of expanded oil-field development and

increased exploration. In the early years of exploration, water was obtained from any source, 

including rivers during winter. Bendock (1977 in Winters et al. 1988) documented water 

withdrawals from the Sagavanirktok River that depleted water in wintering areas and 

increased mortality to fish in the area. Much of the water needed in the established oil fields is 

now obtained from reservoirs that are replenished with runoff during spring breakup; most of 

the water used in exploration is from lakes. 

Ice thickness has a great influence on the distribution of fish in lakes across the ACP. Most 

lakes in the existing development area between the Colville and Sagavanirktok rivers are less 

than 6 feet deep, few fish are present and effects have been minimal. As development spreads 

into regions with deeper lakes, such as the Colville River Delta and the eastern part of the NPRA, there is greater potential for having fish populations within lakes. Under current ADFG and 

BLM policies, water withdrawals from fish-bearing lakes are limited to 15% of the estimated

minimum winter water volume where sensitive species occur and 30% of this volume where 

resistant species occur. This policy was adopted to allow some water use, while preserving most 

of the water for wintering fish; the criterion was set arbitrarily because there were no data to 

support a different use. Studies over the last few years have documented water level recharge

and no detectable changes in water quality; in particular, dissolved oxygen (Streever et al. 2001; 

URS 2001; Baker 2002; Hinzman et al. 2006). Fish populations in lakes subjected to this 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-726 

Cumulative Impacts: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

maximum allowable withdrawal appear to be unaffected. There has been no research to 

determine the effects of withdrawals on populations of invertebrates in the lakes or on

vertebrate food supplies. 

The current practice for ice road construction is to permit withdrawals from a large number of 

lakes along a desired route, then to allow the ice road contractor to draw from the nearest 

suitable lake. This allows for maximum construction flexibility, but it complicates the tracking 

of withdrawal volumes: much more water is permitted for withdrawal than is used. Between 

1998 and 2001, for example, Phillips Alaska obtained annual permits for withdrawals of more 

than 2.2 billion gallons, but used less than 240 million gallons in any given year. 

An additional issue associated with water withdrawals from fish-bearing lakes is the potential 

to remove fish during pumping. In recent years, as construction of ice roads has increased in the 

vicinity of Nuiqsut, residents have reported finding fish frozen into the roads. Contracts issued 

for ice road construction specify that water is to be screened to avoid removing fish, but 

contractors sometimes failed to install screens. In some cases, sampling to identify the presence 

of fish before water withdrawal used gear that was not appropriate for detecting smaller 

species, such as ninespine stickleback and Alaska blackfish. The problem can be aggravated 

when lighted shacks are placed over the hole from which water is withdrawn. Thus, effects to 

fish from water withdrawals have accumulated, but have not adversely affected fish 

populations. 

Causeways and Intake Pipes

Coastal development that poses the greatest risk of causing effects that accumulate in 

nearshore habitats includes facilities that change physical conditions that are important to 

nearshore biota. Such structures include causeways that modify water temperature and

salinity. These structures could potentially affect anadromous/amphidromous and marine fish. 

Two major causeways have been built into the nearshore region to support oil-field activities. 

The Prudhoe Bay West Dock was built in the winter of 1974-1975, primarily to support offloading of large modules used to develop the field; it was modified in 1981 to support the intake 

structure for the Prudhoe Bay waterflood facility to supply water needed for injection into the 

oil reservoirs. The causeway runs from the east end of Simpson Lagoon to the west entrance to

Prudhoe Bay. The second major causeway, in the middle of the Sagavanirktok River Delta, was 

built to support facilities for the Endicott oilfield. 

Accumulation of effects is a concern when multiple causeways affect the same fish population. 

The migratory stocks found along the Beaufort Sea coast are likely to encounter multiple 

causeways during their annual summer feeding movements. From the late 1970s to the late 

1980s, there was substantial concern over the potential effects of the two long causeways to 

migrating fishes, especially for the integrity of the nearshore band of relatively warm, low 

salinity coastal water that is used by migrating fish Craig (1984). Causeways built 

perpendicular to shore disrupt the east-west flow of the coastal currents, and can alter fish 

movements within the band. Permits issued by the USACE and the NSB for causeway 

construction included lease stipulations for monitoring the effects of the causeway on fish 

movements and habitat, among other issues. Initial monitoring studied the West Dock 

Causeway between 1981 and 1984 and then the West Dock and Endicott causeways between 

1985 and 1987. In 1988, the USACE concluded that although there were effects to fish, 

significant harm to habitat had been demonstrated and that further monitoring for effects on 

fish populations was not required (Hachmeister 1991). Those effects, as summarized by Ross 

4-727 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

(1988), included degradation of habitat quality in the nearshore region, alteration to fish 

movements and fish use of the Prudhoe Bay area, and changes to fish community structure. 

The NSB’s program showed that the causeways, particularly the West Dock Causeway, 

interfered with the eastward movement of juvenile least ciscos and humpback whitefish moving 

from the Colville River into the Prudhoe Bay area during early summer (Moulton et al. 1986a; 

Fechhelm et al. 1989; Fechhelm 1999; Gallaway and Fechhelm 2000). Juvenile Dolly Varden 

might also be affected (Hachmeister et al. 1991). The movement of young-of-the-year Arctic cisco 

from the Mackenzie River into the Alaskan Beaufort Sea region did not appear to be affected by 

the causeways. Retrofitting of breaches in both causeways in 1994 and 1996 appeared to reduce 

the effect of the interference to least cisco and humpback whitefish migrations (Fechhelm 1999). 

In addition to the causeways, large intake pipes are used to withdraw water from the nearshore 

region. The Prudhoe Bay waterflood facility, constructed in 1981, can supply 92.4 million 

gallons of seawater per day. There are also seawater intakes at Endicott (11.6 million gallons 

per day), and Kuparuk (25.2 million gallons per day). Monitoring of the intakes and marine 

bypass systems was conducted after start-up for the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk waterflood 

facilities from 1984 to 1987 to assess fish entrapment in intake structures (Dames and Moore 

1985-1987). Fish were rarely observed during the monitoring studies, and most of those that 

entered the system passed successfully. However, approximately 1.5 million fish larvae of nine 

species were estimated to have been entrapped in the Prudhoe Bay facility in 1985. The intakes 

were judged to performing as designed, and monitoring was discontinued after 1987. 

Spills 

Overall, the effects of spills on fish have not accumulated on the North Slope because the spills 

have been small and cleanup and rehabilitation efforts have generally been successful (NRC 

2003). The largest spill in the North Slope oilfields (over 200,000 gallons) occurred in March of 

2006, but this resulted in essentially no impacts to fish due to the timing of the spill, which 

allowed cleanup to take place before the spring melt. No notable spills into the marine 

environment have occurred. 

Summary of Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Non-oil and gas activities, including research camps, village development, and subsistence 

fishing have impacted fish and their habitat, but these effects have been minor and have likely 

not had an effect on fish that persists today. 

Explosive-based seismic exploration may have injured or killed individual fish in close 

proximity to this activity, but impacts are not likely to have effected fish populations. The 

energy produced by vibration equipment used to acquire seismic data is typically below the

threshold known to effect fish. Overall, it is probable that impacts to fish from all seismic 

activities have not accumulated. 

Oil and gas activities have caused approximately 18,000 acres of direct impacts to uplands and 

wetlands that persist today (Table 4.7-H), some of which affect water bodies. These effects 

accumulate, but do not appear to have adversely affected fish populations on the North Slope. 

During the early years of development, gravel mining for roads and pads often interrupted both 

ice sheet flow and stream flows, and hence fish movement. Ineffective bridge and culvert design

and placement has reduced the availability of quality habitat. Although the permitting process 

and the regulatory environment for protecting fish have improved over time, these effects have

not been eliminated, and the habitat losses have accumulated. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-728 

Cumulative Impacts: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Some fish have been harmed or killed during water withdrawals, but these numbers are 

relatively small and probably have not accumulated. Existing causeways near Prudhoe Bay do 

not affect the westward recruitment of Arctic cisco into the Colville River and associated rearing 

areas. Blockage of young least cisco and whitefish moving eastward from Colville to Prudhoe 

Bay was demonstrated under certain wind conditions in some years at the West Dock causeway. 

This blockage was reduced by the breach retrofit installed in 1996. The effectiveness of breach 

design for existing or new causeways has not been resolved. Breaches are effective, but there is 

more to be learned about the best or most appropriate design and placement. Seawater intakes

have been designed to prevent entrapment of fishes. There is potential that the effects of 

causeways do accumulate for fish, although more studies are needed. 

4.7.7.7-a.2 Future Effects and Their Accumulation 

Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Some fish habitat will be lost due to continued growth of villages, whose footprint is estimated 

to double to about 3,600 acres by the 2040s and from new developments on the North Slope. 

Subsistence fishing will continue to remove a small portion of the fish population, as may 

recreational fishing, although to an extremely small extent. Some of these effects would

accumulate, but their impact on fish populations would be minor. 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Seismic Activities and Exploration 

Concerns related to future habitat degradation from seismic train movement are minimal, given

lease stipulations in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD, protections proposed in this 

Supplemental IAP/EIS (e.g., equipment operators would cross streams at shallow riffles), and

state regulations. Fuel spills associated with seismic work would be expected to consist of small 

spills of refined fuel that would be unlikely to reach aquatic habitats, particularly since 

overland exploration occurs in the winter. The effects of vibration on most overwintering fish 

should be minimal (short-term avoidance), given the low density of fish in most of the North 

Slope oil and gas exploration sites during the winter and the short time duration of vibration 

impulses in any given spot. However, the possibility of damage to sensory cells from Vibroseis 

noise, which could lead to indirect mortality, has not been eliminated. The use of airgun arrays 

or explosives during seismic operations has a greater potential to impact fish, although these 

techniques are much less likely to be used due to advances in technology. Nevertheless, if injury

or mortality to fish occurs during seismic operations, it will probably only affect a relatively 

small number of fish in any given waterbody. As a result, additional seismic activity is unlikely 

to have a measurable effect on fish populations in the future. 

Oil and Gas Production and Development 

Given the high potential for oil near the coastline of the planning area and North Slope, it is

likely that wetland would comprise 95% or more of the disturbance area and some of this 

habitat would be used by fish. Considering the density of lakes in the coastal region, positioning 

of infrastructure in close proximity to fish habitat will be unavoidable. No coastal marine or 

offshore developments are proposed as part of this IAP/EIS. However, problematic water quality 

constituents could potentially accumulate in deltas and estuaries and impact marine fish. 

Additional construction outside of the planning area necessary to support oil and gas 

exploration and development in the planning area would include an increased number of ice 

roads and new pipelines. Additionally, interconnected oil and gas infrastructure that extends 

4-729 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

westward across the planning area may increase the likelihood of development in the Northwest 

NPR-A Planning Area, something that could exacerbate potential cumulative impacts to fish, 

especially with the increase in pipeline routing underneath stream or river channels. Potential 

impacts to fish both within and beyond the planning area boundaries would be related to water 

withdrawal and direct habitat loss or indirect disturbance associated with construction of a 

pipeline. Increased water use, in and of itself, would not necessarily increase impacts to fish 

species. Effects would be dependent on the location of withdrawal and amount of water used. 

Assuming that water withdrawals outside the planning area would also be limited to 15% of the 

free water volume where sensitive species occur and 30% of this volume where resistant species 

occur, impacts to fish would be limited to localized, short-term, population abundance and 

distribution changes. Impacts from pipeline construction and the accompanying gravel 

extraction, with its resultant erosion and sedimentation, would be similar to those described 

under the action alternatives. Though dependent on the actual level and location of 

implementation, the increase in the overall effect of oil and gas construction-related activities 

would accumulate, but would have a minor affect on fish populations. 

Spills 

The cumulative case involves the potential for more oil spills. This is due to the projected 

increase in activity levels and the potential problem of aging pipelines. Many of the North Slope 

projects considered in the cumulative analysis would be conducted outside of the planning area. 

The additional oil spills associated with some of these projects could affect the migratory and 

marine fish that use the coastal areas. Offshore oil spills, or those that occur in rivers and move 

into coastal waters, would be likely to increase oil-related effects on Arctic fish. Cumulative 

effects would depend on the location, number, size, and seasonal timing of the spills, 

concentrations of hydrocarbons, and the life stages of fish exposed to the spills. Lethal effects on 

fish from oil spills are seldom observed outside of the laboratory environment. For this reason, 

oil spills are expected to have mostly sublethal effects on the fish affected by them. For example, 

displacement from oiled water may lead to increased energy expenditures while foraging, with 

subsequent reduction in growth and reproduction. Juvenile fish that are common in the 

nearshore area during summer, migratory fish, and nearshore spawners would be among those 

most likely to experience lethal or sublethal effects. Because in the cumulative case there would 

be a greater probability of an oil spill contacting coastal waters, it is likely that a greater 

percentage of fish would be affected. Land-based, cumulative-case oil spills that did not enter 

coastal waters would be expected to have minor effects on overall fish populations, since the 

likelihood of a large spill contacting water would be minor. Losses onshore would be greatest in 

water bodies with limited water exchange. A particular combination of spills under certain 

circumstances (e.g. in open water) or on repeated occasions in a single drainage would increase 

the chance for the effects on fish to accumulate to a significant level. 

Abandonment 

To date, very little abandonment (except for single exploration or development wells) has 

occurred anywhere on the North Slope. Restoration of other types of facilities, such as gravel 

extraction sites and older exploration pads, has taken place at a small scale at several locations 

on state lands on the North Slope outside of the planning area (Jorgenson et al 1992; 

McKendrick et al 1992; Herlugson et al 1996; McKendrick 1996). These restoration efforts are 

being closely monitored in an effort to determine the most appropriate and effective methods for 

restoration. 

As with roads, abandonment of bridges and culverts would occur once the economic life of the oil 

fields had passed. Because the bridges and culverts are an integral portion of the proposed road

network, the fate of the bridges would likely be determined by the fate of the road network. If 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-730 

Cumulative Impacts: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

roads were left in place, but not with the intention that they be maintained for continued use, 

culverts could be removed and the gravel pads breached to facilitate water flow. If culverts, 

bridges, or pipes were left in place at abandonment, there is potential that these structures 

would deteriorate and become clogged, inhibiting water flow and fish passage. If this occurred,

the effects to fish would accumulate and persist indefinitely. 

Open-pit gravel mine rehabilitation typically involves converting mine sites to lakes, with a 

channel usually cut between the pit and a stream or river so the site can be accessible to fish. 

Such sites create potential overwintering habitat for fish, but they also result in the permanent 

loss of the original habitats. Based on fish use of historic gravel mine sites in the Prudhoe Bay 

and Kuparuk areas and the limited availability of deep overwintering habitat in the Arctic, the 

net accumulation of impacts from these sites is likely to be positive. 

4.7.7.7-a.3 Global Climate Change 

Ice cover in the Arctic Ocean has been shrinking about 3% per decade during the past 2 decades 

(Johannessen et al. 1999). If this trend continues, the sea ice would disappear entirely during 

the summer in about 50 years. Some species of fish would benefit from this trend, especially 

those that reside in warmer waters, while cold-water species would be forced further north. 

These effects would accumulate in the sense that the range of some species, and subsequently 

their population size, would continue to increase while the range and population size of other 

species would decrease. Shifts in species numbers and behaviors could affect subsistence 

harvests on the North Slope. 

Other projected changes to the physical environment associated with future climate patterns 

could also effect fish populations. As with sea ice, these possible changes would occur 

incrementally such that the effects would accumulate over time. There is much uncertainty in 

projecting both the future climate and the potential manifestation of climate changes through 

habitat alteration. However, observation of some patterns over the last several decades, such as 

increased thermokarsting and coastal erosion (Mars and Houseknecht 2007), substantiate 

projected shifts in the physical environment, regardless of their root cause. The following 

possible changes could lead to detectable shifts in fish species distribution, habitat suitability, 

and population size and structure: increased lake size due to thermokarsting; flooding of marine

waters into coastal lakes due to shoreline erosion; loss of barrier islands due to increased storms 

and loss of protective sea ice; warmer water, longer open-water period, and less freezedown due 

to increased air temperature and shorter winter season. Any of these changes could benefit 

some species while inhibiting other species, and thus could have a negative or positive affect on 

subsistence harvest. 

4.7.7.7-a.4 Contribution of Supplement Alternatives to Cumulative Effects 

Seismic activities could disturb almost 105,000 acres of soil under the action alternatives (Table 

4.2-F). The number of acres disturbed annually would be similar to the amount of acreage that 

has been disturbed annually by seismic surveys during the past decade in the planning area. 

Most impacts of seismic activities outside of the planning area would be limited to the minor 

impacts associated with ice roads and packed snow trails. Nonetheless, impacts associated with 

seismic operations, including water withdrawals to make ice roads, occurring in the Northeast 

NPR-A would be additive with impacts from seismic operations in other portions of the NPR-A

and across the North Slope. 

4-731 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Development in the planning area could have a long term impact on an estimated 3,270; 3,716; 

4,649; and 4,378 acres for alternatives A through D, respectively (Table 4.2-H). If development 

occurred in the northern portion of the planning area where much of the high potential for oil 

exists, 95% or more of the impacted area would likely be wetlands. Considering the density of 

lakes within these wetlands, positioning of infrastructure in close proximity to fish habitat will 

be unavoidable. The loss of fish habitat would persist. Impacts associated with the planning 

area would be additive to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future soil impacts on the 

North Slope. Alternatives B, C, and D would open the northwest portion of the planning area to

leasing. Infrastructure such as pipelines and CPFs developed in this area would make oil and 

gas production in the adjacent northeast portion of Northwest NPR-A and Beaufort Sea more

likely in the foreseeable future, resulting in greater likelihood of impacts to fish habitat 

compared to Alternative A. If global climate change persists, the effects to fish could be much 

greater than predicted, although some species are expected to benefit from global climate 

change. A portion of the disturbance area would be for gravel extraction (estimated 550, 650, 

800, and 700 acres for alternatives A through D, respectively). Although the current emphasis is 

to extract gravel from upland sites, it could still be possible to create potential overwintering 

habitat at these sites when abandoned. 

4.7.7.7-a.5 Conclusion 

Wide-ranging increased impacts to Arctic fish populations found on the North Slope from oil 

and gas exploration and development would largely depend on the specific location of pads, 

roads, and infrastructure. Widespread movements required to locate suitable spawning and 

feeding habitat and the greatly restricted area of habitat available to fish in winter make many 

of these species highly vulnerable to the effects of oil and gas exploration and development. At a 

minimum, some effects to fish described above would accumulate. Synergistic impacts to fish at 

the population level from disturbance related to oil and gas production under any of the 

alternatives in this Supplement are not anticipated, including when increased future activities 

occurring in Northwest NPR-A and the Beaufort Sea are considered in regard to opening areas 

north and west of Teshekpuk Lake under Alternatives B, C, and D. Beneficial effects related to 

material extraction at gravel sites would be possible in certain situations. Past reclamation of 

deep pits that have been mined has proved beneficial when new habitat for Arctic fish species 

has been established. If oil and gas activities occurred in areas with high fish populations, or 

use by sensitive or important subsistence species, impacts to fish could be greater than impacts 

predicted based on the amount of area impacted. 

4.7.7.8 Birds 

This section discusses the potential cumulative effects to non-threatened and non-endangered

bird species that could result from management actions in the planning area. Approximately 80 

species of birds commonly or regularly occur in the planning area. Most of these species, 

including loons, waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, passerines, and seabirds are migratory and 

occur in the planning area only during the summer breeding season. Most of the activities that 

could potentially contribute to the cumulative effects to birds in the planning area would result

from oil and gas exploration and development. Other activities that could potentially contribute 

to the cumulative effects to birds in the planning area include subsistence activities (including 

hunting, fishing, berry picking etc.), recreational use, activities associated with scientific 

surveys and research camps, clean up of old oil and gas exploration sites, and activities 

associated with government actions (e.g. clean up of abandoned well sites). These activities 

could affect tundra nesting birds by causing: 1) temporary or permanent habitat loss; 2) various 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-732 

Cumulative Impacts: Fish 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

types of disturbance related to equipment and facility noise, vehicular and air traffic, and 

pedestrian activities, which could result in displacement from preferred foraging, staging, 

nesting, molting and/or brood-rearing habitats or decreasing productivity and survival; 3) 

increased predation from predators attracted to areas of human activity; and 4) mortality 

resulting from collisions with vehicles or structures, or exposure to contaminants, including oil 

spills. In addition, any analysis of cumulative effects to birds must include effects to birds on 

migration and wintering areas, where impacts to birds could be independent of activities on the

North Slope. Because bird populations can show substantial changes among years, it is often 

difficult to determine if effects are accumulating at the population level, or merely reflect shortterm shifts in population numbers. 

4.7.7.8.1 Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Activities that occur on the North Slope and are not directly related to oil and gas development

can add to the cumulative impacts to birds. Activities include private or commercial air traffic; 

aerial surveys to inventory wildlife or other resources; summer research camps; hazardous 

material or debris removal, recreation activities, village expansion, spills and other 

environmental contamination, hazardous material clean-up remediation and plugging of legacy

wells, predation, and subsistence harvest. These impacts are usually localized and would 

generally affect only small numbers of birds and would not likely accumulate at the population 

level. 

Research and Survey Activities. Various types of disturbances affect tundra-nesting birds 

near seasonal camps. Noise and ground activities disturb feeding, nesting, molting and broodrearing birds, causing temporary or permanent displacement from feeding or nesting areas 

potentially affecting energy budgets and productivity. Although pedestrian traffic has been

shown to be particularly disruptive to some waterfowl and raptors (Roseneau et al. 1981; 

Ritchie 1987; Johnson et al. 2003b), some birds have acclimated to predictable daily activities of 

camp personnel. Aircraft activity to mobilize and re-supply summer camps could disturb birds 

along continually-used flight corridors and near airstrips during take-offs and landings. Effects 

of this type of visual and noise disturbance could range from temporary displacement from 

preferred habitats to nest abandonment. Fixed-wing and helicopter flights for mobilization and 

re-supply of seasonal camps would be intermittent, and could occur several days or weeks apart. 

It may be easier for birds to acclimate to flights that occur on a regular daily basis than to 

flights that occur on a more random basis. Birds could also suffer mortality due to collisions 

with aircraft. Disturbance to birds from aircraft traffic and camp activities is greatest within 

approximately 2,280 feet of the camps and little or no effect beyond 6,500 feet (Johnson et al. 

2003b). Ward et al. (1999) studied brant response to fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft and 

reported brant response to aircraft at a lateral distance to 3 miles, although the majority of 

birds responded to aircraft that were within a lateral distance of 1⁄2 mile or less. The greatest 

response to aircraft altitude occurred between 1,000 and 2,500 feet. Tundra-nesting birds near 

seasonal camps could suffer mortality or egg loss due to predators attracted to anthropogenic 

sources of food at camps. Nest abandonment could occur if nests are located in areas with high 

levels of activity. Impacts would likely be localized and restricted to within about a mile of 

activities based at the camp. 

Summer boat traffic could occur on the Colville, Kogosukruk, Kikiakrorak, and Ikpikpuk rivers 

for recreational or subsistence activities, or to re-supply camps along these rivers. Numerous 

studies have reported on the effects of boat disturbance to birds (e.g., McGarigal et al. 1991; 

4-733 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Steidl and Anthony 1996); this activity could potentially affect nesting gyrfalcons, peregrine 

falcons, and rough-legged hawks in the Colville River Special Area and the Ikpikpuk River area. 

The current levels of boat activities on these rivers have apparently not impacted raptors 

negatively, as some populations, particularly the peregrine falcon population, have been 

increasing on the ACP in recent years (Ritchie et al. 2003). Fuel spills due to summer boat 

traffic are expected to be small (less than 5 gallons), and would most likely occur during fuel 

transfers. Fuel spills have the potential to negatively impact birds if they occur in areas where 

the birds are feeding (contamination of prey items) or if fuel comes into contact with and 

adheres to the birds feathers, often causing death. Unless a fuel spill occurred in an area where 

large numbers of birds were very congregated any such losses would likely be minor to the bird 

populations on the North Slope, but would contribute to accumulation of effects. 

Aerial surveys for wildlife in the planning area could include fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter 

surveys for waterfowl. Low-level fixed-wing aerial surveys would probably have little effect on 

birds due to the short amount of time during which aircraft would be in a particular area. Ward 

et al. (1999) reported a decreasing level of response to aircraft overflights by brant with 

increasing lateral distance of aircraft. The majority of birds responded at lateral distances of 0.8 

km (1⁄2 mile) or less. Wildlife telemetry studies involving the use of helicopters could cause 

greater disturbance to birds due to the take-offs and landings required for deploying ground

personnel for attachment of transmitters. Additionally, pedestrian traffic, necessary for 

transmitter attachment, has been shown to be more disruptive to some waterfowl species than 

other types of disturbance (Johnson et al. 2003b). The effects to birds from these activities could 

range from temporary displacement from preferred feeding habitats to nest abandonment and 

loss of production for the breeding season. Impacts would likely be localized and are unlikely to

accumulate at the population level. Impacts have potential to have greater negative effect and 

potential for accumulation if the activity occurs in an area of high bird density (such as near 

lakes containing large numbers of molting geese) or in areas containing populations of species 

listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act or on the agency sensitive species list. 

Development. Non-oil and gas development in villages has caused the loss of habitat and 

increased levels of disturbance within the planning area and within the 7 North Slope villages 

considered in this cumulative effects analysis. The total acres within the city limits of each 

village are listed in Table 4.7-A with the total acreage for all villages reported to be 60,123 ac. 

Non-oil and gas development has also caused the loss of habitat and increased levels of 

disturbance at the 2 former military sites in the planning area (Lonely and Kogru) and the 6 

former and current military sites within the area of this cumulative effect analysis (Point Lay, 

Icy Cape, Wainwright, Peard Bay, Point Barrow, and Cape Simpson). The total acreage of the 8 

present and former military sites within the area of consideration for the cumulative effect 

analysis is reported to be 7,761 acres with acreage at 2 facilities being undetermined (Table 4.7­

C). These sites also provide a potential starting point for hunting trips. Development and loss of 

habitat and disturbance, coupled with other non oil and gas activities would cause a loss of birds 

and habitat that would accumulate. 

Waste Removal. Clean-up activities at abandoned sites in the planning area could involve the 

use of fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters to access remote areas. The effects of this traffic would 

be similar to those described above for conducting aerial surveys or for mobilizing and resupplying summer camps. Ground activity by workers on foot could be more disruptive to some 

bird species than other types of disturbance (Johnson et al. 2003b). Impacts would likely be 

localized. Impacts have potential to have greater negative effect and potentially increased 

accumulated effect if the activity occurs in an area of high bird density (such as near lakes 

containing large numbers of molting geese) or in areas containing populations of species listed 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-734 

Cumulative Impacts: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act or on the agency sensitive species list, or

during life-history stages where birds are particularly vulnerable to disturbance. Examples of 

these periods include raptors nesting on the Colville River and waterfowl molting in substantial 

numbers north, northeast, or during life-history stages where birds are particularly vulnerable 

to disturbance. 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Seismic Activity and Exploration. The two primary factors associated with seismic activities 

and exploration that could affect birds on the North Slope are loss of habitat and disturbance. 

Most seismic surveys and exploration drilling activities occur during the winter months when 

most birds are not present in the planning area. The exception to winter seismic activities is the 

unlikely collection of seismic reflection data in aquatic areas (lakes, bays and lagoons) during 

ice-free periods. The previous use of airguns for boat-based seismic work in Teshekpuk Lake

likely displaced loons and waterfowl from preferred feeding habitats while surveys were being 

conducted. However, these surveys have only occurred a few times in the past, and it is unlikely 

that effects to birds have accumulated. These disturbance causing activities would have no 

direct impacts that would accumulate for most species. A few species, including snowy owl, 

gyrfalcon, ptarmigan, and common raven, which may be present in the planning area during 

winter, could be temporarily displaced from preferred feeding areas by oil and gas exploration 

activities. Given that these activities occurred within only a small portion of the North Slope, it

is unlikely that these effects have accumulated. 

Seismic surveys have been conducted over most of the North Slope since 1940 and vegetation 

was disturbed to varying degrees depending upon the soil and vegetation type, vehicle type, 

operator vigilance, and amount of snow cover. Studies of seismic and camp-move trails created

on the eastern part of the North Slope in the 1980s showed that only 3% of seismic trails were 

still evident 8 years later, and none of this area showed moderate to high impacts. Yet 10% of 

camp-move trails still showed minor and 5% showed moderate to high disturbance (Jorgenson 

et al. 1996). This compared to values of 11% little to no impact, 64% minor, 23% moderate and 

2% high on seismic trails just one to two summers following the activity, and 22%, 52%, 24% 

and 2%, respectively, for camp-move trails. The greatest damage occurred where the vegetative 

mat was destroyed and the underlying soil was exposed. About 50 acres of tractor trail/tundra

scars persist today from earlier seismic work. Seismic activities could have indirectly affected 

tundra-nesting birds during the summer breeding season as construction of these ice-roads, 

snow trails and ice-pads temporarily alter tundra habitats by compressing standing-dead 

vegetation or delaying the growth and development of vegetation, due to protracted ice melt 

resulting in, at least a short term, slight accumulation of the effect of reduced bird nesting 

habitat. 

To date, approximately 100,000 line miles of 2-D seismic data has been collected in the Chukchi 

Sea Planning area. Geophysical exploration has also occurred in the Beaufort Sea for decades. 

These surveys have taken place during the open water season and would be expected to have

had some impact to birds if birds were disturbed or displaced from preferred feeding, molting or 

staging areas due to activities from offshore seismic surveys. Impacts would have potential to 

have greater negative effect and potentially increased accumulated effect if the disturbing or 

displacing activity occurs in an area of high bird density or in areas containing populations of 

species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act or on the BLM sensitive species

list. 

4-735 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Other sources of vegetative loss include exploration sites with gravel pads, disturbed areas 

around these pads, exploration airstrips, and peat and gravel exploration roads. Based on 

Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska’s North Slope (NRC 

2003), in 2001, approximately 1,700 acres had been impacted by these sites in the past, and 

1,130 acres of disturbance were still evident. Most of these sites were developed before 1977, 

thus their effects on the vegetative landscape have persisted for decades, and are likely to

persist for several more decades resulting in an accumulated effect of loss of bird habitat. Over 

500 acres of peat roads still showed evidence of disturbance, even though most of these roads 

were constructed over 30 years ago likely resulting in an small accumulated effect of loss of bird

habitat. However, some evidence suggests that bird use of peat roads is similar to that of 

adjacent areas of undisturbed tundra (TERA 1991). As industry has shifted towards use of ice 

roads and ice pads during exploration, loss of habitat has slowed greatly. 

Water used in the construction of ice roads and pads would be withdrawn from deep lakes in 

areas adjacent to the road and pad locations. Winter water withdrawal could alter lake levels 

and adjacent birds habitats, although flooding and recharge during spring break-up would 

likely minimize the potential for long-term effects (Rovansek et al. 1996). Since use of lakes in 

the past has varied, and few lakes would have had water withdrawn over several years, it 

seems unlikely that the effects of past use of lakes for water withdrawals would accumulate. 

Infrastructure and Road and Pad Construction. Effects to bird habitat from road and pad 

construction and gravel mining, and surface disturbance associated with development and 

production activities, have occurred on the North Slope in the past and persist today. Gravel 

roads, gravel pads, and gravel mines have caused the direct loss of avian habitat, and also have 

led to the indirect loss of habitat from the effects of road dust and alteration of natural drainage 

patterns. For the North Slope as a whole, it is expected that by 2010 gravel will have been used 

to construct about 9,680 acres of roads and pads in the oil fields, 332 acres of the Dalton 

Highway, 1900 acres will have been impacted by other oil field related disturbances, and gravel 

mines will have impacted another 6,430 acres (Table 4.7-H). Approximately 4,500 acres of 

gravel mines have been rehabilitated but only 70 acres of gravel pads (NRC 2003). 

Rehabilitation of gravel mines produces primarily fisheries habitat, not tundra vegetation, and 

rehabilitation of gravel pads has produced mixed results that have not restored areas to original 

conditions. Thus, direct impacts to vegetation by 2010 will persist on about 18,342 acres (Table 

4.7-H). Loss of habitat has accumulated and could limit bird populations that occupy the

planning area. 

The passage of vehicle traffic over gravel pads and roads results in dust and gravel being 

sprayed over vegetation within about 30 feet of the pad or road, and a noticeable dust shadow 

out to 150 feet or more. Within 30 feet of gravel structures, the dust and gravel can smother 

vegetation. 

Construction of gravel pads, roads, and airstrips has altered the moisture regime of tundra near 

these structures by changing natural drainage patterns and areas where snow accumulates. 

These changes alter the species composition of the plant community near gravel structures and

adversely affect birds. These impacts have been exacerbated by dust deposition and by the 

formation of impoundments. These factors combine to warm the soil, deepen thaw, and cause 

thermokarst adjacent to roads and other gravel structures (NRC 2003). However, 

impoundments created by road and pad construction and dust deposition have created new 

feeding and brood-rearing habitat that has been beneficial to some bird species. Noel et al. 

(1996) reported that the areas occupied by impoundments in the Prudhoe Bay area generally 

supported higher waterfowl densities than the same areas did prior to development. Kertell 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-736 

Cumulative Impacts: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

(1993, 1994) reported few differences in invertebrate numbers and numbers of Pacific loons 

when comparing use of natural ponds and impoundments in the Prudhoe Bay area. He also 

reported that ducks were more abundant on impoundments than natural ponds, although this 

difference was not statistically significant. These effects, both beneficial and adverse, persist 

today on approximately 18,000 acres of vegetation on the North Slope (NRC 2003; Table 4.7-H). 

Disturbance. Numerous types of disturbances could result from oil and gas exploration, 

development, and production activities, including those caused by aircraft, vehicular, 

pedestrian, and vessel traffic, construction and drilling activities, noise and activity at facilities, 

and predator attraction. Some level of disturbance to birds from these activities would be 

unavoidable. Impacts have been most prevalent where facilities were located in habitats with 

high bird concentrations. 

Disturbance to waterfowl from aircraft is well documented (e.g., Schweinsburg 1974; Ward and 

Stehn 1989, Derksen et al. 1992; McKechnie and Gladwin 1993; Ward et al 1999). Johnson et al. 

(2003b) conducted the most thorough study of aircraft disturbance to waterfowl in the Arctic at

the Alpine field. Responses of birds to aircraft included alert postures, interruption of foraging 

behavior, and flight. Aircraft disturbances could displace birds from feeding habitats and 

negatively impact energy budgets. However, an avian monitoring study at the Alpine field 

showed that successful white-fronted goose nests were generally closer to the Alpine field

airstrip, the flight path, and the nearest gravel source than unsuccessful nests, although most 

comparisons were not substantially different. Johnson et al. (2003b) also reported on tundra 

swans and yellow-billed loons nesting in proximity to the Alpine field airstrip. When compared 

to pre-construction numbers, waterfowl nests near the airstrip declined in the area within 3,250 

feet of the airstrip after construction began (Johnson et al. 2003b). Although the potential exists 

for displacement of some nesting birds near routinely used aircraft landing sites as a result of 

numerous overflights, landings, and takeoffs, some birds may habituate to routine air traffic, 

while others fail to do so. 

During post-breeding studies in southwest Alaska, Ward et al. (1999) studied brant response to 

fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft and reported brant response to aircraft at a lateral distance 

to 3 miles, although the majority of birds responded to aircraft that were within a lateral 

distance of 1⁄2 mile or less. Brant did not habituate to the overflights, and temporary

displacement from preferred nesting, feeding, brood-rearing, or molting habitats could affect 

energy budgets of some birds, and incubating birds could be temporarily displaced from nests. 

These effects may have had short-term impacts to brant and other waterfowl, but impacts to 

local populations were minor. The specific impacts of aircraft to various species of waterfowl 

occupying the Goose Molting Areas are not known. The cumulative impacts of molting 

waterfowl to repeated aircraft disturbance is also unknown. 

Predators. Predators such as glaucous gulls, Arctic foxes, ravens, and grizzly bears could be 

attracted to anthropogenic food sources associated with summer maintenance of exploratory

drilling and seismic equipment, which may cause increased predation pressure on tundranesting birds. There is evidence that nesting success for several species of ground-nesting birds 

may be lower in oil fields than in undeveloped areas (Troy 1996; Anderson et al. 2000; Sedinger 

and Stickney 2000). Sedinger and Stickney (2000) attributed low brant nest success in oil fields 

to high predator populations. Johnson (2000) noted a similar relationship for snow geese in 

some years. Despite the poor production rates, snow goose and brant numbers have increased in

oil fields since the early 1980s. Thus, effects of North Slope development to snow geese and 

brant are either accumulating, although it is not entirely clear if oil field development has had

an adverse (poor reproductive success) or positive (increased population size and growth rates) 

4-737 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

effect, or the changes in numbers may be the result of factors outside the breeding or molting 

grounds (adult or juvenile survivorship). 

Increases in the number of predators in areas of development could have an additive impact on

the effects of predation on bird populations, particularly for species with low or declining 

populations or species of special concern such as yellow-billed loon, long-tailed duck, and buffbreasted sandpiper. In recent years, North Slope oil field developers have installed predatorproof dumpsters to minimize attraction of predators to development. This policy has mostly 

been successful at the Alpine field, where Johnson et al. (2003b) reported no increase in the 

numbers of predator species, other than the common raven, after development (in relation to 

pre-development numbers). 

Collisions. Bird mortality has resulted from collisions with buildings, vehicles, aircraft, 

vessels, towers, pipelines, platforms, or other structures associated with onshore and offshore oil 

and gas development. Offshore activities are most likely to impact birds during the late 

summer/fall staging period, when relatively large numbers of loons, long-tailed ducks, eiders, 

and other waterfowl are staging, migrating and molting in marine areas. Migration pathways 

may include areas where offshore production facilities are constructed, so collisions with 

offshore structures and with vessel and helicopter traffic used for transport of personnel and 

equipment, conducting oil spill response exercises or responding to an oil spill, could occur. Bird 

collisions with vehicles, buildings or oil field infrastructure probably do not represent a 

significant source of bird mortality at the population level. However, bird losses due to collisions 

in developed areas accumulate with increases in development and add incrementally to other 

impacts. 

Spills. The largest spill in the North Slope oilfields (over 200,000 gallons) occurred in March of 

2006, but this resulted in essentially no direct impacts to birds due to the timing of the spill, 

which allowed cleanup to take place before the spring melt. Indirect impacts to bird habitat are 

likely to have occurred as a result of the spilled oil and the subsequent clean up effort. No 

notable spills into the marine environment have occurred. Small spills have occurred but 

cleanup and rehabilitation efforts have been successful and relatively few birds have been 

impacted (NRC 2003) and ecosystems have generally recovered (Jorgenson 1997). The 

cumulative effects of oil spills on the North Slope have added only incrementally to impacts on 

birds. 

Marine Activities. Offshore oil exploration and development, which occurs in both state and 

Federal offshore marine waters of the North Slope, rely on helicopter and barge traffic more

often than on fixed-wing flights. Most of this activity occurs during the winter when most birds 

are not present. With the exceptions being those species that winter in recurrent polynynas 

(E.g. Ross and ivory gulls, thick-billed murre, black guillemot) within the offshore marine 

waters of the North Slope. However, helicopter activity, barge and crew vessel traffic, and spill 

response training activities do occur during the summer. During the summer open-water 

seasons of 2001 and 2002 at the Northstar development off Prudhoe Bay, helicopter activity 

ranged from 477 to 989 round trips, crew vessel activity ranged from 469 to 824 round trips, and 

barge traffic ranged from 63 to 64 round trips (Williams 2002, Williams and Rodrigues 2003). 

Vessel traffic not related to oil development also occurs in marine waters off the coast of the 

North Slope. These activities have displaced marine birds in the past, but it is unknown if 

effects have accumulated. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-738 

Cumulative Impacts: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Factors Outside of the North Slope 

Wintering grounds and portions of migratory routes of many bird species lie in areas outside of 

the North Slope, including areas within the U.S. and other several other countries, and

regulated or non-regulated development in these areas can impact critical bird habitats. 

Various types of contaminants and toxins from industrial and agricultural activities can enter 

either terrestrial or marine environments and affect bird mortality or reproductive success. Oil 

spills have been an obvious source of bird mortality at numerous locations around the world. 

Commercial fishing activities have caused changes in predator-prey relationships that could 

affect wintering loons and waterfowl that feed in offshore marine habitats. Marine birds could 

also become entangled in fishing gear currently being used in commercial fishing activities or in 

abandoned gear that persists in marine environments. Many waterfowl species are hunted for 

sport during the fall migration and on the wintering grounds. Subsistence users take waterfowl 

or other bird species during spring and fall hunts, as well as eggs of some species during the 

nesting season. There is evidence that contamination of feeding habitat with spent lead shot 

may result in lead poisoning of waterfowl in some areas including the Y-K delta. Development

along migration corridors and in wintering areas may result in habitat loss or disturbances that 

add to the cumulative impacts on bird populations. All of these factors can add to the 

cumulative loss of individual birds, and in some instances, can have population-level effects. 

Summary of Past and Present Impacts and Their Accumulation 

Approximately 2,500 acres of direct impacts and about 15,000 acres of indirect impacts to bird 

habitat from non-oil and gas activities persist today. By 2010, oil and gas activities will have 

caused approximately 18,342 acres of direct impacts, and 60,000 acres of indirect impacts to 

bird habitat. Whether these impacts are associated with non-oil and gas residential and 

commercial development, or oil and gas activities, the impacts to bird habitat are additive to 

future impacts and would likely persist for several decades or more in the absence of an active 

reclamation program. The typical gravel pad and amount of roadway needed to service a 

development have become smaller over time, reducing the amount of bird habitat lost due to 

development as compared to past levels. 

Direct and indirect effects from disturbance, of many different types, are difficult to measure,

but are likely accumulating as the number of developments and the amount of developed area 

increase. New oil and gas developments have reduced their footprint size and the corresponding 

direct effects have been reduced, however these new developments often rely on aircraft support 

for transportation of personnel and equipment potentially increasing disturbance to feeding, 

nesting, staging and molting birds. The impacts of predators on bird populations may be slowly

waning as industry reduces the amount of predator-attracting garbage in the fields. Habitat 

loss and disturbance can add incrementally to the impacts of development on birds. 

Whether past impacts to bird populations from habitat loss or disturbance are associated with 

non-oil and gas residential and commercial development, or oil and gas activities, these impacts 

are additive to any potential future impacts. 

4.7.7.8.2 Future Effects and Their Accumulation 

Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Non-oil and gas activities as described above would continue to result in the loss of small 

amounts of bird habitat and cause disturbance to birds. In many cases, loss of habitat from 

4-739 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

these activities would be temporary, lasting only a few years. Habitat loss and disturbance 

associated with military facilities, villages, airstrips, and other non-oil and gas infrastructure 

are likely to persist into the indefinite future. Villages are likely to increase in size, causing the 

loss of additional habitat and increase disturbance. The amount of area that would be projected 

to be disturbed by new development on the North Slope in villages and other public facilities is 

projected to increase by 2% annually, approximately doubling by 2045 when human population 

may level off. An increase in non-oil and gas barge traffic is expected due to the recently 

extended open water period in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Seismic Activities and Exploration. To analyze the cumulative impacts of seismic surveys 

on the North Slope, BLM assumes continuation of the recent experience of three to four seismic 

crews active there each winter and that the miles of 2-D and 3-D surveys, the associated campmove miles, and the proportion of 2-D and 3-D surveys anticipated in Northeast NPR-A will 

over time approximate the average throughout the North Slope. Based on these assumptions, 

approximately 86,400 acres of vegetation would be disturbed annually on the North Slope, with 

125 acres of that total still showing moderate to high levels of disturbance a decade later. 

Seismic surveys on land are known the cause direct and indirect impacts to bird habitat and it 

is expected that these impacts can accumulate in the short term and to a lesser extent in the 

long term. Impacts have potential to have greater negative effect and potentially increased 

accumulated effect if the activity occurs in an area of high bird density or in areas containing 

populations of species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act or on the BLM 

sensitive species list. Use of newer seismic technology and new methods of moving vehicles 

across the ground have substantially decreased impacts to bird habitat as compared to seismic 

surveys that were conducted decades ago and it is expected that there would be very little area 

of impacts to bird habitat that would persist for greater than a decade. 

Seismic activity has occurred for many years in the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea Planning Areas 

and is expected to continue in the future during the open water season (April and October).

Offshore seismic work includes the use of ice breakers, seismic vessels, support vessels and 

helicopters. Survey times in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area are expected to average 20 – 30 

days and to cover a 200 sq-mi area. Offshore seismic surveys are conducted using an airgun and 

receiving cable arrays. There is potential for birds to be impacted by offshore seismic surveys

due to disturbance and potential displacement of birds from preferred feeding, molting and

staging areas if bird use areas overlap with seismic activities. Impacts have potential to have 

greater negative effect and potentially increased accumulated effect if the activity occurs in an 

area of high bird density or in areas containing populations of species listed as threatened

under the Endangered Species Act or on the BLM sensitive species list. 

Other sources of habitat loss include exploration sites with gravel pads, disturbed areas around 

these pads, and airstrips and gravel roads at exploration sites. In recent years, gravel 

structures for exploration activity have been replaced by ice roads, airstrips, and drilling pads to 

reduce costs and environmental effects of gravel construction (Johnson and Collins 1980, Hazen 

1997). As a result, the long-term effects of exploration activities are likely to affect only a small 

amount of habitat, although effects would accumulate. 

Oil and Gas Roads and Infrastructure. Future oil and gas development activities in the 

northwestern and southern portions of the NPR-A, Federal and state offshore oil and gas 

development (through the construction of supporting onshore infrastructure), state onshore oil

and gas development, enhanced recovery oil through construction of satellite pads in already 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-740 

Cumulative Impacts: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

developed areas, and oil and gas transportation could contribute to cumulative impacts on birds 

through habitat loss or alteration and disturbance. All of these development activities involve 

construction of infrastructure that would destroy bird habitat within the immediate footprint of 

the project, and indirectly affect bird habitat through dust deposition, flooding, changes in 

natural drainage patterns, thermokarst, and snow drifting, increased water and air pollution, 

and oil and chemical spills that could cause changes in the plant species composition and 

community types. 

The increase in the amount of area disturbed by oil and gas development on the North Slope has

slowed in recent years. Before 1988, the oil field road network grew by about 24 miles per year, 

but since 1988 have grown at only 3 miles per year. The average rate of all gravel placement 

was about 421 acres per year before 1988, and only 42 acres per year between 1988 and 2001 

(NRC 2003; Table 4.7-F). If the current rates continue into the future for areas outside the 

Northwest NPR-A and the Northeast NPR-A Planning Area, and the ratio of gravel mine acres

to gravel footprint acres remains about 5:1 (see section 4.2.1.2), about 1,050 additional acres 

would be covered by gravel, and 210 acres impacted by gravel mines, in the next 25 years. 

Approximately 6,300 acres would be indirectly affected by dust, changes in hydrology, and 

thermokarst. To carry these same assumptions through, another 1,260 acres of bird habitat 

could be destroyed by gravel placement or gravel mines for oil and gas activities between 2035 

and 2060, and another 6,300 acres could be indirectly impacted by development. 

Impacts to bird habitat will accumulate from the following sources: past non-oil/gas activities, 

non-oil/gas activities from now until about 2045, past oil/gas activities outside of the planning 

area and Northwest NPR-A, future oil/gas activities outside of the Northeast and Northwest 

NPR-A up to 2060, future oil/gas activities in the Northwest NPR-A, and future activities in the 

planning area (Northeast NPR-A). These impacts are additive to the impacts to bird habitat 

that have accumulated in the past and persist today, but in the context of the ACP and North 

Slope, these cumulative impacts would be small. Based on direct (33,962 acres) and indirect 

(132,401 acres) impacts that could still persist in 2060 (see section 4.7.5, Vegetation), direct

and indirect impacts to bird habitat from activities on the North Slope would impact 

approximately 1.3% of the ACP and 0.29% of the North Slope. These estimates do not take into

account the quality of bird habitat that would be impacted on the North Slope. It is likely that 

the focus of future oil and gas exploration and development would be within the Barrow Arch, 

which is located in the ACP. Highest population densities of many species of waterfowl and 

shorebirds are also found in this area; thus, impacts to birds from development and potential for 

increased accumulated effects would likely be much greater than if estimates of impacts are 

based solely on size of the facility footprint. Impacts also have potential to have greater negative 

effect and potentially increased accumulated effect if the activity occurs in areas of high bird 

densities or areas containing populations of species listed as threatened under the Endangered

Species Act or on the BLM sensitive species list. 

Additional construction outside of the planning area necessary to support oil and gas 

exploration and development within the planning area would include increased infrastructure 

including additional miles of new pipeline. Interconnected oil and gas infrastructure that 

extends westward across the planning area may increase the likelihood of development in the 

Northwest NPR-A Planning Area and may facilitate development of offshore oil and gas 

resources in the Chukchi Sea. If planning area oil and gas infrastructure extends to the north 

of Teshekpuk Lake there may be increased likelihood of the development of oil and gas facilities 

offshore of the planning area in the Beaufort Sea. Potential impacts to birds both within and 

beyond the planning area boundaries would be related to direct and indirect habitat loss or 

alteration or disturbance associated with construction of infrastructure (roads, pads, pipelines) 

4-741 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

and production. The magnitude of the effects to birds would be dependent on the location, extent 

and timing of any development. It is likely that any of these potential activities listed above 

could cause impacts to birds to accumulate. 

In addition, if a natural gas pipeline was built from the North Slope, approximately 23,200 

acres would be disturbed during construction, about 4,800 acres of that on the North Slope. 

(TAPS Renewal EIS, p. 4.7-80) Additional acreage would be disturbed through burial of gas 

pipelines that ultimately deliver gas to a conditioning plant and the gas pipeline that delivers 

gas from the North Slope. Construction, which would take place in winter, could disturb, but 

unlikely to cause mortality among, ptarmigan, gyrfalcons, snowy owls and ravens. Revegetation 

along the route of these buried pipelines would occur over several years to decades, or even to

over a century in some, usually dryer, areas, thus potentially reducing or altering bird habitat 

along the route of the buried pipelines. 

Disturbance. It is reasonable to assume that increased development would cause increased

disturbance to birds. Although there is no clear indication that disturbance effects have 

accumulated to the point that they are adversely affecting bird populations, the effects of 

potential future developments outside of the planning area (onshore in Northwest NPR-A

Planning Area and east of NPR-A and offshore development in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas) 

would be additive to effects of present and past development. If birds are displaced from prime 

habitat by loss of habitat to gravel infrastructure, and disturbance further displaces birds, the 

effects of displacement and disturbance could result in energetic costs that reduce survival and 

productivity. These losses of individual birds would accumulate, and could persist as long as 

development occurred on the North Slope. 

Predators. It is reasonable to assume that development may cause increased potential for 

predators to be attracted to infrastructure, resulting in local impacts to birds. Although there is

no clear indication that predator effects have accumulated to the point that they are adversely 

affecting bird populations, the effects of potential future developments outside of the planning 

area (onshore in Northwest NPR-A Planning Areas and east of NPR-A and offshore

development in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas) would be additive to effects of present and past 

development. If birds are killed or nests predated due to increased numbers of predators in the 

vicinity of oil and gas infrastructure losses of individual birds would accumulate, and could 

persist as long as development occurred on the North Slope. Impacts also have potential to have 

greater negative effect and potentially increased accumulated effect if the activity occurs in

areas of high bird densities or areas containing populations of species listed as threatened

under the Endangered Species Act or on the BLM sensitive species list. During the early years

of oil field development, it is likely that predators were attracted to development by 

anthropogenic sources of food and shelter. Based on policies implemented by the BLM and

private industry to discourage attraction of predators to areas of development, the effects of 

predators on birds are likely to stabilize or decrease over time. These policies has been 

successful at the Alpine field, where Johnson et al. (2003b) reported no increase in the numbers 

of most predator species, except ravens, after development. 

Collisions. Bird mortality from collisions with buildings, vehicles, aircraft, vessels, towers, 

pipelines, platforms, or other structures associated with onshore and offshore oil and gas 

development is likely to persist into the future, and is expected to increase with increasing 

levels of development. The oil and gas industry has developed and implemented anti-collision 

practices, including providing better lighting of facilities, burying power lines, and attaching 

power lines to pipelines, in an attempt to reduce the number of bird collisions oil and gas 

infrastructure. Losses from collisions with on-land infrastructure are predicted to be small and 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-742 

Cumulative Impacts: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

would not be expected to significantly affect bird populations. However, if birds are killed due to 

increased oil and gas infrastructure losses of individual birds would accumulate, and could 

persist as long as development occurred on the North Slope. Impacts also have potential to have 

greater negative effect and potentially increased accumulated effect if the activity occurs in

areas of high bird densities or areas containing populations of species listed as threatened

under the Endangered Species Act or on the BLM sensitive species list. If development occurs in

offshore waters there would be potential for birds to be killed by collisions with offshore 

infrastructure. During spring and fall migration 450,000+ common and king eiders pass 

through the Beaufort and Chukchi seas (Day et al. 2003). Due to the fact the eiders fly rapidly 

and low over the water while migrating and may be attracted to lights, eiders may be highly 

susceptible to collision with man-made structures. Research at North Star Island (a man-made 

island in the Beaufort Sea) reports a high success rate for birds passing the island. Very large 

numbers of shorebirds also use the shorelines, near and offshore waters of the North Slope for 

staging and migration and would also be susceptible to collisions with man-made structures. 

Research into developing additional practices to deter birds from both onshore and offshore

infrastructure is underway and advances in the development of anti-collision mechanisms have 

the potential to significantly decrease the number of bird deaths from collisions. Losses from 

collisions with offshore infrastructure are expected to be small and would not be expected to 

significantly affect bird populations. However, if birds are killed due to increased oil and gas 

infrastructure, losses of individual birds would accumulate, and could persist as long as 

development occurred on the North Slope. Impacts also have potential to have greater negative 

effect and potentially increased accumulated effect if the activity occurs in areas of high bird 

densities or areas containing populations of species listed as threatened under the Endangered

Species Act or on the BLM sensitive species list. 

Spills. The oil industry is required to have oil spill response and clean-up capabilities, and 

small spills on lands or waters in the planning area or in existing or future North Slope oil 

fields are expected to be contained and cleaned up before substantial bird loss can occur. In 

addition to mortality through direct contact with oil, some mortality could result through 

ingestion of contaminants in food and water, and from the cumulative effects of the numerous 

small spills expected from the operation of any oil field. 

A large onshore spill released in the planning area during the summer season could affect loons, 

waterfowl, shorebirds, and other bird groups. In the immediate vicinity of the spill, some 

habitat contacted by oil would become unsuitable for bird use, and oil entering freshwater 

aquatic habitats could spread more widely, potentially entering river deltas and nearshore 

marine habitats. Direct mortality could occur from loss of insulating capabilities of feathers 

should birds come in contact with oil, or from ingestion of contaminated prey. Oil that came in 

contact with eggs, either directly or through contact with partially oiled feathers of incubating 

adults, could negatively impact embryonic development. These effects would be additive to the 

effects of a spill in the existing and potentially expanding North Slope oil fields, or to the effects 

of potential future spills that could occur in the Northwest NPR-A, if these areas were 

developed. 

If future oil field development were to occur in state or Federal marine waters offshore of the 

planning area, there would be a minor probability of a large oil spill. If one or more spills were 

to occur, substantial losses to loons, shorebirds and waterfowl could result if oil were released 

during the summer/fall season when large flocks of these birds were present. Large numbers of 

molting waterfowl are known to use the lagoon systems in nearshore areas of the Beaufort and 

Chukchi seas. Thousands of molting or staging loons and waterfowl could be impacted by an 

offshore spill occurring in areas of high bird use, such as the lagoon system near Prudhoe Bay in 

4-743 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

the central Beaufort Sea or in Kasegaluk Lagoon in the Chukchi Sea. An offshore spill could 

also affect feeding habitats in littoral habitats, such as extensive mudflats in the Colville River 

Delta, which are used by staging shorebirds. The Colville River delta supports thousands of 

postbreeding shorebirds, the most abundant of which is dunlin (Andres 1994). The arcticola 

subspecies of dunlin is considered to be highly imperiled (Brown et al. 2001). An oil spill could 

also contaminate prey populations in foraging areas at any time of year, which could result in 

secondary impacts to loons, waterfowl, and shorebirds by affecting productivity and/or survival. 

Tanker spills of crude oil from oil fields in the planning area could impact birds in marine 

habitats along the entire tanker route from the port at Valdez to West Coast refineries. A large 

oil spill in the Prince William Sound area, similar to the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, would 

impact many thousands of waterfowl and marine birds at any time of the year. Large numbers 

of loons and waterfowl use Prince William Sound as a migratory stopover or wintering area. The 

Copper River Delta is a migratory stopover area for millions of shorebirds during spring and fall 

migration; if an oil spill were to spread to this area, it could impact many thousands of birds. 

Marine birds and waterfowl could also be impacted by an oil spill in the Gulf of Alaska or in 

open water or bay habitats along the Pacific Coast of Canada, Washington, Oregon, and

California. Oil spills occurring in coastal areas would likely produce greater impacts to birds 

than a spill occurring several hundred miles offshore, where bird densities are much lower. 

Spills, such as the Exxon Valdez spill and many smaller spills, have already caused extensive 

bird mortality in many of these areas. The actual numbers of birds impacted by an oil spill is 

likely much higher than the number of oiled carcasses recovered, because the carcasses of many 

oiled birds may never be recovered. The length of time required for populations to recover and 

the lingering effects of contamination vary among species. 

Oil produced as a result of development in the planning area would contribute to less than 13% 

of future spills from TAPS, but would increase the number of onshore oil spills and would likely 

impact tundra systems in some instances. 

Marine Activities. Offshore oil exploration and development is likely to increase in the future 

due to recent and upcoming Federal and State lease sales in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. 

Development near the coastline in the NPR-A and elsewhere on the North Slope would result in 

increased vessel traffic in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. Global climate change could increase 

the duration of the open-water period and vessel traffic could occur in the region for longer 

periods of time each year. As a result, effects to birds from vessel traffic and disturbance are 

likely to persist near current levels into the foreseeable future, and may even increase. This 

traffic could impact bird habitat use and behavior and cause the death or injury to some 

individuals, and impact energy budgets and the ability of some birds to store fat prior to

migration. If birds are killed, displaced or disturbed due to increased activities in marine 

waters, losses of individual birds would accumulate, and could persist as long as marine traffic 

occurred. Impacts also have potential to have greater negative effect and potentially increased 

accumulated effect if the activity occurs in areas of high bird densities or areas containing 

populations of species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act or on the BLM 

sensitive species list. 

Abandonment. The impacts of abandonment and rehabilitation of oil and gas fields on birds 

would be similar in many respects to those incurred by construction activity. Activities 

occurring in the winter would cause little disturbance or displacement, because most species 

would be absent from the area. However, the melting of ice roads could be delayed, compared to

surrounding tundra, causing impoundments of water. Delay in the melting of ice roads, 

compared to the surrounding tundra, could also cause either complete loss of nesting habitat for 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-744 

Cumulative Impacts: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

a season or compaction of vegetation, which would reduce the quality of the nesting habitat for a 

nesting season. Such impacts would only affect nesting in the summer following ice road use, 

and would likely be minor. Summer road and air traffic generated by abandonment and 

rehabilitation activities could cause disturbance, displacement, and mortality to birds that 

would be similar to, and at the same levels as that caused by traffic during construction and 

operations. If pads, roads, and airstrips were not revegetated, their value to birds would be 

lessened. If they were revegetated without removing the gravel, the habitat would not return to 

its current utility for most birds of the area. If gravel was removed, habitat similar to that 

currently existing in the area could be created and used by birds, though the precise mix of 

habitat types would likely not be the same as what prevailed at the time of disturbance. The 

effects of habitat loss would accumulate, as described above, to the extent that habitats were 

not, or could not be, restored to their original condition. 

Other Factors on the North Slope 

Numerous other factors could add to cumulative impacts on bird populations. Subsistence 

harvest of some species of birds and eggs continues to impact these species, although overall 

numbers of birds and eggs taken over their entire range are not known. Aside from direct 

mortality due to subsistence harvest, the accumulation of lead shot in waterfowl foraging 

habitat in the Y-K Delta may be impacting waterfowl survival. It is currently illegal to use lead 

shot while hunting any bird species on the North Slope. Illegal use of lead shot for hunting 

waterfowl, could contribute to the effects of lead poisoning on waterfowl populations. 

Factors Outside of the North Slope 

Wintering grounds and portions of migratory routes of many bird species lie in areas outside of 

the North Slope, including areas within the U.S. and other several other countries, and

regulated or non-regulated development in these areas can impact critical bird habitats. 

Habitat losses in non-breeding areas could be particularly significant for species of concern or 

species with low population numbers, such as buff-breasted sandpiper. Habitat losses may occur 

directly from habitat destruction due to development, or from pollution, such as exposure to

agricultural pesticides that may reduce the ability of birds to reproduce or may cause direct 

mortality to birds. Other activities, such as commercial fishing, may also have the potential to 

cause changes in predator/prey relationships or damage benthic habitats that could affect some 

marine bird populations. Numbers of wind farms are increasing in many areas of the United

States, including Alaska and in many other areas of the world. These wind farms have the 

potential to cause direct mortality to birds. Disease, such as west nile virus and potentially 

avian influenza have the potential to be transmitted to and from the planning area by species 

that spend a portion of their life cycle in Asia. Impacts related to subsistence hunting and sport 

hunting in wintering areas and along migratory routes can be additive to the effects of 

development on the North Slope. Spent lead shot that remains in waterfowl feeding habitat has 

been linked to lead poisoning for some waterfowl species (Franson et al. 1998). Impacts of 

subsistence hunting may impact species of concern such as brant, bar-tailed godwit, and 

threatened eiders as well as many more abundant species. Cumulative effects to birds would be 

additive and include habitat loss and disturbance related to activities on the migration and 

wintering grounds that could result in permanent or temporary displacement from preferred

feeding and roosting habitats. 

4-745 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7.7.8.3 Global Climate Change 

Much research in recent years has focused on the effects of naturally-occurring or man-induced 

global climate regime shifts and the potential for these shifts to cause changes in habitat 

structure over large areas. Although many of the forces driving global climate regime shifts may 

originate outside the Arctic, the impacts of global climate change are exacerbated in the Arctic 

(ACIA 2004). Temperatures in the Arctic have risen faster than in other areas of the world as 

evidenced by glacial retreat and melting of sea ice. A few bird species, such as black guillemot 

that feed near the ice edge, may not be able to bring high quality food to their young as the pack 

ice moves further offshore. 

The increasing thickness of the active layer of soil above arctic permafrost is likely to cause 

changes in moisture regimes and the distribution of vegetation types over much of the Arctic in

coming years. Thawing of the permafrost may result in increased amounts of surface water in 

some areas. Areas of permafrost with substrates composed of fine-grained materials may be 

susceptible to drying, erosion, and desertification (ACIA 2004). Warmer soil temperatures are 

likely to increase thermokarst, and increases in sea level may inundate low lying tundra areas, 

increasing salt marsh, aquatic and wet tundra vegetation types and erosion of coastal bluffs 

(ACIA 2004). Such impacts of climate change could accelerate or exacerbate changes in soil 

thermal regimes that occur with development, potentially leading to greater impacts to bird 

habitat from changes associated with thermokarst. Rising temperatures are likely to favor the

expansion of the northern boreal forest into areas currently occupied by tundra. Global climate 

change may also result in an increase in shrubs at the expense of forbs and graminoid 

vegetation characteristic of Arctic tundra. In addition, rising seal levels resulting from 

increasing temperatures may further reduce the amount of tundra habitat available to nesting 

birds by causing coastal erosion and by inundating low-lying areas (Mars and Houseknecht 

2007). These changes may be beneficial to some species such as those associated with boreal 

forest or shrub habitats, but a reduction in the amount of tundra habitat available could 

negatively impact tundra-nesting shorebirds and waterfowl and add to the cumulative effects of

oil and gas development. 

4.7.7.8.4 Contribution of Supplement Alternatives to Cumulative Effects 

Impacts from ice road construction within the planning area would occur on 15,642 to 21,763 

acres, while impacts from ice pads and ice airstrips would occur on another 1,126 to 1,700 acres; 

these impacts to bird habitat would be short-term and would not accumulate. Long-term 

impacts to bird habitat from seismic surveys in the planning area would occur on approximately 

150 acres under all alternatives. Development in the planning area could directly impact 

approximately 3,270, 3,716, 4,649, and 4,378 acres, and indirectly impact 9,343, 10,178, 13,001, 

and 12,961 acres of bird habitat for Alternatives A through D, respectively (Table 4.2-G). These 

impacts would be long-term and would accumulate. Total, long-term, direct and indirect impacts 

to bird habitat from exploration and development combined would occur on 0.28% (Alternative 

A) to 0.39% (Alternative C) of the planning area. As shown on maps 3-12 to 3-18, the areas to 

the north, northeast, and east of Teshekpuk Lake and extending to the coastline have medium 

to high population densities of several species of waterfowl, and shorebirds, including whitefronted geese, brant, and pintails. Depending on the types and locations of facilities, impacts to 

brant and other waterfowl could accumulate, especially where species are concentrated, and

affect the long-term health of local populations. The effects to waterfowl, shorebirds, and other 

birds from oil and gas development would be less under Alternative A and Alternative B, 

because all (Alternative A) or most (Alternative B) of this area would be closed to leasing under 

these alternatives. The effects would be greatest under Alternative C, since the entire area 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-746 

Cumulative Impacts: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

would be open to leasing. The effects from Alternative D would be less than Alternative C, but 

greater than Alternative B, since some development could occur within this area. Impacts 

associated with the planning area would be additive to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future bird impacts on the North Slope. 

Development in the planning area would increase the total amount of impacts on birds and 

their habitats, and generally would be additive in nature. Exceptions may occur in relation to 

development in the Northwest NPR-A and Beaufort Sea. Depending on oil prices and where 

and how much oil is ultimately developed in the planning area, there could be synergistic effects

on acreage of bird habitat and associated disturbance that would take place in the Northwest

NPR-A. This would occur if a large discovery in the northwest part of the planning area would 

make economic the development of an oil field in the northeast part of Northwest NPR-A which 

would not otherwise have been economically developable. (See discussion of Northwest NPR-A

under section 4.7.3.3). This potential scenario is least likely under Alternative A because less

acreage in the northwest portion of the planning area would be made available to leasing under 

this than the other three alternatives. 

Synergism could similarly result if development north of Teshekpuk Lake resulted in offshore

development being more economically feasible. Such offshore development would likely result in 

additional impacts to bird from developments built onshore in support of the activities offshore

and from interactions of birds with offshore developments including collisions and oiling. This 

would most likely affect the northern portion of the planning area or the Beaufort Sea coastal 

portions of the Northwest NPR-A. This scenario is unlikely under Alternative A, because very 

little coastal area in the planning area would be available for lease and even less for surface 

development. It would be most likely under Alternative C, somewhat less under Alternative D

because of development constraints, and less yet under Alternative B because of lands 

unavailable for lease. 

4.7.7.8.5 Conclusion 

Impacts to habitat and disturbance related impacts to birds on the North Slope from future oil 

and gas exploration and development are expected to be additive with respect to impacts from

other past, present, and future non-oil and gas activities, from past and present oil and gas 

activities, and from impacts sustained along migratory routes, and in wintering areas. Impacts 

in the planning area would increase the total amount of bird habitat and disturbance related 

impacts sustained by all oil and gas development, and would be additive in nature except in the 

following potential cases where synergism is likely. If a large discovery is made in the northwest 

or northern part of the planning area, it could make additional developments in the Northwest 

NPR-A or offshore more economically feasible, resulting in additional habitat and disturbance 

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

Northeast and Northwest NPR-A. This possibility is more likely under Alternative B, C or D 

than Alternative A. The effects of global climate change are difficult to predict, but changes in 

habitat structure associated with climate change would likely have a cumulative impact on bird 

populations. The impacts in the planning area would increase the total amount of bird habitat 

and disturbance related impacts by all oil and gas development, and would generally be additive

in nature for the most part, except as noted above under Contribution of Supplement to 

Cumulative Effects. 

4-747 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Birds 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7.7.9 Mammals 

4.7.7.9-a Terrestrial Mammals 

Onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration and development and their support activities in 

the planning area are the primary contributing activities in terms of cumulative effects on 

mammals on the North Slope. The primary effects from oil and gas exploration include habitat 

loss and disturbances that displace mammals from preferred habitat areas or impact their 

behavior. An oil spill could cause direct harm or mortality to mammals due to its toxic effects, 

and also affect habitat. 

Other factors that contribute to the cumulative effects on mammals on the North Slope include

permitted activities such as non-oil and gas-related overland moves and development, scientific 

data gathering, recreation, and subsistence and sport hunting. Global climate change is of 

concern because it may cause shifts or reductions in available habitat types, and a concurrent 

shift or reduction in mammal populations that use these habitats. In addition, an analysis of 

cumulative effects to migratory mammals cannot ignore effects to animals on migratory routes

or wintering areas, where impacts of human activities and climate change could be independent 

of activities on the North Slope. Because mammal populations can show substantial changes 

between years and even over longer periods of time, it is often difficult to determine if effects 

are accumulating at the population level, or merely reflect short-term shifts in population 

numbers. 

4.7.7.9-a.1 Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and Development. 

Non-oil and gas activities by government agencies and non-government research efforts have 

had minor impacts on terrestrial mammals. The amount of such non-oil and gas activity on the 

North Slope is relatively low, and impacts consist primarily of short-term disturbance to 

individual animals. Aircraft disturbance of terrestrial mammals associated with resourceinventory survey activities (particularly by helicopter traffic) would be expected to have shortterm effects on some caribou, moose, muskoxen (particularly cow/calf groups) and bears, with 

animals being briefly displaced from feeding and resting areas when aircraft disturbances occur 

nearby. Unless they were to occur multiple times per day and over many days, it is not expected

that these types of disturbances would have effects that persist and accumulate. 

Approximately 15,800 to 25,000 caribou from four North Slope herds (Carroll 2005; Dau 2005; 

Lenart 2005; Stephenson 2005) are harvested annually by subsistence and sport hunters, most 

of whom reside and hunt outside the North Slope, including northwestern Canada. Caribou of 

the TLH use the planning area more than the other three herds, and the TLH is the herd most 

often harvested by residents of Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut and Wainwright. Based on surveys 

conducted in the past four years, Barrow residents harvested approximately 4,700 caribou 

annually, while 230, 450 and 1,200 caribou were harvested annually by residents of Atqasuk, 

Nuiqsut, and Wainwright, respectively (Carroll 2005; Dau 2005; Lenart 2005; Pedersen 2006). 

Since caribou populations on the North Slope appear healthy and are stable or increasing in 

numbers, except for the Porcupine Caribou Herd which has declined about 3.5% annually since 

1989 (Stephenson 2005), hunter harvest is likely replacing some of the loss of animals that 

would occur due to natural mortality, and effects are not apparently accumulating. Moose and

muskox populations on the North Slope have fluctuated dramatically over the last 15-20 years, 

due primarily to natural causes, and hunting regulations have varied accordingly so the effects 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-748 

Cumulative Impacts: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

of hunting are not additive to natural losses. These two species represent only a small fraction 

of terrestrial mammal harvest on the North Slope. 

Non-oil and gas development at former military sites and in villages has caused the loss of 

habitat and increased levels of disturbance. DEW-Line sites and other military facilities, 

villages, public roads, airstrips, and other non-oil and gas infrastructure have been developed 

using gravel pads or on bare ground cleared of vegetation. Approximately 2,500 acres (1,800 

acres of village and public facilities, and 700 acres of military facilities) have been impacted, 

and this loss of vegetative cover is likely to persist into the indefinite future. These villages and 

developments are within or near important mammal use areas, including important summer, 

winter, and migration range for the TLH, WAH, and CAH caribou (see Maps 3-20 to 3-25). 

Development has led to the loss of habitat by covering tundra with gravel and increased 

disturbance effects to mammals through human activity in the vicinity of villages. These effects, 

coupled with subsistence and sport hunting pressure, have resulted in effects to caribou that 

persist today, i.e. the gravel and human activities remain, but are relatively minor compared to 

the habitat alteration and disturbance effects of the oil fields. 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Seismic Activities and Exploration 

Loss of habitat and disturbance are the two primary factors associated with seismic activities 

and exploration that could affect mammals on the North Slope. Until the past two decades, 

seismic testing resulted in few conflicts with caribou in Arctic Alaska (NRC 2003). Seismic 

surveys on the summer ranges of the CAH and WAH caribou were conducted during winter,

when the animals were rarely present. In a few cases, winter seismic survey areas at times 

overlapped with CAH, TLH, WAH, and Porcupine Herd caribou winter ranges, but impacts 

were probably limited to small groups of animals. In the past 20 years, the intensity of seismic 

operations has increased in the planning area and exploration has extended into the foothills of 

the Brooks Range to the east of the planning area, both of which are areas where more TLH and

CAH wintering caribou, respectively, are found. It is likely that these activities briefly disturbed 

and displaced TLH caribou near seismic grids, exploration drill sites, and along ice roads and 

aircraft transportation routes. However, it has been assumed that these effects did not persist 

after exploration was completed, and there was no consequential effect on the abundance or 

productivity of the caribou. This assumption has not been scientifically tested, however, and 

conditions for winter survival vary from year to year. It is possible that this disturbance could 

have an additive effect on natural winter mortality and could disproportionately impact young 

of the year and pregnant cows. Such an impact over several years could accumulate and reduce 

the productivity of the caribou herds involved. 

Much of the ACP and nearly all of the planning area have undergone seismic surveys since the 

1940s (see Figure 4-1). Rolligons and track vehicles used during seismic exploration have left 

some tracks on tundra habitats that are still visible today and could make the habitat 

unsuitable for some mammal species. Only a small portion of seismic and camp move trails are 

still in evidence (about 100 acres; Kevan et al 1995). Use of lightweight vehicles, dispersing 

traffic patterns, minimizing sharp turns, and requiring surveys to be done when there is 

adequate snow and frost cover to protect the tundra have helped to minimize damage to 

vegetation used by caribou (Walker 1996). 

Other sources of habitat loss include exploration sites with gravel pads, disturbed areas around 

these pads, exploration airstrips, and gravel exploration roads. Based on a report by the NRC

(2003), in 2001, approximately 1,700 acres had been impacted by these sites in the past, and 

4-749 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

1,130 acres of disturbed areas were still evident. Most of these sites were developed before 1977, 

thus, their effects on the vegetative landscape have persisted for decades, and are likely to

persist for several more decades. As industry has shifted towards use of ice roads and pads 

during exploration, loss of mammal habitat has slowed greatly. Ice roads and pads have minor 

effects that could impact mammal habitat for several years, but would be unlikely to 

accumulate. 

Oil and Gas Development and Production

Loss of terrestrial mammal habitat from road and pad construction and gravel mining, and 

disturbance associated with development and production activities, are effects to mammals that 

have occurred in the past and that persist today. Peat and gravel roads, gravel pads, and gravel 

mines have caused the direct loss of habitat, and also have led to the indirect loss of habitat 

from road dust and alteration of natural drainage patterns. Through 2001, over 500 acres of 

peat roads still showed evidence of disturbance, even though most of these roads were 

constructed over 30 years ago. For the North Slope as a whole, it is expected that by 2010 gravel 

will have been used to construct about 9,680 acres of roads and pads in the oil fields, 332 acres 

of the Dalton Highway, 1900 acres will have been impacted by other oil field related 

disturbances, and gravel mines will have impacted another 6,430 acres (Table 4.7-H). 

Approximately 4,500 acres of gravel mines have been rehabilitated but only 70 acres of gravel 

pads (NRC 2003). However, rehabilitation of gravel mines produces primarily fisheries habitat, 

not the tundra vegetation that is habitat for terrestrial mammals, and rehabilitation of gravel 

pads has produced mixed results that have not restored areas to original conditions. Thus, total 

habitat loss and disturbance through 2010 is expected to amount to about 18,342 acres (Table 

4.7-H). 

Motorized traffic along about 400 miles of roads has disturbed, impeded the movement of, or 

displaced caribou and other terrestrial mammals (NRC 2003). Disturbance of caribou from road 

traffic associated with pipelines has been shown to cause short-term displacement of caribou 

within about 1 mile of the road (2 1⁄2 miles for parturient females and calves and subsequent 

abandonment of some calving habitat Dau and Cameron 1986). Road traffic has delayed the 

successful crossing of pipelines and roads by caribou, and could have adverse energetic effects

on some animals. Grizzly bears, wolves, Arctic foxes, and other mammals generally seem to 

cross roads more easily than caribou. 

Road construction has increased access to previously undeveloped areas and has increased

hunting pressure on terrestrial mammals from public and subsistence hunters in more remote

regions of Alaska. Hunting pressure and harvests have increased for many wildlife species near 

the TAPS since its construction but have not produced adverse population effects (TAPSO 

2001). 

Oil development in the Prudhoe Bay-Kuparuk River Unit area has caused displacement of CAH 

caribou from a portion of the calving range, with a shift in calving distribution away from the oil

fields (Nellemann and Cameron 1996; Lawhead 1997; Cameron et al. 2002, 2005; NRC 2003). 

The reduction in calving habitat use near oil development facilities could eventually limit the 

growth of the Arctic caribou herds within their present ranges and prevent the herds from

reaching the maximum population size that they could achieve without the presence of

development. It is possible that such an effect would not be apparent, however, because natural 

changes in the distribution and productivity of the herds would be likely to influence the 

abundance and growth of caribou populations over and above the effect of reduced habitat use 

caused by cumulative oil development. For example, the CAH caribou population estimate 

decreased from 23,000 in 1992 to 18,100 animals in 1995, and then rose to 31,857 caribou in 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-750 

Cumulative Impacts: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

2002. However, recent information on the body weights of CAH cow caribou (and their calves) 

that calve west of the Sagavanirktok River, compared with CAH cow caribou and calves from 

calving grounds east of the river, suggested that disturbance displacement of cow caribou may 

be affecting CAH caribou productivity (Cameron 1994; Nellemann and Cameron 1996; Cameron 

et al. 2002, 2005; Arthur and Del Vecchio 2006). On the other hand, differences in densities and 

movements between segments of the CAH caribou on the oil fields and east of the fields may 

have contributed to the decline (Cronin et al. 1997). The NRC (2003) suggested that the 

combined effects of industrial activity and infrastructure, and the stress imposed by insects, 

might have contributed to the reduction in size of the herd seen from 1992 through 1995. Cronin 

et al. (2000) argued that population-level impacts from oil field development have not occurred 

for this herd. However, comparing the higher growth rate of the TLH to the growth rate of the 

CAH, Griffith et al. (2002) and Cameron et al. (2005) suggested that the CAH might have been 

influenced by development infrastructure after 1987. 

The alteration of over 17,000 acres of tundra habitat in the Prudhoe Bay area may have the 

potential to effect the distribution and abundance of terrestrial mammals other than caribou 

(e.g. muskoxen; Garner and Reynolds 1986; Clough et al. 1987), but such effects have not been 

observed (bears; Shideler and Hectel 2000) with the possible exception of Arctic foxes, which 

apparently have increased in numbers near the oil fields (Burgess et al. 1993). Muskox have 

continued to expand their range westward across the North Slope from an introduced

population in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (but have declined due to increased predation 

in recent years). There have been no apparent effects on wolves or other terrestrial mammal 

populations associated with this development. 

Spills 

The NRC’s Committee on Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on 

Alaska’s North Slope found that most spills to date have had only local effects, and that there is

no evidence that effects of spills have accumulated (NRC 2003). 

Summary of Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Approximately 2,500 acres of habitat have been directly impacted by non-oil and gas 

development and those impacts continue to persist. Oil and gas activities have caused an 

additional habitat loss or alteration of over 18,000 acres that persist today. Since most of these 

impacts are associated with ongoing residential and non-oil and gas commercial development, or

oil and gas activities, these impacts to habitat are additive to future impacts and would be likely 

to persist for several decades or more in the absence of an active reclamation program. Oil and 

gas development has altered the distribution of female caribou during the calving season and 

interfered with caribou movements between inland feeding areas and coastal insect-relief areas. 

Female caribou may also experience lower parturition rates when in close proximity to oil field

development. It has also been suggested that declines in CAH caribou productivity in the early

1990s may have been the result of additive effects of oil field development and high insect 

activity, although populations of TLH, CAH, and WAH caribou have steadily increased since the 

mid-1970s. Thus, disturbance of caribou due to oil field development may adversely affect 

caribou populations, but these effects are not readily apparent based on population trends. 

Other mammal populations (e.g., moose, muskox, fox and grizzly bear) have been little affected, 

or some may even have benefited from development on the North Slope. Subsistence and 

recreational hunting pressure has likely increased from historic levels due to increases in 

human populations and better access to the North Slope. Still, based on subsistence harvest 

surveys, subsistence harvest of mammals was relatively stable during the 1980s and early 

4-751 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

1990s. Based on population trends of game mammals on the North Slope, hunting does not 

appear to be adversely affecting mammal populations. 

4.7.7.9-a.2 Future Effects and Their Accumulation 

Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Non-oil and gas activities on the North Slope, including archaeological and paleontological digs, 

camps associated with scientific studies, recreational use, overland moves by transport vehicles,

and use of OHVs such as four-wheel vehicles and snowmachines, would continue to disturb 

mammals and cause the loss of minor amounts of mammal habitat. In most cases, loss of 

habitat would be temporary, lasting only a few years. DEW-Line and other military sites, 

villages, airstrips, and other non-oil and gas infrastructure are likely to persist into the 

indefinite future, and for villages, likely to increase in size causing the loss of additional 

habitat. The amount of area that would be disturbed by new development on the North Slope in 

villages and other public facilities is projected to increase by about 2% annually, approximately 

doubling by 2045 when human population may level off. 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Seismic Activities and Exploration 

Based on projections developed for the planning area and extrapolated to the rest of the North

Slope, seismic exploration activity could impact up to 86,400 acres of habitat annually, North 

Slope-wide, with 125 acres of that total still showing moderate to high levels of disturbance a 

decade later. Other sources of habitat loss include exploration sites with gravel pads, disturbed 

areas around these pads, exploration airstrips, and gravel exploration roads. These have been

replaced in recent years by ice roads, airstrips, and drilling pads to reduce the costs and 

environmental effects of gravel construction (Johnson and Collins 1980, Hazen 1997). Impacts 

from ice roads and pads are short-term (Yokel et al. in press) and are not expected to 

accumulate. As a result, only a small amount of habitat is likely to be affected long-term by 

exploration activities (i.e. seismic). However, if climate warming (see below) shortens the winter 

season to the point where ice roads are not economically feasible for all exploration drilling, the 

alternatives may cause greater habitat impacts than current practices. 

Oil and Gas Development and Production

Development activities that could contribute to cumulative effects to mammal habitat on the 

North Slope include oil and gas development, including the planning area and northwestern

and southern portions of the NPR-A; Federal and state offshore oil and gas development 

(through the construction of supporting onshore infrastructure); state onshore oil and gas 

development; oil and gas transportation; and road construction. All of these activities involve 

construction of infrastructure that would destroy habitat within the immediate footprint of the 

project and indirectly affect habitat through dust, flooding, changes in natural drainage 

patterns, snow drifting, increased water and air pollution, and oil and chemical spills. 

The increase in the amount of area disturbed by oil and gas development on the North Slope has

slowed in recent years. Before 1988, the oil field road network grew by about 24 miles per year, 

but only 3 miles per year since 1988. The average rate of all gravel placement was about 421 

acres per year before 1988, and only 42 acres per year between 1988 and 2001 (NRC 2003; Table 

4.7-F). If the current rates continue into the future for areas outside the Northwest NPR-A and

the Northeast NPR-A Planning Area, and the ratio of gravel mine acres to gravel footprint acres 

remains about 5:1 (see section 4.2.1.2), about 1,050 additional acres would be covered by 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-752 

Cumulative Impacts: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

gravel, and 210 acres impacted by gravel mines, in the next 25 years. Approximately 6,300 acres 

would be indirectly affected by dust, changes in hydrology, and thermokarst. To carry these

same assumptions through, another 1,260 acres of vegetation could be destroyed by gravel 

placement or gravel mines for oil and gas activities between 2035 and 2060, and another 6,300 

acres could be indirectly impacted by development. The 42 acres per year increase since 1988 

has been in an area where the main, oil field road network had already been built. There are

currently no roads in the planning area or Northwest NPR-A to support oil field development.

Thus per year growth in the planning area (as detailed previously for each of the four

alternatives, sections 4.3.5, 4.4.5, 4.5.5 and 4.6.5) and Northwest NPR-A (described in the 

table in section 4.7.3.3) would have to include construction of in-field roads and would be

expected to proceed at a faster rate. 

Thus impacts to mammal habitat will accumulate from the following sources: past non-oil/gas 

activities, non-oil/gas activities from now until about 2045, past oil/gas activities outside of the 

planning area and Northwest NPR-A, future oil/gas activities outside of the Northeast and

Northwest NPR-A up to 2060, future oil/gas activities in the Northwest NPR-A, and future 

activities in the planning area (Northeast NPR-A). All future impacts are additive to the 

impacts to habitat that have accumulated in the past and persist today, but in the context of the 

entire ACP and North Slope, these cumulative impacts would be relatively small. Based on 

direct (33,962 acres) and indirect (132,401 acres) that could still persist in 2060, direct and 

indirect impacts to habitat would occur on 1.3% of the ACP and 0.29% of the North Slope. These 

estimates do not take into account the quality of habitat that would be impacted on the North 

Slope. It is likely that the focus of future oil and gas exploration and development would be 

within the Barrow Arch, which is located in the ACP. Areas to the north and east of Teshekpuk 

Lake provide important calving, post-calving, and insect-relief habitat for TLH caribou (see 

maps 3-23 to 3-25). Thus, impacts to caribou and other mammals from development in this area 

would likely be much greater than if development occurred in areas that were little used by 

caribou. Nor do these figures take into account impacts from construction of a natural gas 

pipeline from the North Slope to market or burial of gas pipelines within the North Slope from

new commercial gas developments. If a natural gas pipeline was built from the North Slope, 

approximately 23,200 acres would be disturbed during construction, about 4,800 acres of that on 

the North Slope. (TAPS Renewal EIS, p. 4.7-80) Because gas pipelines are likely to be buried,

they are anticipated to have little long-term impacts on caribou or other terrestrial mammals. 

Disturbance 

Cumulative oil and gas development on the North Slope could result in a long-term 

displacement and/or functional loss of habitat for CAH, TLH, and WAH caribou. Future State of 

Alaska lease sales on the North Slope between the NPR-A and the Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge, and in the foothills of the Brooks Range, would increase the amount of activity 

associated with oil exploration and development within the CAH caribou range. Future offshore

leases in the Beaufort Sea could expose TLH and CAH caribou to additional activities related to 

oil and gas development (through onshore facilities to support offshore leases). Future lease 

sales in the NPR-A could expose a large number of the TLH caribou to exploration and

development activities on their summer and winter grounds, and during migration. Animals 

from the WAH caribou would also be exposed to development activities in their summer range. 

Development of onshore oil and gas resources in the Northwest NPR-A could result in

construction of an additional aboveground pipeline that would pass through the planning area. 

Construction of a pipeline from the Northwest NPR-A east to the Kuparuk River Unit, or a 

southern pipeline route connecting to TAPS Pump Station 2, would temporarily disrupt 

4-753 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

movements of CAH and TLH caribou. Movements of TLH and WAH caribou from wintering 

habitat to calving grounds could be temporarily disrupted. However, pipelines associated with 

lease sales under this Supplement would not have associated roads, and should therefore have 

minimal effects on caribou movements once construction was completed. State of Alaska oil and

gas leasing offshore and adjacent to the CAH and TLH caribou ranges, as well as Federal OCS 

leases in Harrison Bay west to Barrow, might include offshore pipelines that would come 

onshore within the TLH caribou range and connect with the facilities at Kuparuk. Potential 

offshore oil development adjacent to the TLH and CAH caribou ranges could result in increased 

surface vehicle traffic, which would disturb caribou along transportation corridors that would 

connect offshore oil discoveries with the existing infrastructure. Development also might 

increase disturbance of caribou by ground vehicles and air traffic in insect-relief areas along the 

coast, and perhaps reduce the seasonal use of coastal areas by cows and calves. 

The reduction in calving habitat use near oil development facilities could eventually limit the 

growth of the Arctic caribou herds within their present ranges and prevent the herds from

reaching the maximum population size that they could achieve without the presence of

development. It is possible that such an effect would not be apparent, because natural changes 

in the distribution and productivity of the herds may influence the abundance and growth of 

caribou populations over and above the effect of reduced habitat use caused by cumulative oil 

development. Alternatives B, C and D would permit activities within the TLH caribou calving 

grounds; therefore, calving TLH caribou could be exposed to oil and gas development facilities 

and activities at a time of year when they are most sensitive to disturbance, possibly resulting 

in reduced calving success. 

Oil development within the planning area could expose summering WAH caribou to noise and 

disturbance impacts. If development occurred in the southern part of the planning area, some

WAH animals could be exposed to development activities during the insect season, and normal 

movement patterns could be disrupted. This herd is not currently exposed to oil and gas 

development activities in any other part of its primary range, but portions of the herd cross the 

Red Dog Mine haul road during migration. Therefore, relatively minor cumulative impacts to 

the WAH caribou would exist, although development in the Northwest NPR-A could increase 

these impacts further. These effects on TLH, CAH, and WAH caribou would accumulate with 

other past effects on these herds, although the likely magnitude of these effects is difficult to 

ascertain, especially given the increase in herd sizes that have occurred in recent years in spite 

of oil and gas development on the North Slope. 

The alteration of over 17,000 acres of tundra habitat in the Prudhoe Bay area may have the 

potential to effect the distribution and abundance of terrestrial mammals other than caribou,

(e.g. muskoxen; Garner and Reynolds 1986; Clough et al. 1987), but such effects have not been 

observed (bears; Shideler and Hectel 2000) with the possible exception of Arctic foxes, which 

apparently have increased in numbers near the oil fields (Burgess et al. 1993). Muskoxen have 

continued to expand their range westward across the North Slope from an introduced

population in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (but have declined due to increased predation 

in recent years). There have been no apparent effects on wolves or other terrestrial mammal 

populations associated with this development. 

The increase in the number of development facilities on the North Slope would be expected to 

increase the number of negative interactions between humans and grizzly bears, and to result 

in the loss of bears because of their attraction to human refuse. These interactions could 

eventually result in a decline in grizzly bear abundance near development areas. It is also 

expected that cumulative oil development on the North Slope would result in an increase in the 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-754 

Cumulative Impacts: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

abundance of Arctic foxes near development areas, which could affect tundra-nesting birds and 

molting waterfowl and could also pose a health hazard to humans through the spread of rabies 

and other diseases among the growing fox population. Efforts to minimize the amount of refuse

available to mammals should lead to a long-term decline in fox and other mammal populations 

near oil fields. 

Spills 

The oil industry is required to have oil spill response and clean-up capabilities, and small spills 

on lands or waters in the planning area or in existing or future North Slope oil fields are 

expected to be contained and cleaned up before substantial mammal and habitat loss can occur. 

In addition to mortality through direct contact with oil, some mortality could result through 

ingestion of contaminants in food and water, from the cumulative effects of the numerous small 

spills expected from the operation of any oil field. 

The spills associated with reasonably foreseeable future projects could affect terrestrial 

mammals on the North Slope. Cumulative effects would depend on the number, size, location, 

and timing of spills, the type and effectiveness of the oil spill response, and the species and 

population of terrestrial mammals exposed to the spill. Potential oil spills from both offshore 

and onshore oil activities associated with Federal and state leases would be likely to have a 

small effect on terrestrial mammals because comparatively low numbers of animals would be 

expected to be disturbed or contaminated, or to ingest contaminated food sources and die as a 

result. Spills would have mostly sublethal effects on terrestrial mammals and would impact 

only a very minor percentage of the available habitat. The greatest potential for impact to 

terrestrial mammals would be through disturbance impacts during response, cleanup, and 

rehabilitation. 

The amount of oil produced on the North Slope under the reasonably foreseeable future scenario

is likely to continue to trend downward. As oil production slows, coupled with improvement in 

spill prevention and control technologies and training, the potential for effects to mammals 

should decline over time. This trend could be countered, however, by an aging pipeline system if 

that should lead to an increase in pipeline leaks. 

Abandonment 

Abandoned gravel pads and roads could provide some benefits as insect-relief sites for caribou,

and provide special habitat for burrowing species, such as Arctic ground squirrels and other

mammals. The ultimate fate of the gravel pads and roads would not be known until closer to 

end of the production field life. Permitting agencies could require that gravel be removed, in

part or total, and the tundra revegetated. If other uses are determined by the permitting 

agencies to be preferable, the agencies could allow the permittee to leave the gravel pads in 

place, either revegetated or not revegetated. Removed gravel either would be disposed of or

reused for another development. 

Abandonment of airstrips could occur in conjunction with abandonment of pads. The gravel

airstrips would be managed in a similar manner, depending on the decisions made by land 

managers and permitting agencies at the time of abandonment. Gravel airstrips would either be 

removed and the tundra revegetated, the gravel revegetated but otherwise left in place, or left 

in place and maintained for public use. 

4-755 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Summer road and air traffic generated by abandonment and rehabilitation activities could 

cause disturbance, displacement, and mortality to caribou and other mammals that would be 

similar to, and at the same levels as that caused by traffic during construction and greater than 

that during normal field operations. If pads, roads, and airstrips were revegetated without 

removing the gravel, the habitat would not return to its current utility in the foreseeable future. 

If gravel was removed, habitat similar to that currently existing in the area could be created 

and used by mammals, though it would still take decades for recovery and the precise mix of 

habitat types would likely not be the same as what prevailed at the time of disturbance. The 

effects of habitat loss would accumulate, as described above, to the extent that habitats were 

not, or could not be, restored to their original condition. 

4.7.7.9-a.3 Global Climate Change 

Temperatures in Alaska, and throughout the Arctic, are thought to have fluctuated considerably 

over the last few centuries (Mann et al. 1999). Despite this fluctuation, the last 100 years 

appear to have been the warmest century in the last 400 years (Overpeck et al. 1997; IPCC 

2001; ACIA 2004). As predicted by global climate models, Alaska’s surface air temperature has 

warmed throughout much of the state since at least the mid-1970s (IPCC 2001, ACIA 2004). 

Continued warming of the climate could have major effects on the ecosystems of Alaska, 

particularly the North Slope. However, the large amount of natural variation inherent in the 

system limits our current understanding of the consequences of climate change. This and the 

complexity of tundra ecosystems make predicting the effects of climate change on terrestrial 

mammals difficult. 

It has been predicted that an increase in abundance of deciduous shrubs, especially birch (less 

favorable caribou forage), and a decline in the abundance of grasses-sedges such as tussock 

cottongrass (an especially important food of calving caribou), would occur if temperatures in the 

Arctic were to increase, thereby reducing the amount of available forage for caribou on the 

North Slope (Anderson and Weller 1996). Other studies have predicted shifts in the composition 

of Arctic tundra, not only toward increased shrub height and cover extent (Chapin et al. 1995; 

Sturm et al. 2001; Walker et al. 2006), but also increased grass and sedge species. These 

increases would likely be at the expense of lichen (an important caribou winter forage) and moss

cover (Chapin et al. 1995; Cornelissen et al. 2001; Jorgenson and Buchholtz 2003; Epstein et al. 

2004; Walker et al. 2006). Indeed, these changes have already been observed to some extent on 

the North Slope. Over decades, warming temperatures could even result in the invasion of

tundra habitat by taiga woody plants (taiga forests; Starfield and Chapin 1996), a less favorable 

habitat for tundra mammals, thereby potentially affecting their populations. Warmer 

temperatures could also result in increased insect abundance and periods of activity (NRC 

2003), which could reduce caribou productivity. Alternatively, predicted weather patterns may 

result in changes to predominant wind direction and increasing wind strength, thus 

suppressing insect flight. Changes in weather patterns could alter caribou movements and 

distribution. Calving grounds could shift in response to changes in vegetation. Insect-relief 

habitat could become increasingly important, because of increased insect abundance and

activity. Coastal erosion and the inundation of low-lying areas along the coast due to increases

in sea level may alter the availability and extent of insect-relief areas and may cause shifts in 

the usage of particular areas. Over time, areas that are currently closed to leasing could become

less important to caribou, while areas that are open to leasing could become more important. 

The ACIA (2004) noted that the Porcupine Caribou Herd, which is the largest migratory herd of 

mammals shared between the U.S. and Canada, has declined about 3.5% annually since 1989, 

possibly due to climatic effects. However, during this same period, the WAH, CAH, and TLH 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-756 

Cumulative Impacts: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

caribou populations have trended upward. A warming trend would stimulate faster plant 

growth in the spring, which should result in higher calf growth rate and allow cows to replenish 

fat reserves sooner. However, warmer springs have caused the Porcupine River to thaw earlier 

in spring. Historically, the herd crossed the river while still frozen to access calving grounds in 

the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. With the river thawing earlier, cows that calve early must 

try cross the flowing river with their calves, causing thousands of calves to wash down the river 

and die (ACIA 2004). 

The only certainty with climate change is the uncertainty regarding just what will eventually 

occur. Predictions generally suggest that future conditions on the North Slope will be less 

favorable to arctic adapted species, such as muskoxen, caribou and arctic fox, and perhaps more 

favorable to boreal adapted species such as moose and red fox. The effects of climate change on 

mammal populations could in many cases be additive to those effects of oil and gas exploration 

and development. Any change, positive or negative, may impact terrestrial mammal species. 

While one species may benefit, another may be secondarily impacted, e.g. an increase in 

population of a predator may result in additional predation on a prey species. 

4.7.7.9-a.4 Contribution of Supplement Alternatives to Cumulative Effects 

Impacts from ice road construction would occur on 15,642 to 21,763 acres during the life of the 

plan, while impacts from ice pads and ice airstrips would occur on another 1,126 to 1,700 acres; 

these impacts to habitat would be short-term and would not accumulate. Long-term impacts to 

habitat from seismic surveys in the planning area would occur on approximately 150 acres 

under all alternatives. Development in the planning area could directly impact approximately 

3,270, 3,716, 4,649, and 4,378 acres, and indirectly impact 9,343, 10,178, 13,001, and 12,961 

acres of vegetation (mammal habitat) for Alternatives A through D, respectively. These impacts 

would be long-term and would accumulate. Total, long-term, direct and indirect impacts to 

vegetation from exploration and development combined would occur on 0.28% (Alternative A) to 

0.39% (Alternative C) of the planning area. These habitat losses would account for 3 to 14% of 

the habitat projected to be lost due to development on the North Slope during the next 50 years. 

Given that the area most likely to be developed under the action alternatives is located north 

and northeast of Teshekpuk Lake, areas that provide critical habitat for TLH caribou, impacts 

to caribou, and perhaps other mammals, and their habitats could be much greater than 

predicted based solely on amount of area disturbed. As shown on maps 3-23 to 3-25, the area to 

the north, northeast, and east of Teshekpuk Lake and to the coastline provides important 

caribou calving and insect-relief habitat. Because of its importance, Lease Stipulations K-9 and 

K-10 were developed for Alternative D to provide special RSO protection to caribou habitat. 

Lease Stipulation K-11 would limit development in the Goose Molting Area (which includes 

important caribou habitat) to the north of the lake. Still, caribou and other wildlife would be 

exposed to oil and gas disturbance in their calving, summer, and potentially winter, ranges. 

Depending on the types and locations of facilities, impacts to caribou and other mammals could 

accumulate, especially where species are concentrated such as calving grounds and insect relief 

areas, and could affect the long-term health of the local population. The effects to caribou and 

other mammals from oil and gas development would be less under Alternative A and perhaps 

intermediate under Alternative B, because all (Alternative A) or most (Alternative B) of this 

area would be closed to leasing under these alternatives. The effects would be greatest under

Alternative C, since the entire area would be open to leasing with fewer mitigations than under 

Alternative D. The effects from Alternative D would potentially be less than Alternative C due 

to the intent of the extra surface occupancy restrictions, but greater than Alternative B since 

some development could occur within this area. Offshore development associated with leases in 

the Beaufort Sea could impact relatively small areas along the coast for staging and storage of 

4-757 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

materials (e.g. one or more staging bases approximately 50 acres each in size), but is unlikely to 

impact large areas of habitat (e.g. the roughly 400,000 acres north and east of Teshekpuk Lake). 

Impacts to vegetation (mammal habitat) and direct disturbance of mammals on the North Slope 

from future oil and gas exploration and development are expected to be additive with respect to 

impacts from other past, present, and future non-oil and gas activities and past and present oil 

and gas activities. The impacts in the planning area would increase the total level of 

disturbance and the amount of habitat impacted by all oil and gas development, and would be

additive in nature for the most part. However, depending on oil prices and where and how much

oil is ultimately developed in the planning area, there could be synergistic effects on acreage of 

habitat affected and levels of disturbance to mammals in the Northwest NPR-A. This would 

occur if a large discovery in the northwest part of the planning area would make economic the 

development of an oil field in the northeast part of Northwest NPR-A which would not 

otherwise have been economically developable. (See discussion of Northwest NPR-A under 

section 4.7.3.3). Such a discovery and development in the Northeast NPR-A could result in 

additional development in Northwest NPR-A in an area that is important insect relief habitat 

for the TLH. This potential scenario is least likely under Alternative A because less acreage in 

the northwest portion of the planning area would be made available to leasing under this than 

the other three alternatives. 

Synergism affecting primarily the TLH through effects in insect relief habitat, but potentially 

other mammal species as well, could similarly result if development north of Teshekpuk Lake 

resulted in offshore development being more economically feasible. Such offshore development

would likely result in additional habitat impacts from developments built onshore in support of 

the activities offshore. This would most likely affect the northern portion of the planning area or

the Beaufort Sea coastal portions of the Northwest NPR-A. This scenario is unlikely under 

Alternative A, because very little coastal area in the planning area would be available for lease 

and even less for surface development. It would be most likely under Alternative C, somewhat 

less under Alternative D because of development constraints, and less yet under Alternative B 

because of lands unavailable for lease. 

4.7.7.9-a.5 Conclusion 

Cumulative oil development in the Prudhoe Bay-Kuparuk area encompasses more than 500 

square miles, and hundreds of miles of gravel roads cross a large portion of the CAH calving 

range. By 2010, it is expected that more than 18,000 acres of habitat will have been destroyed or 

altered where roads, gravel pads, gravel quarries, pipelines, pump stations, and other facilities 

are located on the North Slope, and an additional 3,270 to 4,649 acres are expected to be directly 

affected and 9,343 to 13,001 acres indirectly affected by reasonably foreseeable development in 

the Northeast NPR-A. An additional 4,740 acres elsewhere on the North Slope could be directly 

affected and 17,100 acres indirectly affected by construction of infrastructure associated with 

reasonably foreseeable future development on the North Slope over the next 50 years. All of this 

vegetation represents habitat for mammals to one extent or another. 

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

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

cows and calves as a result of future onshore leasing would represent a functional loss of habitat 

that accumulates and could result in long-term effects on the caribou herds’ productivity and 

abundance. These impacts would likely be greatest under Alternative C and lowest under 

Alternative A. However, this potential effect might not be measurable, given the great natural 

variability in the caribou population productivity. The effects of oil and gas activities in the 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-758 

Cumulative Impacts: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

NPR-A would be greatest on those herds that use the planning area (large numbers of TLH and

smaller numbers of WAH and CAH caribou). If global climate change over the next several 

decades were to result in widespread changes in vegetation and insect abundance, effects of oil 

and gas activities to terrestrial mammals could be exacerbated through the additive effects of oil 

and gas activities, and could extend beyond the life of the oil fields. If these cumulative effects 

were to result in reductions in caribou populations, there could also be a reduction in the 

abundance of predators such as wolves, bears, and wolverines. 

These impacts to caribou, and perhaps their mammalian predators, from activities in the 

planning area are expected to be additive to those from other activities except in the following 

potential cases where synergism is likely. If a large discovery is made in the northwest or

northern part of the planning area, it could make additional developments in the Northwest 

NPR-A or offshore more economically feasible, resulting in even more habitat and disturbance 

impacts in the Northwest and Northeast NPR-A, and especially in areas critical for insect-relief 

by caribou. This possibility is more likely under Alternative B, C or D than Alternative A. 

4.7.7.9-b. Marine Mammals 

This section discusses the cumulative effects on ringed, bearded, and spotted seals, walruses, 

and beluga and gray whales from North Slope onshore and offshore oil and gas leasing and 

development activities. Current and proposed development activities could also affect other 

marine mammals whose ranges are located within oil tanker routes in the Bering Sea and Gulf 

of Alaska originating from the TAPS terminal in Valdez; the potential direct and cumulative 

effects of operation on marine mammal populations located along these tanker routes are

discussed elsewhere (USDOI BLM 1998b; USDOI 2002; USDOI MMS 2002). The evaluations of 

potential impacts presented in the documents referenced above indicate that routine operations 

should have minimal and generally un-measurable impacts on marine mammals and that the 

most significant threat to marine mammals is an unlikely large spill. Further the total volume 

of tanker traffic is expected to decline from historic levels as North Slope production declines,

resulting in reduced spill likelihood (USDOI BLM 2002a). Because tanker traffic associated 

with TAPS operation has been determined to have negligible effects on marine mammals those 

negligible effects are expected to further decline with reduced traffic, and since the majority of 

effects that the alternatives addressed in this documents have or would have are expected to

accumulate in the northern Chukchi and Beaufort Sea, while tanker traffic would occur within 

the Gulf of Alaska and Pacific Ocean thus potential effects would generally be expected to occur 

to different individuals/populations, tanker operations associated with TAPS are not expected to 

accumulate in a measurable manner with North Slope operations and is therefore not included

in the cumulative effects discussions below. 

This section intends to describe the incremental effects of the four alternatives when combined 

with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that will also act upon the resource. 

For impacts to accumulate they must persist through time, either through the extent of their 

temporal distribution, or because the magnitude (intensity and spatial scale) is sufficient to 

affect populations for long after the disturbance has ceased or some combination of both. 

The geographic scale of this analysis is species and population dependent; most ice seals do not

undergo the long distance migrations of the beluga or gray whales and cumulative effects would

only accrue within the Beaufort Sea area. Therefore while vessel activity moving through the 

Chukchi to the Beaufort may effect seals in both areas, seals in the Beaufort are not likely to be 

effected by activities in the Chukchi and vice versa. Beluga, gray whales, and the other less 

4-759 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

common marine mammal visitors (e.g. harbour porpoise, killer whales) may be affected by 

activities occurring in the Chukchi, the Beaufort, and possibly the northern Bering Seas. 

4.7.7.9-b.1 Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Commercial fisheries compete with seals and beluga whales for prey species, and seals and 

whales have suffered mortality from entanglement in fishing nets. In addition, marine

mammals thought to be raiding fishing nets have been shot by fishermen. Marine mammals 

have also been displaced from preferred feeding habitats by noise and visual disturbances 

caused by fishing activities. Given the low level of commercial fisheries that occur in the 

Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, these impacts are unlikely to have accumulated among ice seals of

the Beaufort. The other long-distance migrant species, uncommon visitors may have been 

impacted by historic commercial fisheries but if those impacts affected populations likely to

enter the Beaufort is unknown. 

Little is known about the number of ringed seals harvested for subsistence, but they are an 

important resource to indigenous people throughout the Arctic (Smith et al. 1991). Alaska 

Native dependence on, and interest in, hunting marine mammals is influenced by many factors, 

including cultural involvement, employment, community wealth, logistics, and ice and weather 

conditions. The number of animals killed by hunters can be expected to vary accordingly. 

However, current legal restrictions should prevent harm to populations of these animals if they 

are properly enforced. 

Grey whales were heavily impacted by commercial whaling and were one of the first species to

be placed on the Endangered Species List (Department of the Interior Bureau of Sport Fisheries 

and Wildlife Fish and Wildlife Service 1970). The Eastern North Pacific stock was removed 

from the list in 1994 (NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service 1994) and continues to increase 

in numbers (Angliss and Outlaw 2005). Commercial fisheries, ship collisions, and harvest 

continue to kill and injure grey whales; however, the number killed has not prevented the 

population from increasing (Angliss and Outlaw 2005). 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Seismic Activities and Exploration 

Seismic activity has been conducted in the past and in 2006 in the Beaufort and Chukchi. 

Although off-shore seismic activity may impact individuals and will cause avoidance behaviors 

in marine mammals, MMS determined that these effects would not persist through time or 

result in population number or distribution changes (USDOI MMS 2006). Although all these 

ongoing actions may result in mortality to a few individuals each year, and cause disturbance

effects to a larger number, they do appear to result in the accumulation of effects that alter 

population structure or distribution. 

Oil and Gas Development and Production 

Gravel placement for construction of drilling and production islands, offshore platforms, drilling 

ships, and installation of buried pipelines are sources of past habitat alteration. Only Northstar 

Endicott, Endicott Causeway and West Dock are still active marine gravel structures, although 

other artificial islands were constructed for exploratory drilling. Northstar is founded on an 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-760 

Cumulative Impacts: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

abandoned exploration pad. Gravel placement for island construction has covered relatively 

small areas of benthic habitat, which are considered to be permanently lost. Installation of 

subsea pipelines may have caused short-term effects to benthic habitats but they likely 

persisted for less than one year. In general, marine mammals have large territories and are not 

dependent on local food sources, therefore the effects of habitat loss to marine mammals due to

offshore oil and gas leasing and production probably have not accumulated. 

Gravel islands and platforms could have or be causing localized effects on ice movements and 

formation around these structures, but this is not believed to have affected the distribution of 

marine mammals. Naturally occurring variations in ice formation and movement would have a 

much greater effect on marine mammal distribution than localized changes near gravel islands 

and platforms. Noise and construction or other activities near gravel islands and platforms are 

more likely to have caused disturbances that would affect a small number of marine mammals 

near these sites. The effects of these disturbances are generally unknown but would be 

persistent as long as the operation continued. Once operation ceased, avoidance behavior likely

stopped or substantially decreased, thus past disturbance effects are not expected to have

accumulated. 

Effects of Noise and Disturbance 

Noise from fixed-wing and helicopter aircraft traffic displaces marine mammals, but animals 

likely return shortly after the passage of the aircraft (Richardson et al. 1995). Some animals 

would be unaffected by aircraft traffic or become habituated to this activity. Disturbance from

vessel traffic could elicit greater responses from marine mammals because the duration of the 

disturbance would be greater than that caused by aircraft. Whether these effects have or do 

accumulate is unknown, changes in long term distribution or behavior has not been recorded. 

While it is possible that disturbance events have resulted in chronic impacts reducing survival 

or reproductive success, there is no evidence to suggest that population level responses have 

accumulated, but it should be noted that effective inventory and monitoring of most northern 

marine mammals is technically and logistically very difficult and relatively small changes could 

have gone undetected or been masked by environmental factors. 

Beluga and gray whales could have been affected by noise associated with the construction of 

gravel islands and drilling activities on gravel islands. However, since the migration corridor for 

most beluga is far offshore, few whales have likely been affected. Much of this noise occurs 

during the winter and would not affect whales in their wintering areas. Some whales migrating 

close to gravel islands may have been deflected by noise disturbances (Richardson et al. 1995; 

Richardson and Williams 2003; NRC 2003). Noise associated with vessel traffic could have a 

greater effect on migrating whales than noise from other industrial sources, and noise 

associated with seismic exploration could have a greater effect on migrating whales than that of 

other types of vessel traffic. Construction of subsea pipelines from gravel islands to the 

mainland would occur during the winter when beluga and gray whales are on wintering 

grounds. If additional staging areas along the Northeast NPR-A coast led to increased offshore

activities, the potential for marine mammals to be impacted by noise or other activities would

likely increase. Staging areas for the NPR-A may also increase potential for new offshore 

developments that could increase the amount of noise and other activities that could impact 

marine mammals. 

Studies of the potential effects of disturbance on shore-fast ice on pupping ringed seals have 

showed that there was probably some displacement of ringed seals from areas close to artificial 

islands in the central Beaufort Sea (Frost and Lowry 1988), and that there was a higher 

4-761 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

abandonment rate of seal breathing holes close to seismic survey lines (Kelly et al. 1988). Noise 

likely affected haul out behavior of pinnipeds but no quantitative data are available. From data 

collected in the central Beaufort Sea from 1985 to 1987, Frost et al. (1988) concluded that there 

were no broad-scale effects of industrial activity on ringed seals that could be measured by 

aerial surveys, but they also noted that there was little offshore activity during those years.

Subsequent industry-funded monitoring studies for the Northstar and Liberty projects 

suggested minor effects on ringed seals from ice road construction and seismic exploration 

(Harris et al. 2001; Richardson and Williams 2000). Construction and operation of Northstar do 

not appear to have affected densities of ringed seals, although other activities such as shallow 

water hazard analysis and on-ice seismic may have influenced distribution the following year 

(Moulton et al. 2005). 

Oil Spills 

There have been no large spills (≥1,000 bbls) off-shore in the Beaufort Sea (NRC 2003). The 

NRC’s Committee on Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska’s 

North Slope (2003) found that most on-shore spills to date have had only local effects, and that 

there is no evidence that effects of spills have accumulated. No on-shore spills have been 

reported to reach the marine environment. 

Effects of Hazardous Material 

Solid and liquid hazardous materials associated with Department of Defense and oil industry 

activities have been discarded or dumped at various locations on the North Slope, including the 

NPR-A. Many of these sites have been cleaned up, but low levels of hydrocarbons and pesticides 

remain at some sites. These localized sites probably do not represent a substantial threat to 

marine mammal populations, but effects likely still persist. 

Summary of Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Industrial activity in marine waters of the Beaufort Sea has been limited and sporadic and has 

likely not caused substantial cumulative effects on marine mammals. Activities in the Chukchi 

have been even less intensive and are unlikely to have resulted in measurable or persistent 

effects. However, noise and other disturbances may have displaced whales from preferred 

habitats in the past, although these effects are difficult to quantify and to determine if they 

accumulate. Commercial fisheries, shipping, and subsistence hunting are the only activities 

resulting in known mortalities to marine mammals; however, the combination of education, 

gear regulation, and good management practices appear to have prevented the effects of these 

mortalities from having significant effects on the populations and for those species with good

population estimates (i.e., gray whale) populations have been increasing. 

4.7.7.9-b.2 Future Effects and Their Accumulation 

Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Commercial fisheries would continue to compete with seals and beluga whales for prey species,

and seals and whales would continue to suffer mortality from entanglement in fishing nets. In 

addition, marine mammals thought to be raiding fishing nets may be shot by fishermen. Marine

mammals may also be displaced from preferred feeding habitats by noise and visual 

disturbances caused by fishing activities. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-762 

Cumulative Impacts: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Commercial fisheries on the North Slope are generally small operations that are likely to affect 

only a small number of marine mammals. The commercial fishing industry in the northern 

Bering Sea, which is growing in size, could impact North Slope seals, walruses, and beluga and 

gray whales wintering in this area. The extent of the impacts would depend on the level that 

fishing industry activities increased and their effects on the availability of prey species for these 

marine mammals. Prey species of seals and beluga whales, such as fish, could be directly 

impacted by the fishing industry, while benthic invertebrates that serve as prey for walruses 

could be indirectly impacted during trawling operations. Increased commercial fishing activities 

could also increase the potential for direct morality of marine mammals due to shooting, or 

displacement from preferred feeding habitats as a result of disturbance. 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act allows the secretary of commerce to permit industrial 

operations (including oil and gas exploration and development) to take small numbers of marine

mammals, provided that doing so has a negligible effect on the species and will not reduce the 

availability of the species for subsistence use by Alaska Natives. Regulations governing the 

permits identify permissible methods, means to minimize harm, and requirements for 

monitoring and reporting. The permits have been used to minimize the effects of on-ice 

activities on pupping ringed seals, to require planning and personnel training that minimize 

conflicts with polar bears, and to provide buffer zones around known polar bear maternal den 

sites. Annual surveys are conducted of subsistence resources to monitor population trends. If 

species populations are monitored and carefully managed, effects to marine mammal 

populations should not accumulate. 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Seismic Activities and Exploration 

Seismic activities are expected to continue in both the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea (USDOI MMS 

2006). Analysis conducted for leasing sales in these areas and to permit seismic activity 

indicate that while impacts are expected they are not expected to cause population level impacts 

or long-term area abandonment (USDOI MMS 2003; 2004; 2006; 2006; 2006). Groups of seals

and other marine mammals may be impacted each year. However, the disturbance effects are 

expected to be transitory and unlikely to persist through time. Since seismic activities would 

target different areas each year, seal and other marine mammal losses in a particular area 

would likely recover within a year or two and effects would be unlikely to accumulate. 

 Oil and Gas Development and Production 

Future activity would occur in the Beaufort Sea from Barrow to Flaxman Island, and possibly to 

the Canadian border. Onshore development is expected to occur within the Northwest NPR-A,

east of Prudhoe at Liberty, through continued development of the Alpine Satellite Fields. These 

onshore developments and other potential developments that may occur farther into the future, 

including possible construction of a commercial gas pipeline, are likely to result in additional 

vessel and aircraft traffic. Vessel traffic would be intermittent with large sea-lifts only 

occurring to support development of the CPFs. Aircraft traffic is expected to occur over land or 

in close proximity to the coast. 

Activity in the Chukchi would occur in the off-shore of northwestern Alaska from Point Hope to 

Barrow (USDOI MMS 2006). Beaufort Sea development activity is expected to occur mostly 

near shore, adjacent to onshore oil reserves, and development would entail methods and 

structures similar to those currently in use (gravel islands or bottom-founded structures, 

4-763 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

horizontal drilling, buried pipelines, and an emphasis on working during winter). Chukchi Sea 

development is expected to be off-shore on bottom-founded structures. The potential effects of 

development in these areas is described in the leasing EIS documents for the proposed Chukchi 

Sea Lease 193 (USDOI MMS 2006) and the Beaufort Sea lease 186, 195, and 202 (USDOI MMS 

2003) as well as the subsequent Environmental Assessments for the 195 and 202 sales (USDOI 

MMS 2004; 2006). These documents are incorporated by reference and the expected impacts to 

marine mammals are summarized below. 

Beaufort 

The potential effects of lease sales 186, 195, and 202 are expected to be additive to existing 

development and other activities. MMS determined that the effects of any development 

resulting from the lease sales would have non-significant impacts with the exception of the 

occurrence of a very unlikely large oil spill. Likely impacts include noise, and aircraft and 

vessel traffic, and loss of a small amount of benthic habitat from bottom founded structures. 

Habitat surrounding any structure may be altered and no longer be suitable; however the 

relative extent of these impacts is expected to be small. Displacement and short-term

behavioral changes as a result exploration, development and operation are expected to occur.

Development resulting from these leases would increase vessel traffic, increasing the potential 

for collisions, primarily with large whales. Some direct and indirect mortality (through loss of 

reproduction) is expected but not expected to impact populations and recovery is expected to

take up to one year (USDOI MMS 2003; pages IV-24-25). 

Chukchi 

No preferred alternative has been chosen for Chukchi Sea Planning Area; however, similar to 

the Beaufort Lease Sales, the action alternatives are expected to have non-significant, transient

effects on marine mammals – with the exception of the effects of large or very large oil spills. 

Animals are expected to be displaced or undergo short-term avoidance and behavioral changes 

as the result disturbance associated with exploration, development, and operation. A small 

amount of benthic habitat would be lost to bottom-founded structures. Habitat surrounding any 

structure may be altered and no longer be suitable; however the relative extent of these impacts 

is expected to be small Development resulting from these leases would increase vessel traffic, 

increasing the potential for collisions, primarily with large whales. Activity in the Chukchi is 

more likely to affect walrus and gray whale than development in the Beaufort. Some direct and 

indirect mortality (through loss of reproduction) is expected but not expected to impact 

populations and recovery is expected to take up to one year (USDOI MMS 2006). 

Oil Spills 

An offshore spill would have a greater potential to affect marine mammal species than an 

onshore spill, although an onshore spill that spread to coastal habitats could affect small 

numbers of seals. An offshore spill could affect beluga whales, gray whales, seals, and walruses, 

particularly at the edge of the shorefast ice, which is an important habitat for marine mammals. 

The potential impacts to marine mammals from an offshore oil spill would depend on the 

location and amount of oil spilled, and the time of year. An offshore spill during the open-water 

season could have the potential to spread to a large area by the action of wind and currents, and

could impact more marine mammals than a localized spill from an onshore source near the 

coast. A winter spill could affect small numbers of adult ringed seals and their pups. The effects 

of a winter spill could extend into the summer season if oil spill clean-up operations of a winter 

spill were not adequate to remove the majority of the spilled oil. Oil spilled during periods of 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-764 

Cumulative Impacts: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

broken ice is difficult to clean up and could persist for longer periods in the environment. In 

general, the likelihood of an oil spill is low, and marine mammal populations affected by an oil 

spill would likely recover within one generation. However, increased development of offshore 

leases, coupled with exploration and development in the NPR-A and ongoing development at 

Alpine, Northstar, Prudhoe Bay and Point Thomson, increases the risks of oil spills that could 

impact marine mammals in the area. 

MMS analyzed the potential for large (≥1,000 barrels) and very large (≥150,000 barrels) offshore spills resulting from lease sales in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Large oil spills are 

considered “unlikely” and a very large oil spill “extremely unlikely” (USDOI MMS 2003; 2006). 

The effects of a large spill on marine mammals are expected to include mortality; however, 

numbers of marine mammals impacted are expected to be relatively low compared to overall 

population numbers. Although impacts to benthos and fisheries are also expected to occur the 

effects are expected to be contained within a relatively small area. Impacts are expected to last 

for several years, but not to persist longer than one generation for marine mammals. 

A very large spill would likely contact a greater number of animals with resulting increased 

mortality. Population impacts would occur and could persist for 15 years or longer (USDOI 

MMS 2003) pages IV-238-39). Ultimately, should a large or very large oil spill occur the 

magnitude of its effects will be dependent on when and where the spill occurs. 

4.7.7.9-b.3 Global Climate Change 

Studies in recent years have indicated a general global climate change trend that has caused a 

reduction in the extent and thickness of the total Arctic sea ice coverage (Overpeck et al. 2005). 

Modeling efforts to estimate the spatial and temporal extent climate change on sea ice in the

arctic remain highly variable; however, virtually all predict a significant reduction, if not 

absence of year-round sea ice in the Beaufort Sea in the next 50 to 100 years (ACIA 2005, 

Overpeck et al. 2005). Potential effects of climate change on marine mammals include but are 

not limited to: 

• Increased noise and disturbance related to increased shipping; 

• Increased interactions with commercial fisheries, including increased noise and 

disturbance, incidental take, and gear entanglement; 

• Decreases in ice cover with the potential for resultant changes in prey-species; 

• Alteration of species assemblages and interactions; and 

• Changes in concentrations and distributions. 

Continued reduction in sea ice coverage would be expected to change the distribution and 

abundance of ice seals and walruses in the Arctic (Tynan and DeMaster 1997, ACIA 2004, 

Derocher et al. 2004). Gray whales, killer whales, and harbour porpoise may become more 

common as the ice-free period increases. The potential effects of these changes on marine 

mammal populations are unclear, but there is speculation that a reduction in the extent of 

Arctic sea ice coverage could cause drastic reductions in seal and walrus populations. At a 

minimum, changes in the distribution and inter-species relationships of ice-associated marine 

mammals and cold water species more common in the Bering Sea. 

Many ringed seals give birth to and care for their pups on stable shore-fast ice, and changes in 

the extent and stability or the timing of breakup of the ice could reduce productivity (Smith and 

Harwood 2001). Because of the close predator-prey relationship between polar bears and ringed 

4-765 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

seals, decreases in ringed seal abundance can be expected to cause declines in polar bear 

populations (Stirling and Oritsland 1995). 

4.7.7.9-b.4 Contribution of Amendment Alternatives to Cumulative Effects 

Alternative A 

Alternative A would minimally contribute to the cumulative effects of human activity on marine 

mammals. Most of the aircraft traffic associated with any development within the planning 

area would occur over land. No information was available to assess numerically the 

incremental contribution of the expected number of barge trips to support development to

existing and reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development and other commercial traffic; 

however, the total number of additional trips is relatively small and expected to be spread out 

over decades. Increased ice free periods associated with climate change may increase vessel 

traffic but any estimate of the amount of traffic, its type or when it would begin to occur is 

speculative. Current vessel traffic levels may be resulting in displacement and avoidance 

behaviors but these are believed to be transitory and the effects do not appear to accumulate. 

The addition of aircraft and barge traffic of this alternative to the existing and expected traffic 

may result in more animals being affected more times but given the relatively short duration of 

responses and the expected within and between year separation of vessel disturbances, it is 

unlikely that the impacts would rise to population level changes. This does not mean that there 

is not a tolerance threshold that once passed has population level impacts. If such a threshold 

does exist it has not been surpassed and it is unlikely that the relatively small addition that 

could occur under Alternative A would be sufficient to cause the any threshold to be surpassed. 

Very large marine oil spills have the greatest potential to have significant effects on marine 

mammals; however, both MMS and BLM consider such events to be highly unlikely. The 

likelihood of two such events happening in close enough temporal proximity to each other to

accumulate is extremely unlikely. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B adds marginally to disturbance factors (aircraft and shipping) as well as the 

potential for very large oil spills compared to Alternative A. Alternative B would open much of 

the northwest portion of the planning area to leasing, as would Alternatives C and D. 

Infrastructure such as pipelines and CPFs developed in this area would make oil and gas 

development in the adjacent northeast portion of Northwest NPR-A and Beaufort Sea more

likely in the foreseeable future. The additional effects of any such development in Northwest 

NPR-A on marine mammals would be minimal and difficult to discern from existing effects 

already analyzed; however if development in the planning area facilitated Beaufort Sea 

development than it would become more likely that the impacts anticipated in the Beaufort Sea 

NEPA documents would occur (USDOI MMS 2003, 2004, 2006). 

It is unlikely that the additional contribution of effects under Alternative B would significantly 

alter the overall cumulative effects assessment summarized for Alternative A. Short-term 

displacement and behavioral changes would be expected. Very large oil spills in or reaching the 

off-shore environment remain the greatest threat to marine mammals, but the likelihood is not 

significantly increased under this alternative compared to Alternative A. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-766 

Cumulative Impacts: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Alternative C 

Alternative C’s incremental contribution to cumulative effects on marine mammals is slightly 

higher than under Alternative B, but remains relatively small compared to existing and 

reasonably foreseeable activities. With the exception of the combination of extremely unlikely 

very large oil spills Alternative C is not expected to result in cumulative effects that would alter 

population numbers or distribution. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D is expected to contribute to cumulative effects in a similar fashion as Alternative 

B. Impacts to marine mammals from development in the planning area would generally be

similar under the four proposed alternatives. The increased development scenarios of

Alternatives B, C and D, in comparison to Alternative A would contribute additional barge and 

aircraft traffic impacts and would require a greater number of coastal staging areas than the 

development scenario under Alternative A. If additional staging areas along the Northeast 

NPR-A coast led to increased offshore exploration and development activities, the potential for 

cumulative impacts to marine mammals by noise or other activities would increase. The 

potential for a spill would be expected to increase with increasing levels of exploration and 

development. Thus, risks to marine mammals from a spill would be greatest under Alternative 

C, and least under Alternative A. 

4.7.7.9-b.5 Conclusion 

In addition to noise and disturbance from existing oil development, seals, walruses, and beluga 

and gray whales could be affected by future offshore development in the Beaufort and Chukchi 

seas. In addition, marine mammals wintering in the northern Bering Sea could be affected by 

disturbance from commercial fishing activities. Subsistence hunting of marine mammals by 

Alaska Natives is not likely to affect marine mammals at the population level. Disturbance 

could result in temporary displacement from preferred feeding habitats, and some animals 

could be shot by fishermen. An oil spill could affect marine mammals in offshore or coastal 

areas, with the impacts to marine mammals depending on the location and amount of oil spilled 

and the time of year. The effects of future habitat alteration associated with gravel island 

construction, platforms or other structures related to oil development would likely be minor. 

The presence of small amounts of hazardous materials, including hydrocarbons and insecticides, 

would likely have minor effects on marine mammals. The effects of global climate change on

marine mammals are unclear, but may result in more ship traffic in the Beaufort over a longer 

season, commercial fisheries in the Chukchi and Beaufort, and displacement and distributional 

changes if not population changes among marine mammals. Climate change is likely to have 

the greatest influence on marine mammal populations in and adjacent to the planning area; 

however, species resilience and resilience as well as feedback and interactions remain highly 

uncertain. Estimating how the incremental addition of direct human activities (disturbance, 

hunting and habitat alteration remains speculative but climate change by itself is likely to have 

significant effects on the marine mammal community of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. 

4-767 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Mammals 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7.7.10 Threatened and Endangered Species 

4.7.7.10-a Bowhead Whale 

4.7.7.10-a.1 Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

The activities most likely to affect bowhead whales are subsistence hunting, marine seismic 

exploration, marine exploratory drilling, ship and aircraft traffic, discharges into the water, 

dredging, island construction, and production drilling. To date, there have been documented 

effects of industrial noise resulting in avoidance behaviors. The bowhead whale population has 

been growing steadily for several decades, however, despite oil and gas activities occurring in 

the Beaufort Sea and throughout the bowhead whale’s range (George et al. 2004). 

The cumulative effects analysis for Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort (BCB) bowheads includes actions 

within their entire range but focuses on those within the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas where the

whales spend the majority of their time. 

Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Before commercial whaling, there were over 50,000 bowhead whales (estimated) in the north 

polar region (Woodby and Botkin 1993). Unregulated commercial whaling continued into the 

early 1900s, reducing the bowhead whale populations to near the point of extinction. Bowhead 

whales have been completely protected from commercial whaling since 1946; Eskimos have 

hunted "the whale" for centuries. In accordance with International Whaling Commission rules, 

Eskimos are legally allowed to hunt an allocated number of bowhead whales each year for food 

and oil. 

During 1987 to 1992, Barrow whalers harvested 7 to 22 bowhead whales each year; 

approximately 10 whales are harvested annually (Stoker 1983, SRBA and ISER 1993). Nuiqsut 

whalers have had unsuccessful whaling years in the past (20 whales from 1972-1995), but their 

success has improved in recent years. Unsuccessful harvests were common in the 1980s, with no 

whales taken in 1983 to 1985, or 1988; however, in the 1990s, the only unsuccessful years were 

1990 and 1994 (USDOI MMS 1996a, USACE 1998). Nuiqsut whalers harvest two to three 

whales annually. 

Subsistence whaling continues today. In part a result of whaling quotas, the number of 

bowhead whales in the Beaufort-Chukchi-Bering Sea stock is estimated to exceed 10,000 (Zeh 

and Punt 2005), those of the eastern Canadian Arctic and of the Okhostsk Sea in far east Russia 

are in the hundreds. Although the number of bowhead whales has increased from depressed

levels in the early 1900s, and the Chukchi Bering Beaufort Stock is approaching or at historic 

levels (Angliss and Outlaw 2005, Zeh and Punt 2005) the cumulative effects of commercial 

whaling persist today, as worldwide bowhead whale numbers are only one-fifth of numbers 

estimated to have occurred before commercial whaling. 

Commercial fisheries (Angliss and Outlaw 2005) and shipping (George et al. 2004, Angliss and 

Outlaw 2005) have resulted in injuries and likely death of bowhead whales. Reported numbers 

per year are low and likely an underestimation because of study limitations and reporting 

requirements (George et al. 2004, Angliss and Outlaw 2005). 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-768 

Cumulative Impacts: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

 Seismic Studies, Exploration and Disturbance 

Seismic surveys offshore in the Beaufort or Chukchi Seas began in the late 1960’s, peaking in 

the late 1980’s. Prior to 2006, the last MMS permitted seismic in the Beaufort OCS was in 

2004, and 1990 in the Chukchi (USDOI MMS 2006). Approximately 100,000 miles of 2D and 3D 

seismic has been collected in the Beaufort and approximately 80,000 miles of 2D in the Chukchi. 

These estimates are a combination of over-ice and open-water seismic (USDOI MMS 2006). 

MMS predicted up to 4 surveys in the Beaufort and 4 in the Chukchi, but only 3 surveys were 

conducted in the Chukchi and one in the Beaufort (USDOI MMS 2007). While historic seismic 

work likely displaced bowheads and resulted avoidance behavior, no evidence is available to 

suggest that these effects caused measurable impacts to bowheads. Therefore no impacts are 

believed to have accumulated from historic seismic activities. 

Marine seismic exploration produces the loudest industrial noise in the bowhead whale habitat. 

Some seismic surveys are conducted in winter and spring on the sea ice, but most are done in 

the summer-autumn open-water period. Thus, bowhead whales and seismic boats were in the

same areas during the westward fall migration. In the nearshore Alaskan Beaufort Sea, nearly 

all the fall-migrating bowhead whales avoided an area within 12 miles of an operating vessel,

and deflection of the whales began at up to 21 miles from the vessel (Richardson 1997, 1998, 

1999; NMFS 2002). Noise levels received by these whales at 12 miles were 117 to 135 dB 

(NMFS 2002). 

Offshore exploratory drilling in the Beaufort also resulted in the deflection of fall migrating 

bowhead whales. Bowheads were detected changing direction at between 12 and 19 miles from 

drilling platforms (Brewer et al. 1993; Davies 1997; Hall et al. 1994). Drilling ships appear to 

cause similar avoidance behavior (LGL and Greeneridge 1987). 

Construction of Northstar, Endicott, and other artificial islands occurred mostly in shallow 

water areas in areas not regularly used by bowhead whales. However, activity at Northstar 

results in deflections, particularly when barges are maneuvering (Richardson and Williams 

2004). 

Spills 

A number of small oil spills have occurred during oil and gas exploration in the Alaskan 

Beaufort Sea in past years. Only five spills have been greater than one barrel, and the total spill 

volume from drilling 52 exploration wells (1982 through 1991) was 45 barrels (USDOI MMS 

2006). None of these spills are known to have affected bowhead whales and the oil has not 

likely persisted in the environment. 

Summary of Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Hunting and commercial fishing are the two primary factors that have affected bowhead whales 

in the past and continue today. Commercial fishing and vessel strikes have resulted in injury

and probably some mortality (Angliss and Outlaw 2005) (George et al. 1994). Subsistence take 

has been below the Potential Biological Removal threshold determined by NOAA-Fisheries and

the allowable harvest under International Whaling Commission standards (Angliss and Outlaw 

2005). While these two activities have removed individuals from the population and possibly 

4-769 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

affected population growth rates, the impact is minimal and has not altered a strong population 

growth trend (George et al. 2004). 

Noise and disturbance associated with offshore seismic and drilling activities, and boat and 

barge traffic have affected whales, causing deflection and behavioral changes. The long-term 

effects, and likelihood of having cumulative impacts to whales, are unknown. There is no 

evidence that the effects of offshore activity has resulted in long-term persistent changes in 

behavior or reduced fitness leading to population decline. Ship traffic in support of offshore

activity may have contributed to injury/death from collisions, but no records of this occurring 

were found. 

Although bowhead whale populations have recovered from very depressed levels in the early 

1900s, the current population estimate between estimated historic levels (Angliss and Outlaw 

2005). It is unlikely that past and present activities have caused impacts that have 

accumulated and adversely affected the BCB stock of bowhead whales in a measurable manner. 

4.7.7.10-a.2 Future Effects and Their Accumulation 

If oil and gas activities continue in the Alaskan waters of the Beaufort Sea, the major noise 

would be generated with marine seismic exploration. Other significant noise would continue to 

be produced by exploratory and production drilling, island construction, and vessel transit. The 

probable consequences are diversion of animals from their normal migratory path, possibly into 

areas of increased ice cover, and less use of the fall migration corridor as feeding habitat. 

If two or more types of disturbance occur at the same time or in the same general area, the

effects could be greater than those observed from single sources. The greatest diversion would 

occur if two or more seismic vessels operated simultaneously with one just offshore of the other.

Such a disturbing influence set across the migratory path could displace the whales seaward 

reduce use of the area as feeding habitat, and affect the behavior of the animals. 

Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Non-oil and gas activities could also contribute to cumulative effects on bowhead whales. A 

small number of bowhead whales could be injured or killed as a result of entanglement in 

fishing gear or collisions with ships. It is expected that subsistence whalers from Alaska and 

Russia would to continue to harvest bowhead whales under a quota authorized by the 

International Whaling Commission. The subsistence harvest is carefully managed to prevent

population level effects, and to allow the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Sea bowhead whale 

population to continue to grow. Although a few individuals would likely be killed, non-oil and 

gas activities are not expected to have much impact on the bowhead whale population and 

bowhead whale populations have increased steadily under current management (George et al. 

2004, Zeh and Punt 2004). 

It is possible, but uncertain, that reduced sea ice in the Beaufort and other parts of the Arctic

could result in increased commercial shipping traffic. This could result in an increase in vessel 

collisions resulting in additional injury and mortality. The magnitude of this impact would be 

dependent on the actually number of vessels, their transit corridor, speed, and when they

occurred in areas used by bowhead, if any such increase actually occurred. 

Changes in the marine environment could also result in shifts northward of important 

commercial fish species. If this occurred, it is assumed that the fishing industry would follow. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-770 

Cumulative Impacts: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Increased fishing effort in the main areas currently used by BCB bowheads would likely result 

in an increased rate of encounters with fishing gear, greater entanglement rates and 

subsequent injury, loss of fitness and mortality. 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

 Noise and Disturbance 

Bowhead whales could be exposed to increased disturbance as a result of exploration and 

development of existing leases or leases acquired in future sales, including leases in the OCS 

and State waters. Projects and possible lease sales in the OCS that could affect bowhead whales 

have been summarized in earlier documents (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998:IV.G.10; 2003:V.11; 

USDOI BLM 2004c:4.A.3.5), and are not repeated here. Information about the potential effects 

of offshore lease sales on bowhead whales has been discussed in detail in several recent 

documents (USDOI MMS 2003; 2004; 2006; 2006). Those documents and references therein, are 

included here by reference. Generally these documents state that, with the exception of a large 

or very large spill, the effects of offshore leasing and any subsequent development would include 

deflections and short-term displacement and avoidance behavior. These effects are not believed 

to persist from year to year and thus do not accumulate. As with other marine mammals; 

however, it is not known if a threshold exists relative to number of disturbance events/year or

the number of disturbance events among year that would result in long-term changes in 

movement patterns, including shifts in foraging behavior or in access to productive forage areas. 

Development of the NPR-A and elsewhere on the North Slope, and offshore leases, would result

in incremental increases in vessel traffic, particularly barge traffic to supply bases and camps 

on the North Slope. Such increases would result in a greater likelihood for disturbance to

bowhead whales, should barge traffic coincide with the fall migration of bowhead whales from 

Canadian waters to the Bering Sea. Impacts caused by barge traffic should be limited to 

temporary displacement of the migratory whales, or local, short-term changes in whale 

behavior. 

Disturbance to migrating bowhead whales has occurred from seismic activities and offshore 

drilling (summarized in NRC 2003). Richardson and Williams (2004) reported a statistically 

significant displacement of bowhead whales from Northstar Island in 2001 when noise 

associated with Northstar Island was the loudest. This effect was attributed to noise from 

maneuvering vessels rather than from the Northstar Island project itself. The authors noted 

that the “southern edge of the migration corridor was slightly farther offshore at the noisiest 

times as compared with typical times.” Results in 2002 were considered equivocal and there was 

no evidence of an effect in 2003. However, should boat and barge traffic along the Beaufort Sea 

coast increase as a result of development in the NPR-A and offshore leases, deflection of the 

bowhead whale migration could occur. It is unlikely that such deflection would have high 

impacts on individual bowhead whales or the whale population. 

Aircraft (fixed-wing and helicopters) flying at altitudes greater than 1,000 feet AGL generally 

do not impact bowhead whales. Any impacts to bowhead whales from aircraft flying at altitudes 

less than 1,000 feet AGL (during takeoff and landing) would likely be localized and include 

minor short-term deflection or changes in behavior. Aircraft would not be expected to have 

much effect on individual bowhead whales or the population. 

4-771 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Spills 

If an oil spill were to occur as a result of development and production associated with any past, 

present, or reasonably foreseeable future development project on the North Slope or in the 

Beaufort and Chukchi Sea, some bowhead whales could be impacted. However, most whales 

directly exposed to spilled oil would likely experience temporary, nonlethal effects from skin 

contact with oil, inhalation of hydrocarbon vapors, ingestion of oil-contaminated prey, baleen

fouling, reduction in food resources, or temporary displacement from some feeding areas (NRC

2003). A few individuals could be killed if they were to experience prolonged exposure to freshlyspilled oil. Oil spill clean-up activities (e.g., vessel and aircraft traffic) could displace some 

bowhead whales, should those activities coincide with the fall migration and occur outside of 

Harrison Bay or other waterways within the barrier islands. Such displacement would 

minimize the potential for bowhead whales to be exposed to freshly-spilled oil, thereby reducing 

the potential for lethal effects. Impacts to bowhead whales from an oil spill are expected to be 

limited to short-term displacement or behavioral changes, and are not expected to have much 

cumulative impact on individual bowhead whale or the population. However, increasing 

exploration in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea, coupled with production at Endicott and 

Northstar facilities, would increase the potential for a large oil spill to occur. Additional 

information regarding the effects of an offshore spill from development resulting from leases in 

the Beaufort and Chukchi sea, likelihood estimates, and other related information can be found 

in the leasing EISs and subsequent EAs (MMS 2003; 2006; 2006). 

4.7.7.10-a.3 Global Climate Change 

Climate change may affect bowheads by altering physical ocean properties, influencing 

distribution, density, and diversity of prey species (Tynan and DeMaster 1997, Learmonth et al. 

2006). However, the magnitude of the changes are unknown, as are how prey species, and 

subsequently bowheads will respond. 

Reduced sea ice, will increase the length of the shipping season in the Arctic. This could affect 

bowheads in several ways. If the increase in safe shipping season resulted in increased ship 

traffic, it would result in increased collision risk, increased potential for ship based contaminant 

spills, and increased disturbance. However if it allowed ship traffic to enter the Beaufort earlier 

– following spring migration, but prior to the fall westward migration, there may be less shipwhale interaction, although if this allowed vessels into the eastern Beaufort feeding areas 

earlier, it also may disrupt feeding in those areas. 

The reduction in sea ice and potential northward movement of commercial fish species may 

result in greater rates of entanglements, particularly associated with the crab fishery. Current 

entanglement rates are relatively low (Angliss and Outlaw 2005), but whether this is due to 

encounter rates or bowhead avoidance is unknown. 

4.7.7.10-a.4 Contribution of Supplement Alternatives to Cumulative Effects 

Impacts to bowhead whales from development in the planning area would generally be similar 

to that discussed for marine mammals. The increased development scenarios of alternatives B 

and C, and D would contribute additional barge and aircraft traffic impacts and would require a 

greater number of coastal staging areas than the development scenario under Alternative A.

However, with respect to bowheads, there is little difference among the alternatives individual 

contribution to the cumulative effect of all past, present and future actions. However; if under 

Alternatives B through D, a large discovery was made in the northwestern portion of the 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-772 

Cumulative Impacts: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

planning area closed under Alternative A, that discovery could facilitate additional development 

in the adjacent northeast part of Northwest NPR-A which would not otherwise have been 

economically developable (see discussion of Northwest NPR-A under section 4.7.3). 

Alternatives B through D, in contrast to Alternative A, makes much or all of the areas north of 

Teshekpuk Lake available for oil and gas leasing. If development in these areas along the 

Northeast NPR-A coast created necessary infrastructure, it could lead to increased offshore 

exploration and development activities, and the potential for cumulative impacts to bowhead 

whales by noise or other activities would increase. Should boat and barge traffic along the 

Beaufort Sea coast increase as a result of development in the NPR-A and offshore leases, 

greater disturbance and deflection of the bowhead whale migration could occur as the result of 

increased activity. It is unlikely that such deflection would have high impacts on individual 

bowhead whales or the whale population. 

4.7.7.10-a.5 Conclusion 

A few whales do or could experience sublethal or lethal effects from entanglement in fishing 

gear, collisions with ships, or encounters with subsistence whalers. Most activities related to oil 

and gas development onshore on the North Slope and in the planning area would not impact 

bowhead whales. There would be a periodic increase in barge traffic that would contribute to 

cumulative impacts to bowhead whales from underwater noise and the presence of boat traffic. 

Exploration and development in the Beaufort and Chukchi would also increase ship and aircraft 

activity. Unlike on shore development, offshore development would require annual vessel 

traffic and regular over water aircraft flights. 

While the effects of climate change on bowheads are uncertain, changes in shipping season and

timing are possible, with the most likely effect that bowheads will be exposed to additional 

vessel traffic in the future. Bowhead whales could display a cumulative response to activities 

that produce underwater noise by increasing their distance from such sources by temporarily 

diverting their route of travel, or by temporarily changing their behavior. In general, these 

impacts are expected to be minor and short term. However, as noted earlier a threshold may 

exist beyond which the number of behavioral changes and displacements may begin to have an 

effect on individual fitness. If the cumulative increase in disturbance events results in impacts 

to enough individuals fitness, reduced reproduction could result with consequences to the 

population. 

The individual alternatives are relatively similar in potential for effect when considered in the 

cumulative sense, with the exception of development under Alternatives B through D being 

more likely to facilitate development in Northwest NPR-A and offshore. The most likely effect 

that the alternatives would contribute to is vessel aircraft traffic. Given the expected time 

spread in major sealifts associated with each alternative and their expected CPF number (1-2 

two sea lifts every 10 years), each alternative would be expected to add a short-term pulse to

vessel traffic. Current vessel trips are not believed to be having an adverse effect on the 

bowhead population, but the biological effects of disturbance and displacement are unknown. 

The cumulative vessel traffic numbers in the future are unknown as is the timing; i.e. shifts to

early season transport in response to reduced ice. If traffic continues with intermittent large 

pulses to support major development with relatively low levels of regular background traffic to 

supply the industry and villages it is unlikely that significant effects will emerge. However, if a 

threshold exists where a certain number of trips in space or time causes

disturbance/displacement which results in acute or chronic effects that decrease survival or 

recruitment below the level the population can maintain, significant effects would occur. 

4-773 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Determination of the likelihood of such effects or the existence of a threshold cannot be made 

with the information available. Each alternative is expected to add minimally to the total 

traffic volumes and each sea lift would be well spaced in time; however the potential facilitation 

of additional on and offshore development by Alternatives B through D increases the possibility 

of adverse effects but does not make them certain or likely. 

A large or very large oil spill that reaches marine waters has the greatest potential to adversely 

impact bowhead whales and could result in other effects that are individually or additively 

minor becoming significant. For example, if a very large oil spill removed a substantial portion 

of the population, subsistence hunting and take from collisions and entanglement; currently

managed at sustainable levels or very infrequent respectively could act to further depress the 

population. Bowhead whales that come into contact with freshly-spilled oil could suffer 

temporary, non-lethal effects, and a few whales could suffer lethal effects. Bowhead whales 

could also be displaced by oil spill clean-up activities. However, given the number of days each 

year that bowhead whales are expected to be migrating or feeding in the area that could be 

effected by a spill, the probability that a spill would occur and the probability for a spill to occur 

or persist during periods when whales are present it is unlikely that bowhead whales would be 

contacted by oil. Significant adverse affects would only be expected if all of the low probability 

events occurred at the same time. Cumulative effects from the more likely small spills are 

likely to have only a minor impact on the bowhead whale population. 

4.7.7.10-b Spectacled and Steller’s Eiders 

Available information indicates that past, present, and future activities in the planning area, 

along migration routes, or on winter ranges could potentially contribute to cumulative effects on 

spectacled and Steller’s eiders. These activities include subsistence and sport harvests (and 

associated lead contamination of eider habitat); commercial fishing; commercial development;

wildlife research and surveys; proposed oil and gas exploration and development in nesting and 

wintering habitats; predation; environmental contamination; marine shipping; and recreation. 

Global climate regime shifts may also impact vegetation and other resources that could 

influence eider survival. Some of these activities may affect eiders at latitudes south of the 

Beaufort Sea and outside the summer breeding season. Activities outside of the breeding 

grounds could result in oil or other toxic pollution effects (e.g. lead), additional disturbance 

during the nonbreeding periods, or habitat loss or degradation that would add to cumulative

impacts on listed eiders. 

4.7.7.10-b.1 Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Activities not related directly to oil and gas development that occur on the North Slope, 

including wildlife research and survey activities, subsistence harvest, predation, village 

expansion, and potential environmental contamination, may have contributed to past 

cumulative effects to eiders. These impacts were usually localized and would have affected only 

small numbers of eiders and likely did not accumulate at the population level. 

Noise and ground activities at summer camps could have disturbed feeding, nesting, or broodrearing eiders in close proximity to the camps, potentially affecting the bird’s energy budget and 

productivity. Although pedestrian traffic has been shown to be particularly disruptive to some 

waterfowl and raptors (Roseneau et al. 1981; Ritchie 1987; Johnson et al. 2003b), some eiders 

may have acclimated to predictable daily activities of camp personnel. Disturbance to birds from 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-774 

Cumulative Impacts: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

aircraft traffic and camp activities likely had the greatest affect within approximately 2,280 feet 

of the camps and little or no effect beyond 6,500 feet (Johnson et al. 2003b). Ward et al. (1999) 

studied brant response to fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft and reported brant response to 

aircraft at a lateral distance to 3 miles, although the majority of birds responded to aircraft that 

were within a lateral distance of 1⁄2 mile or less. The greatest response to aircraft altitude 

occurred between 1,000 and 2,500 feet. Nesting eiders may not be as sensitive to aircraft as 

molting or staging waterfowl. No significant changes in behavior were noted for eiders adjacent 

to a construction site in the Colville River Delta and subject to repeated fixed and rotary winged 

aircraft (Johnson et al. 2006). However, these are preliminary results and should only be 

viewed cautiously. 

Tundra-nesting eiders near summer camps may have also suffered mortality or egg loss due to 

predators attracted to anthropogenic sources of food at camps. 

Aside from direct mortality due to subsistence harvest, the accumulation of lead shot in eider

foraging habitat in the Y-K Delta has likely been responsible for loss of spectacled eiders and

likely effects nest success (Flint et al. 1997, Grand et al. 1998, Flint et al. 2000). This may be 

the most significant direct anthropogenic impact currently effecting Alaska’s population of 

spectacled eiders. 

Non-oil and gas development at former military and other government sites and in villages has 

caused the loss of habitat and increased levels of disturbance. These sites also provide a 

potential starting point for hunting trips. Approximately 2,500 acres have been developed, with 

most of this development along the coastline, where eiders are found. Although there is limited

information on historic numbers of eiders found in these non-oil and gas developed areas, 

development, loss of habitat, and disturbance, coupled with hunting pressure at a “shooting 

station” near Barrow, and other recreational and subsistence hunting near other villages, has 

caused the loss of birds and habitat that has accumulated. 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

 Seismic Activity and Exploration 

Loss of habitat and disturbance are the two primary factors associated with seismic activities 

and exploration that could affect eiders on the North Slope. Most seismic surveys and

exploration drilling activities occur during the winter months when eiders are not present in the 

planning area. Therefore, these activities would have no direct impacts that would accumulate. 

The use of airguns for boat-based seismic work in Teshekpuk Lake during the summer may 

have temporarily displaced eiders from feeding habitats while surveys were being conducted. 

Spectacled eider densities are medium high to high northeast of Teshekpuk Lake, and Steller’s 

eiders have been seen nesting near Teshekpuk Lake (see maps 3-32 and 3-33). Eiders near the 

shoreline could have been temporarily or permanently displaced from nests by boat disturbance, 

however, these surveys have only occurred a few times in the past, and it is unlikely that effects 

to eiders have accumulated. 

Rolligons and track vehicles used during seismic exploration have left tracks on tundra habitats 

and many of these tracks are still observable years later (Kevan et al 1995). However, less than 

100 acres of habitat has scars persisting today that could result in habitat loss for eiders. 

Studies of seismic and camp-move trails created in the 1980s showed that only a small portion 

of seismic trails were still in evidence 8 years later, but that 5% of camp-move trails still showed 

4-775 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

moderate to high disturbance. Use of lightweight vehicles, dispersing traffic patterns, 

minimizing sharp turns, and requiring surveys to be done when snow and frost cover is 

adequate to protect the tundra have helped to minimize damage to vegetation used by eiders

(Walker 1996). 

Other sources of vegetative loss included gravel pads, airstrips, and roads near gravel 

structures at exploration sites. Peat roads constructed in the 1960s caused disturbances to 

tundra habitats that persist today. However, some evidence suggests that bird use of peat roads 

is similar to that of adjacent areas of undisturbed tundra (TERA 1991). Based on NRC (2003), 

by 2001, approximately 1,200 acres had been impacted by exploration sites in the past, and 740 

acres of disturbance were still evident. Most of these sites were developed before 1977, thus, 

their effects on the vegetative landscape have persisted for decades, and are likely to persist for 

several more decades. As industry has shifted towards use of ice roads and ice pads during 

exploration, loss of habitat from seismic activities and exploration has slowed greatly. Still, ice 

roads and pads have effects that could impact eider habitat for several years, but would be 

unlikely to accumulate. 

Water used in the construction of ice roads and pads has been withdrawn from deep lakes in 

areas adjacent to the road and pad locations. Winter water withdrawal has altered lake levels 

and adjacent habitats, although flooding and recharge during spring break-up have minimized 

the potential for long-term effects (Rovansek et al. 1996). Since use of lakes in the past has 

varied, and few lakes would have had water withdrawn over several years, it seems unlikely 

that the effects of past use of lakes for water withdrawals would accumulate. 

 Infrastructure and Road and Pad Construction 

Effects to birds from loss of habitat from road and pad construction and gravel mining, and 

disturbance associated with development and production activities have occurred in the past 

and persist today. Gravel roads, gravel pads, and gravel mines have caused the direct loss of 

eider habitat. Not all areas disturbed provided habitat to spectacled or Steller’s eider, but a 

significant portion of the existing oil infrastructure is within the area used by eiders. 

Although over 500 acres of peat roads still show evidence of disturbance, it is not clear that this 

disturbance has resulted in negative impacts to birds. Gravel footprints have impacted over

9,200 acres, and loss of vegetation and habitat associated with gravel footprints persists today. 

Gravel mines cover an additional 6,360 acres; however, 80% of those mines occurred in rivers 

(NRC 2003). Over 4,500 acres of gravel mines have been reclaimed, much of it to deepwater 

lake habitat that would have some value for eiders. 

 Disturbance 

Numerous types of disturbances have resulted from oil and gas exploration, development, and

production activities, including those caused by aircraft, vehicular, pedestrian, and vessel 

traffic, construction and drilling activities, noise and activity at facilities, and predator 

attraction. Impacts have been most prevalent where facilities were located in habitats with high 

bird concentrations, or if species with low population numbers or declining populations, such as 

threatened eiders, were disturbed. 

Murphy and Anderson (1993) reported disturbances to birds as far as 500 to 685 feet from 

roads. Avoidance of roads, however, may have been related to an avoidance of heavily dusted

areas on tundra adjacent to roads with high traffic levels rather than an avoidance of vehicular 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-776 

Cumulative Impacts: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

activity itself. Disturbance to waterfowl from aircraft is well documented (e.g., Schweinsburg 

1974; Ward and Stehn 1989, Derksen et al. 1992, McKechnie and Gladwin 1993; Ward et al 

1999). Johnson et al. (2003b) conducted the most thorough study of aircraft disturbance to 

waterfowl in Arctic oil fields at the Alpine field. Responses of birds to aircraft included alert 

postures, interruption of foraging behavior, and flight. Aircraft disturbances could displace 

birds from feeding habitats and negatively impact energy budgets. Gollop et al. (1974b) and 

Ward et al. (1999) suggested that helicopters may be more disturbing to wildlife than low-flying 

fixed-wing aircraft, although Balogh (1997) indicated that fixed-wing aircraft flown at 150 feet 

AGL often caused spectacled eiders to flush, while helicopters flown at similar altitudes in the 

vicinity of Prudhoe Bay did not. The potential effects of routine aircraft flights into airstrips 

would range from bird avoidance of certain areas to abandonment of nesting attempts or 

lowered survival of young. Johnson (1984) reported that at least three successful common eider 

nests were located within 975 feet of a helicopter pad on Thetis Island that averaged 

approximately 12 trips per day. Although the potential exists for displacement of some nesting 

birds near routinely used aircraft landing sites as a result of numerous overflights, landings, 

and takeoffs, some birds may habituate to routine air traffic. Given the relatively low density of 

spectacled and Steller’s eiders nesting in the NPR-A, disturbance resulting from aircraft activity 

would likely affect only a small percentage of the total populations of spectacled and Steller’s 

eiders. The cumulative effects of disturbance on the North Slope have added only incrementally 

to impacts on eiders. 

Predators 

Predators such as glaucous gulls, Arctic foxes, ravens, and grizzly bears are attracted to 

anthropogenic food sources associated with oil field development, which may cause increased

predation pressure on tundra-nesting eiders. There is evidence that nesting success for several 

species of ground-nesting birds may be lower in oil fields than in undeveloped areas (Troy 1996; 

Anderson et al. 2000; Sedinger and Stickney 2000). It is not known if these effects to eiders have 

been substantial enough to accumulate. 

Collisions 

Bird mortality has resulted from collisions with buildings, vehicles, aircraft, vessels, towers, 

pipelines, platforms, or other structures associated with onshore and offshore oil and gas 

development. Known collision mortality to spectacled and Steller’s eiders have occurred in 

Barrow and Deadhorse- probably the result of collisions with overhead lines and guywires 

(MMS 2003 citing FWS unpublished data). Offshore activities are most likely to impact birds 

during the late summer/fall staging period, when relatively large numbers eiders, and other

waterfowl are staging and molting in marine areas. No spectacled or Steller’s eiders were 

known to collide with the Northstar installation over 3 years of monitoring (Day et al. 2004). 

Eiders have been reported colliding with fishing and research vessels in early spring (Lovvorn 

et al. 2003). Eider collisions with vehicles, buildings or oil field infrastructure probably do not 

represent a significant source of bird mortality at the population level. However, eider losses

due to collisions in developed areas accumulate with increases in development and add 

incrementally to other impacts. 

Spills 

Only two large oil spills have occurred on the North Slope. (see section 4.2.2.1). These were 

limited to small areas and were properly cleaned up with minimal resulting impacts to the 

environment. Several small spills have occurred but cleanup and rehabilitation efforts have 

4-777 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

been successful and relatively few birds have been impacted (NRC 2003). There are no records 

of spectacled or Steller’s eiders or their nests being directly impacted; however, clean-up efforts 

may have destroyed habitat, disturbed birds, and prevented localized nesting. Given the 

relatively low frequency of off-pad spill events and that spills have all occurred east of the 

Colville River in areas of relatively low eider densities (almost no Steller’s eiders have been 

reported in these areas in the last several years), it is unlikely that any population effect would 

persist and accumulate.

 Marine Activities 

Offshore oil exploration and development in state or Federal marine waters of the North Slope 

rely on helicopter and barge traffic more than on fixed-wing flights. Much of this activity occurs 

during the winter when eiders are not present. However, helicopter activity, barge and crew 

vessel traffic, and spill response training activities also occur during the summer. During the 

summer open-water seasons of 2001 and 2002 at the Northstar development off Prudhoe Bay, 

helicopter activity ranged from 477 to 989 round trips, crew vessel activity ranged from 469 to 

824 round trips, and barge traffic ranged from 63 to 64 round trips (Williams 2002, Williams 

and Rodrigues 2003). Vessel traffic not related to oil development also occurs in marine waters 

off the coast of the North Slope. These disturbances may have displaced eiders from feeding and

loafing areas and had a minor, short term impact on eiders. 

Factors Outside of the North Slope 

Subsistence harvest of spectacled eider adults and eggs has impacted these species, although 

overall numbers of birds and eggs taken over their entire range are not known. Aside from 

direct mortality due to subsistence harvest, the accumulation of lead shot in eider foraging 

habitat in the Y-K Delta is likely responsible for loss of spectacled eiders. It is currently illegal 

to use lead shot while hunting waterfowl, although lead shot is allowed for hunting upland 

species. Illegal use of lead shot for hunting waterfowl, or legal use of lead shot for hunting 

upland species near waterfowl habitats, could contribute to the effects of lead poisoning on eider

populations. Programs currently are underway by the USFWS and the NSB to inform hunters 

of harvest closures on these two species in an effort to decrease this source of mortality. 

Development along migration corridors and in wintering areas may result in habitat loss or 

disturbance that add to the cumulative impacts on bird populations. All of these factors can add 

to the cumulative loss of individual birds, and in some instances, can have population-level 

effects. 

Summary of Past and Present Impacts and Their Accumulation 

Approximately 2,500 acres have been disturbed from non-oil and gas development on the North 

Slope. Although only a small portion of this area would have been used by eiders, much of it has 

occurred along the coastline and near Barrow, areas where spectacled and Steller’s eiders are

often seen (see maps 3-32 and 3-33). Oil and gas activities have directly impacted approximately 

13,000 acres of tundra, and indirectly impacted a greater amount through dusting, 

impoundments and thermokarst, although these indirect effects have not been shown to impact 

or benefit eiders. Eider populations are greatest northeast of Teshekpuk Lake, and west of the 

planning area, thus the amount of eider habitat impacted by past and present development is

probably minor. Currently, the impacts of predators on bird populations may be reduced 

compared to the early years of oil field development, as industry has reduced the amount of

garbage that is available in fields to attract predators. Other effects, including disturbance, are 

difficult to measure, but are likely accumulating as the number of developments and the 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-778 

Cumulative Impacts: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

amount of developed area increase. The gravel footprints of current developments are reduced

compared to the footprints of previous oil field development, resulting in less habitat loss in 

modern oil fields. However, new development often relies on aircraft support for transportation 

of personnel and equipment that can increase disturbance to feeding, nesting, and molting 

eiders. Habitat loss and disturbance can add incrementally to the impacts of development on 

eiders. 

4.7.7.10-b.2 Future Effects and Their Accumulation 

Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Subsistence harvest of spectacled eider adults and eggs apparently continues to impact these 

species, although overall numbers of birds and eggs taken over their entire range are not 

known. Aside from direct mortality due to subsistence harvest, the accumulation of lead shot in 

eider foraging habitat in the Y-K Delta is likely responsible for loss of spectacled eiders.

Although the proposed development scenario does not include a road connecting Nuiqsut with 

roads in the planning area, future construction of a road could allow access that would increase 

subsistence hunting pressure on spectacled and Steller’s eiders, and increase the potential for 

lead shot contamination of eider feeding habitats. It is currently illegal to use lead shot while 

hunting waterfowl, although lead shot is allowed for hunting upland species. Illegal use of lead 

shot for hunting waterfowl, or legal use of lead shot for hunting upland species near waterfowl 

habitats could contribute to the effects of lead poisoning on eider populations. Programs 

currently are underway by the USFWS and the NSB to inform hunters of harvest closures on 

these two species in an effort to decrease this source of mortality. However, lead shot appears 

to persist in the environment and any additional lead shot would be additive to past amounts, 

incrementally increasing the chance of eider exposure and further reducing survival. DEWLine sites, other military facilities, villages, airstrips, and other non-oil and gas infrastructure 

are likely to persist into the indefinite future. Villages are likely to increase in size, causing the 

potential loss of additional habitat. 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Aircraft and Vessel Disturbance 

Central Production Facility developments with satellite fields connected by gravel roads similar 

to what is expected in the planning area would be expected for new development elsewhere on

the North Slope, including the Northwest NPR-A planning area. In addition, several staging 

areas and gravel extraction sites are also proposed. If developments east and west of Prudhoe

were not connected to each other and to North Slope communities or the existing oil fields of 

Prudhoe Bay by roads, they would likely require substantial fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter

support, and occasional barge support during periods when eiders are present. 

Oil exploration and development, which could occur in state or Federal marine waters offshore 

of the planning area, would rely more on helicopter and barge traffic and less on fixed-wing 

flights. Much of this activity would occur during the winter when eiders are not present. 

However, helicopter and barge and crew vessel traffic, and spill response training activities 

would also occur during the summer. During the summer open-water seasons of 2001 and 2002, 

helicopter activity at the Northstar Development near Prudhoe Bay ranged from 477 to 989 

round trips in each season. Crew vessel activity ranged from 469 to 824 round trips, and barge 

traffic ranged from 63 to 64 round trips (Williams 2002, Williams and Rodrigues 2003). 

4-779 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Exploration and development conducted as a result of the Beaufort OCS leases is expected to

result in increased vessel and aircraft traffic but because of spectacled and Steller’s eider sparse 

distribution and typical small flock size offshore and seasonal presence these effects are 

expected to be minimal, and impact only individuals through disturbance related reduced 

fitness. MMS does not believe that these impacts would be sufficient to cause population 

declines but may slow population growth (MMS 2003, 2006). 

The Chukchi Sea OCS lease program is also expected to result in increased aircraft and vessel 

traffic. Of particular concern is the Designated Critical Habitat for eiders in Ledyard Bay 

(USFWS 2001). All proposed alternatives prohibit seismic surveys at any time and overflights 

below 1500 feet of the Ledyard Bay Critical Habitat during times when eiders are typically 

present MMS 2006; p II-21). However this restriction is for seismic activity only. No such 

restriction is included for development and operation. Most waterfowl are particularly sensitive 

to disturbance during staging or molt (Ward 1994, Ward et al. 1999). The Ledyard Bay area has

been used by as many as 33,200 spectacled eider. The molting population there is believed to 

include the entire population of successful females and young from the Arctic Coastal Plain 

(Petersen et al 1999). Overflights or vessel traffic through this area when eiders are present 

could result in disturbance effects to a large number of birds. 

Fixed-wing and helicopter air traffic activity at the Deadhorse Airport, and at the Kuparuk and

Alpine field airfields, is likely to represent the greatest source of air-traffic disturbance to eiders 

from currently developed areas. Any aircraft-related disturbance from new developments on the 

North Slope would represent additive effects. Continued activity to support future development 

on the North Slope likely would result in additional low-altitude flights over nesting, broodrearing, staging, or migrating spectacled and Steller’s eiders. The effects of disturbance from

these activities could result in temporary or permanent displacement of foraging, nesting, 

brood-rearing, or molting/staging eiders, temporary or permanent nest abandonment, or 

alteration of eider energy budgets. Long-term displacement (1 year or more) from heavily used

corridors could result in fewer young produced and somewhat lower survival of adults. However, 

some individuals might tolerate this level of disturbance and nest, rear broods, or forage within 

the air traffic corridor. Given the relatively low density of spectacled and Steller’s eiders nesting 

in the NPR-A, disturbance resulting from aircraft activity would likely affect a small percentage 

of the total populations of spectacled and Steller’s eiders. 

Vessel traffic associated with onshore or offshore development, could disturb spectacled and 

Steller’s eiders. The majority of barge traffic used to transport fuel, equipment, and supplies for 

onshore development would likely be staged from Prudhoe Bay, which has road access to ports 

at Anchorage. Barge traffic from Barrow would arrive from the west. Barge traffic would not 

occur until the open-water period begins in mid-July, and would not cause any disturbance to

eiders migrating in the spring. Eiders staging in Harrison Bay or Smith Bay prior to fall 

migration could be temporarily displaced from feeding habitats by barge traffic, although most 

spectacled eiders would likely be further offshore than projected barge routes. Barge traffic from 

the Prudhoe Bay area to support offshore development could potentially impact eiders by 

causing temporary or permanent displacement from preferred feeding habitats. The extent of 

the impacts would depend on the location of the offshore development, the number of trips, and

the vessel route. These additional effects would be additive with respect to cumulative effects to 

North Slope eider populations. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-780 

Cumulative Impacts: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

 Vehicle Disturbance 

Vehicular traffic and machinery noise and activity have the potential to affect spectacled and

Steller’s eiders in newly-developed areas on the North Slope. Similar types of disturbance occur 

in association with activities in existing North Slope oil fields. Any new disturbance to eiders 

from vehicles would be additive to existing disturbance at the population level as new 

development would be unlikely to result in significant additional effects to birds already subject 

to vehicle disturbance, but would introduce disturbance effects to birds not previously subject to 

disturbance. 

 Habitat Alteration 

Although the increase in the amount of area disturbed by oil and gas development has slowed

dramatically in recent years, the cumulative effects analysis for this EIS (section 4.7.3.3)

assumes that over the life of the oil and gas development that could occur in Northeast NPR-A,

approximately 3,850 acres of additional gravel placement (direct removal of tundra) to support 

oil and gas development outside of NPR-A, and another 3,500 acres of new gravel could be 

placed within the Northwest NPR-A planning area. Gravel mines could result in as much as 

1,470 additional acres impacted. 

Temporary habitat loss or alteration could result from delayed snowmelt caused by 

accumulation of snow on tundra adjacent to roads and pads, dust deposition on tundra adjacent 

to roads and pads, thermokarst, seismic or other winter activities that affect tundra vegetation. 

The formation of impoundments adjacent to roads and pads could result in temporary or

permanent habitat loss or alteration. There is some evidence that impoundments may provide 

some additional habitat for spectacled eiders (Anderson et al. 1992; Warnock and Troy 1992; 

Noel et al. 1996), and that the formation of impoundments may not have negative impacts on 

threatened eiders. Similar types of habitat loss and alteration have occurred in the existing 

North Slope oil fields, and could occur in the Northwest NPR-A if future oil and gas 

development occurs there. 

These impacts could be additive to the impacts to eider habitat that have accumulated in the 

past and persist today, but in the context of the ACP and North Slope, these cumulative impacts 

would be small. Based on direct historic and predicted conversion of tundra to gravel (21,000 

acres). These estimates do not take into account whether the acres historically and potentially 

impacted could have or does provide habitat for eiders. 

Predation 

There is evidence that predators of eiders, such as the Arctic fox, glaucous gull, and common 

raven, could be attracted to areas of oil and gas field development by anthropogenic sources of 

food and denning or nesting sites. Increases in the numbers of predators in areas of

development could have an additive impact on the effects of predation on threatened eiders. In

recent years, North Slope oil field developers have installed predator-proof dumpsters to 

minimize attraction of predators to development. Lease stipulations were established, in part, to

prevent human-caused increases in predator populations and require the adoption of methods to

avoid attracting wildlife to sources of food, and to use the best technology available to prevent 

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

Monitoring at Alpine indicated no increase in density of fox dens during construction, but a pair 

of ravens continued to nest at the facility despite efforts to preclude them (Johnson et al 2003). 

4-781 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Collisions 

Eider mortality could result from collisions with buildings, vehicles, aircraft, vessels, towers, 

pipelines, platforms, or other structures associated with onshore or offshore oil and gas 

development. Offshore activities would be most likely to impact eiders during the late summer 

and fall staging periods, when relatively large numbers of eiders are found in marine areas. 

Migration pathways of eiders may include areas where offshore production facilities are 

constructed, so collisions between eiders and offshore structures, and watercraft and helicopters

used for transport of personnel and equipment or responding to an oil spill, could occur. The 

potential number and locations of offshore sites and their effects on spectacled and Steller’s

eiders would be additive to existing effects in North Slope oil fields. Exploration and

development in the Chukchi and western portion of the Beaufort in the nearshore areas would

have the greatest potential for collisions. Eiders fly in small flocks, low and fast over water 

(Day et al.) and movements during spring and fall migrations are more likely to occur in 

darkness or poor weather conditions, all factors which can influence strike rates. 

Spills 

The oil industry is required to have oil spill response and cleanup capabilities, and it is expected 

that small spills in the planning area or in existing or future North Slope oil and gas fields 

would be contained and cleaned up before substantial impacts to eiders would occur. A large 

onshore spill released in the planning area during the summer season could affect pre-nesting,

nesting, and brood-rearing eiders. In the immediate vicinity of the spill, some habitat contacted 

by oil would become unsuitable for nesting, brood-rearing, or foraging by eiders, and oil entering 

freshwater aquatic habitats could spread more widely, potentially entering river deltas and 

nearshore marine habitats. Direct mortality could occur from loss of insulating capabilities of 

feathers, should eiders come in contact with oil, or by ingesting of contaminated prey. These

effects would be additive to the effects of a spill in the existing North Slope oil fields, or to the 

effects of potential future spills in the Northwest NPR-A. Spectacled and Steller’s eiders could 

also be affected by oil spills in other coastal lagoons and marine areas in molting or wintering 

areas. 

If future oil and gas field development were to occur in state or Federal marine waters offshore 

of the planning area, there would be a low probability of a large oil spill. If one or more spills 

were to occur, substantial losses could result to eiders if oil were released during the 

summer/fall season when eider flocks were present. The number of eiders affected could

potentially total tens to hundreds of individuals. Using average estimated spectacled eider 

density calculated from the USFWS survey data in the central Beaufort Sea area from Harrison 

Bay to Brownlow Point, and average severity of spill-trajectory paths (and thus, exposure of 

birds to oil), a USFWS model estimated an average of two eiders would be exposed to a large 

spill (5,912 barrels) within 30 days in July (Stehn and Platte 2000). However, in late July one 

group of 100 individuals was observed, suggesting a potential for much higher mortality should 

a spill occur in an area of relatively high spectacled eider density. An offshore oil spill with the 

greatest potential to impact spectacled eiders would be one that occurred in the deeper offshore

waters of Harrison Bay, rather than in the offshore waters to the east or the shallower 

nearshore waters. An oil spill could also contaminate prey populations in eider foraging areas at 

any time of year, resulting in secondary impacts to eiders by affecting productivity and/or 

survival. Likewise, a spill on shoreline or coastal marsh habitat could affect eiders that were 

moving from onshore brood-rearing areas to the marine environment, or that inhabited the area 

in subsequent years. Molting and/or staging spectacled or Steller’s eiders are known to use the

lagoon systems in offshore areas of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas and Norton Sound. A large 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-782

Cumulative Impacts: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

oil spill that entered Ledyard Bay could have significant population effects on not just the Arctic

Coastal Plain population of spectacled eiders but also the world population. While such an 

event is possible, it is considered very improbable (MMS 2006). 

4.7.7.10-b.3 Global Climate Change 

Much research in recent years has focused on the effects of naturally-occurring or man-induced 

global climate regime shifts and the potential for these shifts to cause changes in habitat 

structure over large areas. Naturally occurring plant succession on the North Slope is a 

relatively slow process (Billings and Peterson 1980), but how future global climate change may 

affect this process is unknown. Although many of the forces driving global climate regime shifts 

may originate outside the Arctic, the impacts of global climate change are exacerbated in the

Arctic (ACIA 2005). Temperatures in the Arctic have risen faster than in other areas of the 

world as evidenced by glacial retreat and melting of sea ice. 

The increasing thickness of the active layer of soil above Arctic permafrost is likely to cause 

changes in moisture regimes and the distribution of vegetation types over much of the Arctic in

coming years. Thawing of the permafrost may result in increased amounts of surface water in 

some areas. Areas of permafrost with substrates composed of fine-grained materials may be 

susceptible to drying, erosion, and desertification (ACIA 2004). Rising temperatures are likely

to favor the expansion of the northern boreal forest into areas currently occupied by tundra. 

Studies suggest that climate change may increase woody vegetation on the North Slope (Chapin 

et al. 1995). Changes to the predominant vegetation type in areas dominated by sedges and 

grasses could influence use of those areas by threatened eiders. Global climate change may also 

result in an increase in shrubs at the expense of forbs and graminoid vegetation characteristic 

of arctic tundra. This could result in a loss of breeding-season habitat for threatened eiders. 

Rising seal levels resulting from increasing temperatures may further reduces the amount of 

tundra habitat available to nesting eiders by causing coastal erosion and by inundating lowlying areas. Such intrusion of salt water would be unfavorable to woody vegetation and would 

shift plant species toward those more tolerant of saline conditions (Funk et al. 2004). Salt 

marsh in general is considered high value habitat for waterfowl including the threatened eiders. 

These changes may be beneficial to some species, such as those associated with boreal forest or

shrub habitats, but a reduction in the amount of tundra habitat available could negatively 

impact threatened eiders and other tundra-nesting birds. 

4.7.7.10-b.4 Contribution of Supplemental Alternatives to Cumulative Effects 

Alternative A: 

Alternative A is assumed to result in the direct impact to 3,270 acres of tundra that could 

provide habitat to spectacled and Steller’s eider. This number includes acres lost to gravel 

mines. This is approximately 9.8% of the area currently or expected to be impacted on the 

North Slope. If it is assumed that all past, present, and future development will occur within 

the area encompassed by the Arctic Coastal Plain Breeding Eider survey area (i.e. Larned et al,

2006) the total past and future gravel footprint would be approximately 0.44% of that area. 

Aircraft, vehicle, and barge traffic would all increase under this alternative but to a lesser

extent than the other alternatives. Cumulatively more eiders would be subject to overflights; 

however, most eiders would not be subject to more overflights as a result of the cumulative 

increase in air traffic. This is because development would take place over a wide area resulting 

in flights occurring across a greater extent of eider habitat, rather than increasing flight density 

in the same area. Regional hub type airports such as Barrow, Deadhorse, Alpine, and Kuparuk 

4-783 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

would likely see increased flight density, and a cumulative increase in disturbances due to 

increased flight numbers. 

Under Alternative A, the unlikely large oil spill offshore remains the most significant potential 

effect and could result in population consequences that would make the relatively minor 

existing and potential impacts from oil and gas development significant. The most significant 

known impact to eiders is lead shot exposure on the Y-K Delta and probably ACP. If lead is 

reducing fitness additional individually minor impacts could become significant cumulatively to 

eiders already in marginal condition due to lead. 

Alternative B: 

Alternative B is assumed to result in the direct impact to 3,716 acres of tundra that could 

provide habitat to spectacled and Steller’s eider. This number includes acres lost to gravel 

mines. This is approximately 10.9% of the area currently or expected to be impacted on the 

North Slope. If it is assumed that all past, present, and future development will occur within 

the area encompassed by the Arctic Coastal Plain Breeding Eider survey area (i.e. Larned et al 

2006) the total past and future gravel footprint would be approximately 0.45% of that area. 

Aircraft, vehicle, and barge traffic would increase compared to Alternative A, be less than 

Alternative C, and be similar to Alternative D. 

Other factors currently or potentially impacting eiders are the same as under Alternative A, a 

potential large offshore oil spill and the effects of lead. Whether the incremental increase in 

acres impacted and disturbance potential between Alternatives A and B when added to the 

cumulative effects considered is significant is speculative at this time. Where development 

actually occurs relative to eiders, the availability of alternate nesting habitat, and eider 

tolerance of development are all factors that are poorly known at this time. However, 

Alternative B opens some area north of Teshekpuk Lake not available under Alternative A 

where spectacled eider density is higher. In addition, development north of Teshekpuk Lake 

may increase the likelihood that full development of Northwest NPR-A would occur. Although 

Steller’s eider are very rare in most areas of the North Slope, they are most concentrated in the

area south of Barrow. If facilitating development in Northwest NPR-A resulted in additional 

development in this area, impacts to Steller’s eiders would be more likely under Alternative B 

than in Alternative A. 

Alternative C: 

Alternative C is assumed to result in the direct impact to 4,649 acres of tundra that could 

provide habitat to spectacled and Steller’s eider. This number includes acres lost to gravel 

mines. This is approximately 13.3% of the area currently or expected to be impacted on the 

North Slope. If it is assumed that all past, present, and future development will occur within 

the area encompassed by the Arctic Coastal Plain Breeding Eider survey area (i.e. Larned et al 

2006) the total past and future gravel footprint would be approximately 0.46% of that area. 

Aircraft, vehicle, and barge traffic would all be greater than under the other alternatives. 

Although its individual impact would likely be higher than Alternatives A, B, and D, 

cumulatively it is hard to discern the relative incremental impact of Alternative C from other 

factors considered in this cumulative effects analysis. Therefore, Alternative C would be 

expected to have a similar addition to the cumulative effects as other alternatives when 

considered at that large scale. Alternative C is probably the most likely to facilitate 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-784 

Cumulative Impacts: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

development in Northwest NPR-A. If facilitating development in Northwest NPR-A resulted in 

additional development in eider habitat, impacts to Steller’s eiders would be more likely. 

Alternative D: 

Alternative D is assumed to result in the direct impact to 4,378 acres of tundra that could 

provide habitat to spectacled and Steller’s eider. This number includes acres lost to gravel 

mines. This is approximately 12.6% of the area currently and expected to be impacted on the 

North Slope. If it is assumed that all past, present, and future development will occur within 

the area encompassed by the Arctic Coastal Plain Breeding Eider survey area (i.e. Larned et al 

2006) the total past and future gravel footprint would be approximately 0.45% of that area. 

Aircraft, vehicle, and barge traffic would all be greater than under Alternative A, Less than 

Alternative C and similar to Alternative B. 

The cumulative addition of Alternative D would be very similar to that described for Alternative 

B. 

4.7.7.10-b.5 Conclusion 

The cumulative effects to spectacled and Steller’s eiders caused by future developments both 

onshore and offshore of the planning area, and on land, including within the Northwest NPR-A, 

and east and south of the planning area, would be greater than those caused by activities 

associated with the Supplemental IAP/EIS alternatives alone. However, total acres of tundra 

conversion to gravel relative to the total amount of area covered by the ACP Eider survey is 

minimal; the contribution of 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 less than 1% 

of the tundra within the northern range of the eiders. Direct habitat impact estimates without 

location information of development and eiders suggest that cumulative habitat impacts would 

be 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 Teshekpuk Lake cumulative impact 

under Alternatives B, D, and C would increase in that order. Facilitation of development in 

Northwest NPR-A could increase the total impact, but the assessment of acres impacted above 

and for each alternative includes the Northwest NPR-A development at its full potential. 

The effects of disturbance from noise, aircraft, vehicle, and ship traffic, and other sources are 

likely to affect significantly more eiders than direct habitat impacts. However, the available 

information suggests that past disturbance effects have at least not caused population declines 

(population growth not significantly different than 0 after 14 years; Larned et al 2006), and 

vehicle and aircraft activity do not appear to result in changes in nesting eider density or 

nesting success (Johnson et al 2006). These studies are limited by precision (Larned et al 2006)

and very short study period (Johnson et al 2006). Changes may occur to slowly to be detected 

results confounded by environmental variation. Future development in higher density eider 

areas may have different results. Further minor impacts resulting from existing development

may have significant effects if future development results in population effects from a large

offshore oil spill or disturbance of Critical Habitat resulting in abandonment and reduced 

fitness of a significant portion of the population. 

There is likely little difference in the incremental affect of the Alternatives when viewed in the

cumulative context; however, if assuming that alternatives that open areas of higher eider 

density and that a greater footprint equates to greater disturbance effects, Alternative C would 

result in the greatest contribution to cumulative effects to eiders, followed by D and B. 

4-785 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Alternative A would have the least. The long term effects of climate change and lead exposure

are not known and may individually or combined result in significant population level effects. 

The influence of the alternatives and other development is likely to be minor and could be 

undetectable from the natural variation or separable from the effects of climate change or lead 

exposure. 

4.7.7.10-c Polar Bear 

Although some polar bears from the Chukchi Sea probably occur within the planning area, 

bears from the Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) stock are expected to predominate (Amstrup 1995);

therefore this analysis focuses on cumulative effects to the SBS population of polar bears. 

4.7.7.10-c.1 Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Activities not related directly to oil and gas development that occur within the range of the SBS 

Population and could affect polar bears, include: coastal development, wildlife research and 

survey activities, subsistence harvest, and environmental contamination, may have contributed 

to past and current cumulative effects to polar bears. 

Coastal Development: Gravel placement for North Slope villages and military installations is 

estimated to have impacted approximately 2,500 acres (section 4.7.2). Most but not all of this 

development has occurred along the coast line. This development and associated disturbance 

have likely removed or made unavailable denning habitat, but likely has had limited if any 

impact on polar bears as most SBS bears historically denned offshore. Coastal development 

also likely increased disturbance effects to bears but there is no evidence that this has 

significantly affected the SBS population. 

Wildlife Research and Survey Activities: The SBS stock of polar bears is one of the most 

studied in the world. Research and survey activities include denning surveys from aircraft, and 

telemetry studies, which include tranquilizing female bears from aircraft. Review of den 

occupancy and reproductive success suggest that these activities have no measurable effects on 

individual bears or the population (Amstrup 1993). The effects of research are unlikely to have 

affected the SBS stock of polar bears. 

Subsistence Harvest: Before the Marine Mammal Protection Act became law in 1972, active 

sport hunting for polar bears off western and northern Alaska reduced the population (Amstrup 

et al. 1986). Following passage of the MMPA, marine mammals can be hunted only for 

subsistence and handicraft purposes by Alaska Natives, and, unless populations are declared 

depleted, there are no federally-imposed limits on this type of hunting. Since 1988, hunting of 

polar bears from the southern Beaufort Sea stock has been controlled by a conservation 

agreement between the Iñupiat of northern Alaska and the Inuvialuit of the western Canadian 

Arctic, who hunt a shared population (Nageak et al. 1991). The average number of SBS bears 

taken each year from 1995 to 2000 in the U.S and Canada is 51.8, below the estimated 

“potential biological removal level” of 59 (Angliss and Outlaw 2005). However, the calculated 

potential biological removal was calculated from a higher population estimate than the current 

estimate of approximately 1,500 (Regehr et al. 2006). Harvest of polar bears for subsistence 

purposes may reduce the rate of population growth, but since harvest rate has average below

the potential biological removal, harvested bears are replaced by recruitment and it is unlikely 

the harvest has accumulated. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-786 

Cumulative Impacts: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Environmental Contamination: The accumulation of contaminants in polar bears has been 

well documented. Schliebe et al. (2006; p 152 - 175) provide the most comprehensive review of 

contaminants and the potential biological effects they may have on polar bears. The following is 

a summary of Schliebe et al. (2006). Potential contaminants that may have or be affecting SBS 

polar bears include petroleum hydrocarbons from natural seeps, vehicles, and atmospheric or 

water transport, persistent organic pollutants, and heavy metals. 

There is no evidence that petroleum hydrocarbon exposure to polar bears have effect individuals 

of the SBS stock. Natural sources remain, but have not increased, and while the non-oil and 

gas anthropogenic contribution may have increased over time, historic concentrations have 

likely degraded. There is likely some small increase in the potential for exposure but no

evidence of an effect. Impacts are not likely to have accumulated. 

Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) arrive in the arctic via many routes and mechanisms. 

Bioaccumulation of POPs in top level predators is common, and polar bears are reported to have 

some of the highest concentrations of arctic mammals (Braune et al. 2005). Some types of POPs 

have declined in polar bears overtime, others are new or increasing. No effects to the SBS 

population have been detected, but no controlled experiments have been conducted. Population

level effects have been suggested for other populations, but the lack of information on biological 

thresholds to exposure prevents an estimate of past and present effects of POPs on the SBS 

population of polar bears. POPs have accumulated; however, their impacts are unknown, but 

could be having population level effects, or more likely contribute to the severity of other events. 

Mercury is the heavy metal of primary concern to polar bears because of its toxicity in low 

concentrations and that it has increased significantly since the pre-industrial period. Mercury

poisoning may manifest as neurological impairment, compromised immune response and

damage to internal organs. However, marine mammals appear to tolerate relatively high 

concentrations of mercury and examples of mercury poisoning are few. Mercury has

accumulated in the arctic and likely within polar bears. It has not been shown to be impacting 

individuals or populations but may be acting indirectly to increase the severity of other 

stressors. 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Seismic Activity and Exploration: Onshore and offshore seismic activity has occurred within 

the range of the SBS stock for decades. It is likely that seismic and other exploration has 

resulted in numerous types and instances of disturbances including those caused by aircraft, 

vehicular, pedestrian, and vessel traffic, construction and drilling activities, noise and activity 

at facilities. 

For most of the year, polar bears are not very sensitive to noise or other human disturbances 

(Amstrup 1993; Richardson et al. 1995). However, pregnant females and those with newborn 

cubs in maternity dens both on land and on sea ice are sensitive to noise and vehicular traffic 

(Amstrup and Gardner 1994). Seismic exploration has disturbed a bear in a maternity den 

(USDOI USFWS 1986). Current regulations require industry to avoid polar bear dens as much 

as possible (USDOI USFWS 1995b). Seismic and other exploration has likely resulted in 

impacts to individual bears, particularly denning females and may have resulted in decreased 

reproduction, but these effects are intermittent and not likely to accumulate or effect the 

population through time. 

4-787 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Oil and Gas Development: Oil and gas development on the North Slope has resulted in 

approximately 17,000 acres of tundra converted to grave or gravel mines. Several artificial 

offshore islands have been constructed as well as two grave causeways (West Dock and

Endicott). Some polar bear denning habitat has likely been altered or made unavailable as a 

result of construction and human activity, however, the amount and effect is unknown, but 

likely minimal, since the majority of historic dens where offshore, and most land dens were to 

the east of major development (Amstrup and Gardner 1994). 

Two polar bears have been killed in Alaska since 1968 in defense of life and property related to 

the oil industry; however, more than 30 were killed over the same period in Canada (Schliebe et 

al. 2006), at least some of these bears were from the SBS stock. 

The MMPA restrictions and resulting interactions between the industry and U.S Fish and 

Wildlife service have likely played a large role in active avoidance and minimization of impacts 

to polar bears. Industry has undoubtedly impacted some polar bears but there is no evidence

that this effect has resulted in changes to the population (USFWS 2007). 

Spills 

Onshore spills have been relatively common but generally small (NRC 2003), and offshore spills 

have been less common and smaller (USDOI MMS 2006). No spill has been associated with 

adverse effects on SBS polar bears. 

Summary of Past and Present Impacts and Their Accumulation. Subsistence harvest 

likely has the largest anthropogenic impact on SBS polar bears, but is unlikely to have done

more than level off population growth in some years. Contaminants are common in polar bears 

and have accumulated through time, but no effect on polar bears has been demonstrated; 

however, studies are lacking and contaminants may be acting indirectly by increasing the 

severity of other stressors. Still no apparent population effects are evident. Approximately 

2,500 acres have been disturbed from non-oil and gas development and approximately 17,000 

acres more from oil development on the North Slope. Although only a small portion of this area 

may have been used by polar bears much of it has occurred along the coastline and could have 

impacted denning bears and their habitat. Seismic and other exploration work has disturbed 

denning bears and likely resulted in at least some reduced reproductive output. DLP killings of 

polar bears have occurred but they are very few. Past and present effects (aside from early 

sport hunting) to polar bears are not believed to have adversely affected the SBS stock of polar 

bears and the current level of impact is expected to be sustainable by the population. 

4.7.7.10-c.2 Future Effects and Their Accumulation 

Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Activities not associated with oil and gas exploration in the future are expected to be 

continuations of those described for the past and present above (except for sport hunting in the

US) although rates may change. With the exception of contaminants these activities are well 

managed and unlikely to impact polar bears significantly in the future through accumulation. 

The effects of contaminants projected into the future are largely unknown. Worldwide 

regulatory reform and compliance will play a role in the continued accumulation and 

subsequent effects. The potential remains that the effects of contaminants would remain sublethal with no overt effects, but when combined with other typically sublethal stressors such as 

disease or reduced food supply, may result in mortality. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-788 

Cumulative Impacts: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Future effects of the oil and gas industry are likely to be similar to past effects and largely be 

limited to disturbance particularly to denning females and taking in defense of life and 

property. On and offshore seismic and other exploration activity is expected to continue and

will have the potential to disturb polar bears. These activities are most likely to have adverse 

impacts during the late fall and winter when females are establishing or occupying dens. 

Approximately 8,800 acres of new gravel for future development is expected to replace tundra. 

This total includes areas within the Northwest NPR-A planning area that are outside the SBS 

range; however it is expected that a large percentage of it will occur within areas used by polar 

bears and some denning habitat is expected to be lost. Development east of Prudhoe Bay 

onshore or at sea would likely have a larger potential to impact SBS polar bears because den 

density increases in those areas. Increased exploration and potential development offshore in 

the Beaufort may increase with concomitant increases in disturbance potentials. However, 

interactions between the industry and U.S Fish and Wildlife Service required by the MMPA, 

and implemented through Letters of Authorization are expected to continue to keep those 

potential effects minimal (USFWS 2007) and not result significant effects to the population. 

MMS predicted minimal effects (take of less than 10 bears over the life of the program) 

resulting from the Beaufort Sea OCS leases (USDOI MMS 2003; 2006). 

The potential for a large oil spill – particularly at sea in broken ice – remains the biggest 

potential threat to polar bears (USDOI MMS 2006). Onshore spills would be less likely to 

impact a significant number of bears given the wide distribution of denning bears. A spill along 

the coast line, or in a river system, particularly east of Prudhoe Bay where land dens are most 

dense would be the most likely to impact more than a few bears. 

4.7.7.10-c.3 Global Climate Change 

The potential effects of climate change on polar bears are extensively reviewed in Derocher

(Derocher et al. 2004, Schliebe et al. 2006). If climate change proceeds as most accepted models 

predict it will have significant effects on polar bear populations world-wide. After considering

multiple individual factors potentially affecting polar bears into the future, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service determined that only the potential effects of climate change on polar bears 

warranted the proposal the polar bears be listed under the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 

2007). Climate change is expected to act on polar bears by causing reductions in the amount 

and seasonal extent of sea ice, reducing access to prey (ringed seals) and denning sites. 

Increased spring precipitation may also result in den collapse killing females and young. 

Increased onshore denning and apparent increase in dens it the eastern portion of the SBS 

stock’s range is likely associated with changes in ice conditions and seasonality (Amstrup, 

unpublished data in Schliebe et al 2006). 

4.7.7.10-c.4 Contribution of Supplement Alternatives to Cumulative Effects 

Alternative A 

Seismic activity is expected to be similar under all alternatives. While seismic exploration has 

the potential to affect polar bears, management tools currently in use appear to largely limit the

potential for adverse impacts (Schliebe et al. 2006). 

4-789 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Alternative A is assumed to result in the direct impact to 3,270 acres of tundra, some portion of 

which could provide denning habitat for polar bears. Development would be limited to areas 

south of Teshekpuk Lake; therefore, would not be expected to alter coastal denning habitat in 

that area. Aircraft, vehicle, and barge traffic would all increase under this alternative but to a 

lesser extent than the other alternatives. These activities have not been shown to impact polar 

bears, although some individuals may be affected. Compliance with MMPA and related 

procedures as well as lease stipulations expected to reduce the likelihood of impacts. 

Under Alternative A, the unlikely very large oil spill (VLOS) along the coast or entering marine 

waters remains the most significant potential effect and could result in population 

consequences. A VLOS that contacted a substantial portion of the population could make the 

relatively minor existing and potential impacts from oil and gas development and other 

activities significant by shifting the population level downward and increasing the relative 

effects of what are currently believed to be minimal impacts. 

Alternative B 

Seismic exploration is expected to be similar in extent among alternatives with similar potential 

of disturbance of females in dens. Alternative B is assumed to result in the direct impact to 

3,716 acres of tundra that could provide denning habitat for polar bears. Although the relative 

increase in potential direct impact is minor, because coastal areas north of Teshekpuk Lake

would be made available for leasing under this alternative, the potential for impacts to denning

habitat are higher. 

Development north of Teshekpuk Lake may increase the likelihood that full development of 

Northwest NPR-A and/or offshore development would occur. The NEPA documents for 

Northwest NPR-A and the Beaufort Sea OCS leases assume full development and the potential 

cumulative addition of each is as discuses above. Alternative B makes it somewhat more likely 

that the full development scenario for those areas may actually be reached compared to 

Alternative A. 

Aircraft, vehicle, and barge traffic would increase compared to Alternative A, be less than 

Alternative C, and be similar to Alternative D. 

As with Alternative A, the unlikely very large oil spill (VLOS) along the coast or entering 

marine waters is the most significant potential effect and could result in population 

consequences. A VLOS that contacted a substantial portion of the population could make the 

relatively minor existing and potential impacts from oil and gas development and other 

activities significant by shifting the population level downward and increasing the relative 

effects of what are currently believed to be minimal impacts. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C is assumed to result in the direct impact to 4,649 acres of tundra. Seismic activity

is expected to be equivalent to the other alternatives, while aircraft, vehicle, and barge traffic 

would be greater than all other alternatives. Although the entire area north of Teshekpuk Lake

is available for leasing under this alternative, the 3⁄4 mile coastal buffer required by Lease 

Stipulation K-6 would protect most coastal denning habitat. However because more area is 

made available for leasing, and more development is expected, this alternative is expected to 

have the greatest potential to impact polar bears. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-790 

Cumulative Impacts: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Development north of Teshekpuk Lake is most likely under this alternative and could affect the 

greatest area of any alternative. This makes Alternative C the most likely to influence 

development in Northwest NPR-A and/or offshore. As with other alternatives, it is not expected

to result in additional development in these areas, just to make it more likely that development

would occur at the estimated amount. 

A VLOS reaching marine waters would be the only impact associated with development that 

could have population level effects. Such an event is slightly more likely under this alternative, 

but is still considered extremely unlikely, and it is more unlikely that the combination of 

location of the spill and bears necessary to impact sufficient individuals to result in population 

impacts would occur. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D is assumed to result in the direct impact to 4,378 acres of tundra. Seismic activity 

is expected to be equivalent to the other alternatives, while aircraft, vehicle, and barge traffic 

would be greater than all other alternatives. Although the entire area north of Teshekpuk Lake

is available for leasing under this alternative, the 3⁄4 mile coastal buffer required by Lease 

Stipulation K-6, and protections for goose molting lakes (K-4) would protect most coastal 

denning habitat. However compared to Alternatives A and B, Alternative D has a greater 

potential to impact polar bears. 

Alternative D also could facilitate development in Northwest NPR-A and/or offshore. The 

potential influence under Alternative D is expected to be similar to Alternative B since

development in the northwestern corner of the planning area is expected to have the most 

influence on adjacent developments. 

As with the other Alternatives a VLOS poses the single greatest threat, but such an event 

remains unlikely and is not expected to occur. 

4.7.7.10-c.5 Conclusion 

Alternative C would contribute the greatest potential addition to cumulative impact among the 

alternatives, while Alternative A the least. However, when considered cumulatively with the 

other historic and potential future actions, there is little difference between the alternatives 

regarding potential to impact polar bears relative to the cumulative combination of all effects. 

Historic sport hunting depressed the SBS population in the past, but the population is believed 

to have recovered. Oil and gas development has not and is not expected to result in significant 

impacts to the population (USFSWS 2006). A large oil spill, particularly one offshore in the 

Beaufort Sea could impact a significant number of bears in the SBS population (MMS 2006). 

Non-oil and gas activities are well managed and do not appear to be causing population level 

effects. The lack of information regarding the effect and accumulation of contaminants 

prohibits fully understanding those effects, but there is no current evidence that contaminants 

are affecting the SBS population (USFWS 2007). 

Recent past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that could affect polar bears are not 

expected to accumulate to the level that result in population level effects. The effects are either

well managed, (e.g. subsistence harvest, seismic and development actions under the MMPA) or 

rare (e.g. industry related DLP killing) (USFWS 2007). 

4-791 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Climate change poses the biggest threat to polar bears and is expected to result at least in a 

change in distribution and at most possible extirpation through reduction of sea ice extent and 

seasonality (Derocher et al. 2004, USFWS 2007). Considering the effects of development into 

the future in the context of climate change suggests that stresses to polar bears caused by 

climate change may be exacerbated by direct anthropogenic impacts. Impacts that without 

climate change would result in minimal additional energy expenditure, limited reductions in 

reproductive success, or mortality rates, but remain within the resilience capacity of 

individuals/populations could increase in magnitude with the addition of climate change 

stressors and result in increased/additional mortality or chronic reproductive failure. The 

number of encounters (impact likelihood) could also increase if more bears are onshore for

longer due to sea ice reduction. Impacts that are currently non-significant may become 

significant in the context of climate change. Current mitigation and avoidance measures used

for development and management of subsistence harvest have prevented significant effects. 

Continuation of these efforts coupled with an active monitoring program and adaptive

management could reduce the incremental contribution of direct anthropogenic addition to the 

effects of climate change. Climate change by itself may still result in significant impacts to 

polar bears, but continued good management should reduce the potential additive effects of

development and resource management. 

4.7.7.11 Cultural Resources 

Cultural resources, including archaeological and historic sites and materials as well as 

traditional cultural properties, have a very limited ability to absorb cumulative impacts. 

Cultural resources are not a renewable resource. Cultural resources risk being destroyed by 

erosion, construction, excavation, data collection, and looting, through the removal of artifacts 

from their surrounding contexts, moving the material such that it loses context, or the removal 

or re-deposition of artifacts and their surrounding context to another location. Cultural 

properties, including camps, cabins, hunting and fishing sites, graves, and areas of particular 

religious or traditional importance, lose their integrity, and thus their potential eligibility for 

the NRHP, when they become degraded as a result of natural or human disturbance processes, 

or when the people who value these places can no longer access them, thus losing their cultural 

connection to the site over time. 

The following section discusses the cumulative impacts on cultural resources as they occur from

the past into the reasonably foreseeable future (1900-2100). Several key factors, as discussed in 

section 3.4.1, could contribute to impacts on North Slope cultural resources during this time 

period, including oil and gas exploration (1920s through the present), military activity following 

World War II (e.g., DEW-line and White Alice Communication System [WACS]), Federal laws 

and regulations concerning impacts to cultural resources (e.g., National Historic Preservation 

Act [1966], NEPA [1969], Archaeological Resources Protection Act [1979]), archaeological 

surveys (Section 106 and NPR-A 105(c) studies), and the collection of oral history and 

traditional land use sites by the NSB (e.g., Traditional Land Use Inventory). 

4.7.7.11.1 Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Before oil and gas exploration and development, North Slope cultural resources were subject 

only to the effects of the natural environment, such as the forming, deforming, and destroying of 

existing sites, and the effects of human activity, such as Native people reusing found objects and 

materials, and explorers and other visitors taking material from the sites. Activities which have 

had the greatest affect on cultural resources in the NPR-A and along the Arctic Coast are most 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-792 

Cumulative Impacts: T&E Species 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

likely linked to both oil development and military activity, given that the area was designated 

as a Naval Petroleum Reserve in 1923. 

Interest in the geology and archaeology of the North Slope began in earnest at the beginning of 

the 20th century, but access was generally limited to coastal or easily accessible areas (see 

section 3.4.1.8, European/Euro-American Expansion, Exploration, and Ethnographic 

Research). Effects to cultural resources in the NPR-A have been occurring since 1923 when oil 

and gas exploration and mapping began with USGS surveys of the Reserve, assisted by Native 

guides such as Simon Paneak. Early oil and gas ground-disturbing activities conducted by the 

U.S. Navy included exploratory drilling and geophysical and geological surveys, beginning in 

1944, and shallow core tests and test wells drilled between 1945 and 1952. During this period, 

about 3,400 miles of seismic-reflection surveys and 391 miles of seismic-refraction surveys were 

completed within and adjacent to the Reserve (see section 4.7.3.1, Past Exploration, 

Development, and Production on the North Slope and in the planning area). There has 

been little documentation of these early impacts, and there is no record of cultural resource

identification or mitigation efforts from this early time period. 

With the onset of the Cold War, military activity on the North Slope also affected cultural 

resources. During the 1950s, ground-disturbing activities associated with the rapid construction 

of the DEW-line and White Alice Communication System sites affected cultural resources;

however, no effort was made during this period to mitigate effects to cultural resources 

potentially affected by industrial or military activities, despite protection provided to cultural 

resources under the Antiquities Act of 1906. Public testimony and historical literature have 

noted that cultural resources were disturbed or destroyed and access to traditional use sites was 

limited by industrial and military activity during this time period (Brown 1979). During the 

1998 scoping meeting in Barrow for the Northeast NPR-A, Arnold Brower, Jr. noted that his 

grandfather’s house and dwelling in Brownlow Point was demolished so that the DEW-line 

could have an airport in the same location. 

Continued and increasing amounts of oil and gas exploration and drilling across the North 

Slope further affected cultural resources and Native peoples’ relationships with their ancestral 

homelands. Following Alaska statehood in 1959, land selections were made by the state 

government, which did not include Native land ownership except as provided for under the 

Native Allotment Act of 1906. No effort was made at that time to inventory, identify, record, or 

document Native land use or historic and archaeological sites as a result of these land

selections. As a result of this lack of strong legal protections, oil development and production

during this initial period severely impacted cultural resources and diminished some peoples’ 

relationships with their individual and collective history. Sarah Kunaknana related the 

following experience while testifying at the scoping meeting held for Sale BF in Nuiqsut in 

1979: 

My name is Sarah Kunakanna and I have lived in this area since 1921. Our family 

stayed at Prudhoe Bay until late 1930’s. Our old sod house is still standing today. When 

I visited last summer, I saw the pingos we used for duck blinds was a burning pit. Our 

place is a barge landing place instead of a fishing camp site. I guess people that are 

aware of Prudhoe Bay know that old shack on the east dock. That’s where her house is 

still in position. That’s the one she’s talking about. There are a lot of old sites, camping 

sites, fishing sites along the line. They are there and are being threatened by 

development. 

4-793 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Cultural Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

The most intense oil and gas development activity occurred during the 1970s and early 1980s 

(e.g., development of the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk oil fields, construction of TAPS and the 

haul road, and construction of a large portion of the roads, drilling pads, gravel sources, 

collector pipelines, and production facilities). These developments occurred following the 

passage of the NHPA (1966) and NEPA (1969). These laws mandated the identification of 

cultural resources potentially affected by developments and mitigation of the impacts. In 

addition, these developments resulted in the discovery of many previously undocumented

cultural resources. In part, increased oil and gas exploration and development activity prompted

the NSB to initiate the Traditional Land Use Inventory (NSB Contract Staff 1979; Schneider 

and Libbey 1979). In 1977 and 1978, an archaeological survey was conducted in selected areas 

of the NPR-A, as mandated by Congress under Public Law 94-258, the Naval Petroleum 

Reserves Production Act. This survey resulted in the identification of 728 cultural resource

sites. The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 added additional protections for 

cultural resources on public or Native-owned lands. In addition, the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 provided protection for Native human remains, sacred 

objects, and associated funerary objects on Federal and Native-owned lands. 

Summary of Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Effects to cultural resources from road and pad construction and gravel mining, and disturbance 

associated with development and production activities have occurred in the past and persist 

today. Gravel roads, gravel pads, and gravel mines have caused surface disturbances that could 

have impacted cultural resources. Over 500 acres of peat roads were constructed, and gravel 

footprints have impacted over 9,200 acres. Gravel mines have impacted another 6,360 acres of 

vegetation, with over 5,000 acres of gravel being mined in rivers, where cultural resources are 

often found. 

The above factors illustrate an improvement in the identification of cultural resources prior to

ground-disturbing activities. Federal regulations and management stipulations regarding 

cultural resources were developed to mitigate impacts to cultural resources. However, increased 

development and exploration activities, while prompting the identification of the majority of 

cultural resources in NPR-A and the North Slope, have increased the cumulative effects to these 

resources. 

4.7.7.11.2 Future Effects and Their Accumulation 

Cultural resources are distributed unevenly across the North Slope. Areas with high 

probabilities of prehistoric and historic use are generally predictable, but specific subsurface 

cultural resources are often unknown until some sort of disturbance occurs, making it difficult 

to assess the cumulative impacts to cultural resources. The more oil and gas associated 

activities that occur, the larger the area affected and the greater the possibility that cultural 

resources would be impacted. 

Increased oil and gas development activities on the North Slope would result in an increased

need for gravel for infrastructure construction. The excavation of up to 2,200 acres of gravel by 

the end of this century for well pads, roads, and airstrips could impact cultural resources. Most

prehistoric and historic sites are located on well-drained ground, and on the North Slope, welldrained ground often equates with gravel deposits, which are not common in the northern 

portion of the NPR-A. As a result, a gravel deposit with some degree of surface exposure would

likely be associated with a cultural resource site. Therefore, the more gravel deposits with 

surface exposures excavated for the construction of permanent facilities associated with 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-794 

Cumulative Impacts: Cultural Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

development, the higher chance that impacts to cultural resources would occur. If a pipeline is

built to bring North Slope gas to market, it would stimulate considerable gas development in 

the region. Many hundreds of miles of buried gas pipeline could result thus increasing the 

potential for impacts to cultural resources. 

Because of their surface or near-surface stratigraphic contexts, cultural resources are not well 

protected by soil and vegetation, and are vulnerable to any surface or subsurface-disturbing 

activity. Exploration would be more likely to affect cultural resources than development 

activities, with the possible exception of gas pipeline burial, because basic exploration activities, 

such as seismic work, ice road and pad construction, and overland travel affect a much greater 

surface area than the construction associated with development. Although snow cover and

frozen ground offer some protection to cultural deposits, they also cover the surface, making 

cultural resources difficult to recognize and avoid. In addition, most exploration-related 

operations occur in the low light conditions of winter; therefore, surveys of proposed activity 

areas and overland travel routes during the snow-free months preceding the initiation of winter

exploration activities are important. 

The effects of a large terrestrial oil spill on a cultural deposit would be directly related to the 

time of year and the context of the resource. If the spill occurred during the time of year when 

the ground is not frozen there would be a higher potential for an effect on cultural resources. 

Cultural resources could be contaminated by oil, making radiocarbon and other elemental 

assays valueless. However, the majority of effects would occur as the result of the cleanup 

rather than from the actual spill. During the winter months, both a spill and the resulting 

cleanup would have considerably less effects on surface and subsurface cultural resources,

although warm oil could melt the snow and permafrost, damaging any underlying cultural 

resources. Hydrocarbon contamination could reduce the possibility that radiocarbon dating 

techniques could be reliably applied to affected material, making the dating of any recovered 

material problematic and increasing the cost of preserving and storing any such artifacts. 

In general, impacts to cultural resources from future events would accumulate with effects that 

occurred in the past. Increased oil and gas exploration and development activities would 

increase the potential of impacting cultural resources. However, Federal and state regulations 

and management policies are likely to remain in effect and would continue to allow for the 

identification of cultural resources and mitigation of impacts prior to ground-disturbing 

activities. 

4.7.7.11.3 Global Climate Change 

Climate change could cause changes to the environment and habitats of the North Slope that 

could seriously affect cultural resources (ACIA 2004). Climate change could result in changes to 

vegetation coverage and type and the physical structure of the landscape itself (ACIA 2004). 

The thawing of permanently frozen ground could result in the erosion of river banks and beach 

bluffs, which would result in the destruction of known and undocumented historic sites as 

artifacts and sites were washed away. In addition, the thawing of permanently frozen ground

could result in decreased preservation of subsurface cultural materials; natural processes, such 

as erosion, have exposed most known cultural deposits on the North Slope, particularly in areas 

with little or no organic soil and sparse vegetation. In most cases, this type of natural impact is 

viewed as positive rather than negative, as it reveals the presence of sites and usually generates 

few substantial effects. The action of flowing water, seasonal freezing and thawing 

(cryoturbation), thermokarsting, pingo and patterned earth formation, and solifluction can 

reveal cultural deposits, but can also cause minor impacts to cultural resources. Aggrading and 

4-795 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Cultural Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

eroding shorelines along the Beaufort and Chukchi coastlines and in the barrier islands have 

likely exposed or destroyed a large number of sites in areas too remote for archaeological 

recordation, such as Thetis Island. Climate change will also cause the alteration of weather 

patterns and an increase in the frequency and intensity of spring and fall storms is likely to 

occur adversely effecting near-shore cultural deposits. Increased maritime activity along the 

coastal areas, in waterways, and in lakes could result in increased erosion due to boat wakes, 

exposing and possibly destroying coastal and riverine cultural resources. 

4.7.7.11.4 Contribution of Supplement Alternatives to Cumulative Effects 

The greatest potential for cumulative effects would occur under Alternative C, as the greatest

portion of the planning area would be available for leasing, and the amount of development 

proposed under the alternative is greater than for the other alternatives. The potential for 

cumulative effects under Alternative B would be about 20% less than C while Alternative D 

would be about 10% less than C. Much of the northeastern portion of the planning area would 

be closed to leasing under Alternative B. Teshekpuk Lake would be deferred from leasing under

Alternative D, but the likelihood of a large number of cultural resources being found in the lake 

would be small. However, RSO restrictions on permanent facilities in caribou habitat protection 

areas and the Goose Molting Area would limit the amount of surface disturbance that could

occur north and east of Teshekpuk Lake; these restrictions would reduce the likelihood of

cumulative effects to cultural resources within the planning area. Under Alternative A, about 

600,000 acres in the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area would be closed to leasing. 

Also to be considered is the potential contribution to regional cumulative impacts generated by 

the Northeast NPR-A Alternatives that could increase the possibility of adverse affects on 

cultural resources in the northeastern portion of Northwest NPR-A. Because Alternative A does 

not allow oil and gas infrastructure north of Teshekpuk Lake, an area believed to be of high oil

and gas potential, it would probably serve to reduce/slow development in adjacent Northwest 

NPR-A in comparison with the other Northeast NPR-A Alternatives. Alternative C has the 

greatest potential for increasing cumulative impacts on cultural resources in northeastern 

Northwest NPR-A followed by Alternatives D and B. 

Lease stipulations and ROPs developed for the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD and this 

Supplement would reduce the likelihood of oil and gas exploration and development activities

impacting cultural resources. These include actions that require operators use low-groundpressure vehicles and cease operations when the spring melt of snow begins; prohibit

exploratory drilling near any known, long-term cabin or campsite; require setbacks along rivers, 

streams, lakes, cabins, and the coast, providing additional protection for cultural resources and

traditional/cultural land use areas; minimize cultural and resource conflicts through an 

orientation program for personnel that would include instruction on the importance of not 

disturbing archaeological resources and sensitivity to community values, customs, and 

lifestyles; require an inventory of known traditional land use sites (NSB TLUI sites; see 

Appendix I) prior to any field activity so that these sites can be avoided and any damage from

field activities can be mitigated; and require a cultural resources survey prior to any ground 

disturbing activity. If cultural resources are identified during surveys, BLM guidelines and 

policy require that all potential effects to the resources be mitigated to the satisfaction of the 

land manager. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-796 

Cumulative Impacts: Cultural Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7.7.11.5 Conclusion 

Cultural resources are nonrenewable, and displacement or contamination of cultural resources 

could affect the cultural and scientific values of the resource. The cumulative effects of oil and 

gas exploration and development within the planning area and across the North Slope are

difficult to estimate given the scattered nature of cultural resource deposits, their surface or 

near-surface contexts, and difficulty in predicting their location. As long as surveys and 

inventories were completed prior to exploration and development, the effects on cultural 

resources would be minimized. The accidental discovery or damage to sites, presently known or 

unknown, would to some extent damage those sites, but would also require measures to recover

or record the remaining material, adding that information to the archaeological record of the 

North Slope. 

In this case, Alternative A would contribute the least toward cumulative impacts with the 

potential to directly and indirectly generate adverse affects on terrestrial cultural resources on

the North Slope. Alternatives B, C and D have a greater potential for creating cumulative 

impacts because all of those Alternatives allow more area of high oil and gas probability to be 

leased (submerged off-shore cultural resources, if present, would generally not be threatened by 

off-shore oil and gas exploration/development activities). 

Federal and state regulation and management policies require agencies, or their permittees, to

complete a cultural resources survey before any undertaking occurs (i.e., a ground-disturbing 

activity, such as well drilling, construction of infrastructure or the construction of buried 

pipelines) not only on state and Federal lands but on lands that may be affected by the issuance 

of a Federal permit. BLM’s guidelines and policies require that all effects to any cultural 

resources identified during surveys must be mitigated to the satisfaction of the land manager 

and the SHPO. Lease stipulations and ROPs developed for the action alternatives would 

minimize or prohibit exploration and development activities near major rivers, reducing the 

likelihood of impacts to cultural resources. 

4.7.7.12 Subsistence 

The Iñupiat people of the North Slope of Alaska have created, over the span of their history, a

set of tools, behaviors, and cultural values that enabled them not merely to survive, but to 

thrive and expand into much of the Arctic, from Greenland to Siberia. Only in the last 180 years 

has contact with Euroamericans gone from seasonal trading to long-term occupation, and only 

in the last 60 years have semi-nomadic Iñupiat settled into sedentary villages and been 

subjected to managed hunts and the cultural pressure of Euroamerican dominance of commerce, 

government, and media. The central conflict for the Iñupiat on the North Slope, since the 

beginning of prolonged contact with Euroamericans, has been the use and control of lands, 

competition for renewable resources, and the efforts by Euroamericans to impose changes in the 

culture, lifeways, and behavior of the Iñupiat through regulation. Since the mid-19th century, 

the Iñupiat have adapted to external pressures (e.g., commercial whaling, trapping, reindeer

herding, military construction, oil and gas exploration and development) and regulatory actions 

(e.g., state and Federal regulations and International Whaling Commission quotas; see section 

3.4.2). The following discussion addresses key events (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future) and the impacts that these key events have had on subsistence activities over time and

could have in the future. Despite the past pressures for change, what remains constant is the 

value of maintaining a relationship with the land and resources of their forefathers through

hunting and gathering activities and associated kinship and sharing, reinforcing the importance 

of subsistence to the Iñupiat people of the North Slope. 

4-797 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Cultural Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7.7.12.1 Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Prior to sustained contact between the Iñupiat of the North Slope and Euroamericans, the 

Iñupiat were a highly mobile, geographically widespread, and technologically capable people

who lived in dispersed, small communities based on family and social connections. They 

harvested local resources as needed and as available, with large numbers of people aggregating 

at certain points along the edges of the sea ice for the harvest of bowhead whales on their spring 

and fall migrations. Once a sufficient number of whales were harvested, they held a giant 

festival and feast, dividing whale products among participants, and then dispersed throughout 

the landscape again. This pattern continued into the 19th century, with intermittent contact 

with Russian, American, British, and Norwegian traders, explorers, missionaries, and 

government representatives. This contact intensified when commercial whaling north of the 

Bering Strait began in the 1850s (SRBA and ISER 1993). 

With the advent of commercial whaling in the Pacific Ocean, European and American whaling 

ships worked further north, passing through the Aleutians in the mid-19th century, sparking a 

large number of independent people and companies harvesting marine mammal resources in

the area. Commercial whaling north of Bering Strait lasted approximately 60 years, and 

introduced a number of impacts to the people and resources of the North Slope. Among these

impacts were disease; the introduction of new foodstuffs, including flour, sugar, coffee, and tea;

the increased availability of alcohol and tobacco; ongoing efforts at acculturation of the Iñupiat 

through missions and government schools; and efforts to centralize and make sedentary the 

highly mobile populations of Iñupiat. The failure of commercial whaling by 1910 coincided with 

a depletion in the number of whales available for harvest, making the ongoing subsistence

harvest difficult for the Iñupiat remaining along the Arctic coast. Further complicating 

subsistence whale harvest was a decrease in the Iñupiat population due to disease, accidents, 

and poor health care. Iñupiat and whale populations gradually recovered during the 20th 

century. Following a reduced presence of Euroamericans in the beginning of the 20th century, 

due to the collapse of commercial whaling, the Iñupiat returned to their highly dispersed way of 

life, with additional emphasis on fur trapping and reindeer herding as a source of money to buy 

Euroamerican goods they desired. 

In the 1920s, the establishment of the Naval Petroleum Reserve and subsequent exploration 

activity marked the beginning of resource extraction activity in lands occupied by the Iñupiat of 

the North Slope. World War II increased the need for oil for naval vessels and industry, and 

began a period of intensified exploration and drilling activity on the North Slope. Lucy 

Ahvakana described her experiences during this period in scoping testimony for Lease Sale 170 

in 1997: 

When I was married to my first husband, we had a trading post in Foggy Island and 

Beach Pine, my first husband and I. We always go back and forth, trade, foxes, 

furnishing the food for Eskimos. Trappers live here. All of us -- a lot of us didn’t get a 

chance to go to school. No school up here. You -- BIA didn’t have enough money to put a 

school up here. They were trying to. And then we heard this oil company is coming. I 

moved to Barrow and these expeditions -- these looking for oil, Navys came. We went to 

Barrow. My husband said I had to go to Barrow to get my kids to school. So when we 

went there, we saw a bunch of barges. I thought it was Japanese invaded the Barrow. 

We were scared. And my stepdad went to shore. They seemed peaceful. We asked them,

“What’s going on?” The Navy’s up here. They are looking for oil 1945. There were eleven 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-798 

Cumulative Impacts: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

barges. I know that Captain John Bablin, Sr., was the navigator for them. I moved to

Barrow at that time. 

Ms. Ahvakana’s testimony continued to describe an indigenous person’s view of the changes 

brought by the introduction of oil and gas exploration and development to a remote and

technologically isolated population. The Bureau of Indian Affairs was responsible for educating 

and promoting the welfare of the Iñupiat people, as well as building a hospital and a school in 

Barrow. By 1950, the Bureau of Indian Affairs was requiring families with school age children 

to relocate to population centers (e.g., Barrow) so that the children could attend school. 

Construction of a hospital and churches at Barrow also encouraged North Slope residents to

settle there. Children were sent outside to boarding schools, including Chemawa in Oregon and

Mt. Edgecumbe in Sitka. The children that returned from these boarding schools often became

spokespeople for the community and interposed themselves between the forces of development

and the conservation of traditional ways of life. Some Iñupiat returned to traditional harvest 

areas seasonally, and in the early 1970s, following the passage of ANCSA, many traditional use 

areas were permanently resettled (e.g., Nuiqsut and Atqasuk). The events of this time period

caused the formation of administrative offices (e.g., Alaska Federation of Natives, NSB). 

During the mid-20th century, the Department of Defense contracted for the construction of 

DEW-line and WACS sites on the North Slope as part of a pan-Arctic curtain of radar coverage

and communications systems that spread from Greenland to the Aleutians. North Slope 

residents were no longer allowed to hunt near these locations, all of which were situated at or 

near important subsistence or residence sites. Barter Island, the site of a trading fair and

several camps, drew Iñupiat people to settle there for jobs, though the site was built on the 

remains of several historic houses and graves. Operation of these sites by the military, and later 

contractors, resulted in contamination of the surrounding area with fuel, oil, antifreeze, and 

other chemicals, which led to avoidance of these areas by subsistence harvesters concerned

about chemical contamination. 

Postwar oil exploration and the sustained contact with Euroamericans, brought by activities 

associated with oil and the Cold War, resulted in additive impacts on subsistence resources,

harvest patterns, and users. The establishment and enforcement of state and Federal game 

regulations affected harvest activities and patterns (e.g., 1961 duck harvest protests in Barrow). 

These events encouraged the development of indigenous means of countering regulatory efforts 

dictated from outside the region and gave some voice to the Iñupiat people in defending their 

interests and promoting their causes (e.g., Alaska Federation of Natives in 1967 and Alaska 

Eskimo Whaling Commission in 1977). Out of these conflicts arose the first calls for scientific 

research into the peoples and lifeways of the Arctic, often based from facilities built by the 

military, such as the Naval Arctic Research Laboratory (NARL). Leasing of the offshore 

continental shelf areas for oil and gas exploration required further study, including study into 

the use of subsistence resources. These events also contributed to the organization of the 

communities in order to effectively address the issues brought up by development pressure, and 

to defend the rights of the Iñupiat people to maintain their way of life while incorporating the 

aspects of Euroamerican technology and culture that they found valuable. According to Worl, 

writing in one of the early research repots of contemporary subsistence uses by Iñupiat people, 

the “fate of subsistence lies not so much at the level of the hunter pursuing his game, but rather

at the level of external pressures impacting his environment and regulatory actions that restrict

his subsistence pursuits” (NSB 1980). 

The most intense oil and gas development activity, and increased impacts to subsistence 

activities, occurred during the 1970s and early 1980s (e.g., development of the Prudhoe Bay and 

4-799 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Kuparuk oil fields, construction of TAPS and the haul road, and construction of a large portion 

of the roads, drilling pads, gravel sources, collector pipelines, and production facilities). In part, 

increased oil and gas exploration and development activity prompted the NSB to initiate the 

TLUI (NSB 1980), a repository for information on historic sites and present land use (e.g., 

hunting camps and cabins). Oil and gas development in the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk areas 

discouraged Nuiqsut residents from using the eastern portions of their traditional harvest areas 

(Pedersen et al. 2000, ADFG Division of Subsistence 2001, SRBA 2003b). Additionally, bowhead 

whaling quotas instituted by the International Whaling Commission resulted in the 

establishment of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission. 

Over the last 30 years, the Iñupiat have participated in public hearings for various industrial 

activities (e.g., lease sales, project scoping). During these hearings, the Iñupiat have 

consistently stated that they are concerned about the cumulative effects of industrial activities 

in their traditional subsistence use areas. They have noted the decline of fish populations 

caused by seismic activities, the diversion of caribou from traditional migration routes and 

calving areas caused by an increased number of low flying aircraft, the disruption of caribou 

movements by low pipelines, the ending of use of traditional harvest areas due to the avoidance 

of industrial areas by hunters, and the fear of the consequences of oil spills on subsistence

resources. The specific experience of oil spills in the ocean were described by several elders due 

to the extent of the damage caused by an incident in the 1940s; described below is Thomas 

Brower’s testimony for the 1975 Beaufort Sea hearings in Barrow: 

...I’m touching on this because of the fact that in 1944 or 45 when the Navy first came 

into this area, one of their tankers hit the bottom of the ocean, north of the point here,

and they pumped 25,000 gallons of crude oil into the ocean; and as that thing scummed 

the ocean and started drifting toward these islands that you are talking about; it just 

hung in wide strips, some 40 to 50 feet wide along the edges of those islands. And all the 

ducks that came near it and the fur-bearing animals or the mammals (like the seal) 

went through it were soon blinded and thousands of them perished and I just don’t know

what happen to the fish that passed through those areas, but I’m pretty sure many of 

them died too. 

This experience became the model for concerns about threats to subsistence species and 

continued use of these resources by Iñupiat people as oil development rapidly spread west from 

Prudhoe Bay. Some residents were profoundly concerned about impacts to marine resources, 

and so opposed any oil development in the marine environment. In the meantime, development 

on land proceeded to the area immediately east of Nuiqsut, raising concerns about continued 

subsistence access in the early 1980s. Bessie Ericklook noted in testimony at the 1979 Sale BF 

hearings her concerns about subsistence access to the east side of the Colville River and the 

effects of oil development on subsistence species: 

Trapping was abundant east of here. Now, we don't go over because of the oil field. Just 

recently, it is known that the foxes are very dirty, discolored and rabid in that area. 

Trapping is done elsewhere. We used to see grizzly bears around. Now, they are not

around. Where's the caribou now? One summer when we used to walk miles looking for 

caribou, came across two dead caribou for unknown reasons. The animals have faced a 

change. We have faced a change since activity began. If there is to be further activity, 

the fish and the sea mammals will suffer and we will suffer too. We depend on the fish, 

wildlife and the birds, still, today. Oil development poses a threat to our lifestyle. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-800 

Cumulative Impacts: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Impacts to subsistence caused by seismic exploration programs on the North Slope have also 

been observed for many years. Although seismic testing no longer uses dynamite on fish bearing 

lakes, Iñupiat blamed this activity for declines in fish numbers in the vast number of 

interconnected lakes and streams used by subsistence fishermen. Arnold Brower, Jr. stated in 

scoping testimony for the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS scoping meetings a consensus opinion among 

Iñupiat subsistence hunters that seismic testing, even in its current refined form, deflects 

subsistence animals from the areas it operates in: 

Thank you Harry, I think I’ve heard that concern now from two other persons that 

directly told me that the existing seismic is already impacting subsistence hunters as we 

speak, that the seismic area has no game. The impacts, like Harry said, has scared and 

run the game off in one direction from that area already and numerous trips made by at 

least half a dozen hunters have attested that, that they’ve gone from the east side of the 

Ikpikpuk and Chipp River to the west side, where they’re not there in that seismic area 

anymore. So these people have purchased gasoline and planned their trips just to find

out that the seismic is in that area already and went up to those areas of normal 

hunting and the game is not there. 

Subsistence is currently, and has been since the mid-19th century, part of a rural economic 

system, called a “mixed, subsistence-market” economy, wherein families invest money into 

small-scale, efficient technologies to harvest wild foods (ADFG 2000). Important subsistence 

resources have varied in abundance and availability over time, due to environmental variation 

and human activities, especially commercial exploitation. Iñupiat adaptations to external 

pressures resulted in intensified use of specific resources (e.g., bowhead whales, caribou, and 

furbearers) and a decline in the use of other species and resources (e.g. brant, goose and eider 

eggs, and long-tailed ducks). For muskox, reintroduced on the North Slope in the last 20th 

century, and moose, which expanded their range into the North Slope in the past half-century, 

regulatory restrictions have limited Iñupiat harvests. Over time, the Iñupiat experienced a 

growing reliance on an external market system to purchase introduced technological 

innovations to support subsistence activities (e.g., traps, boat motors, snowmachines). The

constant advances in motorized transportation helped support the continued mixed economy

and subsistence practices, partially mitigating the effects of concentrated populations and high 

levels of activity in particular areas by making travel faster and easier, although at greater cost

in monetary resources. Avoidance of formerly utilized harvest areas due to industrial activity 

was made possible by motorized transportation, which allowed subsistence users to travel 

farther and faster than in the past. Increased institutionalization in response to increased 

industrial activity on the North Slope allowed increased Iñupiat autonomy and allowed the 

community to mitigate impacts with industry. 

Cumulative effects from oil development are an important concern for North Slope residents. 

These concerns have been expressed in a number of different forums, including the 1998 

Northeast IAP/EIS and Northwest IAP/EIS scoping meetings and hearings, scoping meetings

for the Alpine Satellite Development Plan EIS, scoping meetings and hearings for the Northeast 

Amended IAP/EIS, and meetings held with North Slope residents in Anchorage, Nuiqsut, and

Barrow during December 2003 and January 2004. Some of these concerns, as summarized in 

the Alpine Satellite Development Plan EIS (USDOI BLM 2004c), and brought up during public 

scoping meetings and other meetings with North Slope residents, are presented in Table 4.7-I. 

4-801 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Summary of Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Prior to sustained contact between the Iñupiat of the North Slope and Euroamericans, the 

Iñupiat were a highly mobile, geographically widespread, and technologically capable people

who lived in dispersed, small communities based on family and social connections. They 

harvested local resources as needed and as available. Beginning with commercial whaling in the 

1850s, and followed by establishment of the Naval Petroleum Reserve and subsequent 

exploration activity that marked the beginning of resource extraction activity in lands occupied 

by the Iñupiat of the North Slope, the Iñupiat have had adapt to the “external pressures 

impacting his environment and regulatory actions that restrict his subsistence pursuits.” 

Subsistence is currently, and has been since the mid-19th century, part of a rural economic 

system, called a “mixed, subsistence-market” economy, wherein families invest money into 

small-scale, efficient technologies to harvest wild foods. Over time, the Iñupiat experienced a 

growing reliance on an external market system to purchase introduced technological 

innovations to support subsistence activities (e.g., traps, boat motors, snowmachines).

Avoidance of formerly utilized harvest areas due to industrial activity was made possible by 

motorized transportation. During this 150-year period, the Iñupiat have had to continually 

adapt to the constraints placed upon their subsistence activities and lifestyle by cultures other

than their own. The effects of these constraints on the Iñupiat persist today and will accumulate 

with future effects on their subsistence resources and lifestyle. 

4.7.7.12.2 Future Effects and Their Accumulation 

On average, the populations of communities on the North Slope are anticipated to increase by 

2% annually, resulting in a doubling of the current populations by about the year 2040 (see 

section 4.7.2.1). The increase in population means that, in the future, a greater number of 

resources will be harvested; however, current populations of primary subsistence resources,

including caribou, bowhead whale, and fish, are sufficient to support this increase in human 

population. However, should outside forces, such as oil and gas exploration and development or

global climate change, result in population decreases or shifts in range for natural resources,

then these effects could result in decreased opportunity and less harvest when coupled with the 

estimated increased in human population. 

Oil and gas development and leasing are likely to increase as compared to current conditions. 

Leasing and subsequent exploration and development are likely to occur not only in the 

Northeast, but also in the South Area, Northwest Area, and areas outside of the NPR-A (e.g. 

Point Thompson) (see Table 4.7-E for reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development). In 

addition, offshore exploration and development in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas is also

expected to increase, with lease sales planned for the near future by Minerals Management 

Service and the State in these offshore areas. While it is unknown exactly how much of the 

offshore area will be leased in these future sales, several ship-based exploratory seismic 

operations have begun during the summer months, resulting in conflicts with marine mammal 

hunters, and concerns over the fall whaling harvest. Should a decrease in the harvest of marine

mammals (e.g., bearded seal, ringed seal, walrus, etc.) occur, a corresponding increase in the 

harvest of land mammals and fish will occur to supplement the loss. Should the offshore 

activity lead to decreased success in fall whaling, this activity would result in major negative 

effects to subsistence use. 

Planned development (e.g. Alpine Satellites) in the planning area would nearly encircle the 

community of Nuiqsut, making it necessary for subsistence hunters traveling in nearly every 

direction to pass through some kind of development en route to subsistence harvest areas. As 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-802 

Cumulative Impacts: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

noted in public testimony for this amendment, Iñupiat hunters are particularly reluctant to use 

firearms near oil production facilities, roads, and pipelines, so they would be unlikely to harvest 

subsistence resources in these areas even if leaseholders did not object to harvester access. 

Subsistence users currently avoid the Kuparuk and Meltwater areas because of the physical 

barriers that pipelines and elevated gravel roads pose to winter snowmachine travel, and

subsistence users have expressed concerns about hunting close to oil production and processing

facilities, because of perceived regulatory barriers (Ahtuangaruak 2001). Development near 

Fish and Judy creeks and Kogru and Kalikpik rivers could interfere with access to areas where 

half of Nuiqsut’s subsistence fish and caribou harvests take place (USDOI BLM MMS 2003). 

Development along the north side of Teshekpuk Lake, outside the areas currently closed to 

leasing, could deflect or divert caribou hunted in that area by Barrow, Atqasuk, and Nuiqsut 

residents (SRBA 2003b). If gas development occurs on the North Slope, its aboveground 

infrastructure would likely be avoided by subsistence harvesters, just as has been for oil 

development, perhaps even more so for hunters that may be concerned with a gas well blowout 

or a rupture of a gas pipeline. 

Differing views are emerging on the North Slope regarding the effects of roads on subsistence.

For example, some North Slope residents believe that roads could mitigate impacts on 

subsistence harvests from industry, could improve access to areas of the traditional subsistence 

range at times of the year when access would be difficult, would shift subsistence harvests to 

areas that are currently less utilized, and could change the mindset that has caused local 

subsistence users to avoid industry infrastructure. In addition, roads between Nuiqsut and 

infrastructure would allow Nuiqsut residents to live in town while employed by the oil and gas 

industry, thus allowing the worker to spend time with family and continue to harvest 

subsistence resources. On the other hand, roads could have a detrimental effect on traditional 

patterns of subsistence harvests and resource availability. For example, a new road would 

increase access among Iñupiat and others to areas previously less utilized and would change the 

character of that area and could deflect subsistence resources and interfere with nesting 

waterfowl. Additionally, roads that increase access would result in increased competition 

between users (both local and non-local). 

Oil and gas production facilities operating in subsistence use areas could result in the 

contamination of subsistence foods, particularly fish, caribou, and marine mammals. Seismic 

exploration, exploratory drilling, and overland moves in the winter would continue to affect wolf 

and wolverine harvests. In the past, hunters observed these animals avoiding industrial activity 

areas, thus reducing their availability to Nuiqsut and Barrow hunters (Brower 1997). Harvest 

in these areas would require increased effort, risk, and cost on the part of subsistence users who 

pursue these animals for traditional clothing and crafts, as well as trade and sale of the hides. 

Oil and gas production facilities operating in subsistence use areas could cause the 

contamination of, or perceived contamination of, subsistence foods, particularly fish, caribou, 

and marine mammals. The numbers of foxes, brown bears, seagulls, and jaegers could increase, 

as these scavengers are habituated to human activities and food, and their predation on nesting 

waterfowl could increase as well (Burgess 2000). This increased predation on nesting birds, 

eggs, and fledglings could result in local resource declines, which could impact bird harvesting 

in communities on the North Slope, in Northwestern Alaska, and in the Yukon-Kuskokwim

Delta. 

In the past, oil and gas activities have deterred subsistence users from using their traditional 

subsistence use areas. The continued expansion of this activity across the ACP from Prudhoe 

Bay westward could increase the area considered off-limits by resource users, deflect or divert 

important subsistence resources from their normal routes, and require users to travel farther to 

4-803 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

harvest subsistence foods (IAI 1990a). If commercial gas production occurs on the North Slope,

it is likely that more infrastructure will be developed in the foothills area, where petroleum 

accumulations generally are more gas-prone, thus increasing the area that subsistence users 

are likely to avoid and the habitat for subsistence species that may be impacts. The continued 

increase in developed area would reduce the amount of suitable lands available for Nuiqsut 

residents to harvest necessary subsistence resources away from oil and gas facilities. If

permanent facilities were constructed in the planning area, Nuiqsut hunters could be compelled 

to travel very long distances to harvest subsistence resources at a greater cost in terms of time, 

fuel, wear and tear on people and equipment, and lost wages. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-804 

Cumulative Impacts: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Table 4.7-I. Summary of Traditional Knowledge/Local Knowledge 

Resource 

Category Summary of Effects and Locations Testifier 

Physical Characteristics 

Aquatic 

Environment 

(water 

resources; 

surface water; 

estuarine waters 

and water 

quality; marine 

water quality; 

flooding regime; 

and ice 

conditions.) 

Comment: As a result of past action the Itkillik River, 

which was once clear, is now a rusty color. 

Effects: Decreased water quality and a lack of fish in 

the Itkillik River, and less fish for subsistence use. 

Area: Itkillikpatt and the Itkillik River. 

Bessie Ericklook, 1979 

Beaufort Sea Lease 

Sale, public hearing in 

Nuiqsut. 

Comment: Fresh water river levels near Nuiqsut are 

decreasing and rivers are getting shallower and 

shallower each year. 

Effects: Lower fish population and less fish for 

subsistence use. 

Area: Nuiqsut and surrounding rivers. 

Flora Ipalook, 1979 

Beaufort Sea Lease 

Sale, public hearing in 

Nuiqsut. 

Comments: Loss of 2 to 3 feet of water in area lakes 

especially Shinmar Rock; level went down to 5 to 6 

feet and therefore it cannot support any more fish. 

Effects: Less fish present due to decrease in water 

levels and increase in noise, and less fish for 

subsistence use. 

Area: Shinmar Rock. 

Arnold Brower, Sr., 

1976 

Federal Energy 

Hearings, public 

hearing in Barrow. 

Comment: Lakes and rivers are shallower than in 

past. Streams and rivers that shoot off of Tsukpuk 

Lake use to be navigable by boat but they can’t even 

go on them. 

Effects: Decreased access; reduced fish populations; 

less fish available for subsistence use; and less 

available area for hunting and fishing. 

Area: Tsukpuk (Teshekpuk Lake). 

Daniel Leavitt, 1979 

Beaufort Sea Lease 

Sale, public hearing in 

Barrow. 

Comment: All drilling operations consume a lot of 

water. The same thing will happen to the 

Sagavanirktok like it did to the Sagavanirktok River; 

it ran completely dry twice in 1 year. 

Effects: Less animals and fish in area. 

Area: Sagavanirktok River. 

Raymond Neakok,

1982 

National Petroleum 

Reserve – Alaska, 

subsistence hearing in 

Barrow. 

Comment: A combination of built up ice and snow 

drifts and water rising with the tide causes area 

flooding. 

Effects: Flooding to 12 miles up river causes danger

for those with a dog team or on snowmachine, and 

less accessible area. 

Area: Howuerenokto and Ocean Point. 

Nuiqsut Whaling 

Captains Meeting, 

1996 

Northstar EIS Project. 

Atmospheric 

Environment 

(climate and 

meteorology; air 

quality; and 

existing ambient 

air quality) 

Comment: High winds and larger than average 

swells. 

Effects: Increase in swells, which inhibited ability to

travel to and from subsistence area. A decrease in 

subsistence due to decrease in safe travel. 

Area: Cross Island. 

Archie Ahkiviana, 

2001 

Liberty Project, public 

hearing in Nuiqsut. 

4-805 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Table 4.7-I. Summary of Traditional Knowledge/Local Knowledge (Cont.) 

Resource 

Category Summary of Effects and Locations Testifier 

Atmospheric 

Environment 

(Cont.) 

Comments: She (former health aid and physicians 

assistant) has noticed an overwhelming increase 

in asthma patients. The village makeup has not 

changed, still mostly Inupiaq. The most 

overwhelming issue was that the oil development 

around the community had increased and gotten 

closer. The worst nights were nights with many 

natural gas flares, as they release particles and 

some infiltrate the ground. We are seeing changes 

in the caribou and fish leaving them with lesions 

and tumors. Helicopter activity has diverted 

caribou away from us during hunting/subsistence 

gathering. 

Effects: Burning of natural gas and petroleum

products has increased risk for respiratory 

problems in local residents. Increase in noise due 

to air traffic spooks caribou herd thus decreasing 

amount present in area. Infiltration of particles 

has caused disease in animals. 

Area: Nuiqsut and immediate surrounding areas. 

Rosemary 

Ahtuangaruak, Mayor, 

2003 

Alpine Slope 

Development Plan, 

public hearing in 

Nuiqsut. 

Biological Resources 

Fish Comments: Use of explosives has killed or 

damaged many fish under the ice (traditional 

methods of harvesting involved using a hammer to 

strike the ice creating a noise killing the fish). 

Effects: Smaller fish population due to increase in 

noise and less fish for subsistence use. 

Area: Finmore Rock, Sitkulik and the Tripp River 

area. 

Arnold Brower, Sr., 

1976 

Federal Energy 

Hearings, public 

hearing in Barrow. 

Comment: Use of explosives and compressors,

especially in the winter months, has killed off or 

caused the relocation of those fish in local rivers 

and lakes. A method used by his father to gather

fish involving pounding on ice to kill fish then 

drilling an opening downstream to gather the fish

is no longer a feasible means of collection for him.

Lakes where the fish are inland freeze over in the 

winter and they die due to lack of water. A 

compressor which sends off a very loud noise and 

vibrations can also kill a lot of fish. 

Effects: Decreasing fish population. They are no

longer able to use methods passed down through 

generations for harvesting fish. 

Area: Rivers in the area between Barrow/Nuiqsut 

to Anaktuvuk Pass. 

Joash Tukle, 1982 

National Petroleum 

Reserve – Alaska, 

subsistence hearing in 

Barrow. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-806 

Cumulative Impacts: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Table 4.7-I. Summary of Traditional Knowledge/Local Knowledge (Cont.). 

Resource 

Category Summary of Effects and Locations Testifier 

Fish (Cont.) Comments: We had some good fishing grounds up 

there and this fall we hardly even caught any.

After the PET-4 seismograph party went through 

the depth of the lake is a little over 8 feet and a 

few blasts would clean the whole thing up.

Traditional methods of hitting the ice then 

harvesting them out of the river downstream

proved ineffective. 

Effects: Fish were not present following blasting

and seismic activity and indirect effects as less 

fish available for subsistence use. 

Area: Area not specified. 

Charlie Edwardson, 

1976 

Federal Energy 

Hearings, public 

hearing in Barrow. 

Comment: In an area where drilling had occurred, 

a net was placed in the lagoon near the ocean 

where my dad use to catch Arctic char. Even 

though we had the net there overnight we did not 

catch any fish. 

Effects: Fish population has declined in areas 

where drilling has occurred and less fish available 

for subsistence use. 

Area: Prudhoe Bay. 

Jenny Ahkivgak 

(Okkingak), 1982 

National Petroleum 

Reserve – Alaska, 

subsistence hearing in 

Barrow. 

Comments: Markers of the sounders that had been 

placed near the river. From that time on, the 

fishes in that river changed and are not there 

anymore right now. Sounders are killing them or

driving them to the bottom of the stream. 

Effects: Fish were not present following sounding 

and less fish for subsistence use. 

Area: Area not specified. 

Noah Itta, 1982 

National Petroleum 

Reserve – Alaska, 

subsistence hearing in 

Barrow. 

Comments: Since the use of dynamite in the river,

there have been fewer and sometimes no fish 

found. They also disturbed the garden where they 

live off of. 

Effects: Fish not present after blasting events (up 

to 3 years after) and less fish available for 

subsistence use. 

Area: Area not specified. 

Noah Itta, 2001 

Liberty Development 

and Production Plan, 

public meeting in 

Nuiqsut. 

Comment: Fished in the Fish Creek area for Arctic 

cisco with mother (2 generations), since start of

Alpine few years ago, hardly any fish to be caught 

in same area. 

Effects: Less fish in Fish Creek area. An indirect 

effect is less fish available for subsistence use. 

Area: Fish Creek, Nuiqsut, and surrounding areas. 

Jimmy Nukapigak, 

2003 

Alpine Satellite 

Development Plan, 

public hearing in 

Barrow. 

4-807 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Table 4.7-I. Summary of Traditional Knowledge/Local Knowledge (Cont.) 

Resource 

Category Summary of Effects and Locations Testifier 

Fish (Cont.) Comments: CD-6 is close to Fish Creek area where 

they fish in the summer. When they can’t get fish in 

the Nigliq Channel they slide over to the other 

channel. It has lots of fish and they taste better than

Colville fish. 

Effect: Putting in CD-6 could possibly disturb area and 

effect population of fish in the area historically and 

currently used for fishing. 

Area: Around proposed CD-6 and Nigliq Channel area. 

Frank Long, Jr. 2003 

Alpine Satellite 

Development Plan, 

public hearing in 

Nuiqsut. 

Birds Comments: In Inigok where a lot of drilling took place,

bones were seen from birds that have been killed from 

the stuff they leave behind in the hole. Wildlife and

waterfowl dying from contaminants being left after 

having conducted drilling activity. 

Effect: Contamination of waterfowl and wildlife 

resulting in death and steady decrease in migratory 

bird population. 

Area: Upulatook near Nuiqsut; Inigok. 

Thomas Brower, Jr. and 

James Aiken, Sr., 1997 

1998 Northeast 

IAP/EIS, scoping 

meeting in Atqasuk. 

Comment: There’s a lot of activity out there, and 

occasionally we have mortality events in either fish,

caribou or waterfowl, and these essentially go 

unaddressed. 

Effect: Increased mortality likely associated with 

increased development and human activity. 

Area: Area not specified. 

Todd O’Hara, 2003 

Amended IAP/EIS, 

scoping meeting in

Barrow. 

Mammals 

(terrestrial and

marine mammals) 

Comments: Seismic activity is displacing the animals. 

While hunting wolverines, which were being tracked, 

they had just been scared away from where activity

(seismic) was occurring. There are no furbearers 

except for the foxes; did not see wolverines. 

Effects: Normal movement of animals is affected by 

activity making hunting and tracking more difficult 

and decreasing the number of available wolves and

foxes for subsistence use. 

Area: Southside of Teshekpuk up in Pikes dunes and 

up the Ikpikpuk River. 

Harry Brower, Jr., 1997 

1998 Northeast 

IAP/EIS, scoping 

meeting in Barrow. 

Social Systems 

Economy Comments: Being a 3rd generation since pre-contact of 

Western civilization, they are faced with the fact they 

must either subsist off the land or take a 9:00-5:00 job. 

Cannot totally exist on subsistence anymore. 

Effects: Lifestyle drastically different than the way of 

their forefathers. Can no longer subsist off of the land 

and must work for the oil companies. Most are not 

qualified and jobs are short lived. 

Area: Barrow. 

Sheldon Bogenrifle, 

1982 

National Petroleum 

Reserve – Alaska, 

subsistence hearing in 

Barrow. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-808 

Cumulative Impacts: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Table 4.7-I. Summary of Traditional Knowledge/Local Knowledge (Cont.) 

Resource 

Category Summary of Effects and Locations Testifier 

Economy (Cont.) Comments: Qualifications have changed for those 

natives who desire to work for oil related companies. 

In the beginning, the only qualification was that you 

pass the UA, now to get a regular labor job or driving 

job you need a clean UA, a driver’s license or a CDL, 

unrestricted, and NSTC card. 

Effects: Fewer are qualified or eligible for employment 

through the oil industry. Less available money for 

those living in the villages without qualifications (who 

are no longer able to completely subsist). 

Area: Village of Nuiqsut. 

Bernice Kaigelak, 2003 

Alpine Satellite 

Development Plan, 

public hearing in 

Nuiqsut. 

Comment: We face the highest unemployment rates

today, even though we can see the Alpine oil field just 

7 miles away from Nuiqsut. 

Effect: Limited economic benefits to local communities 

as a result of development nearby. 

Area: Area not specified. 

Isaac Nukapigak, 2003 

Amended IAP/EIS, 

scoping meeting in

Nuiqsut. 

Subsistence 

Harvest and Uses 

Comments: The continuous development from the east 

going west has heavily impacted some of their hunting 

grounds. She is also very concerned of future

development because more infrastructures are being 

placed, which will divert our hunting grounds, make 

our hunting game that much further out to try to

harvest. 

Effect: Reduction in subsistence harvest opportunities. 

Longer distance and increased effort required to obtain 

harvests. 

Area: Area not specified. 

Annie Lampe, 2003 

Amended IAP/EIS, 

scoping meeting in

Nuiqsut. 

Comments: We’re going further and further inland to 

hunt caribou, but when they do come around our area, 

it’s a blessing and a curse because a lot of these 

animals are sick. And then when you don’t catch what 

you need, you have to rely on the income that comes in. 

Effects: Increased effort required to obtain harvests.

Decrease in the quality of local harvests. 

Area: Area not specified. 

Big Bob, 2003 

Amended IAP/EIS, 

scoping meeting in

Barrow. 

Comments: The residents of our communities rely upon

these resources for the sustenance of our families. The 

cost of obtaining western staples is often out of reach 

of many families. The health of our community is 

dependent upon our resources. Any activity that 

causes changes to our harvesting of the subsistence

resources will impact upon our families. The sharing of 

our resources with our extended families ripples down 

with losses for them also. 

Effects: Reduced community health. Effects beyond the

hunters themselves. 

Area: Area not specified. 

Rosemary 

Ahntuangaruak, 2003 

Amended IAP/EIS, 

scoping meeting in

Nuiqsut. 

4-809 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Table 4.7-I. Summary of Traditional Knowledge/Local Knowledge (Cont.). 

Resource 

Category Summary of Effects and Locations Testifier 

Land Uses and 

Coastal 

Management

(land ownership; land

use; coastal 

management; and the 

NSB Land 

Management

Program) 

Comments: After catching a musk-ok he was taken to

court for being inside the industry boundary. Must now 

fight in court for harvesting in certain areas. 

Effects: Freely hunted subsistence areas are now 

trespassing on oil company land in order to reach the 

same areas restrictions on land use. Less muskox due to 

land use/ownership restrictions. 

Area: Area not specified. 

Arnold Brower, Jr., 1998 

1998 Northeast IAP/EIS, 

public meeting in 

Atqasuk. 

Comment: Open areas are now impassable due to 

dynamite left behind and wires scattered over the area. 

Effects: Change in use of land and less land to subsist

from. Smaller amounts of available animals for 

subsistence harvest. 

Area: Area not specified. 

Ruth Nukapigak, 1979 

Beaufort Sea Lease Sale 

BF, public hearing in

Nuiqsut. 

Comment: Her grandparents had a sod house and a cellar 

in Prudhoe Bay; now, they are unable to even access the 

site. They have no right to it even though their ancestors 

were there before the oil fields were there. 

Effects: Loss of access and previously owned land to oil 

industry. 

Area: Unspecified; Unspecified; Prudhoe Bay. 

Sarah Kunaknana. 

Transportation 

(road systems;

aviation systems; 

marine transportation

systems; pipeline 

systems; ice roads and 

platforms; winter 

Rolligon travel; and 

Alaska Railroad 

Corporation) 

Comment: In order to cross the pipeline sometimes it is 

necessary to travel up to 10 miles off course. 

Effects: Longer travel time; indirect effect-increase in 

disturbed area due to having to travel off previously 

disturbed paths. 

Area: Nuiqsut area. 

Thomas Napageak, 

Leonard Lampe, and

Arnold Brower, 1997 

1998 Northeast IAP/EIS 

scoping meeting in 

Nuiqsut. 

Hazardous 

Materials/ 

Environmental 

Justice 

Comment: As witnessed and experienced when working 

for the oil companies, toxic muds and caustic sodas are 

being dumped into the rivers and oceans. Most of the

abandoned oil rigs I have worked on, the toxic muds are 

put in good little cubes, about 5,000 square yards of toxic 

muds go uncovered. The wastes are accumulating. 

Effects: Accumulation of toxic materials and waste. 

Indirect effects as animals are exposed to these 

hazardous materials. 

Area: Unspecified. 

Raymond Naekok, 1982 

National Petroleum 

Reserve – Alaska, 

subsistence hearing in 

Barrow. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-810 

Cumulative Impacts: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Table 4.7-I. Summary of Traditional Knowledge/Local Knowledge (Cont.) 

Resource 

Category Summary of Effects and Locations Testifier 

Hazardous 

Materials/ 

Environmental 

Justice (Cont.) 

Comment: When he was a boy, in his hometown 

during the springtime oil companies would clean 

out their silt and place the oils outside. Birds 

would stick to the oil and become unable to fly, 

eventually dying. 

Effects: Birds dying from inability to escape from

oil exposed to the environment. Less birds for 

hunting and subsistence. 

Area: Area not specified. 

Laurie Kingik, 1982 

National Petroleum 

Reserve – Alaska, 

subsistence hearing in 

Barrow. 

Comment: And these construction outfits, they

bring in the old equipment, old run down—some of

them older than I am, and when they break, the 

oil gushes out. It sprays all over. 

Effects: Release of oil to the environment. 

Area: Area not specified. 

Big Bob, 2003 

Amended IAP/EIS, 

scoping meeting in

Barrow. 

Caribou Comments: Seismic testing involving dynamite is 

affecting caribou who consume the blasting 

powder; causes rabid behavior and effects on the 

animals. Caribou are affected by amount of waste 

materials. 

Effects: Poisonous powder used in blasting is being 

eaten by caribou thus decreasing well population 

and waste materials attaching to caribou (wires). 

Indirect effect is less healthy caribou for 

subsistence use. 

Area: Area not specified. 

Raymond Neakok,

1982 

National Petroleum 

Reserve – Alaska, 

subsistence hearing in 

Barrow. 

Comment: The pipeline from Oliktok to Kuparuk 

has caused the displacement of caribou from Cross

Island to Teshekpuk. Few caribou have are 

crossing under pipelines and as a result there is 

displacement of caribou in the villages. 

Effects: Less caribou present following installation

of pipeline. Less caribou available for subsistence 

use. 

Area: Oliktok to Kuparuk, from Cross Island to 

Teshekpuk. 

Frederick Tuckle, Sr., 

2001 

Liberty Development 

and Production Plan, 

public hearing in 

Barrow. 

Comment: The 5 feet pipeline height had changed 

the caribou migration pattern due to past oil and 

gas developments. 

Effects: Disruption of caribou migration. 

Disruption of subsistence harvest and more effort 

required to harvest caribou. 

Area: Area not specified. 

Isaac Nukapigak, 

2003 

Amended IAP/EIS, 

scoping meeting in

Nuiqsut. 

4-811 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Table 4.7-I. Summary of Traditional Knowledge/Local Knowledge (Cont.) 

Resource 

Category Summary of Effects and Locations Testifier 

Noise Comment: Not far from the Nuiqsut site they

are conducting wildlife surveys by air and by 

foot creating an enormous amount of noise that 

upsets, disrupts, and displaces perhaps some of 

their only opportunity to go get their game, 

especially caribou in the area are scared and 

may run off because of these impediments that 

arrive are not natural. Hunters must go further

to gather game. 

Effects: Fewer caribou present following activity 

and surveys; thus, fewer caribou available for 

subsistence use. 

Area: Colville River Delta to the east side by 

Ulumniak. 

Ruth Nukapigak, 1998 

1998 Northeast IAP/EIS, 

public hearing in 

Nuiqsut. 

Visual/Aesthetic Comment: Flames out on the project oil 

platforms are very close to the whaling base of 

Nuiqsut called Cook Island so concerns on the 

migration and impacts to whales exist. Flames 

spook both the whales and crews who are

harvesting whales for subsistence. 

Effects: Fewer whales in the area due to 

flashing gas flares. Increases danger for 

subsistence hunters. 

Area: Cross Island 

Leonard Lampe, 1996 

Northstar EIS 

Project, Nuiqsut 

public scoping

meeting. 

The International Whaling Commission sets the quota for the number of bowhead whales that 

Alaska Eskimos may harvest. This quota is based on both the biological status of the bowhead

whale stock, as well as the documented Alaska Eskimo cultural and subsistence need for 

bowhead whales. It is likely that the International Whaling Commission would perceive 

increased industrialization of the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska and rest of the North 

Slope, including development of coastal staging areas, heightened interest in adjacent offshore

areas, and increased oil spill risks, as placing increased pressure on the endangered bowhead 

whale population. As industrialization proceeds along the Alaska North Slope, it will increase 

noise, vessel traffic, and the potential for an oil spill in the Beaufort Sea. In response to 

concerns that noise, vessel traffic, and the potential for a catastrophic oil spill poses a threat to 

the feeding grounds of the western Pacific gray whales, the International Whaling Commission 

has already passed a resolution that the onset of oil and gas development programs is of 

particular concern with regard to the survival of this population. Because the North Slope is the

fall migration path and feeding grounds of the bowhead whale, it is likely that the International 

Whaling Commission would seriously consider the effects of industrialization on the bowhead 

whale population. Although the International Whaling Commission is unable to directly control 

industrial activities, they are able to control the Alaska Eskimo subsistence harvest quota and 

could reduce this quota as a means of protecting the species confronted with the effects of 

increased industrialization. If the International Whaling Commission considers the threat of 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-812 

Cumulative Impacts: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

industrialization large enough, it could reduce the Alaska bowhead whale quota to protect the 

stock. This quota reduction would have a serious subsistence and cultural effect on the Iñupiat 

communities of the North Slope as well as to the Iñupiat in other communities who receive 

whale meat from the harvest. 

4.7.7.12.3 Global Climate Change 

Changes to the environment and habitats of the North Slope resulting from climate change

could seriously affect subsistence resources and resource users (ACIA 2004). Changes to species 

diversity, numbers and distribution of Arctic-adapted species, vegetation coverage and type, and 

the physical structure of the landscape itself could result from changes in climate regimes. 

Erosion of river banks and beach bluffs, resulting from the thawing of permanently frozen 

ground, could have severe effects on how subsistence practices are undertaken, as subterranean 

ice cellars for storing food harvested at remote places for later transportation to the village 

could collapse and cabins and camps could continue to be washed away. Erosion and climate 

changes could change water levels in rivers and streams, making transportation by boat and 

land more difficult, damaging or destroying infrastructure, and reducing water quality (e.g.,

turbidity, dissolved oxygen) until some waters are no longer are suitable fish habitat. Water 

flows would increase as glacier fed streams absorbed melting runoff and decline as the glaciers 

retreated, also changing water quality, fish habitat, and possibly damaging the river valley 

microhabitats along the north-south oriented rivers of the North Slope. Climate changes could

reduce suitable browse for caribou and muskox, possibly shifting their range away from the 

communities or reducing their numbers. The same habitat changes may favor moose, which 

Iñupiat hunters perceive as less suitable as subsistence staples because they are solitary, 

require large ranges per animal, and do not predictably move in large numbers to specific areas, 

making it more difficult and energy intensive to harvest them. Due to their size, moose also 

require more effort to butcher, transport, and process than caribou and muskox (ACIA 2004). 

Climate change could result in a reduction in marine ice and a less safe ice edge, affecting 

spring marine mammal hunting, including Barrow spring bowhead whale hunting, polar bear 

hunting, and seal hunting. 

Marine currents could be changed by the retreat or disappearance of the ice sheet, shifting some 

marine mammals much further offshore or to where the habitat is still available, perhaps as far 

as High Arctic Canada. Migratory waterfowl numbers could decrease, change their migration 

paths, or go extinct if key habitat was changed. Marine currents could change the distribution

and habitats of anadromous and amphidromous fish, which are key subsistence resources for 

the communities. Warmer temperatures could also reduce habitat for freshwater fish, or change

populations to those more suited to warmer waters. Rising sea levels could inundate low-lying 

coastal lands along the North Slope and change the salinity of surface and ground water, 

further changing fish and waterfowl habitats and subsistence resource uses. As the landscape 

becomes less hospitable for human occupation, people could move to new locations on the North 

Slope, leave the area for either urban Alaska or High Arctic Canada, or adapt to the new 

conditions with a combination of reduced subsistence resources and increased dependence on

outside sources of food and supplies. As a result, community stresses would increase and 

traditional knowledge of the landscape, environment, and resources would be devalued if 

conditions changed rapidly. Reduced levels of stratospheric ozone could increase levels of UV 

exposure to northern peoples, lowering immune system function and increasing the likelihood 

that residents would suffer increased incidences of skin cancer and cataracts (ACIA 2004). 

Effects to subsistence in the foreseeable future are primarily a continuation of effects from the 

last century. Changes in oil and gas exploration and development technology, as discussed in 

4-813 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

section 4.7.4, Advances in Technology, could mitigate some of the effects observed in the 

past (e.g., population declines in fish as a result of seismic activity). Increased oil and gas 

activity and climate changes are likely to continue to affect subsistence activities. For example, 

additional losses of traditional subsistence harvest areas would occur and traditional 

subsistence resources may no longer be available for harvest (e.g., some species of migratory 

birds). Subsistence users would continue to travel farther to harvest resources, but are unlikely 

to cease subsistence harvests given the strong cultural continuity and value of subsistence 

activities. 

4.7.7.12.4 Contribution of Supplemental Alternatives to Cumulative Effects 

This cumulative analysis assumes that currently planned development in the planning area

(e.g. Alpine Satellites) and winter exploration throughout the entire area would continue. 

Seismic exploration would occur in winter and would include the drilling of exploratory and 

delineation wells in areas not excluded by buffers. Exploration and development could originate

from Inigok, Point Lonely, and the Umiat vicinity, and could encompass important subsistence 

harvest areas for moose, fish, caribou, birds, and furbearers, affecting subsistence users in 

Nuiqsut and to a lesser extent Atqasuk, Barrow, Wainwright and Anaktuvuk Pass. If 

permanent development is pursued in areas newly opened to exploration and leasing under the 

action alternatives, Iñupiat users are likely to avoid the area from 5 miles to 25 miles around 

those facilities for subsistence uses (Pedersen et al. 2000; Pedersen and Taalak 2001). 

Allowing leasing and development of all or portions of the area north and west of Teshekpuk 

Lake under Alternatives B, C, and D would dramatically reduce the amount of undisturbed

habitat to caribou, waterfowl, fish, and other subsistence species. Additionally, in opening this 

part of the planning area to leasing, infrastructure such as pipelines and CPFs developed in this 

area would make oil and gas development in the adjacent northeast portion of Northwest NPRA and Beaufort Sea more likely in the foreseeable future. These effects to subsistence species 

would be greatest under Alternative C. Teshekpuk Lake would be deferred from leasing under 

Alternative D, thereby protecting waterfowl and other subsistence species that use the lake. In 

addition, surface occupancy restrictions on permanent facilities in caribou habitat protection 

areas and the Goose Molting Area would limit the amount of surface disturbance that could

occur north and east of Teshekpuk Lake; these restrictions would reduce the likelihood of

cumulative effects to subsistence resources. Under Alternative A, 600,000 acres would remain 

closed to leasing. 

4.7.7.12.5 Conclusion 

Oil and gas exploration and development activities on the North Slope have greatly impacted 

subsistence activities, as noted during public scoping testimony. In the planning area, 

exploration and development could originate from Inigok, Point Lonely, and the Umiat vicinity, 

and could encompass important subsistence harvest areas for moose, fish, caribou, birds, and 

furbearers, affecting subsistence users in Nuiqsut, Atqasuk, Barrow, Wainwright and 

Anaktuvuk Pass. Subsistence hunters traveling in nearly every direction from Nuiqsut would 

have to pass through some kind of development en route to subsistence harvest areas. Iñupiat 

hunters are reluctant to use firearms near oil production facilities and pipelines, so subsistence 

users would be unlikely to harvest subsistence resources in these areas. Aircraft have interfered 

with hunts by scaring game away from hunters, and the increase in air traffic by fixed-wing 

aircraft and helicopters would make this worse and over a much greater area if development

goes forward. This issue has been raised several times by residents of Nuiqsut, who have also 

noted that oil and gas development is impacting traditional use areas and their ability to pass 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-814 

Cumulative Impacts: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

on knowledge of subsistence resources in these area, and use of these resources, to their 

children. 

Development along the north side of Teshekpuk Lake, outside the area closed to leasing in any 

given alternative, could deflect or divert caribou hunted in and near the area by Nuiqsut, 

Barrow, and Atqasuk residents in the summer and winter (SRBA 2003b). Numbers of animals 

available for harvest could be reduced through the slow destruction of species by habitat loss, 

predation, climate change, and disease. Diverting animals from their usual and accustomed

locations, or building facilities in proximity to those locations, could compel resource harvesters 

to travel further to avoid development areas. Harvest of subsistence resources in areas further 

from the communities would require increased effort, risk, and cost on the part of subsistence 

users. Increasing the areas open for leasing and exploration would lead to development in 

previously closed areas, leading to concentrating subsistence harvest efforts in the undeveloped

areas and increasing the potential for conflict over harvest areas within a community. 

If gas development occurs on the North Slope, it is likely that development would occur in 

portions of the foothills, further expanding the areas subsistence users would likely avoid. 

Offshore oil and gas exploration and development in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas could alter 

the migration of bowhead whales and other sea mammals, such as walrus and bearded seal, all 

of which are important subsistence resources for North Slope residents. These impacts would

be devastating to North Slope communities should the changes in migration (i.e., further north

beyond the ability of whalers/hunters to travel) should they reach the point of causing failed 

harvests, especially failed bowhead whale hunts. In addition, any reduction in the Alaska 

bowhead whale quota made in response to offshore activity by the International Whaling 

Commission would have a serious subsistence and cultural effect on the Iñupiat communities of 

the North Slope, as well as to the Iñupiat in other communities who receive whale meat from 

the harvest. 

Climate change and the associated effects of anticipated warming of the climate regime in the 

Arctic could significantly affect subsistence harvests and uses if warming trends continues as 

predicted (NRC 2003, ACIA 2004). Every community in the Arctic is potentially affected by the 

anticipated climactic shift and there is no plan in place for communities to adapt to or mitigate 

these potential effects. The reduction, regulation, and/or loss of subsistence resources would

have severe effects on the subsistence way of life for residents of Nuiqsut, Atqasuk, Barrow, and 

Anaktuvuk Pass. If the loss of permafrost, and conditions beneficial to the maintenance of 

permafrost, arise as predicted, there could be synergistic cumulative effects on infrastructure, 

travel, landforms, sea ice, river navigability, habitat, availability of fresh water, and availability 

of terrestrial mammals, marine mammals, waterfowl and fish, all of which could necessitate 

relocating communities or their population, shifting the population to places with better 

subsistence hunting and causing a loss or dispersal of community (NRC 2003, ACIA 2004). 

4.7.7.13 Sociocultural Systems 

The Iñupiat have developed sociocultural systems, including settlement patterns, kinship, 

leadership institutions, and cultural values concerning relationships with the land, as tools for 

successfully adapting to their Arctic environment. The following discussion addresses key

events (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future) and the impacts that these key events

have had on sociocultural systems over time. This discussion focuses on sociocultural 

cumulative effects primarily involving changes in cultural values and social organization. 

4-815 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Subsistence 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7.7.13.1 Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Impacts to the sociocultural systems of the Iñupiat of the North Slope have occurred since the 

first direct interactions with non-Natives in the first quarter of the 19th century. Since that 

time, the Iñupiat have adapted to new technologies, new external pressures (e.g., commercial 

whaling, trapping, reindeer herding, military construction, oil and gas exploration and 

development), and regulatory actions (e.g., state and Federal regulations and International 

Whaling Commission quotas). (See sections 3.4.2.3, Traditional Iñupiat Settlement 

Patterns and Subsistence Use Areas, and Appendix J.5, Traditional Iñupiat 

Settelement Patterns and Subsistence Use Areas for further discussions of these 

interactions and external pressures.) Adaptations to these external pressures resulted in 

intensified use of specific resources (e.g., bowhead whales, caribou, and furbearers). Commercial 

whaling north of the Bering Strait began and ended in approximately 60 years, and introduced 

a number of impacts to the people and resources of the North Slope such as disease, the 

introduction of new foodstuffs (e.g., flour, sugar, coffee, and tea), the increased availability of 

alcohol and tobacco, ongoing efforts at acculturation of the Iñupiat through missions and 

government schools, and efforts to centralize and make sedentary the highly mobile Iñupiat 

populations. Over time, the Iñupiat experienced a growing reliance on an external market 

system to purchase newly introduced technological innovations to support subsistence activities

(e.g., firearms, traps, boat motors, snowmachines). Missionaries arrived in the latter quarter of 

the 19th century to proselytize among the Iñupiat, operate federally-funded schools for the 

education and indoctrination of Iñupiat youth, provide some level of medical care, administer 

reindeer herding and other social experiments, and care for orphans whose parents had died in 

epidemics and accidents. The missionaries considered these efforts as necessary to mitigate the 

impacts of commercial whaling and prolonged contact with Euroamericans. 

Commercial whaling ended by 1910, leaving whale numbers, as well as the Iñupiat population, 

depleted, and possibly resulted in the decreased availability of other subsistence species (e.g. 

caribou, moose, seals) and the extirpation of others (e.g. muskox). Fur trading became the main 

economic pursuit capable of earning the money needed to purchase American goods, such as 

sugar, tea, tobacco, flour, coffee, and lard, demanded by the Iñupiat. The Iñupiat, whose 

population was further devastated by the 1918 influenza epidemic, dispersed along the coasts 

and rivers, pursuing furs and a subsistence way of life until the Great Depression drove fur 

prices so low that fur trapping was no longer a viable pursuit. Subsistence whaling continued as 

a practice and as the center of social and political organization on the North Slope, and as the 

populations of whales and Iñupiat gradually recovered in the 20th century, resettled 

communities began to field discreet bowhead whale crews (e.g., Nuiqsut and Kaktovik). 

With the establishment of the Naval Petroleum Reserve – Alaska in 1923, some initial 

exploration took place along the North Slope, but oil exploration and development did not 

commence fully until 1944, when the U.S. Navy and its contractors arrived to intensively 

explore and drill in the reserve. Following World War II, the U.S. Army constructed DEW-line 

sites and White Alice Communications System sites on the North Slope, often atop established

Iñupiat camps and use areas, and North Slope residents were no longer allowed to hunt at these 

locations. In the late 1940s, the Bureau of Indian Affairs required families to relocate to 

population centers (e.g., Barrow, Anaktuvuk Pass) so that children could attend school. In 

addition, construction of a hospital and churches at Barrow also encouraged North Slope 

residents to settle there. Iñupiat harvesters and their families often returned to traditional 

harvest areas seasonally, and in some cases those without school-aged children never left the

traditional areas. In the early 1970s, following the passage of ANCSA, many traditional use 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-816 

Cumulative Impacts: Sociocultural Systems 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

areas and former villages were permanently resettled (e.g., Nuiqsut, Atqasuk, Kaktovik, and 

Point Lay). 

By the mid-20th century, Iñupiat settlement patterns had changed significantly. The population 

became centralized into a few communities, when they previously had been spread in small 

family-based units across the North Slope sea coast, river banks, and lake shores, and only 

gathered into centralized locations for temporary, communal hunts (e.g. whales, caribou, 

molting birds), trading, and festivals. As the market economy and the need for cash for 

subsistence and survival have expanded, technological means for maintaining connections to 

the land have moderated the effects of gradually encroaching development along the North

Slope. The limits of technology in mitigating the impacts of sedentism and oil development on 

subsistence activities have been reached. Few areas are out of reach for those with the 

wherewithal to purchase, maintain, and fuel the high-tech transportation equipment needed to 

access those areas. However, the expense of subsistence equipment and pursuing subsistence 

resources, time spent preparing for and on subsistence harvests, and wear and tear on 

subsistence equipment, restrict the ability of subsistence users to harvest adequate quantities 

in times of resource scarcity. 

The cumulative effects of oil and gas development on sociocultural patterns over the last 50 

years are hard to establish with quantitative precision given the lack of baseline data. As stated 

in section 4.3.13, Sociocultural Systems, public testimony indicates that a relationship exists 

between oil and gas development and social stress or well-being (Ahtuangaruak 1997). One 

example of a study that is being conducted to explore this relationship is the MMS sponsored

study that will analyze NSB residents’ observations and perceptions about effects from past, 

present, and future oil industry activities and other forces of modernity on their lives and

subsistence whale hunting activities (EDAW in prep). In addition, the NSB has submitted a 

grant request to the State of Alaska for a study of the cultural, social, and economic impacts to 

National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska subsistence communities resulting from current Arctic oil 

and gas exploration and production. The North Slope Science Initiative could also affect 

scientific research projects (Argonne National Laboratory 2004). Nonetheless, there is evidence

that North Slope sociocultural systems have been subject to ongoing, additive, and synergistic 

cumulative impacts. Stress on North Slope sociocultural systems, which is generally 

underreported and inadequately documented, includes residents’ inability to access traditional 

use areas, threats to resources/lifeways and to spiritual connection with the land, having to deal 

with multiple environmental impact assessments and other development processes, and being 

ignored or discounted by agency representatives. Long-term stresses would result in greater 

impacts to sociocultural systems. The possibility of a very large oil spill, and its effects on 

bowhead whales and other marine mammals, fish, and wildlife, is of great concern to residents, 

although no such spill has occurred on the North Slope. These stresses accumulate because they 

interact and are repeated with each new lease sale, EIS, development proposal, and facility 

expansion (NRC 2003). 

Despite effects to sociocultural systems by oil and gas development, what has remained 

constant over time is the centralization of leadership with whaling captains and their wives, a 

continued cultural and nutritional dependence on and desire for subsistence foods, a continued 

reliance on sharing and kinship, a continued connection to family camps and land use areas,

and the desire to have control over their communities’ present and future. Whaling captains 

often are in positions of power in city, borough, and other institutions, and the institutions 

conform to the Iñupiat model of leadership and process. Subsistence foods are important for 

their nutritional value and their relatively low costs to the community, but most of all for the 

continued maintenance of the network of human and animal relationships, Iñupiat identity, and 

4-817 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Sociocultural Systems 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

the activity of hunting, processing, and sharing as an outlet for individual social stress and a 

means of reducing community stresses. The desire to have some control over the harvest areas 

they depend upon, and the stress resulting from development and activities that conflict with 

their values with no recourse, is a significant stressor to individuals and communities. Some of

these conflicts can be mitigated, as in the case of oil and whaler’s agreements. Conflicts that are 

perceived to pit the Iñupiat against agencies and corporations contribute to feelings of futility, 

powerlessness, and despair, and when coupled with subsistence harvest shortfalls failures, 

pervasive unemployment, overcrowding, and other issues could result in significant and serious

sociocultural consequences (IAI 1990). In the event that whaling quotas were reduced, whales 

were deflected offshore to avoid marine and air traffic and noise, or a significant marine oil spill 

occurred, whaling could be reduced or stopped, undermining the primary structure of social 

organization, traditional authority, and political power in the communities. As stated in 

section 4.3.13, Sociocultural Systems, NSB institutions, such as the school district that 

promotes the teaching of Iñupiat language and culture, the Arctic Eskimo Whaling Commission 

that negotiates with industry and the IWC to protect Iñupiat subsistence whaling interests, the 

NSB Department of Wildlife Management, and other regional and village Native corporations 

and organizations, have been working vigorously and quite successfully at preventing the 

weakening of traditional Iñupiat cultural institutions and practices. “Oil-Whaler Agreements” 

have lessened the impact of seismic and other industry operations on subsistence bowhead

whale hunting at Cross Island (NRC 2003). 

The encroachment of oil production facilities and infrastructure into areas formerly used for 

subsistence by the Iñupiat increases the difficulties faced by subsistence users in trying to 

provide culturally valued foods for their extended families. This encroachment includes the 

permanent oil infrastructure to the east, north, and west of Nuiqsut, as well as the winter 

exploratory drilling and seismic testing in Inigok and other staging areas. The cycle of oil 

exploration, development, and production activities, as it is conducted both offshore and 

onshore, has contributed to harvest shortfalls, a loss of cultural privacy, and challenge to 

traditional Iñupiat values. Frustration stemming from the inability to provide for the extended 

family or exercise control over external factors further stresses people who are exposed to these

problems. Rosemary Ahtuangaruak, former mayor of Nuiqsut, testified in the 2001 hearings 

held for the Liberty project, the following: 

One of the biggest issues that affects our community is the loss of control. In addition to 

the loss of subsistence opportunities, the major severe impacts result from the petroleum 

development in other areas of the Arctic. It is the lack of control over these events 

experienced by the village. Nuiqsut residents state they are the last to find out what's

happening to them. They are never asked or generally considered about the pattern or 

course of the industry's development. They are merely informed after major decisions 

are in place. They would not spend the money making these studies if they were not 

planning to develop them. So it’s a moot issue, after the fact. You're coming for the

meeting, but you're already spending the money because you know this project is 

happening. This perception causes enormous social stress and tension. It is reflected in 

the increased community social ills, such as the alcoholism, the domestic violence, and 

the drug abuse. Thus, existing and potential activities further exacerbate and destabilize 

stress and tension resulting from almost 20 years of petroleum activities in the region. 

And since development would complete the pattern surrounding our traditional whaling 

site, it poses the most significant and long-term adverse social and cultural impacts of 

all the development of the North Slope, the potential for permanent reduction and/or

loss of subsistence reserves, and thus, the viability of the Iñupiat way of life. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-818 

Cumulative Impacts: Sociocultural Systems 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

In response to these types of social disruptions, the NSB, Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, 

regional and tribal governments, and village corporations have instituted efforts to foster and 

protect Iñupiat traditions. The BLM Subsistence Advisory Panel is tasked with investigating 

conflicts between subsistence activities and oil and gas development, and making 

recommendations to the lessee and the BLM for resolution to protect sociocultural values. 

Health and social services programs have tried to respond to alcohol and drug problems with 

treatment programs and shelters for abused spouses and families of abused spouses (USDOI 

BLM 2004c). Effective responses to other health issues, such as asthma, which is attributed by 

many local residents to exposure to increased pollution from oil field operations, in addition to a 

background of cold weather and other injuries and illnesses, suffer from funding shortages. 

Rosemary Ahtuangaruak testified the following during scoping for the Alpine Satellite 

Development Plan EIS (USDOI BLM 2004c): 

When I started as a health aide in 1985 I had one asthma patient. By the time I went to 

the University of Washington for my physician assistant certificate in 1989, I had 20 to 

25. When I came back in ‘91, there were 35. When I quit in 2000, there were over 60. The 

village make-up has not changed; it is still mostly Inupiaq. What was contributing, the 

most overwhelming issue, was that oil development around the community had

increased and gotten closer. The worst nights on call were nights with many natural gas 

flares occurring. We could see it in the flares or in the fields around us. They release

particles and they travel to us. The chance of an inversion will affect us. An inversion is 

a bowl-like air trap with cold air trapped by warm air. Increased concentrations of 

particulate matter occurs during these episodes. 

Additional information regarding the potential cumulative impacts to human health can be 

found in section 4.7.7.19. 

Summary of Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Impacts to the sociocultural systems of the Iñupiat of the North Slope have occurred since the 

first direct interactions with non-Natives in the first quarter of the 19th century. Since that 

time, the Iñupiat have adapted to new technologies, new external pressures, and regulatory 

actions. By the mid-20th century, Iñupiat settlement patterns had changed significantly. The 

population became centralized into a few communities, when they previously had been spread 

in small family-based units across the North Slope. The cumulative effects of oil and gas 

development on sociocultural patterns over the last 50 years are hard to establish with 

quantitative precision given the lack of baseline data. Nonetheless, there is evidence that North 

Slope sociocultural systems have been subject to ongoing, additive, and synergistic cumulative 

impacts, and that oil and gas development, the primary driver of change for the past 50 years, 

has contributed substantially to these impacts. Stress on North Slope sociocultural systems 

includes residents inability to access traditional use areas, threats to resources/lifeways and to 

spiritual connection with the land, having to deal with multiple environmental impact 

assessments and other development processes, and being ignored or discounted by agency 

representatives. Long-term stresses would result in greater impacts to sociocultural systems. 

The possibility of a very large oil spill, and its effects on bowhead whales and other marine 

mammals, fish, and wildlife, is of great concern to residents, although no such spill has occurred 

on the North Slope. These stresses accumulate because they interact and are repeated with 

each new lease sale, EIS, development proposal, and facility expansion. 

4-819 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Sociocultural Systems 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7.7.13.2 Future Effects and Their Accumulation 

Continuing oil and gas leasing and development, as well as on-going changes in the Arctic 

climate, will have impacts on Iñupiat sociocultural systems in the foreseeable future. 

Development is currently being considered for the northeast corner of the planning area (e.g. 

Alpine Satellites), and further exploration and delineation activity is ongoing in the leased 

areas south of Teshekpuk Lake. If oil and gas activities were to continue in areas already 

leased, Nuiqsut residents would be increasingly isolated from their subsistence resources and 

would be encircled by development, as stated by noted elder Ruth Nukapigak (1982) and others 

in the community. This problem could be exacerbated if gas development caused development in 

and out of the planning area to extend into the foothills of the Brooks Range. Cumulative 

effects could include changes to social organization, and impacts to cultural values and general 

community welfare (e.g., health and education). Changes to social organization could potentially 

occur as a result of changes in population, employment, subsistence harvest patterns, social 

bonds, and cultural values. In addition, the increase in income in NSB communities could 

potentially result in an increase in social problems, such as drug and alcohol abuse and 

violence, as well as increasing conflicts from wealth disparities. 

Offshore exploration and development in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas is also expected to 

increase, with lease sales planned for the near future by Minerals Management Service and the 

State in these offshore areas. While it is unknown exactly how much of the offshore area will be 

leased in these future sales, several ship-based exploratory seismic operations have begun 

during the summer months, resulting in conflicts with marine mammal hunters, and concerns

over the fall whaling harvest. Should the offshore activity lead to a considerable decrease in 

success in fall whaling, this activity would contribute to major negative effects to the North 

Slope Iñupiat peoples’ identity, and could have culture-wide effects. 

The abandonment of oil fields and the related loss of revenue would no doubt have serious 

effects on the entire state of Alaska. However, the collapse of commercial enterprise is seen as 

inevitable and is common over the history of the Iñupiat. Commercial whaling served the same 

markets as petrochemicals do today, and the Iñupiat survived by returning to the land. Fur 

trapping collapsed and the Iñupiat people adapted. Based on this historic demonstration of their

resiliency, it would appear that the Iñupiat may be at less risk from the decline of industry than 

they are in the face of an expanding and unchecked industry. Nevertheless, worldwide data 

suggest a consistent pattern of marked increases in stress, social problems, and emigration 

under circumstances of sudden or severe economic depression. Data from Inupiat populations 

has shown that economic depression correlates strongly with epidemic rates of suicide (Travis 

1985). In the event of oil field abandonment, the Iñupiat would likely be employed to assist in 

the removal and demobilization of the infrastructure, and would continue with their subsistence 

pursuits. Less than 10% of Iñupiat history has proceeded in contact with Europeans and 

Americans, and in those 200 years they have maintained their unique cultural identity as a 

people throughout the Arctic. 

Not all sociocultural changes are negative. As is discussed in section 4.7.2.1, it is anticipated

that there will be a doubling of the population on the North Slope by the year 2040. As long as 

the core Iñupiat values continue to be passed from generation to generation as they currently

are, an increase in the Iñupiat population results in a strengthening of the culture as a whole.

Positive impacts also come from higher incomes, better health care, improved housing, and 

improved infrastructure and educational facilities, although these impacts may primarily 

benefit younger individuals who are generally more accepting of change (NRC 2003). Iñupiat 

culture as an adaptive mechanism is a powerful means of self-directed social, political, and 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-820 

Cumulative Impacts: Sociocultural Systems 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

cultural change capable of sustaining the Iñupiat through adverse circumstances as it has for

centuries guided them through resource shortages, inter- and intra-group social conflicts, and 

environmental changes. 

4.7.7.13.3 Global Climate Change 

Climate change could cause changes to the environment and habitats of the North Slope that 

could affect subsistence resources and users, as discussed in section 4.7.7.12, Subsistence. 

Changes in climate regimes could result in changes to species diversity, numbers and 

distribution of Arctic-adapted species, vegetation coverage and type, and the physical structure 

of the landscape. If the landscape becomes less hospitable for human occupation, people may 

move to new locations on the North Slope, leave the area for either urban Alaska or High Arctic 

Canada, or adapt to the new conditions with a combination of reduced subsistence resources

and increased dependence on outside sources of food and supplies. Community stresses could

increase as a result, and traditional knowledge of the landscape, environment, and resources 

would be devalued if conditions change rapidly, reducing the influence of experienced elders in

the communities. Reduced levels of stratospheric ozone could continue to allow higher levels of 

UV exposure to northern peoples, lowering immune system function and increasing the 

likelihood that residents would suffer increased incidences of skin cancer and cataracts (ACIA 

2004). 

4.7.7.13.4 Contribution of Supplement Alternatives to Cumulative Effects 

As noted above, continuing oil and gas leasing and development will have impacts on Iñupiat 

sociocultural systems in the foreseeable future. If oil and gas activities were to continue in areas 

already leased, Nuiqsut residents would be increasingly isolated from their subsistence 

resources and could be encircled by development. Cumulative effects could include changes to

social organization, and impacts to cultural values and general community welfare (e.g., health 

and education). Changes to social organization could potentially occur as a result of changes in 

population, employment, subsistence harvest patterns, social bonds, and cultural values. In

addition, the increase in income in NSB communities could potentially result in an increase in 

social problems, such as drug and alcohol abuse and violence, as well as increasing conflicts 

from wealth disparities. 

Alternatives B, C, and D would open the northwest portion of the planning area to leasing. 

Infrastructure such as pipelines and CPFs developed in this area would make oil and gas 

development in the adjacent northeast portion of Northwest NPR-A and Beaufort Sea more

likely in the foreseeable future. 

These effects would be greatest under Alternative C, not only because it would result in a 

greater amount of surface disturbance than the other alternatives, but because the entire 

planning area would be available for oil and gas leasing and development. However, the amount 

of wealth, including income from royalties, taxes, and jobs, generated by oil and gas activity and 

available to residents of the North Slope would be greater under Alternative C than the other

alternatives. The effects on wealth and subsistence resources would be least under Alternative 

A, while the effects on wealth and subsistence resources under Alternative B and Alternative D 

would fall between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

4-821 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Sociocultural Systems 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7.7.13.5 Conclusion 

Both additive and synergistic impacts to sociocultural characteristics of North Slope 

communities are associated with oil and gas exploration and development on the North Slope. 

Because of the primary dependence of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Wainwright, and

Nuiqsut residents on the subsistence caribou harvest from CAH, TLH, and WAH caribou, 

bowhead whaling offshore, and continued healthy fish, cumulative effects could potentially 

chronically disrupt sociocultural systems in the community, particularly in the case of bowhead 

whaling, around which the sociocultural system is based. Caribou hunting provides food and 

materials that support whaling. Seal hunting provides skins for Barrow’s skin boat whaling in 

the spring and supplies meat for food. Fishing and bird hunting provide meat and fish for 

whalers as well as for the festivals, Nalukataq and Kivgiq, associated with whaling. These 

festivals are important social activities that unify the communities, reunite families, and 

maintain the continuity of the present with past practice and tradition. 

Effects from industrial activities (e.g., noise, light, and chemical pollution), changes in human 

population and employment, and the accompanying changes in subsistence-harvest patterns, 

social bonds, and cultural values would be expected to disrupt community activities and 

traditional practices for harvesting, sharing, and processing subsistence resources, but they 

would not be expected to displace sociocultural institutions, social organization, or sociocultural 

systems. Funding cuts and reduced wage earnings would not likely reduce subsistence uses, but 

may require changes in seasonal round and longer periods of travel to get to subsistence harvest 

areas; however, these would more than likely resemble the pre-1950 pattern of residence and 

travel, and technology is available that could facilitate education services delivery via electronic 

means. 

Health issues caused by persistent and short-term pollution could shorten life spans of elders, 

who are the key repositories of traditional and cultural knowledge in the communities. Health 

issues from increased injuries as a result of the need to travel further over rough terrain to 

support families with subsistence foods could reduce community involvement with employment, 

tax the community health infrastructure, encourage outmigration, and lead to increases in 

substance abuse and depression in those no longer able to participate in subsistence activities. 

Cuts in funding for services would increase the severity of the problem of delivery of health 

services as well as maintaining health and hygiene infrastructure (e.g. fresh water, sewers, and 

washeteria). 

Because of impacts from climate change on long-standing traditional hunting and gathering 

practices that promote health and cultural identity, and considering the limited capacities and 

choices for adaptation and the ongoing cultural challenges of globalization to indigenous 

communities, North Slope peoples would experience cultural stresses as well as impacts to 

population, employment, and local infrastructure. The termination of oil and gas activity could 

result in the outmigration of non-Iñupiat people from the North Slope, along with some Iñupiat 

who may depend on higher levels of medical support or other infrastructure and services than 

may be available in a fiscally-constrained, post-oil production circumstance. If subsistence 

livelihoods are disrupted, Iñupiat communities could face increased poverty, drug and alcohol 

abuse, and other social problems resulting from a loss of relationship to subsistence resources,

the inability to support a productive family unit, and a dependence on non-subsistence foods 

(Langdon 1995, Peterson and Johnson 1995, USGCRP 2000, IPCC 2001). As stated by Parson et 

al. (2001), “It is possible that projected climate change will overwhelm the available responses.” 

It is also realistic to expect that some general assistance could be found to mitigate the losses of 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-822 

Cumulative Impacts: Sociocultural Systems 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

nutrition, health, and income from diminished subsistence resources, but such assistance would 

likely have little effect in mitigating the associated social and cultural impacts. 

4.7.7.14 Environmental Justice 

Activities that impact subsistence resources and access to those resources could have a 

disproportionately high impact on minority and low-income communities. Alaska Iñupiat 

Natives, a recognized minority, are the predominant residents of the NSB, the area that would

likely be most affected by activities in the planning area under the four alternatives and 

activities associated with other projects on the North Slope. Environmental justice effects on 

Iñupiat Natives have occurred in the past from non-oil and gas, and from oil and gas impacts on 

their subsistence resources and harvest practices, as well as through impacts to human health 

(see section 4.7.7.19 , Human Health for a detailed description of cumulative impacts to the

health of local residents). Causes of cumulative effects would include offshore oil and gas 

activity, commercial harvest of fish, oil spills, noise and traffic disturbance, and disturbance 

from construction activities associated with exploration and development on the North Slope. In

addition, habitat reduction and increased local population pressure continue to challenge the 

survival of many traditional subsistence practices. It is expected that cumulative effects to

subsistence resources, harvest practices, and sociocultural patterns from noise, disturbance, and 

oil spills would primarily impact the Iñupiat communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, 

and Nuiqsut within the NSB. The following sections discuss some of these impacts to Iñupiat 

Natives that have occurred in the past and could occur in the future. Since cumulative effects to 

subsistence resources have been discussed in much detail in earlier sections, the reader is 

encouraged to read earlier cumulative effects sections on vegetation, fish, birds, mammals, 

endangered and threatened species, subsistence and human health (sections 4.7.7.5, 4.7.7.7, 

4.7.7.8, 4.7.7.9, 4.7.7.10, and 4.7.7.12, and 4.7.7.19). 

4.7.7.14.1 Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Prior to sustained contact between the Iñupiat of the North Slope and Euroamericans, effects to

the sociocultural and subsistence activities of Native communities were primarily the result of 

natural factors, including weather and natural population cycles of subsistence animals. As

discussed in section 4.7.7.12, Subsistence, the advent of commercial whaling in the Pacific 

Ocean and subsequent Euroamerican influence had a profound affect on the people and

resources of the North Slope. Effects on the Iñupiat of the North Slope included disease; 

introduction of new foodstuffs, including flour, sugar, coffee, and tea; the increased availability 

of alcohol and tobacco; ongoing efforts at acculturation of the Iñupiat through missions and 

government schools; and efforts to centralize and make sedentary the highly mobile populations 

of Iñupiat. The failure of commercial whaling by 1910 coincided with a depletion in the number 

of whales available for harvest, making the ongoing subsistence harvest difficult for the Iñupiat 

remaining along the Arctic coast. Further complicating subsistence whale harvest was a 

decrease in the Iñupiat population due to disease, accidents, and poor health care. Iñupiat and 

whale populations gradually recovered during the 20th century. Some whale populations, 

however, including bowhead whales, are still depressed from historic levels. Following a 

reduced presence of Euroamericans in the beginning of the 20th century, due to the collapse of 

commercial whaling, the Iñupiat returned to their highly dispersed way of life, with additional 

emphasis on fur trapping and reindeer herding as a source of money to buy those Euroamerican 

goods they desired. See also discussions on health-related changes during this period in section 

4.7.7.19, Public Health. 

4-823 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Sociocultural Systems 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Oil and gas exploration from 1920 to 1968 brought changes to the Iñupiat people. By 1950, the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs was requiring families with school age children to relocate to

population centers (e.g., Barrow) so that the children could attend school. Construction of a 

hospital and churches at Barrow also encouraged North Slope residents to settle there. Children 

were sent outside to boarding schools, including Chemawa in Oregon and Mt. Edgecumbe in 

Sitka. The children that returned from these boarding schools often became spokespeople for 

the community and interposed themselves between the forces of development and the 

conservation of traditional ways of life. 

During the mid-20th century, the Department of Defense contracted for the construction of 

DEW-line and WACS sites on the North Slope. North Slope residents were no longer allowed to 

hunt near these locations, all of which were situated at or near important subsistence or 

residence sites. Operation of these sites by the military, and later by contractors, resulted in 

contamination of the surrounding area with fuel, oil, antifreeze, and other chemicals, which led 

to avoidance of these areas by subsistence harvesters concerned about chemical contamination. 

Postwar oil exploration and the sustained contact with Euroamericans, brought by activities 

associated with oil and the Cold War, resulted in additive impacts on subsistence resources,

harvest patterns, and users. In addition, development associated with villages on the North 

Slope impacted subsistence resources. These activities cumulatively resulted in the loss of 

approximately 2,500 acres of habitat for subsistence species. 

The most intense oil and gas development activity, and increased impacts to subsistence 

activities, occurred during the 1970s and early 1980s (e.g., development of the Prudhoe Bay and 

Kuparuk oil fields, construction of TAPS and the haul road, and construction of a large portion 

of the roads, drilling pads, gravel sources, collector pipelines, and production facilities). This 

activity has resulted in the cumulative direct loss and indirect loss of approximately 13,000 

acres and 21,000 acres of habitat, respectively, for subsistence species, and higher levels of 

disturbance that can impact species health, reproduction, and survivorship. 

As discussed in section 4.7.7.12, Subsistence, North Slope residents have noted the decline of 

fish populations caused by seismic activities, the diversion of caribou from traditional migration 

routes and calving areas caused by an increased number of low flying aircraft, the disruption of 

caribou movements by low pipelines, and the ending of use of traditional harvest areas due to

the avoidance of industrial areas by hunters. Oil and gas development in the Prudhoe Bay and 

Kuparuk areas discouraged Nuiqsut residents from using the eastern portions of their 

traditional harvest areas (Maps 3-36 and 3-37). Additionally, bowhead whaling quotas 

instituted by the International Whaling Commission resulted in the establishment of the 

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission. Some residents were profoundly concerned about impacts 

to marine resources, and so opposed any oil development in the marine environment. 

Impacts to subsistence cased by the seismic exploration programs on the North Slope have also 

been observed for many years. Although seismic testing no longer uses dynamite on fish bearing 

lakes, Iñupiat blamed this activity for declines in fish numbers in the vast number of 

interconnected lakes and streams used by subsistence fishermen. Arnold Brower, Jr. stated in 

scoping testimony for the 1998 Northeast National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska meetings a 

consensus opinion among Iñupiat subsistence hunters that seismic testing, even in its current 

refined form, deflects subsistence animals from the areas it operates in. 

In the past, oil and gas activities have deterred subsistence users from using their traditional 

subsistence use areas. The continued expansion of this activity across the ACP from Prudhoe 

Bay westward could increase the area considered off-limits by resource users, deflect or divert 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-824 

Cumulative Impacts: Environmental Justice 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

important subsistence resources from their normal routes, and require users to travel farther to

harvest subsistence foods (IAI 1990a). The continued increase in developed area would reduce 

the amount of suitable lands available for Nuiqsut residents to harvest necessary subsistence 

resources away from oil and gas facilities. 

Summary of Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Euroamerican presence, commercial whaling, and non-oil and gas development and oil and gas 

exploration and development have had cumulative impacts to Iñupiat culture and to fish and 

wildlife used for subsistence. Euroamerican presence has impacted the Iñupiat through disease 

and other ills. Commercial whaling nearly decimated whale stocks in the Chukchi and Beaufort 

seas; bowhead whale populations, though recovering, remain nearly 80% below levels in the 

1800s. Non-oil and gas development associated with military, residential, and commercial 

development have directly impacted several thousand acres of fish and wildlife habitat and have 

also indirectly affected habitat and animal behavior effects that have accumulated and persist 

today. Oil and gas exploration and development conducted by the Federal government and 

industry have directly impacted the habitat use and behavior of subsistence species that also 

persists today. These effects have disrupted subsistence livelihoods, and may, in part, account 

for some of the social problems seen in the villages today. 

4.7.7.14.2 Future Effects and Their Accumulation 

The Iñupiat people, a recognized minority population and the primary subsistence users on the 

North Slope, will be affected by future disturbances to key subsistence species that leads to 

disruption, displacement, or long-term changes in species’ populations. Expanded oil and gas 

development on the North Slope, on both Federal and state leases, would increase disturbance 

effects to subsistence species and harvest patterns. While each individual project would likely 

be a small incremental increase, the cumulative effect would eventually become more and more 

repressive to the subsistence lifestyle. Approximately 13,400 acres may be directly impacted by 

being covered with gravel or mined for gravel from oil and gas development associated with 

activities in the NPR-A and elsewhere on the North Slope in the future. Indirect impacts to soil, 

water, and vegetation could be three to four times the amount of direct disturbance. 

In addition to direct and indirect loss of habitat that can affect subsistence species, noise and 

other disturbance associated with oil and gas development would divert, deflect, and disturb 

subsistence species, potentially having population-level effects that would accumulate. Oil and 

gas development could also affect subsistence harvest by causing subsistence hunters to avoid 

certain areas because of concerns about firearm safety, and perhaps for aesthetic reasons. 

Although the North Slope still has huge amount of area that is relatively undisturbed, the 

general subsistence-hunting environment continues to change in response to increased 

development. During the past several decades, populations of caribou, bowhead whales, and

other wildlife and fish have generally increased, to the benefit of subsistence hunters, despite 

habitat, disturbance, and other effects that have accumulated. However, there is no certainty 

that these trends would continue into the future, especially as the effects of global climate 

change on the Arctic environment become more pronounced. 

North Slope Iñupiat have repeatedly spoken out against planned and ongoing offshore oil and

gas exploration development, due to the importance of bowhead whaling and sea mammal 

hunting to their cultural identity and well-being. Should offshore activity result in changes in 

the migration paths of whales, and an associated decrease in the ability for whalers to harvest 

them, this activity would have a substantial negative effect on this recognized minority 

population. 

4-825 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Environmental Justice 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Oil-spill contamination of subsistence foods is another important concern regarding potential 

effects on Native health. Although some contamination remains on the North Slope from past 

military and government activities, and from the early days of oil and gas development, the 

effects on subsistence species and users are minor. Efforts to clean up old disposal sites in the

past have helped to reduce the effects that would accumulate with spill effects in the future. 

Human health could be threatened in areas affected by oil spills, but these risks can be reduced 

through timely warnings about spills, forecasts about which areas may be affected, and even 

evacuation of people and avoidance of marine and terrestrial foods that might be affected. In the 

unlikely event that a large spill were to occur and contaminate essential whaling areas, major 

effects to subsistence resources could result from the combined factors of shoreline 

contamination, tainting concerns, clean-up disturbance, and disruption of subsistence practices. 

Such impacts would have a disproportionately high affect on Alaska Natives. Contamination of 

subsistence foods by oil spills would potentially affect Native health (see section 4.7.7.19, 

Human Health), and health and survivorship of subsistence species. 

Transportation facilities and activities would also contribute to cumulative effects to 

subsistence resources and, consequently, to the Native population. A new permanent road 

connection from TAPS to Nuiqsut and the NPR-A would also facilitate petroleum development,

and could provide an additional travel route for the public to the North Slope. This could

encourage more hunters and other visitors to travel to the planning area, increasing the 

potential for conflicts between subsistence users and other users of fish and wildlife resources. 

It is acknowledged that cumulative sociocultural impacts have occurred on the North Slope and

that Iñupiat culture has undergone a noticeable change. The influx of money from wage

employment has added many benefits and raised the standard of living, but has also given rise 

to an array of social pathologies, including increased alcoholism, as discussed in sections 

4.7.7.13, Sociocultural Systems and 4.7.7.19, Human Health. 

4.7.7.14.3 Global Climate Change 

It is difficult to determine exactly how global climate change figures into the cumulative mix. It

is expected that global climate change affects animal populations, but the type, location, and 

magnitude of effects appears to be the subject of some disagreement. Regardless of exactly what 

those effects would be, changes to the numbers of animals or patterns of animal behavior would 

affect subsistence harvests, and the effects would thus be interactive with those of other North 

Slope activities. Whether global climate change would exacerbate effects on subsistence species 

or ameliorate them remains a subject for speculation. 

4.7.7.14.4 Contribution of Supplemental Alternatives to Cumulative Effects 

This cumulative analysis assumes that currently planned development (e.g. Alpine Satellites) 

and winter exploration in the planning area would continue. Seismic exploration would occur in 

winter and would include the drilling of exploratory and delineation wells in areas not excluded 

by buffers. Exploration and development could originate from Inigok, Point Lonely, and the 

Umiat vicinity, and could encompass important subsistence harvest areas for moose, fish, 

caribou, and furbearers, affecting subsistence users in Nuiqsut and to a lesser extent in 

Atqasuk, Barrow, Wainwright and Anaktuvuk Pass. If permanent development is pursued in 

areas newly opened to exploration and leasing under alternatives B, C, and D, Iñupiat users are

likely to avoid the area from 5 miles to 25 miles around those facilities for subsistence uses 

(Pedersen et al. 2000; Pedersen and Taalak 2001). 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-826 

Cumulative Impacts: Environmental Justice 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Allowing leasing and development of all or portions of the area north and east of Teshekpuk 

Lake under Alternatives B, C, and D would dramatically reduce the amount of undisturbed

habitat to caribou, waterfowl, fish, and other subsistence species. Additionally, in opening this 

part of the planning area to leasing, infrastructure such as pipelines and CPFs developed in this 

area would make oil and gas production in the adjacent northeast portion of Northwest NPR-A 

and Beaufort Sea more likely in the foreseeable future. These effects to subsistence species 

would be greatest under Alternative C. Teshekpuk Lake would be deferred from leasing under 

the Alternative D, protecting waterfowl and other subsistence species that use the lake. In 

addition, RSO restrictions on permanent facilities in caribou habitat protection areas and the 

Goose Molting Area would limit the amount of surface disturbance that could occur north and

east of Teshekpuk Lake; these restrictions would reduce the likelihood of cumulative effects to 

cultural resources. Under Alternative A, 600,000 acres associated with areas near Teshekpuk 

Lake would be closed to leasing. 

4.7.7.14.5 Conclusion 

Alaska Iñupiat Natives, a recognized minority, are the predominant residents of the NSB, the 

area that would likely be affected by exploration and development in the planning area and 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects on the North Slope. Environmental 

justice effects on Iñupiat Natives could occur because of their reliance on subsistence foods, and

cumulative effects would increase the effects on subsistence resources and harvest practices. 

Potential effects would focus on the Iñupiat communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Wainwright, 

Barrow, Atqasuk, and Nuiqsut within the NSB. Based on potential cumulative, long-term 

displacement and/or functional loss of CAH, TLH, and WAH caribou habitat over the life of the

Northeast NPR-A oil and gas lease sales, and from other oil and gas developments on the North 

Slope, this important subsistence resource could become less readily available or undesirable for 

use, or experience long-term population and productivity effects. Such impacts would

disproportionately affect Alaska Natives. Access to subsistence-hunting areas and subsistence 

resources, and the use of subsistence resources, could change if oil development were to reduce

the availability of resources or alter their distribution patterns. 

Because the potential impacts of climate change on marine and terrestrial ecosystems in the 

Arctic would cause impacts on subsistence resources, traditional culture, and community 

infrastructure, subsistence-based indigenous communities in the Arctic would be expected to 

experience disproportionate, environmental and health effects. 

In the unlikely event that a large spill were to occur and contaminate essential whaling areas, 

major effects to subsistence resources could result from the combined factors of shoreline 

contamination, tainting concerns, clean-up disturbance, and disruption of subsistence practices. 

Such impacts would have a disproportionately high affect on Alaska Natives. Contamination of 

subsistence foods by oil spills would potentially affect Native health, as would many other 

factors (see section 4.7.7.19). 

4-827 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Environmental Justice 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7.7.15 Coastal Zone Management 

Activities associated with cumulative effects on the North Slope include those occurring in the

planning area under the Supplement alternatives, oil and gas development in the Northwest 

NPR-A, Federal and state offshore oil and gas development, state and Native onshore oil and

gas development, and oil and gas transportation. The activities associated with exploration, 

facility construction, operation and maintenance, and oil spills are the most important elements 

for the cumulative analysis because of their potential disturbance and habitat impacts. 

The planning area is within the NSB. The NSB applies its Comprehensive Plan policies and 

CMP policies to all developments occurring on private, Federal, and state lands. Oil and gas 

development activities could include portions of road/pipeline corridors, including the offshore

portions (such as inlets and bays) within the NSB boundary. Development activities occurring 

adjacent to the Colville and Ikpikpuk rivers that could affect coastal resources or uses, including 

activities described in exploration plans and development and production plans, could be subject 

to the statewide standards and NSB district policies of the ACMP. Policies of the ACMP are 

examined herein for potential conflicts with effects from oil and gas exploration or development 

activities. Potential effects are summarized as succinctly as possible. Additional information is 

contained in the Coastal Zone Management section of the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS (USDOI 

BLM and MMS 1998). 

While the planning area is excluded from the coastal zone because Federal lands are not 

considered part of the coastal zone, Federal and federally-permitted activities are subject to 

review for consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) Statewide 

Standards in 11 AAC 112 and the enforceable policies of the NSB Coastal Management 

Program (CMP). The coastal area subject to review of license and permit activities includes 25­

mile strip of land along the coast and a one-mile area west of the Colville River. The coastal 

areas are indicated on the Coastal Zone Boundaries of Alaska maps. The NSB maps can be 

viewed at http://alaskacoast.state.ak.us/District/swf/nwNSB.htm. Therefore, onshore activities 

within the planning area and some offshore activities identified under the alternatives should

be assessed against the ACMP, and the enforceable policies of the NSB CMP. 

4.7.7.15.1 Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Non-oil and gas activities on the North Slope are subject to all applicable stipulations approved 

in the 1998 Northeast NPR-A ROD, as well as any other Federal, state, or NSB regulations that 

pertain to the activities in question (for the planning area and remainder of North Slope). These 

activities include aircraft use for point-to-point transport, and wildlife and other aerial surveys; 

ground activities such as seismic surveys, resource inventories for paleontological and cultural 

excavations, research and recreational camps, and overland moves; and guided hunting and 

river float parties on the Colville River from the headwaters to areas below Umiat. Hazardous 

and solid waste spills, and removal and remediation have occurred at abandoned drill sites. Oil 

spills have occurred at fuel storage sites and camps, but the size of these spills have been small. 

Clean-up activities have not greatly disturbed subsistence harvest activities or the surrounding 

environment. Development associated with past military and other government activities, and 

from growth of villages, has had effects on subsistence species and subsistence users that were 

minor, but still persist today. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-828 

Cumulative Impacts: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Coastal Development (11 AAC 112.200 and 11 AAC 112.220). Water dependency is a prime 

criterion for development along the shoreline of coastal waters. The intent of this policy is to

ensure that onshore developments and activities that could be placed inland would not displace 

activities that depend on shoreline locations, which include marine, lakeshore, and river 

waterfronts. 

Natural Hazard Areas (11 AAC 112.210). This statewide standard permits coastal districts 

and state agencies to identify and designate areas which natural hazards are known to exist 

that my present a threat to life and property. Development in these areas would be prohibited

until siting, design, and construction measures for minimizing property damage and protecting 

against the loss of life were provided. 

Flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, storm surges, ice 

formations, snow avalanches, erosion, permafrost, and beach processes in the planning area 

should be considered. Onshore development would be sited in areas of permafrost. 

Development in these areas would be required to maintain the natural permafrost insulation 

quality of existing soils and vegetation. 

Coastal Access (11 AAC 112.210). This standard requires that activities maintain or increase 

public access to coastal waters. Access to coastal areas by Iñupiat Natives has been restricted at 

Prudhoe Bay and other coastal facilities for safety concerns and for protection of oil field 

infrastructure. A concern brought up during scoping for the amendment was the inability of 

some Natives to visit historic cabins and campsites used by ancestors at Prudhoe Bay. The loss

of access to some coastal areas on the North Slope is an effect that persists today. 

Energy Facilities (11 AAC 112.230). The ACMP requires that decisions on the siting and

approval of energy-related facilities be based, to the extent practicable, on 16 criteria within the 

energy facilities standard. The criteria within this standard require that facilities be 

consolidated and sited in areas of least biological productivity, diversity, and vulnerability and 

where effluents and spills can be controlled or contained (11 AAC 112.230 (a) [3] and [14]). The

NSB CMP also requires that transportation facilities and utilities must be consolidated to the 

maximum extent possible (NSB CMP 2.4.5.2[f] and NSBMC 19.70.050.K.6). 

In the past, facilities have generally been sited where oil resources were most easily accessed. 

As a result, areas with high biological productivity, especially coastal wetlands, have been 

impacted by oil and gas development. The loss of this productivity persists today. Recent 

technology, including innovations that reduce the size of the gravel footprint needed for 

development and production, and advances in directional drilling, have allowed oil and gas 

developers to site facilities in areas with lower biological productivity. 

Utility Routes and Facilities (11 AAC 112.240) and Transportation Routes and 

Facilities (11 AAC 112.280). These statewide standards require that routes for transportation 

and utilities be compatible with district programs and sited inland from shorelines and beaches. 

Utility routes and facilities along the coast must avoid, minimize, or mitigate alterations in 

drainage patterns, disruption in wildlife transit, and blockage of existing or traditional access. 

As discussed for bird and mammal resources, roads and pipelines have altered drainage

patterns, disrupted wildlife movements, habitat use, and reproductive success, especially for 

caribou, and have restricted traditional access into important subsistence areas (NRC 2003). 

4-829 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Over 9,000 acres have been directly impacted by gravel roads and pads, and alteration in 

drainage patterns has occurred on nearly twice that many acres. Caribou avoid, or are hesitant 

to cross roads, during migrations to foraging and insect-relief habitats (see section 4.7.7.9, 

Mammals). 

Sand and Gravel Extraction (11 AAC 112.260). Extraction of sand and gravel is a major 

concern on the North Slope. Gravel resources are needed for construction of pads, roadbeds, 

berms, causeways, and docks to protect the tundra. The ACMP statewide standards indicate 

sand and gravel may be extracted from coastal waters, intertidal areas, barrier islands, and 

spits if no practicable noncoastal alternative is available to meet the public need. 

Through 2001, over 6,300 acres had been impacted for gravel mines on the North Slope; prior to 

1968, only 24 acres had been impacted (NRC 2003). Eighty percent of these mines were located

in rivers, the remainder in tundra. As discussed in section 4.7.7.7, Fish Resources, only about

1,800 acres of gravel mine disturbance persists today, evenly divided between tundra and river 

sites. Many of the river sites were filled in when the river channel shifted, while others have 

been reclaimed to provide deepwater habitat, which is important to wintering fish. Thus, most 

of the effects associated with past gravel mines have been compensated for through 

development of new fish habitat. 

Subsistence (11 AAC 112.270). The statewide standard for subsistence indicates a project

within a designated subsistence use area must avoid or minimize impacts to subsistence uses of 

coastal resources. Subsistence uses of coastal resources and maintenance of the subsistence way 

of life are primary concerns of the residents of the NSB. However, access to subsistence 

resources, and subsistence hunting and resource use have been affected by oil and gas 

development, as discussed in section 4.7.7.12, Subsistence. Subsistence resource availability 

has been effected by direct and indirect loss of habitat and from disturbance to animals from 

pipelines, structures, support-bases, pump stations, and roads. 

Policy 2.4.3(d) (NSBMC 19.70.050.D) requires that development not preclude reasonable access 

to a subsistence resource. Onshore pipelines and construction activities could cause disruptions 

to subsistence caribou harvests from access and movement conflicts. Iñupiat Natives tend to 

avoid hunting and fishing near oil facilities, and as discussed in Appendix J, they travel further 

to reach subsistence resources than occurred in the past. 

Habitats (11 AAC 112.300). The ACMP statewide standard for habitats in the coastal zone 

requires that habitats be managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts to 

habitat resources. This policy is supported by an NSB CMP policy requiring that development

be located, designed, and maintained in a manner that prevents substantial impacts on fish and 

wildlife and their habitats, including water circulation and drainage patterns and coastal 

processes (NSB CMP 2.4.5.2[b] and NSBMC 19.70.050.K.2). 

Past activities in the planning area and on the North Slope have degraded habitat, as discussed 

under related plant and animal resource areas. In the context of the North Slope and ACMP, 

the amount of habitat directly or indirectly harmed from oil and gas activities has been less 

than 1%, and most populations of fish and wildlife appear healthy and are stable or increasing. 

Caribou and bowhead whale, important subsistence species, have shown steady population 

gains during the past several decades (NRC 2003). Populations of brant and several species of 

shorebirds, however, are declining, although it is not known if the causes of the decline are 

related to activities on the North Slope, or from activities occurring on the migration or

wintering grounds, or both. Some effects of oil and gas development have countervailing effects. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-830 

Cumulative Impacts: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

For example, vegetation and soil are lost from gravel mines, but mines also provide important 

wintering habitat for fish and loafing habitat for birds. 

Air, Land, and Water Quality (11 AAC 112.310). The air, land, and water quality standard

of the ACMP incorporates, by reference, all the statutes pertaining to, and regulations and

procedures of, the ADEC. The NSB reiterates this standard in its district policies and

emphasizes the need to comply with specific water and air quality regulations in several 

additional policies. Water quality can be affected by oil spills, accidental discharges of 

pollutants, deliberate discharges and emissions, and gravel operations. 

As discussed in section, 4.7.7.1 Air Quality, air quality on the North Slope meets NAAQS and

air quality is relatively pristine. Arctic haze has occurred in the past, but the source of this haze 

appears to be pollutants from Europe and Asia (and to a lesser extent, northern Alaska). There 

have been minor effects to vegetation from air pollutants, but these effects are not likely to 

occur and persist at a level that would harm subsistence species. 

Based on the history of military activities and oil and gas exploration and development on the 

North Slope, as discussed in section 3.2.10, Hazardous Materials, large amounts of 

hazardous material and waste have been dumped on the tundra, often onto the ground or into

unlined storage facilities, and these materials have impacted local surface and groundwater 

sources. Much of this material was removed in the 1970s and early 1980s, and some cleanup 

continues today, although some effects from these actions likely persist today. 

Historic, Prehistoric, and Archeological Resources (11 AAC 112.320). The ACMP 

statewide standard requires that coastal districts and appropriate state agencies identify areas 

of the coast that are important to the study, understanding, or illustration of national, state, or 

local history or prehistory, including natural processes. The NSB developed additional policies 

to ensure protection of its heritage. Traditional activities at cultural or historic sites also are 

protected under the NSB CMP 2.4.3(f) (NSBMC 19.70.050.F) and 2.4.5.2(h) (NSBMC 

19.70.050.K.8). 

As discussed in section 4.7.7.11, Cultural Resources, interest in the geology and archaeology 

of the North Slope began in earnest at the beginning of the 20th century, but access was 

generally limited to coastal or easily accessible areas (see section 3.4.1.8, European/EuroAmerican Expansion, Exploration, and Ethnographic Research). Effects to cultural 

resources in the NPR-A have been occurring since 1923, when oil and gas exploration and 

mapping began with USGS surveys of the Reserve, assisted by Native guides. With the onset of 

the Cold War, military activity on the North Slope also affected cultural resources. During the 

1950s, ground-disturbing activities associated with the rapid construction of the DEW-Line and 

WACS sites affected cultural resources. Continued and increasing amounts of oil and gas 

exploration and drilling across the North Slope further affected cultural resources and Native 

peoples’ relationships with their ancestral homelands. 

Following Alaska statehood in 1959, land selections were made by the state and Federal 

governments, which did not include Native land ownership except as provided for under the 

Indian Allotment Act of 1906. No effort was made at that time to inventory, identify, record, or 

document Native land use or historic and archaeological sites as a result of these land

selections. As a result of this lack of strong legal protection, oil development and production 

during this initial period severely impacted cultural resources and diminished some peoples' 

relationships with their individual and collective history. 

4-831 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

The most intense oil and gas development activity occurred during the 1970s and early 1980s 

(e.g., development of the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk oil fields, construction of TAPS and the 

haul road, and construction of a large portion of the roads, drilling pads, gravel sources, 

collector pipelines, and production facilities). These developments occurred following the 

passage of the NHPA (1966) and NEPA (1969) that mandated the identification of cultural 

resources potentially affected by these developments and mitigation of the impacts. In addition, 

these developments resulted in the discovery of many previously undocumented cultural 

resources. In part, increased oil and gas exploration and development activity prompted the

NSB to initiate the Traditional Land Use Inventory. In 1977 and 1978, an archaeological survey 

was conducted in select areas of the NPR-A. This survey resulted in the identification of 728 

cultural resource sites in the planning area. 

Summary of Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

As most non-oil and gas development, and oil and gas development on the North Slope has 

occurred near the coastline, conflicts with the NSB and State of Alaska coastal zone 

management standards have occurred in the past. Specific issues include limits on access to 

coastal areas by Alaska Natives, disturbance to and deflection of caribou moving to insect-relief 

areas along the coast, loss of habitat, and loss of historical, cultural, and archaeological 

resources resulting from exploration and development along the coastline. Through 

consultation, conflicts between coastal zone management standards and proposed development 

that could occur in coastal areas have been reduced since implementation of coastal 

management standards. 

4.7.7.15.2 Future Effects and Their Accumulation 

The ACMP statewide standards and NSB enforceable policies that are relevant to the analysis 

of the alternatives for this Supplement remain relevant for the cumulative case. Although the 

level of effects could increase for the cumulative case, the scenarios assumed for the analyses in 

this Supplement would not be expected to conflict with the statewide standards or the district 

policies. Activities that would occur outside the boundaries of the NPR-A, but within the NSB 

(including the coastal zone), would require permitting and approval from the NSB before 

proceeding. Those activities would not be approved by the NSB if they conflicted with the 

coastal management program enforceable policies. In addition, BLM would consult with the 

State of Alaska DNR regarding coastal zone consistency determination when a lease sale is

proposed to ensure that BLM is in compliance with the CZMA. Thus, effects would accumulate

under coastal zone management in the future, but would not conflict with policies of the State of 

Alaska and Borough coastal zone management programs. 

 Coastal Development and Access (11 AAC 112.200 and 11 AAC 112.220) 

The potential for Alaska Natives to be denied access to coastal areas would increase as more 

development occurs near the coast. However, BLM proposes to implement Lease Stipulation K-6 

(Coastal Areas) to prohibit or minimize development within 3⁄4 of a mile of the coastline. This 

lease stipulation should ensure that the coastline remains relatively unspoiled and allows for 

Alaska Native access to coastal areas adjacent to the NPR-A. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-832 

Cumulative Impacts: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

 Energy Facilities (11 AAC 112.230), Utility Routes and Facilities (11 AAC 112.240), 

Transportation Routes and Facilities (11 AAC 112.280) 

The NSB CMP contains several additional policies related to transportation and utilities that 

may be relevant to this analysis. All but one of the policies are best-effort policies and subject to 

some flexibility if: 1) there is a substantial public need for the proposed use and activity; 2) all 

feasible and prudent alternatives have been rigorously explored and objectively evaluated; and

3) all feasible and prudent steps have been taken to avoid the effects the policy was intended to 

prevent. Transportation development, including pipelines, which obstructs wildlife migration is 

subject to the three conditions listed above (NSB CMP 2.4.5.1 [g] and NSBMC 19. 70.050.J.3.f). 

The oil and gas industry, in consultation with Federal, state, and local agencies, has 

implemented policies and management procedures to minimize impacts to caribou and other 

wildlife from pipelines and other linear facilities that would benefit wildlife in the future. These 

include the requirement that pipelines and other utility lines use a common corridor. 

 Sand and Gravel Extraction (11 AAC 112.260) 

The ACMP statewide standards indicate sand and gravel may be extracted from coastal waters, 

intertidal areas, barrier islands, and spits if no practicable noncoastal alternative is available to 

meet the public need. 

Approximately 6,300 acres have been impacted by gravel mines on the North Slope (NRC 2003). 

Much of the gravel was obtained from gravel deposits within floodplains. But concerns arising 

from this practice prompted the USFWS to study the effects of floodplain gravel mining on the 

floodplains physical and biotic processes (Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1980). The study 

identified numerous examples of habitat modification, including increased channel braiding, 

loss of wintering areas, spreading of flow, and restriction of fish movements, such as fish 

mortality caused by stranding. The study also set forth guidelines for gravel mining to minimize 

floodplain damage (Joyce et al. 1980). In response to agency concerns, and the results of the 

USFWS study, new gravel mines have primarily been sited in upland sites since the 1980s. Few 

good sources of gravel have been identified in the planning area, although limited effort has 

been spent on identifying potential gravel sources within the Reserve. Future gravel sites would 

be sited in upland areas, and away from the coast, where feasible. 

 Subsistence (11 AAC 112.270) 

Access to subsistence-hunting areas and subsistence resources, and the use of subsistence

resources, could change if development were to reduce the availability of these resources or alter 

their distribution patterns. Activities that could affect subsistence resources and access include 

noise and traffic disturbance, disturbance from construction activities associated with ice roads, 

production facilities, pipelines, gravel mining, supply efforts, and a large oil spill and associated 

clean-up efforts. Of these, a large spill is the only occurrence that could substantially interfere 

with access to subsistence resources. If a large spill were to occur in an environmentally 

sensitive area and essential harvesting areas were contaminated, effects could result from the 

combined factors of shoreline contamination, tainting concerns, clean-up disturbance, and 

disruption of subsistence practices. 

The other impacting factors either would not be expected to have more than local, short-term 

impacts, or could be effectively addressed through the proposed suite of lease stipulations and

ROPs. The proposed lease stipulations and ROPs, existing regulations and management 

practices, and future conditions placed on permits for future projects would serve to assure that 

4-833 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

the timing and monitoring of potential sources of disturbance would minimize conflicts with 

subsistence activities. Activities addressed for cumulative effects would not result in conflict 

with this statewide standard or with the district enforceable policies. 

 Habitats (11 AAC 112.300) 

The effects of pipelines, roads, and facilities installation and construction are magnified when 

examining the wide array of potential development in the cumulative analysis. However, the 

analyses indicate that the potential additive effects would not substantially alter or interfere 

with the habitats, species, and activities that these standards address. Cumulative effects are 

not anticipated to increase the potential for conflict with these statewide standards. Siting of 

energy facilities, transportation, and utilities outside the boundaries of the NPR-A (but within 

the boundaries of the NSB and the coastal zone) would require NSB permitting and approval. 

The NSB policies would be addressed through this approval process, and permitting would be

dependent upon adherence to these policies. 

Air, Land, and Water Quality (11 AAC 112.310) 

As discussed in section 4.7.7.1, Air Quality, air quality on the North Slope meets applicable 

standards and air quality is generally good. Arctic haze has occurred in the past, but the source 

of this haze appears to be pollutants from Europe and Asia (and to a lesser extent, northern 

Alaska). As oil production declines on the North Slope, and new air pollutant control 

technologies are implemented, the amount of air pollutants would continue to decrease from

historic levels on the North Slope. 

Historic, Prehistoric, and Archeological Resources (11 AAC 112.320) 

Historic, prehistoric, and archaeological resources are nonrenewable, and displacement or 

contamination of these resources could affect the cultural and scientific values of the resource. 

The cumulative effects of oil and gas exploration and development within the planning area and

across the North Slope are difficult to estimate given the scattered nature of historic, 

prehistoric, and archaeological resource deposits, their surface or near-surface contexts, and 

difficulty in predicting their location. As long as surveys and inventories were completed prior 

to exploration and development, the effects on these resources would be minimized. The

accidental discovery or damage to sites, presently known or unknown, would to some extent

damage those sites, but would also require measures to recover or record the remaining 

material, adding that information to the archaeological record of the North Slope. 

The NHPA requires agencies, or their permittees, to complete a cultural resources survey before 

any undertaking occurs (i.e., a ground-disturbing activity, such as well drilling, construction of 

infrastructure or the construction of buried pipelines) on Federal lands. BLM’s guidelines and

policies require that all effects to any cultural resources identified during surveys must be 

mitigated to the satisfaction of the land manager and the SHPO. Lease stipulations and ROPs 

developed for the action alternatives would minimize or prohibit exploration and development 

activities near major rivers, reducing the likelihood of impacts to historic, prehistoric, and 

archaeological resources. 

4.7.7.15.3 Global Climate Change 

Rising temperatures are altering the Arctic coastline and changes are projected to continue

during this century as a result of reduced sea ice, thawing permafrost, and sea-level rise (ACIA 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-834 

Cumulative Impacts: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

2004). Thinner, less extensive sea ice creates more open water, allowing stronger wave 

generation by winds and increasing wave-induced erosion along Arctic shores. 

Rising sea level is very likely to inundate marshes and coastal plains, accelerate beach erosion,

and force salt water into bays, rivers, and groundwater. Coastal regions with underlying 

permafrost are especially vulnerable to erosion as ice beneath the seabed and shoreline thaws 

from contact with warmer air and water. The projected increase in air and water temperature, 

reduction in sea ice, and increase in height and frequency of storm surges are expected to have a 

destabilizing effect on coastal permafrost, resulting in increased erosion. 

A 2003 study by the General Accounting Office found that 184 out of 213 Alaska Native villages 

are affected by flooding and erosion to some extent and that the increased susceptibility to 

flooding and erosion is due in part to rising temperatures. In the Alaskan village of Nelson 

Lagoon, residents have built increasingly strong break walls along the shore, only to see them

destroyed by increasingly violent coastal storms. The village of Shishmaref, located on an island 

just off the coast of northwest Alaska and inhabited for 4,000 years, is now facing the prospect 

of evacuation resulting from erosion. The coastline along the North Slope is receding 

approximately 8 feet a year, more rapidly than coastlines in other parts of the world. As this 

process continues, loss of cultural and paleontological, soil, vegetation, and habitat resources 

would accumulate and would be irreversible within our lifetimes. 

4.7.7.15.4 Contribution of Supplement Alternatives to Cumulative Effects 

Most of the coastal area, from Atigaru Point to the boundary with the Northwest NPR-A, would

be closed to leasing under Alternative A. Lease Stipulation K-6, Coastal Areas, under 

Alternatives B through D requires that permanent oil and gas facilities, including gravel pads, 

roads, airstrips, and pipelines established to support exploration and development activities 

shall be located at least 3⁄4 mile inland from the coastline to the extent practicable. Where, as a 

result of technological limitations, 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 Camp Lonely, various Husky/USGS drill sites, and Distant 

Early Warning (DEW)-Line sites, shall be considered. Use of existing sites within 3⁄4 mile of the

coastline shall also be acceptable under this stipulation of Alternatives B through D where it is 

demonstrated that use of such sites will reduce impacts to shorelines or otherwise be

environmentally preferable. All lessees/permittees involved in 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 Association, and the NSB to minimize impacts to the fall and 

spring subsistence whaling activities of the communities of the North Slope. Adherence to this 

lease stipulation should ensure that coastal resources are adequately protected. All Federal 

activities and federally-permitted activities affecting coastal resources and uses must be 

reviewed for consistency with the ACMP. Therefore, onshore activities within the planning area 

and some offshore activities identified under the alternatives should be assessed against the 

ACMP, including the enforceable policies of the NSB CMP. 

Alternatives B, C, and D would open the northwest portion of the planning area to leasing. 

Infrastructure such as pipelines and CPFs developed in this area would make oil and gas 

production in the adjacent Beaufort Sea and northeast portion of Northwest NPR-A more likely 

in the foreseeable future. Synergistic impacts associated with Beaufort Sea development could 

be considerable in or near the coastal zone in that a pipeline traversing the northern section of 

the planning area may provide the only means to transport offshore oil and gas to TAPS and a 

4-835 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

gas pipeline. Consequently, development would be accelerated or become more likely under 

these action alternatives compared to Alternative A. 

4.7.7.15.5 Conclusion 

Effects on access to subsistence hunting and subsistence resources would offer the greatest 

opportunity for conflict with the statewide standards and the NSB policies related to these 

concerns. Increase in noise and disturbance from cumulative oil development would be additive

and could have localized, short-term effects on some subsistence resources and access to some 

resources. Noise and disruption could be effectively addressed through lease stipulations and 

ROPs, existing regulations and management practices, coordination, and future permitting 

processes including Federal, state, and local processes as applicable. Federal regulations require 

and implement strict oil spill prevention standards, and a large spill would be considered 

unlikely. In addition, the lease stipulations and ROPs would effectively address prevention and

response relative to small and large spills. Conflicts with statewide standards of the ACMP and 

the policies of the NSB are not inherent in the scenarios assumed for this Supplement. 

4.7.7.16 Recreational Resources 

In addition to the direct and indirect impacts described under the alternatives analyses, 

cumulative effects to recreational resources on the North Slope would result from past, present

and future activities and facilities that affect solitude, naturalness, or primitive/unconfined 

recreation. Short-term or transient loss of the area’s naturalness and solitude from such 

impacts as pads/trails and noise from aircraft and equipment would not be cumulative. 

Therefore, their contribution to the cumulative impacts would be “momentary.” In contrast, 

long-term development, such as roads and production pads, would accumulate in their impacts 

to the area’s naturalness and solitude. 

4.7.7.16.1 Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Temporary structures (e.g., sleds, tents), vehicles (e.g., Rolligons, tractors), noise from

generators, aircraft, human presence, and associated activity would have had short-term 

impacts on the experience of solitude, naturalness, or primitive/unconfined recreation. Because

all of these identified non-oil and gas activities would have been transitory and short term, the 

likelihood of recreationists encountering them in any given location in the 57 million acre North 

Slope or in the 4.6 million acre planning area is probably small, unless recreation activities 

were centered around villages or oil and gas facilities, or occurred along major rivers and coastal 

areas, where human presence is more prevalent. 

A longer-lasting impact would have been from trails resulting from overland moves. These are

trails that were created by vehicles compacting snow and dead vegetative matter that in turn 

results in the greater availability of moisture and nutrients for underlying vegetation the 

following growing season. These trails do not necessarily develop over the entire route of an 

overland move, but when they do they can be very detectable from the air for 2 to 5 years. They

usually are difficult to recognize from the ground. Another impact along these trails that has 

occurred in the past is vegetation being damaged or broken or the tops of tussocks being scraped

off. Though still relatively short term in nature, the linear nature of these trails emphasize the 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-836 

Cumulative Impacts: Coastal Zone Management 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

presence of man, which would have reduced the sense of naturalness and unconfined

primitiveness to a small degree. 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Seismic work has occurred over much of the ACP. This work resulted in a short-term impact on

the primitive setting of the North Slope and a loss of solitude and naturalness. These impacts 

would have been confined primarily to the activity site viewshed or noiseshed, or approximately 

1⁄2 mile in any direction. The potential effects on recreation opportunities and experience were

minimized by the fact that very little winter recreation takes place in the area. 

A longer-lasting impact occurred from green trails resulting from seismic survey operations. As 

with green trails created by overland moves, these trails do not necessarily develop over the 

entire survey route and are visible for about 2 to 5 years. Though relatively short term in 

nature, the linear nature of these trails would have emphasized the presence of man, which 

would have reduced the sense of naturalness and unconfined primitiveness to a small degree. 

Other sources of potential recreation loss included exploration sites with gravel pads, disturbed 

areas around these pads, exploration airstrips, and gravel exploration roads. Based on a report 

by the NRC (2003), in 2001, approximately 1,200 acres had been impacted by these sites on the 

North Slope in the past, and 740 acres of disturbed areas were still evident. Most of these sites 

were developed before 1977, thus, their effects on the vegetative landscape have persisted for 

decades, and are likely to persist for several more decades. 

Disturbances associated with exploration, development, and production activities continue to

have a potential affect on the recreational experience. Temporary on-site location of structures 

(e.g., drilling rigs); noise from generators, vehicles, aircraft, etc.; human presence; and 

associated activity all would have short-term impacts on solitude, naturalness, and 

primitive/unconfined recreation experiences during the winter season. Through 2001, over 500 

acres of peat roads still showed evidence of disturbance, even though most of these roads were 

constructed over 50 years ago (personal conversation w/ Mike Kunz). Gravel footprints had

impacted over 9,200 acres, while gravel mines had impacted another 6,360 acres of vegetation. 

Of this, all but 70 acres of gravel footprint persisted in 2001, but over 4,500 acres of gravel 

mines were reclaimed. Motorized traffic occurs along about 400 miles of roads (NRC 2003). 

These impacts to the recreation experience are greatest within a 2-mile radius of the facility, 

and for permanent, and some temporary, facilities, these effects persist today. 

Wilderness Values 

Past activities on the North Slope, particularly those associated with oil and gas development

east of the Colville River, have reduced the naturalness of a portion of the planning area and 

reduced the area affording opportunities for solitude, personal challenge and unusual 

adventure, and primitive and unconfined recreation. In addition, effects on wildlife have 

degraded the wilderness experience potential to some degree. 

Wild and Scenic River Values 

During preparation of the Northwest IAP/EIS, 22 streams and rivers including the Colville 

River, were found eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (USDOI 

BLM MMS 2003:V-165). However, no rivers were found suitable for inclusion. 

4-837 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Recreational Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7.7.16.2 Future Effects and Their Accumulation 

Under Alternative D, it is expected that long-term impacts to recreation experiences over an 

area of approximately, 650,580 acres would occur. Considering past, present, and future 

development across the North Slope, total cumulative impacts would be additive and could 

affect an area three to five times greater. If commercial gas development occurs on the North

Slope, construction activities, most of which would occur in winter, would have little impact on 

recreation, which is rare at that time. Evidence of construction, i.e., disturbance to and changes 

in vegetation along a linear route would affect the recreation experience for several years. 

Longer term impacts of gas development would be limited to those associated with gas-only field

development, any above-ground gas pipelines (not considered the preferred method of 

transport), possible prolongation of activities associated with some oil and gas fields, and 

compressor stations along the route of buried gas pipelines. Even so, a vast area of the ACP, and

certainly more than 80% of the North Slope and planning area, would remain relatively 

untouched. However, the types of development anticipated would not be uniformly distributed 

across the planning area or the North Slope, nor would recreational or wilderness values be

perceived as uniformly dispersed. Cumulative impacts along popular rivers, such as the Colville 

River, would be seen as far more important than impacts elsewhere. 

Wilderness Values 

The cumulative development scenario for all alternatives would reduce the naturalness of a 

portion of the North Slope where non-oil and gas, and oil and gas development may occur, and 

would reduce the area affording opportunities for solitude, personal challenge and unusual 

adventure, and primitive and unconfined recreation. In addition, effects on wildlife would 

degrade the wilderness experience potential to some degree. Nevertheless, most Federal lands 

on the North Slope would remain roadless and would retain the characteristics necessary for

future considerations. If oil and gas development occurred close to currently designated

wilderness areas, such as portions of ANWR or Gates of the Arctic National Park, some of the 

wilderness values associated with those designated wilderness areas would be reduced. 

Transportation of oil, which predominantly occurs in above-ground pipelines, would have a 

greater impact to the sense of naturalness than would transportation of gas, because gas 

pipelines would probably be buried, surfacing only occasionally to pass through a compressor 

station. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The Colville River and 22 other rivers in the National Petroleum Reserve have been identified 

as eligible for designation. The Colville River within the Northeast and Northwest NPR-A 

planning areas has not been found “suitable” because BLM manages only the left bank (facing 

downstream) above the highest high water mark, and neither the local population nor the State 

of Alaska support designation at this time. The right bank is controlled by the State of Alaska 

and the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. These entities could authorize modifications such as 

airstrips, lodges, cabin sites, or storage facilities in the riparian area that would impact the 

scenic quality and the free-flowing, clean water nature of the river. Such modifications would

make it very difficult to maintain the nondegradation standard of management if the Colville 

River adjacent to the planning area were found suitable for designation as a Wild River Area. 

Most of the eligible rivers, which are found in the Northwest planning area of the NPR-A are in

remote areas and would likely not be affected by development, or would be protected by lease 

stipulations and ROPs. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-838 

Cumulative Impacts: Recreational Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Effects of Spills 

Most spills (65 to 80%) would be confined to a pad. Spills not confined to a pad usually are 

confined to the area immediately around the pad or pipeline. Therefore, impacts on solitude, 

naturalness, or primitive/unconfined recreation opportunities resulting from spills likely would 

be confined to the same area as described above. 

A large oil spill that reaches a river, especially the Colville River, and moves rapidly 

downstream could have disastrous short-term (and possibly long-term) impacts on recreation 

values. 

4.7.7.16.3 Global Climate Change 

As discussed in earlier sections on Water Resources, Vegetation, Birds, Mammals, and 

Subsistence, global climate change could impact natural resources on the North Slope and have 

an effect on the recreation experience and types and timing of recreation activities that could 

occur. For instance, if global climate changes the location of birds or caribou it will have a 

direct effect on sport hunting and where hunters must go to find these animals. Climate change

may very well displace some of the current recreation use and replace with other types i.e. more

water based vs. current land based. 

4.7.7.16.4 Contribution of Supplemental Alternatives to Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative D, it is expected that long-term impacts over an area of approximately 

650,580 acres would occur. This would be about 12% more than the area affected under 

Alternative A, but about 14% less area than would be affected under Alternative C. Considering 

past, present, and future development across the North Slope, total cumulative impacts would 

be additive and could affect an area three to five times greater. Even so, a vast area of the 

ACP—and certainly more than 80% of the planning area—would remain relatively untouched 

and would retain the characteristics necessary for future Wilderness designation if political 

support for such a designation were to coalesce. However, the types of development anticipated 

would not be uniformly distributed across the planning area or the North Slope, nor would 

recreational or wilderness values be perceived as uniformly dispersed. Cumulative impacts 

along popular rivers, such as the Colville River, would be seen as far more important than 

impacts elsewhere. 

4.7.7.16.5 Conclusion 

Cumulative development activities would degrade the opportunities for primitive recreation in 

portions of the planning area and elsewhere on the North Slope. However, such opportunities 

would continue to be available over at least 80% of the planning area and substantial portions of 

the North Slope. Technically, there would not be cumulative impacts to Wilderness or Wild and

Scenic Rivers in the planning area or much of the North Slope, because currently only portions 

of ANWR and Gates of The Arctic constitutes the only designated wilderness and the Ivishak 

River in ANWR constitutes the only Wild and Scenic River on the North Slope. However, the 

area eligible for future designation would be reduced to the degree that a major disturbance

occurred. Projected cumulative activities could have local impacts on the free-flowing, 

unpolluted waters and could affect the outstandingly remarkable values of portions of the 

eligible Colville River. In such a case, the amount of area potentially suitable for designation 

would be reduced. If oil and gas development occurred close to an area of designated 

4-839 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Recreational Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Wilderness, such as portions of ANWR or Gates of the Arctic, impacts could occur to the 

wilderness values associated with those designated lands. 

4.7.7.17 Visual Resources 

Activities associated with non-oil and gas activities (primarily development associated with 

villages, military / DEW-Line sites, cabins and campsites, and airfields), as well as inland oil 

and gas exploration and development and Beaufort Sea oil and gas development have resulted

in cumulative effects to visual resources on the North Slope. Impacts to visual resources have 

also resulted from on-the-ground management activities, such as archaeological collection 

efforts, field camps, survey work, overland movements, and hazardous and solid material 

removal and remediation activities. 

4.7.7.17.1 Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Most of the North Slope and planning area are still primarily a natural landscape where 

humans have not substantially changed the scenic quality. However, some areas have been

modified by human activities. Buildings are the most likely developments to be seen and have 

the most modification from the natural landscape. The main areas where buildings exist in the 

planning area are Nuiqsut, Point Lonely and Umiat. Other areas outside the planning area but 

near by and possibly visible in the distance are, Cape Simpson and Lonely DEW-Line site. 

Other communities on the North Slope include Atqasuk, Anaktuvuk Pass, Barrow, Kaktovik, 

Point Lay and Wainwright. There are 13 former or current military sites on the North Slope in 

various stages of use and rehabilitation. 

Landscape modifications associated with villages and developments, including single family 

houses, temporary structures, (e.g., sleds, tents), roads and trails, vehicles (e.g., Rolligons, 

tractors), commercial development, landfills, airstrips, and aircraft have impacts on visual 

resources or scenic quality, by creating a contrast to the form, line, color, and texture of a 

primarily horizontal natural landscape. The facilities introduce vertical blocky regular shapes 

and lines to an irregular horizontal landscape. The colors of structures and equipment contrast 

with the white color of the snow-covered landscape and the various hues of greens and browns, 

and the smooth texture of the facilities contrast with the varied textures of the windswept 

terrain and the irregular texture of vegetation. Non-oil and gas activities that occurred within 

the Foreground-Middleground Zone of the viewshed likely attract the attention of the casual 

observer. Some development in the Background Zone may also be seen due to the flatness of the 

landscape. 

Other buildings found throughout the North Slope are cabins and camp structures associated 

with subsistence activities. These structures are usually isolated single-story small plywood 

cabins that produce some contrast with the surrounding landforms, but on a very local scale, 

along lakes, rivers, and creeks. One exception, however, is along the Miguakiak River and 

Teshekpuk Lake where structures are more clustered or appear as “strip development.” 

Very few roads or trails exist very far from any community. Summer travel is primarily by 

watercraft along rivers and coastal areas. Some areas around Nuiqsut receive travel by ATV, 

however, these trails are hard to see from more than about 25 feet away at ground level. A 

longer-lasting impact has been “green trails” resulting from winter overland moves between 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-840 

Cumulative Impacts: Recreational Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

villages. Trails form when vehicles compact snow and dead vegetative material, resulting in a 

greater availability of moisture and nutrients for underlying vegetation the following growing 

season. These trails did not necessarily develop over the entire route of the overland move. 

Vegetation has been damaged along these trails and the tops of tussocks have been scraped off. 

Trails are visible for about 2 to 5 years from ground level but are visible for longer periods if 

viewed from an elevated position. However, because they visually modified existing vegetation, 

rather than adding something foreign into the viewshed, trails have not produced much 

contrast to line, form, or texture. The color contrast would be minimal from ground view 

because of the natural variation in hue, and would be almost nonexistent from more than a few 

hundred feet away. 

Airstrips are located at five remote places within the planning area; airstrips are also located at 

villages, oil and gas fields, and Deadhorse. While the profile of an airstrip is low, landform 

changes are introduced by brown colors in predominantly green vegetation and more regular

lines than the surrounding irregular vegetation. 

While these areas introduce modifications to the landform, they also provide places of use and

special interest or key observation areas from which to evaluate the sensitivity levels. 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Past exploration activities have resulted in over 20,000 miles of seismic surveys, most of which 

would not be visible to the casual person after five years from the survey date if viewed from 

ground level, however, trails remain visible for much longer periods of time if viewed from an 

elevated position. 

A longer-lasting impact has been trails resulting from winter overland equipment moves. 

Commonly known as “green trails,” they form when vehicles compact snow and dead vegetative 

material, resulting in a greater availability of moisture and nutrients for underlying vegetation 

the following growing season. These trails did not necessarily develop over the entire route of

the overland move. Vegetation has been damaged along these trails and the tops of tussocks

have been scraped off. Many trails are visible for about two to five years; however some trails

have persisted for over 20 years (NRC 2003). However, because they visually modified existing 

vegetation, rather than adding something foreign into the viewshed, trails have not produced

much contrast to line, form, or texture as viewed from the ground. The color contrast would be 

minimal if viewed from the ground level because of the natural variation in hue, and would be 

almost nonexistent from more than a few hundred feet away. However, if viewed from an 

elevated position, trails are visible with changes to color, line and texture. 

Past development and production of oil and gas on the North Slope has cumulatively impacted

about 35,000 acres from surface disturbance associated with roads, pads, and exploration sites; 

about 12,000 acres of surface impacts are still visible today (NRC 2003). In addition, about 400 

miles of pipelines have been constructed at one time or another. Visual impacts from oil and gas 

facilities and activities have changed the existing landscape from a very natural viewshed to a 

more industrialized setting introducing vertical lines, regular patterns, and varied colors. From 

some viewpoints, it is possible that multiple developments could be seen in the ForegroundMiddleground Zone, as well as the Background Zone and Seldom-Seen Zones of the same 

viewshed. These visual effects persist today, and unless sites are dismantled and rehabilitated, 

would accumulate with future effects. Less than 1% of facilities constructed with gravel fill 

areas have been rehabilitated by 2003 (NRC 2003). Because natural recovery in the Arctic is 

slow, the visual effects caused by oil and gas exploration and development activities are likely to 

4-841 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Visual Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

persist for centuries (NRC 2003). Many of the facilities from past production are still present 

and have not been rehabilitated. 

An unknown number of capped wells (called Christmas trees) dot the landscape. However, given 

the small footprint and most being less than six feet tall, these modifications are very hard to 

see unless you are within a couple hundred feet of them. 

Drill rigs (average height of 208 feet) have introduced strong vertical lines into a predominantly 

horizontal landscape. Because they are painted red, most drill rigs also produce a strong visual 

contrast to the white background of the snow-covered landscape. Winter drilling requires 

lighting, which creates a visual contrast against the dark night sky. 

Permanent roads are primarily associated with the TAPS and the oil fields road network. As of 

2001, there were approximately 400 miles of oil field roads, about 75% of which were 

constructed by the early 1980s. These roads can be visible from a mile or more away. Ice roads 

are used during the winter months and leave changes in vegetative colors during the summer, 

but again, this contrast is very hard to see from more than a few feet away. Peat roads 

constructed during early exploration activities, on the other hand, destroyed the overlying 

tundra and created a driving surface on the underlying frozen ground or used the overlying 

tundra as road material creating an elevated driving surface. This disturbance to the color and 

texture of the landscape may be visible from most of the Foreground-Middleground Zone, 

especially from an elevated position and are still visible 30 to 50 years later. 

4.7.7.17.2 Future Effects and Their Accumulation 

Activities Not Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Cumulatively, the non-oil and gas activities that would occur on the Arctic North Slope would

be similar to those described under past and present effects. However, trails and temporary 

camps would increase as a result of, or in support of, oil and gas development. For example, 

field activities associated with archeological site clearances (such as camps, excavations, and 

aircraft activity) would all likely increase. 

Although the amount of supplies and materials transported by winter overland moves would 

increase with additional activity on the North Slope, these moves would generally follow the 

same routes. New trails could be developed to reach new staging areas and pump stations; 

however, once a route was identified, numerous trips over the route could occur with little 

additional impacts. 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities 

Cumulatively, seismic-survey work would continue each winter season. These operations could

result in hundreds of miles of intermittent trails. As production of fields increases, seismic work 

would tend to decrease and trails would reduce in number and recover naturally. Exploration 

activities in the foothills area of the North Slope may result in visible trails for longer periods of 

time due to the topography which increases the likelihood of vegetation damage (NRC 2003). 

These impacts to visual characteristics would be seen in texture, line and color more than form. 

Some exploration wells would leave behind a marker pipe expected to be no larger than a 

square foot on the surface and 6 feet tall. This impact would essentially be permanent, although

it would be almost unnoticeable from several hundred feet away. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-842 

Cumulative Impacts: Visual Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

In addition to the impacts that have resulted from ongoing exploratory drilling operations, the 

greening of vegetation under vacated ice pads, ice airstrips, and ice roads has caused impacts to 

visual resources during the summer. This greening of vegetation is caused by the same 

conditions that create “green trails,” a greater availability of moisture and nutrients as ice or 

compacted snow melts. There has also been a “ring effect” around ice pads, ice airstrips, and ice 

roads caused by the death of vegetation adjacent to these snow and ice structures. The effects of

ice roads and pads are short-term, however, and would not accumulate. Where ice pads are left 

over summer with insulated pads to prevent thawing, it is reasonable to expect some damage to 

vegetation that is visible for up to 3 to 5 years, or longer, depending on the vegetative type. 

Present development and production could impact less than 1% of the North Slope, while 

reasonably foreseeable future development could impact around 1% of the North Slope area. 

However, remediation of old drill sites is ongoing, and many of the impacts have a natural 

recovery rate of less than 15 to 20 years. The ring effect from old well sites would also naturally 

recover in less than 15 to 20. 

Visual impacts from oil and gas development activities would continue to become more 

noticeable as production pads, staging areas, CPFs, gravel roads, gravel mine sites, airstrips, 

and pipelines change the landscape. In many areas, the increase in development and production

would change the existing landscape from a very natural viewshed to a more industrialized 

setting introducing vertical lines, regular patterns, and varied colors. From some viewpoints, it 

is possible that multiple developments could be seen in the Foreground-Middleground Zone, as 

well as the Background Zone and Seldom-Seen Zones of the same viewshed. If production 

around communities occurs, such as has happened near Nuiqsut, the viewshed from these 

villages would be substantially altered in line, form, color and texture by the construction of 

facilities. Smog, haze and fugitive dust produced from facilities would impact the viewing 

quality of the area. Burnoff flares from production rigs and lighting would make these 

structures visible at night and during the winter dark periods. Many of the facilities associated 

with oil and gas production will persist well into the future and accumulate as new facilities are 

brought online and old facilities remain in usable condition with rehabilitation efforts deferred. 

It is projected that approximately 18,300 acres or 0.03% of the North Slope would be disturbed 

by gravel pads, roads, gravel material sites and other infrastructure by 2010 (Table 4.7-H). 

Off-shore developments as viewed from on-shore will have impacts to line, form, color and 

texture by introducing vertical, predominately smooth, blocky – geometric buildings and

facilities that are painted various colors into a predominately flat or irregular, smooth or 

jumbled, horizontal, blue-grey landscape. 

 Effects of Abandonment and Rehabilitation 

During abandonment and rehabilitation activities, vehicle traffic on roads would create shortterm noticeable visual impacts through the creation of dust. Once closure activities are 

completed, the strong contrasts of line, color texture and form between structures, such as 

pipelines and buildings would be eliminated; however, gravel pads, roads and airstrips would 

likely remain and be reshaped and reseeded with native vegetation or matted with 

biodegradable materials to allow for natural reseeding. These facilities would accumulate over 

time and be visible if viewed within the Foreground-Middleground Zone. 

4-843 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Visual Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

 Effects of Spills 

Most small spills would be confined to a pad. Spills not confined to a pad would usually be 

confined to the limited area immediately around the pad or pipeline. Large oil spills occurring 

during the summer could impact up to 62,000 acres. If vegetation is destroyed by the spill 

material or clean-up process, recovery would take years and be accumulative with changes to 

line, texture and especially color to the natural landscape. 

4.7.7.17.3 Global Climate Change 

Changes in global climate may influence coastal erosion rates, amount of surface water,

stability of the soil, and amounts and types of vegetation on the North Slope. All of these effects 

would have an impact on the visual characteristics of line, form, color and texture of the North

Slope and planning area; however, these changes would be subtle over time and appear as a 

natural process. 

4.7.7.17.4 Contribution of Supplement Alternatives to Cumulative Effects 

The number and length of seismic surveys in the planning area would be the same under all 

alternatives. There would be about 250 miles of 2-D surveys and 10,560 miles of 3-D surveys for 

each alternative. Seismic work would occur in the winter using cat trains with low-groundpressure vehicles supported by light aircraft. Seismic crews would be housed in mobile camps 

consisting of a train of trailer sleds pulled by tractors and would add another 840 miles of trails. 

These moving camps and associated activities would result in short-term impacts on visual 

resources and the scenic quality of the area by creating a color contrast between the vehicles

and trailers and the predominantly white background of the snow-covered landscape. These 

impacts would be confined primarily to the activity-site viewshed and the ForegroundMiddleground Zone. 

Trails (approximately 11,650 miles and 108,000 acres) resulting from seismic survey operations 

would result in a longer-lasting impact to visual resources and would be similar among 

alternatives. Unlike overland moves, seismic operations would not follow the same routes every

year, and the number of miles of survey line could vary greatly from year to year. In some years,

no surveys would occur. Like trails caused by overland moves, trails caused by seismic 

operations would not necessarily develop over the entire survey route, but where present would

be visible for about 2 to 5 years. Because trails visually modify existing vegetation, they would 

not produce much contrast to line, form, or texture. The color contrast would be minimal from 

ground view because of the natural variation in hue, and would be almost nonexistent from

more than a few hundred feet away and visible only in the Foreground-Middleground Zone. 

Approximately 151, 170, 210, or 193 exploration and delineation wells would be drilled under 

alternatives A through D, respectively. It is estimated that the long-term disturbance associated 

with the new wells would be about 6 acres per well. Given the limited number of drilling rigs 

available, however, no more than eight drilling rigs would likely be operating at any one time. 

Assuming approximately 6 acres for each ice pad, 11 acres for airstrips, and 3 acres per mile of 

roads per drill site, as many as 16,768 acres under Alternative A, 20,022 for Alternative B, 

23,463 under Alternative C and 20,202 for Alternative D would be in various states of recovery 

from greening and ring effects under the alternatives. 

It is estimated that long-term surface disturbance from gravel production pads, infield roads, 

airstrips, gravel pits, and infield gathering pipelines would impact 2,818 acres under 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-844

Cumulative Impacts: Visual Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Alternative A, 3,664 for Alternative B, 4,649 under Alternative C and 4,538 for Alternative D. 

Pad sites generally contain one-story buildings and pipelines. The gravel pads would generally 

be only 3 to 5 feet above the surrounding green tundra, and would be relatively unnoticeable 

beyond a few thousand feet. 

It is estimated that long-term surface disturbance from staging bases, pump stations and CPFs 

would impact approximately 650 acres under Alternative A, 810 for Alternative B, 970 under 

Alternative C and 810 for Alternative D. Facilities would introduce strong vertical lines from 

buildings into the landscape of predominately horizontal lines. There would also be a visual 

contrast between the simple, regular form of the buildings and the complex, irregular forms of 

the vegetation. Colors of buildings and materials would contrast with the greens, and browns, of 

vegetation and blues of water bodies. Some of the buildings could be up to three stories in height

above the tundra, and would attract and dominate the view of the casual observer if located 

within the Foreground-Middleground Zone. 

It is anticipated that as many as 491 acres under Alternatives A, B and D and 551 under 

Alternative C would be disturbed for sale oil and main pipelines (approx. 3 acres per mile). 

There would be no on-the-ground activities associated with pipelines, except during 

construction, inspection, and repair. Pipelines would introduce shiny and smooth horizontal 

lines into the naturally irregular brown and green landscape. They would also introduce 

regularly spaced vertical supports into an irregular horizontal landscape. Pipelines would be 

elevated at least 5 feet above the surrounding tundra under Alternative A and 7 feet under the 

other alternatives, but could be elevated as high as 20 feet above ground level (personal 

observation 2003). At these elevations, the pipeline would attract the attention of the casual 

observer if located within the Foreground-Middleground Zone. 

Considering past, present and future development across the North Slope, total cumulative 

impacts would be additive. Development in areas of interest such as travel routes along rivers

or the coast or areas where people congregate such as camps and cabin areas, or communities

would have the most impacts to visual resources and facilities would probably be visible in all 

three zones (Foreground-Middleground, Background and Seldom seen Zones). Alternatives B, C,

and D would be more likely to have development along travel routes or visually sensitive areas 

than Alternative A and enhance the possibility of development in adjacent areas outside the 

planning area. Even so, a vast area of the North Slope would remain relatively untouched 

(acres affected under Alternative A would impact only 0.44% of the North Slope area, 

Alternative B 0.45%, Alternative C 0.46%, and Alternative D 0.45%). However, the types of 

development anticipated would not be uniformly distributed across the planning area or the 

North Slope, nor would scenic values or changes to landscape characteristics be perceived the 

same from all locations. Cumulative impacts along popular travel routes and from key 

observation areas such as native communities and gathering places, would be seen as far more 

important than impacts elsewhere. 

In addition to the different contribution to the cumulative impacts from the direct and indirect 

impacts of the four planning area alternatives, the alternatives could differently affect the 

visual resources of the northeastern part of Northwest NPR-A and the Beaufort Sea north of the 

Teshekpuk Lake area. Under Alternative A, oil and gas infrastructure is not allowed in the 

area north of Teshekpuk Lake. This could reduce the potential for, or slow, oil and gas 

development in northeastern Northwest NPR-A and in the Beaufort Sea, compared to the other

alternatives that make lands north of Teshekpuk Lake available for leasing and development. 

Consequently, Alternatives B, C, and D could result in greater impacts to visual resources in 

Northwest NPR-A and the Beaufort Sea than Alternative A. 

4-845 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Visual Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7.7.17.5 Conclusion 

There would be a small increase in the short-term impacts to visual resources from non-oil and 

gas activities. Short-term impacts, such as trails, and ongoing activities would not accumulate. 

Impacts from long-term or permanent facilities such as gravel roads, pipelines, and gravel pads 

and material sites would accumulate and would result in the long-term loss of scenic quality. 

Pipelines could be elevated above ground level and would be visible from the ForegroundMiddleground Zone. Except during construction, inspection, and repair of pipelines, there would 

be no associated on-the-ground activity. 

Long-term impacts from production sites, staging areas, pumping stations and CPFs with a 

possible life span of over 30 years would affect visual resources in the North Slope. It is 

expected, however, that these impacts would be greatest within the Foreground-Middleground

Zone of the viewer. Some of these facilities may be visible from the Background Zone and 

Seldom Seen Zone in areas of low elevational change or if viewed from an elevated position. 

4.7.7.18 Economy 

Introduction 

This section addresses the cumulative effects of past, present, and future activities on the 

economy of the North Slope and the state of Alaska. Three primary indicators are used to assess 

cumulative effects on the economy. These three indicators are NSB revenues, jobs, and per 

capita income. The reader is advised to refer to section 4.7.7.12, Subsistence for the primary

discussion of cumulative effects on subsistence. Key events or factors are described, followed by 

an analysis of these events, and a discussion of the trends that have affected the economy and

are expected to continue into the future. 

4.7.7.18.1 Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Key Events/Factors 

Historically, commercial whalers entered the Chukchi and Beaufort seas in the 1850s, pursuing 

whales for oil and baleen. Whaling captains hired North Slope Natives as crew members and 

eventually these Natives became captains of their own ships. 

In the 1890s, the Bureau of Education introduced reindeer into the region, providing additional 

food for the herders and cash for meat sold to whalers and others. By 1915, the over harvest of

bowhead whales and the development of substitutes for baleen and whale oil led to the end of 

commercial whaling. 

By the time commercial whaling ended, the cash economy was well integrated into the North 

Slope economy and new sources of income were needed to compensate for the loss of whaling 

income. Trapping became an important source of income for the region until the Great 

Depression brought a substantial decline in demand for furs. In the mid- to late 1920s, the 

caribou populations crashed and the bands of Iñupiat living in the Brooks Range dispersed to 

other areas, not returning to the mountains until the late 1940 and 1950s. 

World War II began the development of airports around the state, and North Slope residents 

were involved as Army Scouts. After World War II, the International Whaling Commission was 

established and the U.S. Navy built its Arctic Research Laboratory near Barrow. The Navy also 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-846 

Cumulative Impacts: Visual Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

began its early petroleum exploration on the North Slope. Both of these activities provided

steady employment in the region. As the Cold War evolved, and the threat of nuclear war 

emerged, the Department of Defense began to build the DEW-Line radar sites along the Alaska 

coastline from 1955 to 1957. This construction activity and operations provided some 

employment for local residents. 

Alaska became a state in 1959, and by 1962 an MOU was signed to transfer Bureau of Indian 

Affairs schools to the state; however, many Bureau of Indian Affairs schools continued to exist 

in the state until the early 1980s. 

As pointed out by the NRC (2003), the discovery of oil in 1968 at Prudhoe Bay “accelerated 

political processes for resolving complex issues of land tenure and rights....” The Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) established the ASRC and the village corporations in 1971, 

and led to the formation of the NSB in 1972, as well as the resettlement of the villages of

Nuiqsut in 1973 and Atqasuk in 1974. 

The Dalton Highway opened in 1974 and the first oil flowed down the TAPS in 1977, providing 

a wealth of revenues to the State of Alaska and the NSB, with the first Permanent Fund 

Dividends paid to residents of the state in 1982. The ANILCA in 1980 established the network 

of national parks, refuges, wilderness areas, preserves, and other Federal land ownership that 

exists today on the North Slope. 

Oil production at the Prudhoe Bay field peaked in 1988 and began to decline. Production from 

the Kuparuk field started in 1990, after there was sufficient capacity in the TAPS to accept 

more oil. The petroleum industry had limited exploration success after the early discoveries in 

the late 1960s and early 1970s, until the discovery of the Alpine field in 1995. Alpine, located 

near the eastern boundary of the NPR-A, represented a new geologic concept for oil reservoirs 

on the North Slope and provided further impetus for opening the Reserve to exploration to

private companies. 

Revenue 

Property tax receipts by the NSB grew from almost nil in 1975 to a peak of about $250 million 

in the mid-1980s. These are currently just under $200 million (2005). State of Alaska general 

fund petroleum revenue was $25.4 million in 1959, 12% of total revenues. The proceeds are 

estimated at $4.3 billion for 2007, 88% of unrestricted general fund revenue. (ADR 2006) NSB 

revenue is presented in section 3.1.1.1; state revenue in section 3.1.1.3. Taxes are shown in 

Figure 3-1 in Chapter 3. 

Aside from the petroleum industry, the NSB is the dominant economic organization on the 

North Slope. The NSB taxes the oil and gas facilities and uses the revenues to provide education

and a wide array of other public services within its boundaries. Property taxes on oil and gas 

infrastructure provide over 95% of the total revenues received by the NSB. The value of the 

infrastructure is based on the estimated value of the profits that can be generated with these

facilities. As the amount of oil reserves remaining in the ground declines over time, the value of 

the facilities also diminishes, followed by subsequent reduction in the property taxes generated. 

The NSB has uses its tax authority to issue bonds used for capital improvement projects and

pledges future revenues to pay for these projects. The NSB must meet its debt service 

requirements on these bonds even if oil and gas property taxes decline, thus the result can be a 

substantial decline in operating budgets as tax revenues diminish. 

4-847 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Economy 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk were the largest and second-largest fields discovered in North 

America. Even though these fields are in decline, they still produce a significant portion of the 

oil on the North Slope. 

Lease sales have been completed in Beaufort Sea (Beaufort 195, MMS 2005 and State of Alaska 

2006), Northwest NPR-A (BLM 2006), and North Slope Foothills (State of Alaska, 2006, 2007). 

Employment 

As evidenced by Figure 3-2 in chapter 3, without the discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay in 1968, 

the number of jobs that would be available for North Slope residents would be substantially 

fewer than presently exist. Although most oil and gas-related jobs are held by people who reside 

outside of the NSB, jobs funded by the NSB’s property tax revenues account for the vast 

majority of the jobs outside of the oil and gas sector. The number of jobs in the oil and gasrelated sectors has fluctuated with the development of new fields, and the development and end 

of construction of new, large fields (e.g., Kuparuk and Alpine) is evident. Current oil and gas 

extraction industry employment estimates prepared by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development indicate employment has grew from 5,500 jobs in January 2006 to 

6,900 jobs in January 2007 (ADOLWD 2007). 

Per Capita Personal Income 

As shown in figure 3-5 in chapter 3, real (inflation adjusted) per capita personal income in the 

NSB has declined from peak years in the 1970s and early 1980s, with over $40,000 in income, to 

under $30,000 in income in the latter part of the 1990s. In comparison, per capita personal 

income for the state remained between $25,000 and $30,000 from the 1970s through the early 

1980s, and has remained relatively stable from the early 1980s through the end of the last 

decade. In 2004, per capita income in the NSB was $39,350, while statewide it was $33,761. 

Subsistence 

Iñupiat tend to begin their time allocations with wage labor decisions and then divide the 

remaining time between subsistence and leisure. North Slope residents tend to allocate

relatively less time to subsistence as they increase their employment time. This effect in what 

has become a mixed cash/ subsistence economy is discussed in detail in sections 4.7.7.12 and 

4.7.7.13. 

Summary of Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

The NSB has transformed to a mixed cash-subsistence economy. Particularly in the last 40 

years, residents have both benefited and grown accustomed to the result of modern capital 

development on the North Slope. In addition to the petroleum industry, the NSB has become a 

dominant economic organization on the North Slope. The NSB taxes the oil and gas facilities 

and uses the revenues to provide education and a wide array of other public services within its 

boundaries. Property taxes on oil and gas infrastructure provide over 95% of the total revenues 

received by the NSB. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-848 

Cumulative Impacts: Economy 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7.7.18.2 Future Effects and Their Accumulation 

Key Events/Factors 

The BLM, MMS, and State of Alaska continue to hold lease sales for onshore and offshore oil 

and gas exploration in Alaska. However, the response of the oil and gas industry to these recent 

lease sales demonstrates the industry’s recognition of the high cost and high risk of exploration 

in areas located far from current infrastructure. While some exploration activities are occurring 

far from current production areas, most exploration is located near existing infrastructure in

order to reduce costs or exploration and achieve a higher probability of finding economically 

viable reserves. 

The Alpine satellite fields are examples of this type of exploration activity. Colville Delta-3 

(Fjord) was discovered approximately 6 miles north of Alpine, and CD-4 (Nanuq) was discovered

about 4 miles south. Colville Delta-5 (Alpine West) is about 3 miles from CD-2, CD-6 (Lookout) 

is about 10 miles from CD-5, and CD- 7 (Spark) and CD-6 are separated by about 6 miles. 

Fjord and Nunaq are located on lands owned by the State of Alaska and the Kuukpik 

Corporation, the Alaska Native village corporation for Nuiqsut. The subsurface rights to the oil 

and gas are held by the State of Alaska and ASRC. A similar situation exists for the Alpine 

field. Alpine West is proposed to be located within the NPR-A, on Kuukpik land and an ASRC 

oil and gas lease. The royalties to ASRC from production of these fields would generate 

substantial revenues for the corporation and its shareholders. Seventy percent of these 

petroleum royalties would be shared with the other Alaska Native regional corporations in 

accordance with Section 7(i) of ANCSA. 

Reasonably foreseeable events that would affect the economy of the NSB and the state of Alaska

include oil and gas exploration and development on existing leases on State and Native-owned

lands east of NPR-A, Federal leases in NPR-A, and federal and state leases in the Beaufort Sea. 

Also, future oil and gas lease sales and oil and gas development in the NPR-A, Chukchi Sea, 

Beaufort Sea, and lands east of NPR-A, as well as construction of a gas pipeline to take North

Slope gas to market may become important to the economy. 

Revenue 

Alaska Department of Revenue’s current estimates indicate petroleum revenue dropping to just 

over $2 billion in 2016. Its proportion of general fund revenue will fall to 77% by 2016. (ADR 

2006). 

The current downward trend in declining oil and gas property taxes is expected to continue. 

Potential oil production from recent and future lease sales in the NPR-A could help to slow this 

decline, but is not expected to reverse the trend. If, however, a gas pipeline is constructed to 

bring North Slope gas to market, revenues could increase substantially and reverse the 

downward trend. The Final Environmental Impact Statement: Renewal of the Federal Grant 

for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System Right-of-Way in 2002 estimated that revenues from the 

pipeline would amount to $189 million annually in royalties and severance taxes and $188 

million annually in property taxes. (USDOI BLM, 2002) These figures should be used with 

caution, however, because the exact amount of revenues would depend on as-yet-to-bedetermined tax rates, actual daily throughput, and market price of natural gas at the time of 

transmission. In addition, with a natural gas pipeline, it is likely that additional oil and gas 

4-849 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Economy 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

infrastructure would be built on the North Slope to produce gas for market and, thereby further 

increase property tax, and possibly, other revenues. 

Employment 

As oil fields mature they typically require more employees per unit of production, so even 

though profits and property taxes may decline, employment in the oil and gas sector may 

remain constant or even increase slightly. However, in the government sector and other sectors 

funded primarily by the State’s revenues or NSB’s property tax receipts, employment is 

expected to decline as tax receipts decline. Employment in the oil and gas sector could remain 

within the range of employment levels experienced between 1980 and 2003, while the number of 

jobs supported by the NSB’s property tax revenues is expected to decline in concurrence with 

the reduction in tax receipts cited above. The State of Alaska must also develop alternate 

sources of funds for their staff and programs. Future lease sales on the North Slope could help

to mitigate some of these employment losses, but are not expected to offset them unless there is 

construction of a commercial gas pipeline and future gas development on the North Slope. 

Cumulative gains in direct employment would include added jobs in petroleum exploration, 

development, production, and possibly oil spill clean up activities. Indirect and induced 

employment would be generated as well. The cumulative effects are projected to generate added 

employment and personal income increases as follows: 

• 232 jobs annual average for NSB residents during development, declining to 40 during 

These include direct oil industry employment, indirect and induced employment. 

• $16.3 in total average annual personal income for workers residing in the NSB during 

development, declining to $3.7 million during production. 

• 7,480 jobs on an annual average during development, declining to 3,750 during 

production. These jobs are for workers on the North Slope who reside in southcentral 

Alaska and Fairbanks. These include direct oil industry employment, indirect and 

induced employment. 

• 60 to 190 jobs for 6 months for cleanup of unlikely oil spills in the Beaufort Sea. 

• Additional workers commute to residences outside Alaska, as noted in Chapter 3. As 

much as 30% of the workforce in the oil industry is nonresident to Alaska. 

This information was derived from Section IV.C.12 of the Northwest NPR-A IAP/EIS, Section 

V.C.11 of the Liberty Final EIS (USDOI, MMS, Alaska OCS Region, 2002b), and Section V.C.10 

of the Beaufort Sea Sales 186, 195, 202 Final EIS (USDOI, MMS, Alaska OCS Region, 2003) 

(USDOI 2003). Actual employment is expected to fluctuate with actual levels of oil and gas 

activity, which can be impacted by long-term changes in the prices of oil and gas and by the 

construction of a gas pipeline and subsequent gas development. 

Per capita income in the NSB is expected to increase near term, and then level off or decline 

slightly. Future changes in employment opportunities and migration of NSB residents would 

also affect this indicator. The longer-term trend in decreasing per capita income may continue 

unless NSB residents seek opportunities in the North Slope petroleum industry. The 

availability of employment opportunities in the planning area, with development and 

production of known and potential oil and gas fields, could increase employment opportunities

for Nuiqsut residents who live in close proximity to these fields. While wages associated with 

this employment could raise the per capita income for Nuiqsut residents, it would likely 

represent a very small increment for the NSB. For the state of Alaska, changes in the planning 

area will have little effect on per capita income, which is expected to continue to grow. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-850 

Cumulative Impacts: Economy 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7.7.18.3 Contribution of Supplement Alternatives to Cumulative Effects 

Based upon our analysis assumptions, the combined 2021 property taxes to the NSB and State 

of Alaska from future oil and gas development in the planning area could range between $40 

million (Alternative A) and $42 million (Alternative C). These numbers could be higher or lower 

depending on the future price of oil and the amount of infrastructure development. The property 

tax payment will increase as development proceeds adding satellites and additional fields. The 

estimated annual royalty and severance payments to the state could be $330 million in 2021. 

These revenues would not differ between alternatives for at least thirty-five years; in later years 

those alternatives that are projected to add the most development would maintain the revenue 

flows the longest. Royalties and taxes could add $500-$525 million for the Federal government 

in 2021. 

It is anticipated that employment of NSB residents would increase in the range of 105-225 jobs 

during development and by smaller amounts during production. The annual employment of

Alaska residents (excluding residents of the NSB) would increase in the range of 1,500 to 3,200 

jobs during development (Alternative A), and 1,700-3,400 (Alternative C), with the numbers for 

the other alternatives falling in between these estimates. A total of as many as 3,300 to 7,200 

direct, indirect, and induced jobs may be added as a result of Alternative A. Under Alternative

B, this number would only be slightly higher. In either Alternative C or D, the number would be 

approximately 3,880-7,600 jobs added. Alternatives B, C, and D would open the northwest 

portion of the planning area to leasing. Infrastructure such as pipelines and CPFs developed in 

this area would make oil and gas development in the adjacent northeast portion of Northwest 

NPR-A and Beaufort Sea more likely in the foreseeable future, leading to more jobs being 

attributable to activities in those areas than otherwise would be the case. 

The proximity of Nuiqsut to the planning area enhances the community's opportunities to 

benefit from development and production activities associated with all of the alternatives. These 

opportunities could extend to community businesses that might provide goods and services, as 

well as residents who might obtain work as a result of the development and production 

activities. 

4.7.7.18.4 Conclusion 

Subsistence activities (non-cash economy) and the oil and gas industry (cash economy) are the 

primary factors that affect the economic livelihood of the North Slope residents. The NSB has 

successfully leveraged tax revenues generated from oil and gas properties to improve the quality 

of life of its residents by providing basic services such as water, sewer, electricity, fire

protection, police protection, education, health services, and by building infrastructure to

support these services through capital improvement projects. Construction jobs associated with 

the NSB’s capital improvement projects have provided residents with employment opportunities

that pay relatively well and allow for flexibility to accommodate subsistence activities. Alaska 

has benefited statewide from revenues resulting from oil production. 

As expected, property tax revenues have decreased through the years, as North Slope oil and

gas production decline and facilities continue to depreciate. Correspondingly, historical 

employment data indicate a declining trend in the number of jobs in the North Slope. The 

declining trend in revenues, jobs, and per capita incomes are expected to continue into the

future (absent a major economic event such as the natural gas pipeline project that would create 

a natural gas industry). It seems reasonable to envision a future trend with more North Slope 

residents participating in oil and gas activities as Borough-related employment opportunities 

4-851 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Economy 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

become very limited. This could mean a tradeoff in subsistence activities as jobs in the oil and

gas industry would not be able to provide the same level of flexibility as the Borough and 

construction jobs. 

Events in the reasonably foreseeable future, such as exploration and development in other areas 

of the NPR-A, could mitigate these declining trends, but are not expected to offset these declines 

unless a gas pipeline is built. The development associated with the Northeast NPR-A could also 

have implications at the national level. The Department of Energy estimated that the 

contribution of North Slope crude to domestically produced oil supplies would decline from 18% 

in 2004 to 14% in 2020; again, this decline could be mitigated, but not offset, by opening up the 

Northeast NPR-A to oil and gas exploration. Any increase in domestic oil production is expected

to reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil supplies, and, in turn, improve national energy 

security and the overall balance of trade. 

4.7.7.19 Public Health 

4.7.7.19.1 Past and Present Effects and Their Accumulation 

Impacts to the health of the North Slope Inupiat people have occurred since the first direct 

interactions with people from outside the region. Beginning with Russian fur traders in the 

1700s, the early contact era was characterized by the introduction of epidemic infectious 

diseases. Early measles and smallpox epidemics resulted in a substantial population decrease 

and persisted into the early 1900s. In the early 1900s, pandemics of influenza and tuberculosis 

resulted from contact with whalers and the concentration of population in larger and more

sedentary centers. A pandemic of influenza in 1918 dramatically reduced the Inupiat 

population in some villages, particularly around Norton Sound. Epidemic infectious disease 

was eventually largely controlled through intensive public health interventions and improved

living conditions and sanitation beginning in the 1950s (Institute of Social and Economic 

Research 2006). 

Commercial whaling north of the Bering Strait began and ended in approximately 60 years. In 

addition to the associated infectious diseases, it resulted in the introduction of new foodstuffs 

(e.g., flour, sugar, coffee, and tea), the increased availability of alcohol and tobacco, ongoing 

efforts at acculturation of the Iñupiat through missions and government schools, and efforts to 

centralize and make sedentary the highly mobile Iñupiat populations. The changes initiated 

during this time formed the early basis of the changes in health status described in section 

3.4.10, namely, a trend toward increases in chronic metabolic diseases, cancer, and social 

pathology, accompanied by general improvements in life expectancy and infant mortality. 

The dietary, cultural, and health changes experienced since the 1950s are similar to general 

trends observed in circumpolar other Inuit communities. Studies have linked modernization 

and acculturation with increases in metabolic disorders such as diabetes, cardiovascular 

diseases, cancer, and social pathology such as domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse, and 

suicide (Bjerregard 2001; Curtis, Kvernmo et al 2005; Krauss & Buffler 1979; Shepard and 

Rode, 1996). The extent to which oil and gas development may have contributed to these trends 

is incompletely understood, but well-documented causal pathways can be identified, and local 

testimony strongly suggests a causal connection between many of the changes in health status – 

both positive and adverse – and oil and gas development. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-852 

Cumulative Impacts: Economy 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

General health indicators – such as infant mortality and life expectancy – have improved over

the last 40 years. Revenues from oil development support the NSB as the region’s top employer, 

and income from Native Corporation dividends and employment (particularly in Nuiqsut) 

support a generally higher economic standard of living, employment opportunities, and public 

health and sanitation infrastructure, all of which are associated in the public health literature 

with improved population health status. 

But despite these improvements in overall mortality figures, significant disparities remain in 

terms of overall health status, and cancer, social pathology, and chronic diseases are rapidly 

increasing. Life expectancy at birth for Alaska Natives remains significantly lower than for the 

general population (69 compared with 76 years). Since 1979, Alaska Native mortality rates 

remain roughly 1.3 times higher than the U.S. population, and on the North Slope, overall 

mortality rates are roughly 1.5 times higher than the U.S. population. Rates of assault, 

domestic violence, and unintentional and intentional (homicide and suicide) injury and death in 

the North Slope remain far higher than in the general U.S. population, despite the

improvements in unintentional injuries delineated in Chapter 3.4.10 (Lanier et al. 2002; Day et 

al. 2006; Goldsmith et al 2004; U.S. Department of Health and Social Services 2006). 

Public testimony on prior EISs in the region has indicated a persistent concern that regional 

industrialization may be at the root of some of these persistent health disparities. For example, 

testifying in 2001 on the MMS’ Liberty DEIS, Rosemary Ahtuangaruak, a former health aide 

who received advanced training as a physician’s assistant, stated: 

Increased incidents of community social ills associated with rapid technological and 

social change cause problems with truancy, vandalism, burglary, child abuse, domestic

violence, alcohol and drug abuse, suicide, and primarily the loss of self-esteem. This has 

materialized during transient employment cycles. The influx of construction workers 

bring their own problems to a village impacted by oil development activities already. 

Historically, from past experience, we know that the incidents of alcohol and drug use 

increase dramatically (USDOI MMS 2001). 

Similarly, previous North Slope Borough Mayor George Ahmaogak noted that: 

The benefits of oil development are clear — I don’t deny that for a moment. The 

negative impacts are more subtle. They’re also more widespread and more costly than 

most people realize. We know the human impacts of development are significant and 

long-term. So far, we’ve been left to deal with them on our own. They show up in our

health statistics, alcohol treatment programs, emergency service needs, police responses 

–you name it (Ahmaogak 2004). 

Some concerns regarding the contributing role of oil and gas development to social pathology 

appear well-founded in accepted mechanisms of health and illness, as well as public health 

data. For example, residents have expressed concern that increasing ice road access or eventual 

gravel road access to previously isolated communities, and the influx of oil workers from outside 

these communities, may lead to increases in drug and alcohol trafficking. Data has shown a 

strong correlation between effective prohibition, adequate law enforcement and better health 

outcomes in Alaska Native villages (Wood and Gruenewald 2006; MMS 2001); anything which 

would compromise the efficacy of local prohibition would thus exacerbate alcohol, drug, and 

social problems in the impacted community. Similarly, residents have noted the very direct link 

between oil and gas activities, impacts to subsistence, and the resultant stress and maladaptive

coping mechanisms which have deepened social pathology in the villages. Data indicate a 

4-853 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

strong link between the integrity of subsistence and sociocultural traditions and health (for 

example, Curtis, Kvernmo et al 2005; Wexler 2006). Thus, to the extent that oil and gas 

development at Prudhoe Bay, Kuparuk, and other fields east of the Colville River has created 

more difficult subsistence conditions and has eliminated previously culturally and practically 

important areas from use, social pathology may have been exacerbated. One study 

demonstrated a clear link between acculturation pressure and suicide in Inupiat communities, 

but made the point that this effect is mitigated to some extent by economic development (Travis 

1984.) Thus, the economic benefits of oil development may to some extent offset the adverse 

social pathological impacts of development. 

Injury rates reflect not only the challenges of subsistence life in the Arctic but also the 

contribution of social pathology, which lead to problems such as domestic violence and suicide, 

as well as alcohol and drug abuse which increase the risk of accidents as well as violent 

behavior. Injury rates on the North Slope have been decreasing over the last 40 years, but 

remain far higher than rates in the general population (ANTHC 2006; Day et al 2006). Much of 

the decrease in injury rates is attributed to aggressive public health intervention campaigns 

such as helmet education programs, and to effective prohibition laws and enforcement. Impacts 

of oil and gas development on social pathology would have predictable effects on injury rates.

Also, as oil infrastructure has encroached on and displace subsistence resources, residents have 

had to travel farther at times for successful hunts. Longer travel times result in statistically 

increased chance of injury as well. 

Dietary change may result not only from impacts to subsistence resources, but from increased 

availability of convenience foods in stores, increases in income, and alterations in the cultural 

preference for foods. Data indicate that the overall per capita subsistence harvest in the North 

Slope remains robust, and among the highest in Alaska, and that income related to past oil 

development may in part facilitate subsistence (ADF&G 2000; Kruse & Braund 2004, in press). 

But diabetes appears to be increasing rapidly in the Inupiat as discussed in section 3.4.10, 

owing to dietary change and a more sedentary lifestyle. Data shows that influences which lead 

to modernization of Arctic communities in general result in lower consumption of subsistence 

foods (Bjerregaard, Jorgensen et al 2004; Schraer and Bulkow, 1993). The transition toward a 

‘modern’ diet is occurring to various extents throughout the state of Alaska, owing to

socioeconomic changes which have occurred at the state level. The specific contribution, then, of 

oil and gas activities on the North Slope is not possible to quantify. However, because of both 

the displacement of subsistence resources and hunters, and the large-scale local economic 

changes produced by oil development, it is reasonable to infer that oil development is playing a 

role in local dietary change. 

Residents have also expressed concern over the marked increase in pulmonary disorders such as

asthma, certain types of cancer, and thyroid disease; many worry that these problems result 

from environmental contamination related to local industry. Data are not sufficient to analyze 

these concerns. Oil and gas development operations would emit air pollutants that are 

respiratory irritants, such as NOx, SOx, and fine particulate (PM2.5). However, air quality 

monitoring in the North Slope has not included data on PM2.5, one of the main environmental 

contributors to respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses. In addition, a detailed inventory has 

not been conducted for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), a diverse group of contaminants 

associated with an array of human health effects including carcinogenesis, birth defects, 

learning disabilities, and endocrine disruption (AMAP 2003). Furthermore, as discussed in the 

Air Quality analysis, intercontinental transport of airborne pollutants renders the attribution of

air quality impacts to local sources even more complex. Finally, monitoring and reporting 

requirements for HAP do not require measurement of the accumulation of HAP in ground, 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-854 

Cumulative Impacts: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

vegetation, or animal populations. For these reasons, it is not possible to model the potential 

contribution of local industry to health problems with accuracy. However, smoking rates are 

high on the North Slope, and likely contribute to the prevalence of pulmonary disease and

specific cancers such as lung cancer. And although incomplete, data on some subsistence foods 

in the region appear to demonstrate that the subsistence food supply in the North Slope region

is relatively safe (O’Hara, Hoekstra et al 2005; Alaska Department of Public Health 2004a and 

2004b; AMAP 2003). Nevertheless, given the preexisting health disparities and vulnerabilities 

in this population, and their extraordinarily high consumption of local subsistence resources,

the potential contribution of contaminants is a serious concern. While studies linking the 

prevalence of specific health problems to locally-emitted contaminants would be limited by the 

small sample size, public health experts advocate stringent controls on exposure. 

4.7.7.19.2 Future Effects and Their Accumulation 

Continuing oil and gas leasing and development, potential community population growth, as 

well as on-going changes in the Arctic climate, will have impacts on Iñupiat public health in the 

foreseeable future. Development is currently proposed in the northeast corner of the planning 

area (Alpine Satellite Development), and further exploration and delineation activity is ongoing 

in the leased areas south of Teshekpuk Lake. If oil and gas development were to occur in areas 

already leased in NPR-A as well as on leased State and Native corporation lands to the north 

and east of Nuiqsut where development has already occurred, village residents would be 

increasingly isolated from their subsistence resources and would be encircled by development,

as stated by elder Ruth Nukapigak (1982) and others in the community. If development is 

allowed to proceed to the north of Teshekpuk Lake, the establishment of pipelines to the region

could stimulate more interest in development of northwest NPR-A as well as the OCS and nearoffshore region north of NPR-A. Activity in this region would have impacts to subsistence 

activity for surrounding villages, particularly Barrow, Atquasuk, and Nuiqsut. 

Offshore leasing has become more intense recently as well. The notice announcing a proposed

Chukchi Sea lease sale (MMS OCS Sale 193) generated higher than expected interest from 

industry, leading MMS to prepare a full EIS for the sale; development has begun on the 

“Oooguruk” project, a near offshore island near the Colville Delta, prompting concerns in 

Nuiqsut over potential impacts to their subsistence fishery; and a deferral on leasing in 

Nuiqsut’s whaling area near Cross Island was recently removed by the MMS, which could lead 

to impacts to whaling as well. 

If a pipeline is built to take North Slope gas to market, public health impacts similar to those 

associated with past oil development can be anticipated. Gas pipeline and other gas facility 

construction and operation of gas infrastructure would emit air pollutants, with possible health 

implications, especially to any nearby populations, though possibly through contamination of 

food sources. Gas development could bring additional jobs and income to North Slope residents 

and revenues to the NSB. These have implications for changes in lifestyle with both positive 

and negative health impacts and a source for funding social services by the NSB, which can 

mitigate health impacts. Gas development is not likely to be as disruptive of caribou and 

subsistence hunter movement as oil development because most pipelines would be buried and 

many gas developments would use already existing oil infrastructure. However, the 

opportunity to develop gas could prompt more overall oil and gas development and related 

infrastructure (drilling pads, CPFs, aboveground infield pipelines, gravel roads, airstrips), 

including the possibility of some gas-only developments outside the planning area. This 

aboveground infrastructure could have impacts to subsistence resources and create other

aboveground infrastructure that will further narrow the area of subsistence use. 

4-855 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

The central question when considering the cumulative health effects of all foreseeable 

development is whether it will be possible for the North Slope Inupiat to maintain a culture and 

way of life based on subsistence. Residents fear that the combination of pressures they now face 

– modernization, acculturation, global warming, and curtailment of subsistence through 

expanding development – threatens the viability of this cornerstone of Inupiat life, and may 

ultimately change the fundamental character of their society. Destabilization of the cultural 

and social systems would be expected to produce serious health consequences. As oil and gas 

development both on and off shore expands in the region, more villages may face impacts 

similar to those now being experienced by Nuiqsut. 

Cumulative Impacts Related to Specific Health Problems 

1. Diabetes, Hypertension, and Associated Metabolic Disorders 

Subsistence constitutes the most important protective factor against diabetes and related 

metabolic disorders (hyperlipidemia, metabolic syndrome); dietary change has also been linked 

to hypertension in Inuit groups. These disorders, along with smoking which is highly prevalent 

on the North Slope, constitute three of the most important risk factors for heart disease, 

strokes, and renal failure, which are among the most important causes of mortality and 

disability in the U.S. The prevalence of diabetes and metabolic disorders in Inuit communities 

has been shown to be proportional to the degree to which people have replaced subsistence

intake with modern store-bought food. Consumption of subsistence foods has also been found to 

be higher amongst older Inuit (Shraer, Bulkow et al 1987; Jorgensen, Bjerregaard et al. 2002; 

Murphy, Schraer et al 1997; Nobmann, Ponce et al 2005). 

In the face of the development presumed to occur for analysis of cumulative impacts (see 

sections 4.7.2 and 4.7.3), subsistence will face a number of concomitant challenges to its 

ongoing viability as a primary source of nutrition. The expansion of foreseeable oil and gas 

development on and offshore has the potential to displace hunters and subsistence resources 

from a much wider area than is presently occurring. Concomitantly, ongoing modernization and

sociocultural effects of increased income, employment, and prolonged and potentially more

intense contact with the ‘dominant’ US culture through increasing numbers of oil and gas 

workers in and near villages would also be expected to lead to a relative shift away from 

subsistence foods. Increasing regional population could increase competition for subsistence 

resources. Global warming may cause dramatic shifts in the presence, quality, and availability 

of subsistence resources as well, but the degree and direction of change is not certain. The 

degree to which these changes will occur, and the severity of impacts, will likely vary across the 

region. Nuiqsut, for example, has largely been excluded by development from the eastern 

portion of its subsistence range, and will be the first village to note changes as development 

proceeds to the west. The community will experience multiple overlapping threats to

subsistence, whereas other villages farther removed from the planning area may experience 

fewer simultaneous challenges. 

If subsistence were displaced from its primary role in the diet, public health professionals in 

Alaska worry that, particularly given the presence of other risk factors such as a likely genetic 

predisposition, low quality of available store-bought food in the villages, and high smoking 

rates, any action which might displace subsistence from its primary role in the diet could trigger 

an epidemic of diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and cardiovascular disease, such as has been 

observed in other tribes throughout the lower 48 states. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-856 

Cumulative Impacts: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

2. Food Insecurity and Hunger 

Although malnutrition and starvation were common as sporadic occurrences in northern 

subsistence-based people historically, modern infrastructure, economy, and government support 

have rendered these problems exceedingly rare in the present day. However, food insecurity 

and hunger – antecedents of frank malnutrition and starvation – are prevalent in the U.S., and 

are considered to be severe health problems themselves, apart from these ultimate outcomes. 

Even in early stages, both food insecurity and hunger are associated with significant 

psychological dysfunction, learning problems, poor self-reported health status, poor overall 

functional status, and increased likelihood of chronic illness; food insecurity is also 

paradoxically associated with being overweight in some studies, likely owing in part to the 

extremely poor nutritional value of many low-cost convenience foods (Olson 1999; Vozoris and 

Tarasuk 2003). These effects persist even after adjusting for potentially confounding variables. 

In the U.S., food insecurity affects an estimated 11% of households, and hunger affects roughly

3.4% of households. In Alaska, food insecurity impacts roughly 11.7% of households, and 

hunger affects 4.6% of households (Food Research and Action Center, 2006). There are no 

regional data available. However, although geographic and political differences prevent an 

accurate comparison, evidence from Canadian Inuit found a markedly elevated prevalence of 

food insecurity, at up to 49%, owing to their remoteness, dependence on potentially unreliable 

harvests of wild foods (both similar to Inupiat case), and poverty (a less significant problem on 

the North Slope) (Chan et al. 2006). 

Wild foods account for roughly 50% of the caloric intake in the Alaskan Arctic, averaged over

the population, and provide well over 100% of protein requirements. In 2000, the monetary 

value of this harvest was estimated at between $31 million and $53 million, if suitable meat 

were purchased in its place (ADF&G 2000). Consequently, the potential of impacts to 

subsistence is a likely cause of food insecurity for North Slope villages, and actual impacts to 

subsistence would be expected to lead to an increased prevalence of hunger. Whereas diabetes 

and metabolic syndromes may develop over the course of years, the problem of hunger is more 

immediate, and will likely occur if concurrent impacts result in failure to harvest adequate 

supplies of food. 

Future industrial activities and climate change could cause impacts on key subsistence species, 

including caribou, fish, and marine mammals. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) 

predicts marked changes in the distribution, species composition, and number of ice shelfdependent marine mammals as a result of global warming (ACIA 2005). Development in the

key subsistence areas within Northeast NPR-A will likely displace animals and may contribute 

to population decline if calving and spawning habitats are disturbed. Development within 

Northwest NPR-A and the offshore region, which could be stimulated by the construction of 

access routes and pipelines to the northwest corner of Northeast NPR-A, could lead to wider 

disruption of habitat, displacement of animals, and displacement of hunters. The projected 

increases in regional population could also make it more difficult for individuals and families to 

meet their nutritional needs through subsistence. If impacts to harvest success for multiple 

species occurred simultaneously, hunger could result. Sharing networks and government 

support programs would mitigate hunger, but if impacts to subsistence were substantial, the 

sharing networks might not be capable of meeting the entire caloric requirements of impacted

families, and malnutrition could result. 

3. Social Pathology

Rates of social pathology (including alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence, criminal 

behavior, suicide and homicide) would depend on the balance between positive and negative 

aspects of development. Positive consequences of expanding development would include 

4-857 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

economic opportunity; improvements in infrastructure and social and police services; 

employment and educational opportunity. Adverse aspects would include rapid increases in

income and wealth leading to increasing economic disparity within communities, which would 

tend to disrupt sociocultural systems; economic depression under the “boom and bust” cycle 

often associated with resource development in regions with little other established economic 

potential; sociocultural impacts such as loss of traditionally valued subsistence lands, 

challenges to the viability of the subsistence lifestyle posed by multiple overlapping industrial 

and climactic changes, growth in the resident population, and large influxes of temporary nonNative workers into previously isolated communities; feelings of disempowerment because of

loss of control over traditionally revered and critically important subsistence lands; and 

increased potential for drug and alcohol importation into the communities through the influx of

workers and creation of new access routes. 

The Inupiat people are impressively resilient and have overcome forced relocation, the 

decimation of the local whale population, and epidemic diseases which markedly reduced the 

population, all with much of their social structure and culture intact. But residents of the 

North Slope now are fearful that currently proposed development threatens the foundations of 

their way of life and health. If the viability and central importance of subsistence for these 

communities were eroded too far, there could be a “turning point,” in which large shifts in social 

organization and social capital would result, with serious implications for overall health and 

wellbeing. While development in the planning area could constitute such a turning point for 

one or more villages, the cumulative impacts of all potential North Slope oil and gas and non-oil 

and gas development could compound this problem, and would extend outside the region

directly dependent on the planning area to include the rest of the North Slope region. 

It is unclear what will occur as revenues from oil development decline following the conclusion 

of foreseeable development. It has been suggested that communities might “readjust” by going 

back to being semi-nomadic hunters, but this is highly speculative. A more common pattern 

would be economic depression accompanied by increased prevalence of social pathology in the

community, and marked increases in emigration to larger population centers. Based on the 

patterns seen in innumerable other communities following the conclusion of an economic boom –

such as the end of the steel era in the Midwest – it is quite likely that the economic depression

triggered by the conclusion of development activities could trigger large-scale social problems

with the resultant increases in health problems related to social pathology. 

4. Injury

As discussed previously in sections 3.4.10 and 4.3.19, injury rates are driven by two factors:

the difficulty of subsistence conditions, and problems related to social pathology, such as alcohol

and drug use, domestic violence, suicide, and homicide. The cumulative effects on social 

pathology and subsistence are described above. If social pathology increases, there will be a 

predictable increase in unintentional and intentional injuries, reflecting more prevalent alcohol 

and substance abuse as well as increasing risk-taking behavior. Similarly, the predicted

displacement of subsistence resources will likely make it necessary for hunters to travel longer 

distances; in the case of whaling, hunters have observed more unpredictable and aggressive 

behaviors among whales disturbed by seismic activity. These conditions would also favor a 

trend toward higher injury rates. 

5. Health Problems Related to EPA Criteria Pollutants 

Most of the emissions from North Slope development have to date been concentrated in the 

region of Prudhoe Bay. Emissions from Prudhoe Bay have been detected in Barrow (Jaffe D, 

Honrath R et al 1995), but monitoring data are not sufficient to allow determination of the 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-858 

Cumulative Impacts: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

contribution of current oilfield emissions to air quality in Barrow or other villages remote from 

Prudhoe Bay, relative to the contributions of other known sources in Northern Europe and Asia. 

The EPA Criteria Pollutants have been associated with an array of health effects, the most 

common and significant of which include causing and exacerbating respiratory illnesses such as 

asthma; increased risk of cardiac arrhythmias; exacerbated atherosclerotic coronary artery 

disease; and excess overall mortality among vulnerable groups. According to the EPA, PM2.5 in 

particular is associated with “increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, 

coughing, or difficulty breathing, for example; decreased lung function; aggravated asthma; 

development of chronic bronchitis; irregular heartbeat; nonfatal heart attacks; and premature 

death in people with heart or lung disease” (EPA 2005). There are no available data for North 

Slope production or concentrations of fine particulate (PM 2.5). According to EPA analysis and

several independent studies, substantial health effects accrue at even levels below NAAQS 

standards, down to ambient levels (Ostro et al 2006; USEPA 2006b). The health effects include 

higher overall mortality rates and higher loss of ‘quality adjusted life years,’ a measure which 

takes into account time lost from illness. From the standpoint of the North Slope population, 

one of the most important findings of these data is that the impacts fall disproportionately to 

vulnerable populations (elderly, very young, and people with chronic illnesses). Given the 

baseline health disparities described in section 3.4.10, then, North Slope communities would

face substantial risk from increased particulate emissions, even if air quality continued to meet 

NAAQS standards. 

According to the assumptions made for cumulative impact analysis, future development would 

be decentralized, occurring over a broader region and closer to current population centers and 

subsistence areas. Because of the closer proximity of development to current population 

centers, some villages might experience decreases in air quality on an ongoing basis, depending 

on the level of development activity from on and offshore projects. However, the more likely

scenario would be the increased likelihood of intermittent poor air quality events in or near 

villages or subsistence areas due to local emissions. Such events might become more common 

during temperature inversions or when wind conditions favor entrainment of pollutants toward 

population centers. Isolated low air quality events would be expected to trigger more frequent

episodes of respiratory symptoms, cardiac problems, and increased mortality among elders and 

other vulnerable groups, but would not likely add substantially to the overall prevalence of 

pulmonary disease. The extent to which this occurs will depend both on the timing of 

development (i.e. multiple projects occurring simultaneously vs. spread over decades), and the 

degree to which developers apply the best available control technology. 

6. Health Problems Related to Environmental Contaminants 

Airborne contaminants (other than the Criteria Pollutants discussed above) are categorized as 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP), a diverse group of pollutants with an array of health effects 

including an etiologic role in certain cancers, cognitive and neurodevelopmental delays, 

endocrine disorders, and immunological problems (Jacobsen et al 1996; EPA 2007; AMAP 2003; 

Cone 2005). HAP can contact human populations either directly through emissions, or through 

the food chain. Public health data support the link between contaminants which can be 

associated with oil and gas development, and the risk of cancer, endocrine, and cognitive 

disorders (Jacobsen et al 1996; Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program 2003; Cone 2005). 

However, the small size of the North Slope population and the bioaccumulation of contaminants 

from worldwide sources render precise attribution of the contribution of local industrial activity 

to contaminant-based health problems extremely difficult, outside of a scenario such as largescale contamination occurring through a large oil spill. 

4-859 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

A primary route through which contaminants would reach the human population in the North 

Slope is through subsistence foods. Current data suggests that the subsistence food supply in 

the North Slope is quite safe, although residents are concerned that the established safety 

standards for contaminant levels were not established with consideration for the vastly larger 

quantities of wild game consumed by residents in the region. The NSB has maintained an 

extensive program of monitoring and testing subsistence resources for contaminants. The 

results have been encouraging, in that to date, the levels of contaminants such as PCBs in 

subsistence foods have been substantially lower than those reported in similar resources in

Canada and Greenland. One important study also documented the presence of PCBs in storebought foods, and made the point that there is no available food source which prevents exposure

to such contaminants altogether (O’Hara 2005). The Alaska Department of Health has also 

summarized data on PCBs and mercury in subsistence foods, and concluded with a strong 

recommendation that people continue eating subsistence foods because given the relatively low 

levels of contaminants present, the health benefits clearly outweigh the risks (Alaska 

Department of Health 2004a and 2004b). 

As oil and gas development operations expand through the region, potential sources of 

contamination will occur closer to population centers and subsistence areas, both on and 

offshore, raising the potential that hunters will contact contaminated resources. 

The question of causation in illnesses such as cancer and neurodevelopmental delay is 

complicated by the host of genetic, behavioral, and environmental factors that can contribute to

these problems, and the limited data regarding levels of locally produced contaminants. 

Furthermore, contaminants in the Arctic derive from worldwide sources, not only local 

emissions. Finally, the small numbers of people in each village render valid epidemiologic 

studies difficult or impossible to design. Hence, it will be extremely difficult to unravel the 

complex pathogenesis of these problems to fully elucidate the contribution of oil and gas 

activities to overall rates. 

7. Infectious Disease 

As discussed in sections 3.4.10 and 4.3.19, the North Slope population has several areas of 

vulnerability to infectious disease. The prevalence of pulmonary disease is relatively high, and 

people with chronic pulmonary disease are particularly at risk from respiratory infections; rates 

of HIV and syphilis are substantially lower in the North Slope than in the Alaskan and U.S. 

general population (Alaska Department of Public Health 2002 and 2005); Chlamydia rates are 

much higher in Alaska Natives than non-Natives in Alaska – there are no North Slope-specific 

data available at this time (Alaska Department of Public Health 2006). Many health care

providers in the region commented that the North Slope community appears particularly 

vulnerable to respiratory infections. This observation has been made in other coastal Alaska 

Native populations as well (Singleton, Bruden et al. 2006). 

As oil and gas activities expand toward other villages, there will be increasing activity in and 

near villages which have been relatively isolated. For example, activities projected under MMS 

lease sale 193 would likely involve a base of operations in or near Wainwright. The large 

influxes of workers into previously isolated villages, and increasing contact between Inupiat 

residents and the immigrant population of oil workers would increase the likelihood of disease 

transmission. Conditions in oil and camps (large numbers of people living and working in a 

relatively small enclosed area) favor transmission of pathogens, and could serve as a “reservoir” 

for transmission to the communities. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-860 

Cumulative Impacts: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

8. Social Determinants of Health 

Many of the effects on social determinants have been discussed above in the analysis for specific 

health problems. This analysis serves as a summary of the ways in which industrial 

development in the region may impact factors which underlie the current health status and 

prevalent health disparities in the North Slope Inupiat community. 

Foreseeable oil and gas leasing both on and offshore on state, Federal, and Native Corporation 

lands will continue to be one of the dominant forces influencing socio-economic conditions on the 

North Slope. As outlined in the analysis of the alternatives and in Table 4.3-D, socio-economic 

conditions are powerful determinants of health status, and are felt to underlie many of the 

current health disparities between groups of different ethnicity and income levels in our society 

(Wilkinson and Marmot, 2003). As outlined in the analysis of the alternatives, these effects 

may manifest at a statewide, regional, or local level. The westward spread of industrial 

activity postulated for the cumulative impact analysis would bring disturbances such as an 

influx of outside workers, changes in employment and income, and displacement of subsistence 

resources to a wider region, with effects on villages such as Wainwright which have not yet

experienced local oil exploration and development activities. Positive effects on the social 

determinants of health would likely include increased employment opportunities, increased

incomes, and a continued revenue stream to maintain community infrastructure, sanitation, 

housing, and public health systems. Adverse effects on the social determinants of health would 

include, for example, increased stress owing to anxiety over actual and potential impacts to 

subsistence resources; rapid acculturation; increased economic disparity; a worsening of the 

social gradient owing to loss of control over traditional lands; and decreasing social capital if 

subsistence sharing networks are disrupted by reduction in subsistence harvests. The analysis 

of health impacts through the social determinants framework allows identification of both 

adverse and beneficial aspects of development, at a statewide, regional, and local level. 

Beneficial and adverse effects of development may occur simultaneously. 

The abandonment of oil fields and related loss of revenue would likely be associated with a 

period of economic recession and job loss. Other potential sources through which income might 

be maintained near current levels have not been identified. Impacts to the social determinants 

of health would include stress and decreased job security; and recession associated with 

emigration. In this cumulative impact analysis, it is anticipated that there could be impacts to 

the social determinants of health through oil and gas-related disturbances to subsistence, 

sociocultural systems, economy, employment, and environmental quality, as well as through

non-oil and gas-related disturbances such as global warming. 

Oil and gas development has become a dominant socio-economic force on the North Slope, 

producing influences through, for example, acculturative pressures secondary to large numbers 

of workers from a different culture entering previously isolated Inupiat villages; stress over 

perceived and actual threats to culture and subsistence; direct and indirect employment 

opportunity; and broad economic and infrastructure improvements. It is important to recognize 

that the potential changes brought by oil and gas development may create statewide, regional, 

and local (village-level) effects, as described above. Furthermore, it must be understood that 

effects on the SDH may create concomitant positive and negative effects on health status. Local 

and regional SDH effects may be the most important to recognize because effective strategies

for mitigation may be devised more readily (see, for example, Assai et. al 2006). For example, a 

local increase in employment may create both benefits through economic opportunity and

adverse effects because of tensions between the imperative to provide for one’s family through 

subsistence activities and the pressure to be a successful wage earner. Mitigation could be 

targeted at efforts to devise flexible work schedules which allow participation in both activities. 

4-861 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7.7.19.3 Global Climate Change 

Global climate change will likely cause substantial changes to the physical environment 

including flooding, salinization of coastal wetlands and lakes, markedly increased erosion, 

weakening of the shorefast ice and retreat of the polar ice cap, and a shorter winter season. 

Health effects associated with global climate change were reviewed extensively by the Arctic

Climate Impact Assessment. Projections included the possibility of decreased cold-related 

injury and decreased overall mortality, the potential for increased heat-related injury in the 

summer, increases in vector-borne infectious diseases, and increased UV-related malignancies 

owing to thinning of the ozone layer. Large-scale changes to the distribution and species 

available for subsistence could lead to dietary change, and potentially to food shortages, with 

the resultant potential for increases in metabolic disorders, food insecurity, and hunger.

Sociocultural stresses resulting from the loss of traditional activities (for example spring 

whaling) and influx of new commerce and shipping due to ice-free summer waters could lead to

increases in social pathology. Water supply, sanitation, and village infrastructure are major 

concerns, as many northern coastal villages are already experiencing marked erosion and 

several villages (though not yet on the North Slope) are actively seeking to relocate. As erosion 

accelerates, water supplies may be breached; there may be more flooding and flood-related

damage; and there may be breaches of sanitation systems and hazardous waste containment 

systems leading to water contamination (ACIA 2005). 

The degree to which these changes occur will depend on complex interactions between climate 

change, changes in the distribution of subsistence species, and socio-cultural forces which are 

difficult to predict with accuracy. In as much as rapid socio-cultural change is a welldocumented stressor, it is very likely that climate change will contribute substantially to stress 

and related illnesses in the coming decades. 

4.7.7.19.4 Contribution of the Supplement Alternatives to Cumulative Effects 

Oil and gas development in Northeast NPR-A may contribute to cumulative public health 

effects in a number of ways. Under Alternatives B-D, development would be allowed 

throughout most of one of the prime subsistence areas in the region, and there is a substantial 

chance that subsistence harvests may decline as a result of development, primarily because of 

displacement of subsistence resources or hunters. This could also occur for Alternative A, but to

a lesser degree because of prohibitions on leasing within substantial portions of the TLSA. 

Under Alternatives B-D, development in the northeastern portion of Northwest NPR-A, as well 

as areas offshore of Northeast and Northwest NPR-A, could be stimulated by the establishment 

of pipelines and infrastructure in the planning area. Hunters from Nuiqsut could have to pass 

through or near oil and gas infrastructure in almost every direction to get to subsistence areas. 

Experience from the present day shows that most hunters are unwilling to do so, and it is 

therefore uncertain what will happen with Nuiqsut’s subsistence practices if development 

occurs in the planning area. If subsistence harvests decline, the population would be at risk for 

further increases in diabetes and metabolic disorders as well as food insecurity and, potentially, 

hunger. Stress and acculturation pressures resulting from the influx of oil workers and 

concerns about subsistence traditions could lead to increases in social pathology. Injuries would 

likely increase somewhat in relation to the more difficult subsistence conditions. The 

contribution of contaminants produced within the planning area to overall rates of cancer, 

metabolic diseases, and respiratory diseases is more difficult to evaluate because of the limited

air quality data existing on the North Slope, and because of the accumulation of contaminants 

in the Arctic from worldwide sources. The influx of outside employees to the region would be 

associated with an increased risk of infectious disease transmission. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-862 

Cumulative Impacts: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.7.7.19.5 Conclusion 

Inupiat health status is evolving rapidly. Chronic diseases, metabolic disorders, and cancer are 

becoming more common, and social pathology appears to have increased fairly sharply over the 

last 50 years; social pathology is now considered epidemic, and is a matter of great concern to 

residents and the public health community. On the other hand, overall life expectancy and

mortality rates have declined, owing in large part to changes in sanitation, infection control, 

and infrastructure leading to lower rates of infectious diseases. Injury rates, though still 

markedly higher than the general U.S. population, have declined somewhat (Day et al. 2006, 

Goldsmith et. Al 2004). Overall, despite substantial improvements in health status, significant 

disparities in overall mortality rates, as well as rates of specific problems such as cancer, injury, 

and social pathology. Infectious disease distribution and prevalence will evolve under the 

combined influences of globalization, climate change, the projected increases in regional 

population, and local influx of workers for oil and gas projects. Because HIV prevalence in this 

fairly isolated region is currently low, efforts to prevent transmission may be particularly 

beneficial. 

As one of the primary drivers of North Slope socio-economic conditions, oil and gas activities are 

important determinants of health. Development on and offshore will continue to be a major 

driver of the local economy for decades to come, and the ultimate decline in oil revenues will 

also be a major force shaping socio-economic conditions. Under the cumulative impacts of

climate change and expanding oil and gas activity, it is very likely that subsistence resources 

and hunters will be displaced from currently productive areas. As discussed in section 4.8.13, 

this could result in profound changes to the social structure in Inupiat communities; if the 

cumulative developments result in a shift away from subsistence as a way of life, metabolic 

disorders including diabetes, hunger and food insecurity, social pathology, and injury would 

likely increase. The health care and social services available through ASNA, NSB, state, and 

Federal programs would mitigate some of these impacts through intervention and treatment, 

but would not prevent these problems from occurring. 

4.7.8 Cumulative Effects Outside of the Planning Area from the Transport 

of Northeast National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska Produced Oil 

Oil that may be produced from Northeast NPR-A under any of the alternatives considered in 

this Supplemental IAP/EIS would be mingled with oil from Prudhoe Bay and other existing and

potential future North Slope oil fields before passing through the existing TAPS to Valdez. 

From there, oil would be placed in tankers to be taken to market. The Department of Energy 

currently estimates that Alaska’s oil production, nearly all of which originates on the North 

Slope, will decline from 860,000 barrels/day to 270,000 barrels/day in 2030. (DOE, Energy 

Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook, 2007, p. 95) Depending upon how much

additional oil is produced from NPR-A and other future North Slope oil development, these

projected production declines may be slowed, or perhaps at some point even reversed. TAPS 

has excess capacity sufficient to handle additional oil, though MMS indicates that if a very large 

Chukchi Sea development began to produce oil, some upgrades in the TAPS pipeline and pump

stations would be needed because some pump stations have been idled because of dropping 

throughput. Addition of planning area oil to future tanker shipments may also slow, or perhaps 

at some point reverse, the decline in tanker traffic that is inherent in the declining oil 

production anticipated by the Energy Information Administration. Whether oil from the 

planning area ultimately helps to reverse dropping North Slope production or just slows its 

4-863 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

decline, however, oil from the Northeast NPR-A may serve to extend the economic life of TAPS 

and use of marine tankers to deliver that oil to market. By making TAPS and the tanker

system economically viable for a longer period, planning area oil (along with other potential 

future oil development) may also extend the period that other oil fields may economically 

produce oil. The following analysis is provided to describe the impacts that NPR-A oil may have

by helping to extend the life of the TAPS and the tanker system that brings North Slope oil to 

market. 

BLM analyzed the impacts of operating TAPS over the next 30 years, including production from

NPR-A, in the Final EIS Renewal of the Federal Grant for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System 

Right-of-Way (USDOI BLM 2002a). The TAPS EIS assessed most impacts of the pipeline as 

small, localized, and short term. Vegetation and soils would be disturbed in very small areas 

along the 800-mile-long pipeline, and the risk of affecting paleontological or cultural resources

was assessed as very remote. Impacts on subsistence and human health would be small, 

although the EIS estimated that over the course of the next 30 years there could be six fatalities 

and less than a hundred time-loss injuries to workers. Impacts on air, water, fish, birds, and 

mammals would all be small, except in the event of an unlikely large spill. Oil spills could create 

temporary public health risks to people in the immediate vicinity. Large oil spills could have 

substantial impacts on groundwater, surface water, and the marine environment. A large spill 

into certain water bodies could, depending on the circumstances, cause severe and possibly longterm impacts to fish. A very large spill, or one that contaminated a crucial habitat, would also 

be the only means by which impacts to bird or mammal populations would likely occur. 

The cumulative effects of transporting Alaska North Slope oil (which would include oil produced

from the Northeast NPR-A) by tanker from the Port of Valdez to the U.S. West Coast and Asian 

markets were evaluated in the Liberty Development and Production Plan Final EIS, which is 

incorporated by reference (USDOI MMS 2002a). The analysis estimated the number of 

cumulative tanker spills to be nine, including six spills with an average size of 3,000 bbl (four of 

which would occur in port and two of which would occur at sea), two spills with an average size 

of 13,000 bbl (both of which would occur at sea), and one spill of 200,000 bbl (at sea in the Gulf 

of Alaska). It was predicted that the six spills at sea and the one larger spill would not occur 

within the same location or contact the same resources before recovery of the affected resource.

In-port spills, for which contingency measures would be in place, would be cleaned up relatively 

quickly. Spills originating 80 to 100 miles offshore would have a 5 to 10% chance of contacting 

the shore within 30 days. Weathering and dispersion of the oil during this time would reduce 

effects. When past effects have been studied, spills of 13,000 bbl or less at sea have not been 

found to cause serious effects to birds, fish, or marine mammal populations. A spill along the 

route to Asian markets would be expected to move parallel to the Alaska Peninsula and the 

Aleutian Island chain. Production from the planning area would account for approximately 13% 

of the total reasonably foreseeable future volume of oil moved to port via TAPS. 

The TAPS analysis predicted few, if any, effects to threatened and endangered species from a 

tanker spill. For example, bowhead whales and their habitat are far removed from the tanker 

routes; spectacled eiders do not occur in the area that could be contacted by oil; and an oil spill 

would be unlikely to reach either the densely populated Steller’s eider wintering area or 

northern sea otters and their habitat along the Alaska Peninsula or Aleutian Island chain. 

Potential effects to salmonids and other fish species, including the tidewater goby, Sacramento 

splittail, Pacific hake, white abalone and black abalone, appear limited. An oil spill in Prince 

William Sound or the Gulf of Alaska could have cumulative effects on sea otters in those areas 

and local effects on harbor seals. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-864 

Cumulative Impacts: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Only a very large, 200,000-bbl spill could cause serious effects to marine and coastal birds in the 

Gulf of Alaska. An oil spill in Prince William Sound could have local, cumulative effects on river 

otters and brown and black bears in the area. A spill could affect lower-trophic level organisms, 

such as plankton, algae, and seaweed that experienced contact. A 200,000-bbl spill could affect 

commercial fishing and result in an economic loss ranging from 37 to 64% per year for 2 years in 

the area affected by the spill. Smaller oil spills would not be expected to have measurable effects 

on fish species (including anadromous species) or result in measurable effects on sport fishing. If 

oil contact were to occur, wetlands in Prince William Sound and along west coast routes to 

Seattle, San Francisco Bay, and Los Angeles could experience local, cumulative effects from 

contact and damage caused by clean-up operations. Subsistence harvest for residents of Cordova

and Yakutat, Alaska, could be reduced or altered, especially if the 200,000-bbl spill contacted 

and caused serious, long-term effects to sea otters, coastal birds, and harbor seals. Similarly, 

economic losses to the commercial fishery described above would also represent a serious loss to

the subsistence fishery. A spill of that magnitude would also cause serious institutional stress 

and disruption to associated sociocultural systems in Cordova that could last for 4 years, with 

lesser effects on Yakutat. These effects would be similar to the effects experienced by these

communities as a result of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Archaeological resources in an area 

contacted by oil spills could be affected by clean-up activities, oil contamination, and vandalism, 

although protocols are in place to identify sites and minimize impacts from cleanup. A 200,000­

bbl spill could create 10,000 cleanup-related jobs for 6 months in the first year, declining to zero 

by the fourth year following the spill, along with local price inflation of up to 25% during the 

first 6 months following the spill. 

Effects to water-quality would vary with the location and size of the spill. Generally, the 

concentration of hydrocarbons in the water column would be high during the first several days 

following the spill, decreasing over time to background levels. While overall air quality effects 

from tanker transportation would be considered low, an oil spill could result in localized 

increases in ambient VOC concentrations caused by spill evaporation. 

The potential effects of a 200,000-bbl oil tanker spill along the TAPS tanker route were 

analyzed in the Gulf of Alaska/Yakutat Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 158 EIS (USDOI

MMS 1995b). The 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS used that information to analyze tanker spills 

occurring from production in the planning area (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998:Appendix B). That 

analysis affirms the conclusions (summarized above) of the Liberty EIS and is incorporated here

by reference. 

4-865 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Impacts: Public Health 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.8 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS 

This section summarizes the unavoidable adverse environmental effects that would occur under 

the alternatives considered in this amendment. Under the alternatives, the land allocations for 

oil and gas leasing range from making all BLM-administered lands in the planning area 

available for leasing (Alternative C) to making approximately 87% of lands available for leasing 

(Alternative A). Unavoidable adverse effects would be expected to occur during oil and gas 

exploration, development, and production operations. Many of the adverse effects identified in 

this section would occur only if a large oil spill were to occur. 

4.8.1 Air Quality 

An increase in emissions of air pollutants would occur as a result of all alternatives. In all the 

alternatives and the cumulative case, the projected emissions would be less than emissions that 

have occurred due to North Slope oil and gas activities in the past when production rates were

much higher. For all alternatives, established air quality standards would not be violated. 

4.8.2 Paleontological Resources 

Although paleontological resources are nonrenewable, invertebrate fossils are so common as to

be ubiquitous throughout the planning area and petroleum exploration and development 

activities are not considered a significant threat to them. The loss of vertebrate paleontological 

resources, however, has the potential to be adverse, especially if it results in the loss of 

scientifically important fossils. However, if surveys and inventories in areas of proposed oil and

gas exploration and development activities were conducted before work began and avoidance of 

vertebrate paleontological locales was possible, the incidence of impact would be greatly reduced 

and any impacts would be minimal. Lease stipulations and ROPs that restrict or prohibit oil 

and gas drilling and development in streams and rivers would reduce the likelihood of impacts 

to vertebrate paleontological resources in the planning area. Additionally, strict enforcement of 

lease stipulations requiring non-collection of vertebrate fossils also would avoid adverse impacts 

to paleontological resources. Included in these lease stipulations would be a mandatory training 

program for the workers on the importance of preserving and not collecting vertebrate 

paleontological resources. 

4.8.3 Soil Resources 

While impacts to soils from exploratory drilling would occur over a small area, relative to the 

overall planning area and ACP, these impacts would be unavoidable and permanent. 

Development activities, such as the construction of permanent gravel roads and pads, could

cause damage or loss of soil over the area affected. Construction of any oil and gas pipelines or

the use of a gravel mine site would also permanently disturb or destroy soil in the immediate 

vicinity of the project. If a crude or refined oil spill occurred, the resultant impact to soils could 

extend beyond the immediate work area. Lease stipulations and ROPs, however, would reduce 

the majority of effects. Some soil would be restored as sites are abandoned and reclaimed. 

However, due to the harsh Arctic climate, it could take several hundred years for soil

productivity to reach pre-disturbance levels on abandoned pads and roads. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-866 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.8.4 Water Resources 

Activities from road and pad construction could produce unavoidable adverse effects to water 

resources. For example, culvert and bridge work in streams and lakes could disturb stream 

banks, stream beds, or shorelines; blockages of natural channels and floodways could disrupt 

drainage patterns; and removal of gravel and water from riverine pools and lakes could increase 

erosion and sedimentation. Because roads would pose the single most critical impact to water 

resources because of the diversions, impoundments, and increased sediments runoff they would 

create, limiting the length of the roads would be the most effective way of reducing impacts to 

water resources. 

Construction would result in short-term subsidence of the ice-rich permafrost along stream 

banks and lakeshores, especially in areas where waves would accelerate the removal of the 

protective soil and vegetative cover. Fine-grained sediments melting out of the ice-rich 

permafrost would increase sediment erosion and the associated changes to stream channel 

morphology. 

Unavoidable adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills, and from construction of 

ice roads and gravel pads, airstrips, and roads. Lease stipulations and ROPs have been 

developed to minimize the risk of spills, and to provide for spill cleanup. Construction 

disturbances would be permitted (approved) after subsequent environmental reviews; therefore,

impacts could be minimized or avoided. As noted in NRC (2003), the oil industry and regulatory 

agencies have made substantial progress in slowing the accumulation of effects of gravel fill by 

reducing the size of the footprint required for facilities and substituting ice for gravel in some 

roads and pads. Several lease stipulations and ROPs include requirements and standards to 

minimize the amount of area of surface disturbance. 

Unavoidable adverse effects on estuarine water quality would occur from offshore ice-road and

ice-pad construction and petroleum-related spills. The construction would have very localized, 

short-term effects on estuarine water quality. 

The construction of coastal staging facilities would have unavoidable adverse effects on 

estuarine water quality. Construction disturbances would be permitted (approved) after 

subsequent environmental reviews; therefore impacts could be minimized or avoided.

Construction would have very localized, short-term effects on estuarine water quality, while 

spills could have a longer-term impact on marine waters. 

4.8.5 Vegetation 

All of the direct impacts to vegetation described for all alternatives would be unavoidable. 

Seismic activities, overland moves, and exploratory drilling would occur during the winter when 

the ground is frozen and snow-covered. Such activities could cause impacts that linger from one

year to decades, in the form of vegetation that appears greener than surrounding areas, shallow

water tracks, ponding, scuffed or crushed tussocks, and ruts through tussocks. Impacts caused 

by oil/gas field development, such as burial of vegetation under gravel fill and contamination by 

oil spills, would be unavoidable, direct adverse effects. Placement of gravel drilling pads, roads, 

airstrips, staging areas, and docks, as well as construction of oil and gas pipelines and the use of

gravel mine sites, would permanently disturb or destroy soil and vegetation. Additionally, 

vegetation and soils may be disturbed by the formation of impoundments where gravel 

structures alter drainage patterns. Changes in plant community composition, such as those 

caused by snowdrift and dust accumulation, would account for about 75% of the area impacted 

4-867 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

by oil/gas field development. Impacts from moisture regime changes would have an adverse 

effect on the original plant community and its associated fauna, but perhaps a beneficial effect 

on the plant communities that colonize those areas. 

4.8.6 Wetlands and Floodplains 

Biological resource areas that can be classified as having the function and value of wetlands and

floodplains on the North Slope include vegetation, soils, and water resources and quality. Please 

refer to the discussions in this section for each of these resources for information on unavoidable 

adverse effects on wetlands and floodplains. 

4.8.7 Fish 

4.8.7.1 Freshwater and Anadromous/Amphidromous Fish 

Unavoidable adverse effects to freshwater and anadromous/amphidromous fish would include 

short-term avoidance behavior and stress related to seismic vibration activity; loss of habitat 

and reduced productivity created by gravel excavation in spawning, rearing, and overwintering 

areas; degradation and loss of habitat and mortality of fish eggs and larvae from erosion and 

sedimentation in streams and lakes; and lethal and/or sublethal effects to fish from oil spills. 

Oil-spill cleanup activities could compound unavoidable adverse impacts to fish habitat; 

however, the effects would be unlikely to measurably impact fish populations in the region. 

4.8.7.2 Marine Fish 

Unavoidable adverse effects to marine fish would occur as a result of seismic surveys, 

construction in or near marine waters, marine vessel traffic, and oil and fuel spills. Seismic 

surveys in overwintering areas could have lethal effects on some juvenile fish overwintering 

there. The construction of a coastal docking facility to offload supply barges adjacent to the 

planning area would affect the movement of some coastal marine and migratory marine fish. 

The severity of the effects of a docking facility would depend on its location, size, and design 

characteristics, and whether the facility required an offshore access causeway. Marine vessel

traffic used to support onshore industrial activities could temporarily disturb fish. It is possible 

that a very large spill (≥ 120,000 bbl) could affect the marine fish population in the immediate 

area, and this could require approximately 3 to 10 years for recovery. 

4.8.8 Birds 

Some disturbance of birds in the planning area by routine activities and oil and gas 

development would be considered unavoidable. Disturbance related to aircraft traffic (such as 

aerial wildlife surveys and aircraft support of camps or oil and gas facilities), vehicle and 

pedestrian traffic would be likely to have the greatest impact on birds. 

The potential effects of routine aircraft flights into airstrips would range from bird avoidance of

certain areas to abandonment of nesting attempts or lowered survival of young. The likelihood 

that noise associated with aircraft would have a negative impact on birds would probably be 

greatest during the nesting period when the movements of incubating birds are restricted and 

the molting period when birds may be energetically stress and are know to be sensitive to

disturbance. Derksen et al. (1992) reported that molting brant in the Teshekpuk Lake Goose 

Molting Area were disturbed by helicopter overflights and that brant did not habituate to the 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-868 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

overflights. Low-level helicopter survey flights to monitor pipelines for potential oil spills or 

leaks could also disturb tundra-nesting or post-breeding birds. Routine flights would be of short 

duration and occur in a particular area, and would likely cause minimal disturbance to birds. 

However, temporary displacement from preferred feeding, brood-rearing, or molting habitats 

could affect energy budgets of some birds, and incubating birds could be temporarily displaced 

from nests potentially allowing abandonment of nesting attempt and allowing predators greater 

access to eggs or young. Some aircraft disturbance to molting and migrating loons and 

waterfowl in marine habitats would be unavoidable. Given that there are a limited number of 

staging areas along the North Slope, birds may have few options for moving to new areas that 

provide comparable resources (Andres and Gill 2000; Flint et al. 2003). Aircraft flights over the 

Colville River Delta during the fall could impact thousands of shorebirds staging in this area 

prior to migration. This may be especially problematic for dunlins, the most common staging 

bird in the area, as they are also undergoing an energetically expensive, premigratory molt at 

this time. 

The presence of roads and pads and activities associated with oil and gas development could 

also cause unavoidable disturbances that affect tundra-nesting birds. The primary sources of 

disturbance related to roads and facilities would result from vehicular traffic, heavy equipment 

use, routine maintenance activities, oil spill response training activities, and pedestrian traffic. 

These disturbances could result in temporary or permanent displacement from preferred 

foraging, nesting, and brood-rearing, molting and staging habitats, decreased nest attendance, 

nest abandonment, nest predation and increased energy expenditures that could affect the 

physiological condition of birds and their survival or reproduction. The likelihood for impacts to 

tundra-nesting birds would vary depending on the type and location of the disturbance, the 

species and number of individuals in the area, and the time of year. Impacts would be most 

likely to occur if facilities were located in habitats with high bird concentrations, in areas 

containing species that are vulnerable to small losses of nests and habitats that may be limiting

for a particular species or if species with low population numbers or declining populations were 

disturbed. Impacts would be most important if disturbances were to occur in areas of high bird 

use such as the goose molting area north of Teshekpuk Lake. 

It is unknown but likely that habitat would not be a limiting factor for most species nesting in 

the planning area and that many birds displaced by disturbances related to oil and gas 

development would move to adjacent habitats. In addition, vessel traffic along river systems or 

in marine habitats could cause temporary displacement of some birds from preferred habitats. 

Lease stipulations and ROPs would help to mitigate many of the effects of disturbance to

tundra-nesting birds, but some impacts may be unavoidable. There would also be a permanent 

loss of bird habitat associated with the construction of gravel roads, pads, airstrips, staging 

areas, pipelines, and gravel excavation sites. The extent of disturbance or habitat loss on 

tundra-nesting birds would be related to the location and timing of the disturbance or habitat 

loss and the species and number of individuals in the immediate area. While it is likely that 

many birds would move to adjacent habitats, some impacts related to habitat loss could be 

unavoidable. 

4.8.9 Mammals 

4.8.9.1 Terrestrial Mammals 

Some disturbance and disruption of caribou and some habitat alterations from oil development

under all alternatives are unavoidable. Displacement or reduced habitat use by the TLH, WAH, 

and CAH caribou are likely to be local (within 2 to 21⁄2 miles of oil field roads and pipeline 

4-869 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

corridors) and long term (greater than 1 generation), and could persist over the life of the oil 

fields. For the TLH, this could result in a shift of the concentrated calving area, if development 

occurred within that area. Some noise and disturbance of other terrestrial mammals would be 

unavoidable, but would be short term and localized and would not substantially affect mammal 

populations. 

4.8.9.2 Marine Mammals 

Increased barge traffic associated with development could displace migrating whales and 

possibly other marine mammals depending upon the timing and location of vessel traffic. 

However, such impacts could be mitigated by limiting vessel traffic during migration periods. 

The construction of a coastal docking facility to offload supply barges adjacent to the planning 

area could affect seal habitat. The severity of the effects of such a docking facility would depend 

on its location, size, design characteristics, and whether the facility required an offshore access 

causeway. Marine vessel traffic used to support onshore industrial activities could temporarily 

disturb marine mammals. Increased air traffic may also result in disturbance to marine

mammals, particularly in the near shore areas. 

4.8.10 Threatened and Endangered Species 

Disturbance from noise produced by marine vessel traffic supporting oil and gas activities in the 

planning area could be unavoidable, should bowhead whales be migrating past the northern 

planning area boundary. Increased barge traffic associated with development could also 

displace migrating whales, depending upon the timing of vessel traffic. However, such impacts 

could be mitigated by limiting vessel traffic during migration periods. Because vessel noise 

alone is likely to result in only minor changes in whale behavior (Richardson 1999), disturbance 

from such vessel activity would probably not preclude whale migration or disrupt feeding 

activities on a long-term basis. 

Some disturbance to nesting, brood-rearing, staging, or migrating spectacled and Steller’s eiders

by routine activities associated with oil and gas exploration and development is considered

unavoidable. The types of disturbances that could affect threatened eiders are the same as those

discussed above for birds and include vehicular, vessel, and aircraft traffic, heavy equipment 

use, routine maintenance activities, oil spill response training activities, and pedestrian traffic. 

The impacts to threatened eiders from these disturbances would also be similar to those 

described above for birds. Because of their threatened status and ROP E-11, research activities 

would be conducted prior to and during development of oil and gas production facilities. These 

research activities would involve helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft, as well as ground-based 

activities that could cause disturbances affecting eider nesting and brood-rearing activities. 

Impacts to eiders could be even greater if disturbances occurred in areas of high eider use such 

as the tundra ponds north of Teshekpuk Lake. Eiders may habituate to some disturbances or 

could move to alternate habitats for foraging, nesting, and brood-rearing. There would also be a 

permanent loss of eider habitat associated with the construction of gravel roads, pads, airstrips, 

staging areas, pipelines, and gravel excavation sites. Depending upon where development 

occurred within the planning area, such loss could affect habitat preferentially used by 

threatened eiders. 

Lease stipulations and ROPs would effectively mitigate many of the effects of disturbance to 

spectacled and Steller’s eiders, but some impacts could be unavoidable. BLM expects most

disturbances of endangered and threatened species associated with routine activities to be 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-870 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

minimized or avoided through compliance with mitigation measures developed through the ESA 

Section 7 consultation process. 

Seismic surveying, air, vessel, and ice road traffic, and construction activities would 

unavoidably disturb a few polar bears and their prey (seals), but this effect would be very brief 

and would not affect bear population abundance or overall distribution in the planning area. 

ROP C-1 would require avoidance of dens, and polar bears remain protected under the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act. Provisions under the MMPA require lessees to obtain Letters of 

Authorization that direct them to avoid disturbance to polar bear dens and require the use of

non-lethal means to avoid human-bear interactions. 

4.8.11 Cultural Resources 

Cultural resources are nonrenewable and not numerous in the planning area, so any effects 

would have some importance. Because the exact locations of all potential cultural resources 

sites are unknown, their disturbance cannot be entirely avoided. There are cultural resources

within the planning area that may relate to the entire span of human occupation of the region, 

including locales relating to the first humans to enter the Western Hemisphere. Historic and 

prehistoric sites may be located anywhere within the planning area and represent varied ages,

cultures, and functions. Because soil forms slowly in the Arctic, sites that are thousands of 

years old may be near or on the surface. If surveys and inventories for cultural resources in 

areas proposed for oil and gas exploration and development were conducted before the work 

began, then the effects to cultural resources in these areas would be reduced or avoided. Timely

intervention following the discovery of cultural resources would effectively mitigate many 

effects, either through site avoidance or data recovery. Salvage archaeology to recover 

remaining site data from a disturbed site would result in the total destruction of the site, 

although the recovered data would, in most cases, effectively mitigate for this destruction. 

4.8.12 Subsistence 

Bowhead whales, caribou, fish, seals, birds, wolves, and wolverines are important subsistence 

resources for NSB residents. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, 

development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources in the

communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, and Nuiqsut. Additionally, disturbance

could cause potential short-term impacts to long-tailed ducks and some eider populations. No

harvest areas would become unavailable for use, but many subsistence users would avoid areas 

of oil development because of regulatory exclusion (real or perceived), and potential for 

contamination of species. 

While noise, traffic disturbance, and oil spills would produce chronic, short-term impacts on 

subsistence species, none of these impacts would lead to the elimination of any subsistence 

resource. Disturbance to, and displacement of, caribou could lead to an unavoidable reduction in 

the total annual caribou harvest by making the harvest more difficult, costly, and time 

consuming for subsistence hunters. Wolf and wolverine harvests would be reduced in areas of

human activity, while bear and fox could habituate to oil and gas activities within the planning 

area. Effects on the harvest of other species from noise and traffic disturbance, and construction

activities should be avoidable, if mitigated. If oil and gas infrastructure were located in 

subsistence hunting areas, some (real or perceived) restrictions on access by subsistence 

hunters would be unavoidable. 

4-871 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.8.13 Sociocultural Systems 

The inability to harvest sufficient quantities of bowhead whales as a result of disturbance could 

cause unavoidable effects on Iñupiat traditional harvesting and sharing practices. These effects

would increase if the harvest shortage lasted more than one whaling season. Disturbance effects 

on caribou could disrupt sociocultural systems for an entire season or more; nevertheless, it is 

not expected that these disruptions would displace ongoing sociocultural institutions, 

community activities, or traditional practices for harvesting, sharing, and processing resources. 

Some cultural values, such as sharing, could be reinforced by shortages in the short term, but 

could be strained after several seasons of harvest shortages. Long-term harvest failures or the 

loss of a resource would irreparably strain the bonds of sharing and reciprocity that bind the 

community of Nuiqsut. The loss of the resources that Iñupiat people use to define themselves

would further distance younger generations from their Iñupiat heritage and could cause 

profound changes in the community. Federal, NSB, and community-supported social programs 

with adequate funding would mitigate many of the sociocultural consequences of oil and gas 

development in the planning area. However, unavoidable repercussions to the communal 

practice of sharing of subsistence resources could occur. 

4.8.14 Environmental Justice 

The Environmental Justice Executive Order requires the consideration of the potential effects of 

proposed projects on Native subsistence activities. Noise and disturbance from routine 

development activities would be unavoidable. The most substantial unavoidable environmental 

justice effects on Native communities would be from exploration and development activities that 

reduced the populations or production of terrestrial mammals, water birds, and fish. These 

effects would primarily affect subsistence resources and would thus fall disproportionately on 

Native minority populations. Most other subsistence effects would be short term, local, and 

relatively minor, and would not be expected to raise environmental justice issues. 

4.8.15 Coastal Zone Management 

Activities occurring under the four alternatives are not expected to result in unavoidable 

adverse effects in the form of major changes in land use or conflicts with the ACMP, including 

the NSB Coastal Management Program. All four alternatives would likely result in short-term, 

unavoidable effects on subsistence activities from the change in land use in portions of the 

planning area from subsistence-based open space to industrial. To the extent that facilities 

would be sited and designed to minimize disturbance and the effects of an oil spill on the 

environment, conflicts with the statewide standards and the NSB policies are avoidable. It is 

expected that activities generally would conform to existing policies of local, state, and Federal 

land use plans and coastal management programs. 

4.8.16 Recreation Resources 

Adverse effects to scenic quality, solitude, naturalness, and primitive/unconfined recreation 

from oil and gas exploration and development are unavoidable. These effects would be a direct 

result of exploration and development activities and facilities such as drill pads and pipelines. 

The aerial extent of the effects would be limited to the viewshed and/or noiseshed of the 

development activities, leaving most of the planning area unaffected, but the impacted areas 

would lose their potential Wilderness characteristics for at least the life of the activity. Recent 

and future technological advances could make green trails and pads an avoidable impact. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-872 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Potential outstandingly remarkable values of the Wild and Scenic River eligible Colville River 

could be degraded by oil and gas exploration, development, and production activities, but the 

unavoidable adverse effects would be limited to the area(s) in close proximity to a pipeline or

road crossing of the river. The effects would not alter the current status of unsuitability, but 

could limit the likelihood of a future change in that status. 

4.8.17 Visual Resources 

Unavoidable adverse effects to visual resources (i.e., the viewsheds and naturalness of the 

landscape) would occur from oil and gas exploration and development through the introduction 

of vertical lines, regular spacing, reflectivity and a greater spectrum of colors. These effects 

would be a direct result of oil and gas exploration and development activities and facilities such 

as drill pads, roads, and pipelines. Recent and future technological advances could make trails 

and pads an avoidable impact. 

4.8.18 Economy 

Most economic effects of oil and gas leasing, exploration, development, and production in the 

planning area would be considered positive effects by many people. Increases in employment 

and associated personal income would occur over the life of the exploration, development, and

production activities. Revenue increases to the NSB, and to the state and Federal governments, 

would occur during production years. However, these increases would be short term (less than 

30 years), occurring only for the duration of the activities. Development activity would establish 

infrastructure that could enhance the future productivity of oil and gas exploration,

development, and production. 

4.8.19 Public Health 

Unless the trends toward higher consumption of store-bought food are reversed through 

effective mitigation measures that support and protect subsistence traditions and harvests, 

diabetes, metabolic disorders, and chronic diseases will likely continue to increase. Because the 

displacement of subsistence resources and hunters is anticipated even despite mitigation, 

injuries may increase unavoidably; this could be offset by measures targeted at increasing 

hunter safety. The predicted influx of workers to villages along with disruption of subsistence 

harvests and ongoing acculturation could lead to unavoidable increases in social problems, such 

as domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse, and suicide. Because of low baseline rates of HIV, 

there is a particular risk of increased prevalence as contact with people from outside the region

increases. 

4-873 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.9 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LOCAL SHORT-TERM 

USES AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONGTERM PRODUCTIVITY 

This section discusses the short-term effects of the potential use of portions of the planning area 

for oil and gas exploration and development activities, versus the maintenance and

enhancement of potential long-term productivity of the planning area’s environmental 

resources. 

Short term refers to the total duration of oil and gas exploration and production activities, 

whereas long term refers to an indefinite period extending beyond the termination of oil and gas 

production. The specific impacts vary in kind, intensity, and duration according to the activities 

occurring at any given time. Initial activities, such as seismic surveying and exploration 

drilling, generally result in short-term, localized impacts. Development drilling occurs 

sporadically throughout the life of an oil or gas field, but also results in short-term, localized 

impacts. Activities during the production life of leases executed based upon the decision in the

Supplemental Northeast NPR-A ROD may result in chronic impacts over a longer period of 

time, potentially punctuated by more severe impacts as a result of accidental events. Facilities 

removal is also a short-term activity with localized impacts; the impacts of site clearance, 

however, may be longer lasting. Over the long term—several decades after completion of 

abandonment activities—natural environmental balances are generally expected to be restored, 

though that balance will not for all resources mean a return to the exact state prior to original 

disturbance. 

Until more long-term study data become available, the long-term effects of chronic or major 

spills of hydrocarbons cannot accurately be projected. In the absence of these data, it should be 

assumed that chronic spills or a major large oil spill could result in decreased long-term 

productivity. 

4.9.1 Air Quality 

Air quality impacts from development, production, and transportation from each of the 

alternatives would be similar to those which have occurred historically. Short-term degradation 

of air quality related to exploration, construction, and operation would be the same as similar 

existing oil and gas exploration and production facilities. Air quality is a renewable resource; 

and, when activities that produce emissions cease, the local air quality returns to its original 

natural condition. 

4.9.2 Paleontological Resources 

Because paleontological resources are nonrenewable, there is no difference between short-term

and long-term impacts. The resource cannot endure most types of adverse impacts. Once 

disturbed, the materials and information of paleontological deposits may be permanently 

compromised. Any destruction of paleontological sites, especially ones determined to have 

significant scientific value, would represent unrecoverable losses. Any discoveries of

paleontological resources as a result of surveys required prior to development of a lease would 

enhance long-term knowledge of the area and these resources. Furthermore, once

paleontological deposits (particularly vertebrate remains) are disturbed and exposed, natural 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-874 

Relationship between Short-Term 

Uses and Long-Term Productivity 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

erosion could accelerate the destruction of fossils. Exposed vertebrate fossils also are vulnerable 

to unauthorized collecting and digging. 

4.9.3 Soil Resources 

Soils potentially affected by exploration practices cover very small areas, although up to 3,850 

acres (Table 4.2-H, Alternative C) of soil would be directly impacted during development for 

construction of pads and roads. Additional soil would be lost when new gravel quarries are 

developed. Rehabilitation of soils after field abandonment could allow soils to eventually reestablish. While the formation of soils is a very slow process, short-term uses are projected to

have very small long-term effects. Soils lost through the construction of permanent facilities 

would essentially be permanent. 

4.9.4 Water Resources 

Oil and gas exploration and development would result in both short-term and long-term effects 

to water resources. Construction activities that disturb stream banks or lake shorelines, 

temporarily block natural channels, and remove gravel would all cause short-term increases in 

erosion and sedimentation. Water removal could cause short-term changes in aquatic habitat. 

Permanent gravel roads and pads, airstrips, pipelines, and facilities constructed adjacent to or 

crossing streams and lakes would have long-term effects on water resources. Removal of these 

structures from streams and lakes after production ceased would restore drainage patterns and 

natural sedimentation processes. Long-term changes could occur where thermokarst erosion 

caused major changes in stream banks, and lake shorelines, and altered natural drainage

patterns. Oil spills would have both short- and long-term impacts, especially to fish resources of 

Teshekpuk Lake and other fish-bearing lakes and streams. 

Oil and gas exploration and development would result in both short-term and long-term effects 

to water quality. Construction activities associated with road and pad construction; culvert and 

bridge work in streams and lakes that disturbed stream banks or shorelines; blockages of 

natural channels and floodways that disrupted drainage patterns; and removal of gravel would 

all cause short-term increases in erosion and sedimentation. Water removal could cause shortterm changes in aquatic habitat, although these impacts would be minimized by limiting water 

withdrawals to 15% of less of the total volume of the water body. Permanent gravel roads and

pads, airstrips, pipelines, and facilities constructed adjacent to or crossing streams and lakes 

could have long-term effects on water quality. Oil spills would have both short- and long-term 

impacts on water quality, especially to fish resources of Teshekpuk Lake and other fish-bearing 

lakes and streams. The magnitude and duration of effects would vary with the type and extent 

of the activities. 

Degradation of water quality from construction and operation of oil field(s), winter ice roads, 

and spills could have a long-term effect on isolated water bodies. 

4.9.5 Vegetation 

The effects of non-oil and gas activities on vegetation would be short term. However, the 

construction of well collars for exploration wells and the most severe impacts caused by vehicles

during overland moves and seismic exploration would cause long-term affects on vegetation. All 

effects of oil-field construction on vegetation would be long term, though new oil spills and dust 

and gravel spray from vehicular traffic on the gravel pads would not occur after field 

4-875 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Relationship between Short-Term 

Uses and Long-Term Productivity 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

abandonment. The recovery time for vegetation from a spill could last several years (Jorgenson 

1997, McKendrick 2000), but it is not known how long changes to plant communities as a result 

of dust effects would persist. Although research indicates that natural plant communities can be 

restored to gravel pads (McKendrick 1997), especially if some silt-loam soil is added to the 

substrate, the time until recovery of natural canopy cover would be so long that the impacts 

might be considered permanent from a human perspective. Therefore, the long-term 

productivity of these localized areas would be reduced; however, these areas represent between

0.1 and 1% of the planning area. Placement of gravel drilling pads, roads, airstrips, staging 

areas, and docks, as well as construction of pipelines or the use of gravel mine sites, would

permanently disturb or destroy vegetation unless sites were reclaimed. 

4.9.6 Wetlands and Floodplains 

Biological resource areas that can be classified as having the function and value of wetlands and

floodplains on the North Slope include vegetation, soils, and water resources. Please refer to the 

discussions for each of these resources for information on the relationship between local shortterm uses and maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity of wetlands and

floodplains. 

4.9.7 Fish 

4.9.7.1 Freshwater and Anadromous/Amphidromous Fish 

Impacts to fish resources and habitat would occur from oil and gas exploration and 

development. Most impacts would be short term and confined to small segments of habitat and 

localized components of the fish population. Although seismic surveys, construction activities, 

and oil spills are of particular concern, disturbances would be unlikely to result in decreased 

long-term productivity of fish populations. The exception would involve an oil spill in a

waterbody with no migration pathways. Losses in a specific waterbody would be permanent if 

all individuals of a species were killed in a spill. 

4.9.7.2 Marine Fish 

Some marine fish could be lethally or sublethally affected by oil and gas activities in the 

planning area, but the number would likely be too small to be measurable at the population 

level. These effects are likely to be relatively short term, and with recovery expected within 

three years. It is possible that a very large spill (≥ 120,000 bbl) could affect the marine fish 

population in the immediate area, and this could require approximately 3 to 10 years for 

recovery, depending on the amount of oil reaching the nearshore area, and the amount of 

shoreline oiled. 

4.9.8 Birds 

Birds may experience short-term effects from any factors or activities that disturb their normal 

daily and seasonal pattern of activities. Of the routine activities associated with oil and gas 

exploration and development, helicopter, fixed-wing, and marine support vessel traffic would 

have the greatest potential for disturbing birds. Helicopter flights would likely occur throughout 

the life of this project. Although much of the potential effect of air traffic could be avoided

through compliance with lease stipulations and ROPs, aircraft could be required to fly at lower 

altitudes and cross critical parts of the coast during inclement weather. Under these conditions, 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-876 

Relationship between Short-Term 

Uses and Long-Term Productivity 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

disturbance of birds along the flight path could occur. Brant may be more affected by aircraft 

traffic, particularly helicopters, than other species (Derksen et al. 1992). Disturbances that 

affect survival rates of brant or other species of concern could have long-term effects on 

populations. The other sources of disturbance related to roads and facilities would result from 

vehicular traffic, heavy equipment use, routine maintenance activities, oil spill response 

training activities, and pedestrian traffic. These disturbances would likely impact birds during 

the life of the field, but would unlikely continue after field abandonment; the effects of habitat 

loss or alteration may continue indefinitely. 

4.9.9 Mammals 

4.9.9.1 Terrestrial Mammals 

Most effects on terrestrial mammals and their habitats from non-oil and gas activities and from 

oil and gas exploration would be short term. Short-term, localized effects could occur in the 

event of an oil spill, although it is expected that oil spills in the planning area would be small 

and would not likely affect a large area. Potential effects include mortality of individuals, 

physiological stresses in surviving individuals, reduction in the number of species in the 

affected area, changes in the distribution of species or individuals, and changes in behavior or 

migration patterns. Long-term, cumulative effects could occur if recovery from the short-term

effects extended beyond the production life of the field. The potential effects of noise disturbance 

and terrestrial habitat alteration could also include short-term, localized effects such as 

mortality, stress, decreases in or redistribution of populations or species, and changes in 

survival patterns. Effects of oil and gas development on terrestrial mammals and their habitats 

would be long term (beyond the production life of the field); however those effects are not 

expected to have impacts at the population level. Long-term biological productivity could be lost 

from areas used as facility sites. 

4.9.9.2 Marine Mammals 

Noise, disturbance, and habitat alteration from on-shore activities, shipping, and oil spills 

would temporarily affect some individual marine mammals and their habitats. These effects 

should be localized and short-term with the possible exception of a very large oil spill that 

reached marine waters (see section 4.11). Disturbances and altered habitat could result in 

local displacement, mortality, or stress in some species, or decreases or reductions in the local 

abundance of some species. Effects could possibly last over the long term if recovery from the 

short-term effects was extended beyond the field’s estimated useful life. 

4.9.10 Threatened and Endangered Species 

Bowhead whales could be disturbed by noise from oil- and gas-related marine vessel traffic 

during years when the bowhead whale fall migratory path lies closer to shore than the mean 

migration distance (20 miles from 1982-2001; Treacy 2002a,b). Displacement would be 

temporary and short term, and could potentially occur annually over the life of the field.

Aircraft traffic associated with development during the fall migration period potentially could 

disturb bowhead whales migrating very near shore. Since most of these activities are

temporary, effects would be short term and potentially occur annually over the life of a field. In 

the unlikely event of a large oil spill, there could be long-term effects to the bowhead whale 

population from residual oil and continuing clean-up activities. 

4-877 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Relationship between Short-Term 

Uses and Long-Term Productivity 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Spectacled and Steller’s eiders could experience short-term effects from any factors that disturb 

their normal daily and seasonal pattern of activities and could continue for the life of the field.

These disturbances would likely impact birds during the life of the field, but would be unlikely 

to continue after field abandonment. Aircraft and ground-based research activities could impact 

threatened eiders for the life of the field. Many of these activities would likely discontinue after

field abandonment, although some aerial surveys, to conduct long-term monitoring, would most 

likely continue after abandonment. 

The effects of eider habitat loss or modification adjacent to roads and pads would likely be short 

term, although loss of habitat due to gravel placement would have a long-term effect that would 

likely last beyond field abandonment, unless habitat restoration was planned and implemented. 

Although nesting or brood-rearing habitat loss in the footprint of gravel infrastructure would

have a long-term effect, other suitable habitat is widespread, and the effect on threatened eider 

populations is expected to be minimal. 

Potential eider mortality could result from collisions with vehicles or structures and would 

continue for the life of the field. Long-term effects could result if structures were not removed 

during field abandonment. However, eider mortality due to collisions with vehicles or structures 

has not been a major source of mortality in North Slope oil fields and would be unlikely to affect 

threatened eiders at the population level. 

Short term disturbance of polar bears may result from winter exploration, construction and 

operation activities. It is possible that some polar bears could be killed in defense of life or 

property, but this is unlikely based on past practices. Un-restored abandoned pads and roads 

may provide conditions resulting in snow accumulation increasing available denning habitat. It 

is also possible that some areas of potential denning may have been lost as the result of gravel 

placement and would be permanently lost if the areas were not rehabilitated. 

4.9.11 Cultural Resources 

Because cultural resources are nonrenewable, there is no difference between short-term and 

long-term impacts. Cultural resources cannot endure most types of adverse effects. Historic 

structures could benefit from preservation and stabilization efforts prompted by nearby 

development. However, once disturbed, an archaeological deposit could never be returned to its 

original context. Any destruction of cultural resource sites could represent long-term losses. 

Salvage archaeology to recover remaining site data would generally result in the total 

destruction of the site, although the recovered data would, in most cases, effectively mitigate for 

loss of the site. Any discoveries of cultural resources made during surveys required prior to 

development of a lease would enhance knowledge of the history and early inhabitants of the

region and serve to effectively mitigate further potential effects of activities in the area. 

4.9.12 Subsistence 

In the short term, the redistribution, reduction, or displacement of subsistence species could 

affect regional subsistence-harvest patterns. Such short-term effects would not be expected to

have long-term consequences unless chronically imposed on the subsistence resource base of the

region. Habitat destruction could cause a local reduction in subsistence species, a potential longterm impact to communities affected by such reductions. Increases in the amount of land used 

for infrastructure and development would reduce the amount of area suitable for subsistence 

hunting. Development along the coast could change the distribution of caribou in the summer, 

when the greatest numbers are harvested as the herds seek insect relief on beaches and in 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-878 

Relationship between Short-Term 

Uses and Long-Term Productivity 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

shallow lake and marine waters. Roads would increase access and competition for resources 

over the long term and could further affect subsistence harvests. Increasing human populations 

would require that more resources be harvested over wider areas to maintain the subsistence

way of life. The potential for user conflicts could increase in areas where current uses overlap. 

4.9.13 Sociocultural Systems 

Increased population, industrial activity, and minor gains in revenues and employment could 

potentially disrupt sociocultural patterns in Native communities in the short term. Income and 

employment allocation disparities could increase, causing intra-community conflict. Short-term 

effects on subsistence resources would disrupt social systems if these effects were to occur 

repeatedly (chronic) over the lifetime of oil and gas activities in the planning area and on the 

North Slope. Habitat destruction would locally reduce or displace subsistence species, a longterm cumulative effect on the regional subsistence economy. As a result, sociocultural values 

and cultural institutions would be affected. Activities or policies that act against the values of 

the Iñupiat residents of the region would increase social stress and concerns in the community. 

4.9.14 Environmental Justice 

Any impact on subsistence resources that would have a chronic effect on the sociocultural 

system or subsistence resources over the lifetime of oil and gas activities would 

disproportionately affect the Iñupiat people. Such an effect would only be expected to occur in 

the event of long-term population and productivity effects to caribou, fish, or water birds. 

4.9.15 Coastal Zone Management 

Land use could change along pipeline routes. If land use in parts of the planning area were to

shift from subsistence-based activities to industrial activities, and if, after production ceased, 

use of the land reverted to subsistence, the effect would be short term. Long-term effects on land

use could result if use of the infrastructure or facilities were to continue after the production life 

ended. Potential users could be other resource developers. Residents and nonresidents could 

become accustomed to the convenience of using existing facilities, such as roads. 

4.9.16 Recreation Resources 

Short-term use of portions of the planning area for oil and gas development could affect the 

long-term use and value of recreation and wilderness resources. Rehabilitation and removal of 

pads, roads, and facilities would be unable to restore the original condition of the land or its 

original recreation and wilderness value. If airstrips were not removed or rehabilitated, 

recreation opportunities in the area could be enhanced by increasing access. However, scenic 

quality, naturalness, and primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities, which are essential 

to wilderness values, still would be negatively impacted by the presence of the airstrip. 

Oil and gas exploration, development, and production activities would constitute a short-term 

commitment of resources that could impact river values. For example, archeological and

paleontological resources, which are nonrenewable, might be affected in the long term. The 

short-term commitment of resources would not affect the finding of nonsuitability on the 

Colville River, which is based on a combination of local political opposition and lack of Federal 

control of the right bank of the river. 

4-879 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Relationship between Short-Term 

Uses and Long-Term Productivity 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.9.17 Visual Resources 

Short-term use of portions of the planning area for oil and gas development could affect the 

long-term value of visual resources. Rehabilitation, removal, and revegetation of pads, roads, 

and facilities would eventually cause the viewshed to resemble a more natural condition. 

However, it is possible that the full value of the original scenic quality and viewshed would not

be regained. Visual resources could still be negatively impacted by any remnants of oil and gas 

activities and by changes to the original landscape particularly to line and form characteristics. 

4.9.18 Economy 

Economic benefits would accrue from production of oil and gas from Federal lands. Economic 

benefits, including any decrease in the Nation’s dependency on foreign oil, would be short term. 

Increases in employment and associated personal income would occur over the life of the 

exploration, development, and operations activities. Revenue increases to the NSB and to the

state and Federal governments would occur during the production years. However, these 

increases would occur only for the duration of the activities. Development activity would result 

in infrastructure that in the short term could enhance future productivity of oil and gas 

exploration, development, and production. 

4.9.19 Public Health 

In the case of public health, “long-term productivity” is defined as positive measures of health. 

The large-scale socio-economic changes possible over the lifetime of the project could result in 

substantial increases in social pathology in these communities. Because social pathology (such

as alcohol and drug abuse and domestic violence) substantially impact the early childhood 

environment and through this pathway result in direct impacts to lifelong health measures as

well as the chance of social dysfunction in subsequent generations, increases in social pathology 

would produce long-term commitment of resources. Similarly, if subsistence impacts 

materialize, the projected increases in diabetes and metabolic disorders would endure for the 

lifetime of affected individuals, without a direct relationship to termination of development. It 

is difficult to predict whether dietary changes resulting from decreasing success of subsistence 

hunting would result in a long-term or permanent dietary shift toward store-bought foods, or 

whether communities would revert to a subsistence-based diet as resources became more 

available. Increases in accidents would parallel social pathology as well as more difficult 

hunting conditions, and would endure until these problems had resolved. HIV and AIDS are 

chronic conditions: if an increased prevalence results from the proposed action, the problem 

would persist long after the conclusion of the project. Food insecurity and hunger would likely 

parallel the availability of subsistence resources, and may improve more rapidly if subsistence 

resources become more readily available at the conclusion of the project. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-880 

Relationship between Short-Term 

Uses and Long-Term Productivity 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.10 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT 

OF RESOURCES 

Irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources refers to impacts or losses to resources

that cannot be reversed or recovered. Examples are the extinction of a species or the permanent 

conversion of a vegetated wetland to open water. In either case, the loss is permanent. The 

following section identifies irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would 

occur if leasing occurred and resulted in oil and gas exploration, development, and production. 

4.10.1 Air Quality 

Air quality would be affected by well drilling, construction activities, and production. These 

effects would occur only during the life of the field(s). No irreversible or irretrievable effects on 

air quality would occur. Air quality would be affected by well drilling, construction activities, 

and production. These effects would occur only during the life of the field(s). There would be no

irreversible or irretrievable effects on air quality. 

4.10.2 Paleontological Resources 

Because paleontological resources are nonrenewable, any impacts would render the resource

disturbance irreversible and the integrity of the resource irretrievable. 

4.10.3 Soil Resources 

Soils covered by gravel pads, roads, landing strips, and other infrastructure facilities would be 

lost with respect to their value (such as a medium for the growth of vegetation) as soils. 

Rehabilitation of soils after field abandonment could allow soils to eventually re-establish. Soil 

in disturbed areas could re-establish over time, but soil development in cold climates is a very 

slow process. The desirable mitigation for soils would be to minimize the total area lost by 

minimizing the area of surface disturbance, best management practices, and use of shared 

facilities. Several of the lease stipulations and ROPs are designed to reduce the amount of soil

impacted by exploration and development activities. 

4.10.4 Water Resources 

Thermokarst erosion along gravel roads and pads could result in changes to streambanks and 

lake shorelines, and altered natural drainage patterns that would last long after the life of the 

field(s). While there would be no irreversible or irretrievable effect on water resources, the 

restoration of the natural drainage could take years after the field(s) were abandoned, 

equipment removed, and the roads and pads rehabilitated. 

Thermokarst erosion along gravel roads and pads could result in degraded water quality that 

would last long after the life of the field(s), but the effects would not be irreversible. Oil spills 

could have an irretrievable effect on water quality if the spill could not be cleaned up and the oil

sank to the bottom of the lake or contaminated the shoreline to the level that cleanup was not 

practical. 

4-881 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitment of Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.10.5 Vegetation 

Permafrost-related geomorphic processes occurring on the ACP create a constantly changing 

landscape that influences successional patterns in plant communities. Most plant communities 

of Alaska’s North Slope are well adapted to these frequent changes (Billings and Peterson 1980; 

Bliss 2000; Funk et al. 2004). Therefore, changes in plant communities resulting from dust or 

snowdrift accumulations or the formation and draining of impoundments would not be 

considered irreversible. However, the burial of vegetation under gravel fill could be considered 

an irretrievable commitment of vegetation resources, as the potential recovery of vegetation on

these pads could take 25 to 30 years or more (McKendrick 1997, 2000). 

4.10.6 Wetland and Floodplains 

Biological resource areas that can be classified as having the function and value of wetlands and

floodplains on the ANS include vegetation, soils, and water resources. Please refer to the 

discussions for each of these resources for information on irreversible and irretrievable 

commitment of resources in relation to wetlands and floodplains. 

4.10.7 Fish 

4.10.7.1 Freshwater and Anadromous/Amphidromous Fish 

Arctic fish in and near the planning area would be exposed to overland seismic surveys, 

construction-related activities, and spills associated with oil and gas exploration and 

development. A relatively small number of fish would likely be affected by these activities. Fish

populations should not experience any irreversible and irretrievable effects associated with 

activities undertaken as a result of this Supplement. 

4.10.7.2 Marine Fish 

While some marine fish could be lethally or sublethally affected by management actions in the 

planning area, it is unlikely that these effects would be biologically measurable at the 

population level. The exception would be a hypothetical 120,000-bbl oil spill. It is possible that a 

very large spill (≥ 120,000 bbl) could affect the marine fish population in the immediate area, 

and this could require approximately 3 to 10 years for recovery. Because full recovery would be 

expected following any oil spill, no irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources 

should occur. 

4.10.8 Birds 

Some irretrievable and irreversible loss of habitat would occur from the placement of gravel for

infrastructure in bird nesting or brood-rearing habitats. Loss of wetland habitat used by 

waterfowl and shorebirds could be particularly important. In most scenarios, alternate habitats 

would likely be available and any habitat loss would have a minor effect. Loss of individual 

birds through collision with facilities or structures could occur; however, such losses are not 

expected to have an effect at the population level. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-882 

Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitment of Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.10.9 Mammals 

4.10.9.1 Terrestrial Mammals 

It is possible that caribou and other terrestrial mammals could be subjected to the direct and 

indirect effects of noise and movement of motor vehicles and aircraft, other human activities, oil 

spills, natural gas blowouts, or losses and deterioration of habitat because of facility 

developments. It is likely that such effects would lead to some permanent (irreversible) losses of

these resources. 

4.10.9.2 Marine Mammals 

Seals, walruses, gray whales, and beluga whales could be subjected to direct and indirect effects 

of oil spills, disturbance caused by noise and movement of aircraft and vessels, and other human 

activities. It is unlikely that such effects would lead to permanent (irreversible) losses of these 

resources. 

4.10.10 Threatened and Endangered Species 

For threatened and endangered species, any irretrievable or irreversible commitment of 

resources important to the long-term survival and recovery of the species would probably violate 

the intent of the Endangered Species Act. Since the bowhead whale population is increasing and

effects from noise would likely be temporary, irreversible or irretrievable losses would be 

unlikely. It is possible that collisions could result in the killing or severe injury of bowhead 

whales, but these events are likely rare and unlikely to impact the population. Any 

deterioration of the bowhead whale auditory environment resulting from noise-producing 

activities in coastal areas would last only as long as the causative activity. No 

irretrievable/irreversible loss of bowhead whale habitat is expected. 

Some irretrievable and irreversible loss of habitat could occur from placement of gravel 

infrastructure for oil and gas facilities in spectacled or Steller’s eider nesting or brood-rearing 

habitat. This loss of habitat could be permanent unless habitat restoration was planned and 

successfully implemented during field abandonment. Impoundment formation adjacent to roads 

and pads could also create habitat for threatened eiders. Because alternate habitat would likely 

be available in areas adjacent to proposed development, any habitat loss would likely have a 

minor effect on threatened eiders. 

Eider mortality could result from collisions with vehicles or structures during the life of the 

field. Any losses of individual eiders through collision with facilities or structure would be 

irretrievable, but would not be expected to affect eiders at the population level. If structures

were not removed, long-term effects to eiders could result after field abandonment. 

Irretrievable loss of polar bears may occur from DLP taking; however, as noted previously this 

is expected to be an unlikely and rare event. Some denning habitat may be permanently altered 

as the result of development; however, the amount affected would be unlikely to influence 

populations. 

4-883 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitment of Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.10.11 Cultural Resources 

Cultural resources are nonrenewable, so any impacts would be irreversible, and the integrity of

the affected resource would be irretrievable. Since most known cultural resources exist in a 

surface or near-surface context, burial by the construction of a gravel pad or road, while possibly 

not damaging in itself, would affect the cultural resource upon removal of the gravel. If 

subsurface cultural resources were encountered, as during the development of a gravel mine 

site, such resources could be damaged or destroyed. The loss of such cultural resource

information would be irreversible and irretrievable. Salvage archaeology to recover remaining 

site data would generally result in the total destruction of the site, although the recovered data 

would, in most cases, effectively mitigate for loss of the site. Any discovery of cultural resource 

data as a result of surveys required prior to development of a lease would enhance long-term 

knowledge. Overall, such finds could help fill gaps in our knowledge of the history and early 

inhabitants of the area. 

4.10.12 Subsistence 

Many important aspects of Iñupiat society and culture are centered on subsistence activities. 

Virtually every family in North Slope coastal communities participates in the hunting of the 

bowhead whale and the sharing of its meat and maktak. The activities associated with harvest 

of caribou, fish, birds, wolf, wolverine, and seals are only slightly less important to the cultural 

integration of the region as a whole, but they are of equal importance to the inter- and intracommunity social organization, cultural identity, and the domestic economies of most

households. The reduction or loss of the ability to harvest sufficient quantities of these resources 

would be an irreversible and irretrievable loss to the Iñupiat diet, to Iñupiat traditional 

practices of sharing and reciprocity, and to fundamental aspects of Iñupiat identity. If 

subsistence users were to abandon traditionally used harvest areas because of legal or perceived 

regulatory boundaries or contamination concerns at or near an oil or gas development, this 

abandonment would contribute to a loss of access, affecting the connection of Iñupiat 

subsistence users to traditional use areas. 

4.10.13 Sociocultural Systems 

Disruption of the traditional harvest of bowhead whales and caribou could constitute an 

irreversible and irretrievable loss to Iñupiat social and cultural values. The alienation of 

Iñupiat subsistence users from their homelands would be an irreversible and irretrievable 

commitment of resources, as land use patterns have shown that when oil and gas development

activities take place in an area, other land uses are curtailed and land users excluded (Brown 

1979; Pedersen et al. 2000). This connection to the land is one factor that constitutes Iñupiat 

identity, not least in terms of how one identifies oneself in Iñupiat society by area of residence,

such as Kuukpikmiut, a person of the Colville River area. The contribution of oil and gas 

development in the planning area to the cumulative consequences of offshore and onshore

energy development could, in conjunction with other processes of social change in the long term, 

lead to social and cultural conflicts within and between communities and contribute to the 

compromise of Iñupiat value systems. If the Iñupiat were to lose access to traditional use areas 

and culturally-valued sites in the planning area, or avoid them for cultural reasons, then 

sociocultural patterns could be affected; there would be a loss of continuity between generations 

and changes in sharing and reciprocity within and between communities as a result of a 

reduction in subsistence harvests. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-884 

Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitment of Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.10.14 Environmental Justice 

Long-term population and productivity effects to caribou herds, fish populations, or waterfowl 

from oil and gas development could produce irreversible and irretrievable effects to subsistence 

resources. These effects would translate into effects on Native minority populations and thus 

raise environmental justice issues. 

4.10.15 Coastal Zone Management 

There are no anticipated conflicts with the statewide standards of the Alaska Coastal 

Management Program or the enforceable policies of the NSB Coastal Management Program.

Development activity would result in the construction of infrastructure, but the majority of the 

infrastructure would be inside the boundaries of the planning area. Some infrastructure, such 

as pipelines, could be located outside the planning area, within the boundaries of the NSB, but 

such infrastructure could be removed after development ended. 

4.10.16 Recreation Resources 

There would be no irreversible and irretrievable commitment of recreation resources. Proper

rehabilitation and removal of development pads and other structures would restore the 

perception of a natural environment. Wilderness values would be forgone in those areas affected

by development for the duration of the development, rehabilitation, and recovery. The degree of 

impacts to wilderness values would depend on the level of success of rehabilitation and recovery 

efforts after completion of petroleum production. 

Irreversible and irretrievable impacts on Wild and Scenic River values on the Colville River are 

possible as a result of oil and gas exploration, development, and production activities, but the 

effects would likely be limited to a relatively small area near a pipeline or road crossing. The 

potential effects would not alter the finding of nonsuitability for the Colville River. 

4.10.17 Visual Resources 

There would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of visual resources. Proper removal,

rehabilitation, and revegetation of development pads and other facilities would restore the 

perception of a natural environment. To the casual observer, viewsheds would appear natural. 

4.10.18 Economy 

Increases in employment and personal income would occur over the life of the exploration, 

development, and operation activities. Investment by the lessees and operators in oil and gas 

exploration and development activities in the planning area would represent a loss of 

opportunity to invest those monies elsewhere. Revenue increases to the NSB and the state and

Federal governments that would occur during production years would result in the irreversible 

and irretrievable commitment of those revenues. Development would result in new

infrastructure that would be removed at the end of production. 

4.10.19 Public Health 

In the case of public health, any enduring change in community health status, or any chronic or 

fatal illness in an individual, constitutes an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of 

4-885 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitment of Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

resources. Increases in chronic disease prevalence which may occur as a result of the proposed

action include increases in diabetes and related metabolic disorders, increases in cardiovascular 

and cerebrovascular diseases, and, if contaminants from oil and gas development enter the food

chain at substantial levels, increases in cancer, endocrine disorders, and neurodevelopmental 

delay. Long-term, community-wide increases in social pathology might result from the 

alienation of subsistence uses from their homelands and traditional subsistence way of life. At 

an individual level, mortality from chronic metabolic disorders, cancer, suicide, infectious 

diseases, exacerbations of chronic respiratory disease, violence, and unintentional injury, to the 

extent that the proposed action may contribute to increases in these problems, would constitute 

an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. 

4.10.20 Oil and Gas Resources 

Oil and gas resources are expected to be leased, discovered, developed, and produced as a result

of leasing in the planning area. The oil and gas resource estimates for each alternative 

considered in this amendment are presented in Table 4.2-D. For the highest case scenario 

(Alternative C), it is estimated that approximately 4,050 MMbbl oil would be available for 

production. Should these resources be produced, they would be irretrievably consumed. In the 

unlikely event of a large oil spill, the oil spilled would be irretrievably lost. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-886 

Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitment of Resources 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.11 LOW-PROBABILITY, VERY LARGE OIL SPILL 

4.11.1 Introduction 

This section discusses the probabilities and potential effects of a very large oil spill in the 

planning area. In this Supplemental IAP/EIS, a very large spill is defined as greater than or 

equal to 120,000 bbl of oil. A very large oil spill is a low-probability event with the potential for 

severe effects. A similar analysis of a very large tanker or pipeline spill was included in 

Appendix B of the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS (USDOI BLM and MMS 1998) and is incorporated 

here by reference. Various scenarios for large pipeline spills were analyzed in the Final EIS for 

the TAPS pipeline (USDOI BLM 2002a). Because very large spills happen so infrequently, there 

is limited historical data for use in statistical analysis and prediction. 

The ADEC North Slope spill database for 1995 to 2003 (ADEC 2003) indicates that five very 

large volume spills have been reported for the North Slope oil fields since 1977, none of which 

were of oil or produced fluids. During that time the total oil production was approximately 1.6 x 

1012 gallons (ADR 2004a). Thus, the probability of a very large volume oil spill occurring in the 

Planning Area is extremely low. 

The largest hypothetical spills would be of produced fluids from a well blowout. However, the 

largest spills in the ADEC 1995 to 2003 database are of seawater and produced water. The 

following very large volume spill impact assessment is based primarily on potential spills of 

produced fluids from a blowout. 

4.11.1.1 Well Control Incidents 

The record of Alaska North Slope well control incidents or blowouts is not validated, but is 

presented as the best available information. Although the State of Alaska does not maintain a 

database of North Slope well-control incidents, the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation 

Commission maintains an internal documentation of blowouts in Alaska. Neither of the authors 

cited below (Mallory 1998; Fairweather E&P Services, Inc. 2000) was allowed to review the 

documentation. The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission assured Fairweather E&P 

Services, Inc., that no blowouts had been overlooked. 

Two written reports regarding blowouts on the Alaska North Slope are available—Mallory 

(1998) and Fairweather E&P Services, Inc. (2000). Mallory (1998) presents the following data 

based on discussions with long-time Alaska drilling personnel with ARCO Alaska or BP 

Exploration Alaska (BPXA). In the period 1974 through 1997, an estimated 3,336 wells were 

drilled on Alaska’s North Slope. Research conducted to date has documented six cases where 

secondary well control was lost with a drilling rig on the well. The documentation does not 

differentiate between exploration and development wells. No oil spills, fires, or loss of life 

occurred in any of the events (Mallory 1998). 

Fairweather E&P Services, Inc. (2000) differentiated between a blowout and a well-control 

incident. A blowout was defined as an uncontrolled flow at the surface of liquids and/or gas from

the wellbore that resulted from human error and/or equipment failure. Fairweather E&P 

Services, Inc. (2000) found 10 blowouts: the 6 blowouts that Mallory had identified and 4 

blowouts that occurred before 1974. Of the 10 blowouts, 9 were gas and 1 was oil. The blowout of 

4-887 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Low-Probability, Very Large Oil Spill 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

oil in 1950 was unspectacular and could not have been avoided, since there were no casings or 

blowout preventers available (Fairweather E&P Services, Inc. 2000). These particular drilling 

practices from 1950 would not be relevant today. 

A third study confirmed that no crude-oil spills greater than or equal to 100 barrels occurred 

from blowouts between 1985 and 1999 (Hart Crowser, Inc. 2000). The record of oil spills less 

than 100 bbl from blowouts was not searched by Hart Crowser, Inc. (2000). 

Two spills of volumes greater than 50,000 bbl from blowouts have occurred in Federal waters 

since offshore drilling began in the U.S. The largest spill from a blowout in federal waters was 

80,000 bbl from the blowout in Santa Barbara Channel in 1969; the other was in the Gulf of 

Mexico in 1970. Because there have been no spills greater than or equal to 120,000 bbl in U.S. 

waters from blowouts, worldwide historical spill data must be incorporated to estimate the 

chance of a very large spill occurring. The information used here is based on spills from 

countries that do not have the regulatory standards that are enforced on the OCS or BLMadministered lands. In addition, some drilling practices used elsewhere either are not practiced 

here or are against MMS and BLM-administered regulations. 

From 1979 through 2000, five oil-well blowouts greater than or equal to 10 million gallons 

(238,000 barrels) have occurred worldwide (Oil Spill Intelligence Report 1996; Cutter 

Information Corp. 1997; DeCola 2001). The causes of the blowouts were either war or drilling 

practices that oil companies do not now use and are not allowed to use under MMS regulations 

in the U.S. During this same time period, there were roughly 471 billion barrels of oil produced 

worldwide (British Petroleum 2001). These data indicate that the rate of occurrence of blowouts 

greater than or equal to 10 million gallons is 0.01 blowouts per billion barrels produced. If this 

rate is applied to Alternative C for the planning area, the estimated probability of one or more 

oil spills of 10 million gallons (238,000 barrels) is 0.042 over the lifetime of the development that 

could occur under that alternative. 

S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd. (1998) calculated the chance of an extremely large oil 

spill (greater than 150,000 bbl) from a blowout with an average number of wells from the 

Northstar and Liberty projects using worldwide spill frequencies would be similar to those 

presented in the preceding paragraph. 

Scandpower AS (2001) completed a blowout-frequency assessment for the Northstar 

development project. This analysis modified statistical blowout frequencies to reflect specific 

conditions and operating systems for drilling at Northstar. The estimated blowout frequency for 

drilling into the oil-bearing zone and spilling greater than 130,000 bbl is 9.4 x 107. 

At North Star, the State of Alaska prohibits the drilling of new wells or sidetracks from existing 

wells into major liquid-hydrocarbon zones at drill sites under their regulation during the 

defined period of broken ice and open water. This period begins on June 13 of each year and

ends when 18 inches of continuous ice cover are present for a half mile in all directions from the 

Northstar Island. This seasonal drilling restriction eliminates the environmental effects 

associated with a well blowout during drilling operations in broken ice or open-water conditions. 

Although the drilling prohibition reduces the chance of a blowout during periods of broken ice 

and open water, the chance of a blowout occurring during these periods is not completely 

eliminated when oil is being produced. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-888 

Low-Probability, Very Large Oil Spill 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

As noted in the following section, the State of Alaska requires as a planning standard the 

greatest possible oil spill discharge that could occur from a blowout. Thus, this amendment 

evaluates the potential effects of a very large oil spill. 

4.11.2 Blowout Assumptions 

As described in Alaska Clean Seas Technical Manual, Volume 1 (Alaska Clean Seas 1999), the 

North Slope Spill Response Project Team (a joint industry-agency task force) specified that for 

oil spill planning purposes, flow rates to be used for wells in areas without adequate production 

history data (e.g., planning area) are estimated at 5,500 bbl/day. The North Slope Spill 

Response Project Team also specifies that for planning purposes, a 15-day blowout is to be

assumed. In the Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan for the Alpine field, 

ConocoPhillips estimates a 7,500-bbl day flow rate for 15 days, for a total of 112,500 bbl. In this 

analysis, the 7,500 bbl/day flow rate is used, rounded up to 8,000 bbl/day for a total of 120,000 

bbl for the 15-day period. 

The potential impacts on specific resources are presented below. In each resource-specific 

analysis, the blowout hypothetically occurs in an area sensitive to that particular resource and 

releases crude oil into the environment for 15 days. For the scenario, the analyst places the

blowout spill in the location most susceptible to the resource. The general environments into 

which the oil could discharge are tundra, ponds, lakes, creeks, rivers, and lagoons. The blowout 

could occur at any time of the year. The receiving environment could be solid ice, broken ice, or

open water, as well as snow and open ground. 

The following blowout assumptions are taken from oil discharge prevention and contingency 

plans from facilities on the Alaskan North Slope (PAI 2001; BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc. 2000, 

2001a,b). 

• The crude oil is assumed to be similar in composition to “Alpine field” crude oil. 

• The theoretical facility is a 5-acre gravel pad. 

• The gas/oil ratio ranges from 400 to 2,200 standard ft3/bbl. 

• The blowout spill rises into the air at an average rate of 300 bbl/hour (8,000 bbl/day 

divided by 24 hours). 

• Oil droplets fall to the gravel pad and surrounding area in the direction of the prevailing 

wind. 

• Assuming an Alpine field-like crude oil, approximately 30% of the 120,000 bbl 

evaporates into the air, leaving 84,000 bbl on or adjacent to the gravel pad and 

surrounding area. 

The following figures are based on Alaska Clean Seas (1999) Tactic T-6, assuming a 6.3-inch 

pipe and the lowest and highest gas/oil ratios. The highest gas/oil ratio results in the higher 

values below. Of the oil falling to the surrounding environment: 

• Eighty percent of the oil falls out from 300 feet (lowest gas/oil ratio) to 3,600 feet 

(highest gas/oil ratio) from the source, in a plume 100 feet (lowest gas/oil ratio) to 400 

feet (highest gas/oil ratio) wide; and 

• Twenty percent of the oil falls out from 3,600 feet (lowest gas/oil ratio) to 33,000 feet 

(highest gas/oil ratio) from the source, in a plume 400 feet (lowest gas/oil ratio) to 2,000 

feet (highest gas/oil ratio) wide. 

4-889 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Low-Probability, Very Large Oil Spill 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

After 15 days from the start of the spill: 

• 3,400 bbl remain on the gravel pad; 

• 38,600 bbl have drained from the gravel pad into the environment; and 

• 42,000 bbl have fallen to the surrounding environment (2,800 bbl/day). 

4.11.3 Behavior and Fate of a Blowout Oil Spill During Various Seasons 

During a blowout, oil would fall to the pad and surrounding area in a scattered pattern. Some of 

the oil falling to the pad would drain to the surrounding area. How the oil would behave after 

that would be dependent upon the season. 

4.11.3.1 Winter 

For a spill occurring during winter, oil would spread mainly on the surface of snow cover, ice, 

and/or frozen soil. No oil would enter open water as long as the ice remained solid. There would

be little or no change in the oil’s physical properties at very low temperatures and when buried

under a snow cover. Blowing snow would tend to combine with pooled oil until the oil was 

effectively saturated with snow crystals. 

The oil would not penetrate any ice surface. It would spread mainly on the surface of the frozen 

soil. It is unlikely to penetrate the lower layers of soil because the seasonal thawed layer would 

be absent (Chuvilin et al. 2001). 

4.11.3.2 Fall Freezeup 

Broken ice occurs in the planning area during fall freezeup and spring breakup. The scenario for

this analysis assumes that oil would fall to the broken ice in a scattered pattern and would 

drain from the pad into broken ice in tundra ponds, lakes, streams, rivers, or lagoons. The ice 

would contain the oil somewhat and reduce spreading. Unless the oil was frozen into the ice, the

evaporation rate would not change. Dispersion and emulsification rates would be lower in 

broken ice than in open water. 

For a spill occurring during fall freezeup, the oil would freeze into the ice and slush before ice 

sheeting occurred. Winds and storms could break up and disperse the ice and oil until the next 

freezing cycle. These freezing cycles can be hours or days. In late spring and summer, this 

unweathered oil would melt out of the ice at different rates, depending on when the oil was 

frozen into the ice. In first-year ice, most of the oil spilled at any one time would percolate up to 

the ice surface over about a 10-day period. About mid-July, the oil pools would drain into the

water. Thus, oil could be pooled on the ice surface for up to 30 days before being discharged from

the ice surface to the water surface. The pools on the ice surface would concentrate the oil, but 

only to about 2 mm thick, allowing evaporation of approximately 5% of the oil−the part of the oil

composed of the lighter, more toxic components of the crude. By the time the oil was released

from the melt pools on the ice surface, evaporation would have almost stopped, with only an 

additional 4% of the spilled oil evaporating during an additional 30 days on the surface of the 

pond, lake, creek, stream, or river. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-890 

Low-Probability, Very Large Oil Spill 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.11.3.3 Spring Breakup 

For analysis, it is assumed that a spill occurring during spring breakup would have the same 

behavior and effects as a summer or open-water spill. At spring breakup, the ice concentrations 

are variable. With high concentrations of ice, oil would spread between ice floes. As the ice 

concentrations eventually decreased to less than three-tenths of the water surface area, the oil 

on the water would behave as an open-water spill, with local oil patches temporarily trapped by 

the wind against ice floes. Oil on the ice floes would move with the ice as it responded to 

currents generated by the wind (S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd. 1998). 

4.11.3.4 Summer 

This scenario assumes that oil would drain from the gravel pad onto the tundra and/or open 

water, including lakes, ponds, creeks, streams, rivers, or lagoons. If oil were to fall on a water 

surface, the oil would move with the direction of flow and/or the winds. On the tundra, during 

the summer, the oil would spread less because of the cover of vegetation. Oil could penetrate the 

lower layers of soil because of their thawed condition. Rain could also increase the penetration 

of oil into the soil. The oil could spread laterally if it reached a permafrost lens or layer 

(Chuvilin et al. 2001). 

4.11.4 Effects of a Low-Probability, Very Large Oil Spill 

4.11.4.1 Air Quality 

A very large (≥ 120,000 bbl) oil spill would affect air quality locally and temporarily. Air quality 

impacts would occur from evaporation (VOC) and burning (CO, NOx, and some PM) associated 

with the oil spill or with oil-spill clean-up activities. The scenario for a low probability, very 

large oil spill assumes that the release of crude oil would continue for 15 days. Therefore, VOCs

would continue to be released from the spilled oil for that length of time. The VOC 

concentrations are anticipated to be low, would normally be limited to an area close to the spill, 

and would evaporate completely soon after the spilling ceased. The use of burning to mitigate 

spilled oil would nearly eliminate VOC emissions, but would create CO, NOx, and possibly SO2 

impacts. Winds would encourage evaporation, and further disperse the VOC or combustion 

concentrations. Therefore, air quality effects from a very large oil spill should remain localized 

and temporary. 

4.11.4.2 Paleontological Resources 

Impacts to surface and near-surface paleontological deposits would likely be greater for a 

summertime spill than for one that occurred during the winter. While contamination of the 

deposit could render much of the data recovery valueless, the clean-up procedures would create

even greater impacts. Since paleontological resources are nonrenewable, the effects could be 

substantial. 

4.11.4.3 Soil Resources 

Spills can create direct toxic effects to soil productivity, and depending on the season, soils can 

also be impacted by compaction and thermokarst during cleanup activities. There is no history 

of the effects of a very large spill of crude oil on North Slope soils. Overall, past spills (of much 

smaller volumes) on Alaska’s North Slope have caused minor ecological damage, and ecosystems 

4-891 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Low-Probability, Very Large Oil Spill 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

have shown good potential for recovery, with wetter areas recovering more quickly (Jorgenson 

1997, McKendrick 2000, NRC 2003). It is estimated that a spill of 120,000 bbl would cover up to 

1,500 acres, with 80% of the oil falling out on less than 30 acres. Oil spills of any size could 

impact soils by altering vegetation. From these numbers it is assumed that most of the 

vegetation affected would be impacted. The oil alone would decrease plant growth, but oil spills 

probably would leave the surface organic mat intact. Spill cleanup, however, would be more 

likely to damage soils. Cleanups are not always well controlled; heavy traffic and digging are 

common and can result in damaged soils. Cleanup of oil spills would mitigate impacts to soils 

only if the clean-up methods and operations were very carefully controlled to minimize surface 

disturbance. 

4.11.4.4 Water Resources 

A very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. While the 

petroleum residue from a spill could be flushed from most streams within a few years, the 

impacts to lakes and ponds could persist for decades. Additionally, a very large spill could 

saturate the tundra mat with oil, limiting the amount of crude oil that was recovered, and 

considerably lengthening the time over which impacts could occur. A spill that occurred in the 

winter could have similar impacts, although the snow and cold temperatures might retard the 

crude-oil runoff into the watershed and somewhat limit the contamination. A spill that occurred

during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts, since it would be 

extremely difficult, if not impossible, to contain the spill when ice was either breaking apart or 

forming into semi-solid slush pans or jumble ice. Spill cleanup in the watershed would involve 

containing the spill, diverting or isolating it within the water body, skimming off the oil, and 

treating the remaining oil-contaminated water and sediments. Prevention and rapid response 

with adequate removal equipment would minimize effects. 

For spills during frozen conditions, it is anticipated that oil would not reach open water. 

Following contaminated snow and ice removal, water quality impacts from the residual oil 

would be very limited in extent. However, even small quantities of oil remaining after cleanup 

could result in lethal and sublethal toxicity levels in waters within the spill area for 

approximately seven years. 

During summer, flat coastal tundra develops a dead-storage capacity averaging 0.5 to 2.3 inches 

(Miller et al. 1980) that would retain 300 to 1,500 bbl of oil per acre. Even at high water levels, 

the tundra vegetation tends to act as a boom and vegetation and peat as a sorbent, allowing 

water to filter through, trapping the more viscous oil (Barsdate et al. 1980) and also making 

recovery of the oil more difficult. On the other hand, even small spills can spread over large 

areas, if the spill event includes aerial, pressured discharge. For example, in December 1993, an 

ARCO Drill Site line failed and 1 to 4 bbl of crude oil misted over an estimated 100 to 145 acres 

(Ott 1997). For a large spill during breakup conditions or the summer season, oil-spill response 

likely would recover the bulk of spilled oil. However, sufficient oil could remain to result in 

lethal and sublethal toxicity levels in waters within the spill area for approximately 7 years. In

addition, equipment used to contain and recover spilled oil could damage the tundra surface, 

potentially leading to thermokarst erosion and causing local water quality degradation. 

4.11.4.5 Vegetation 

The only reported blowout of crude oil on Alaska’s North Slope occurred in 1950 (Fairweather 

E&P Services, Inc. 2000), and no crude oil was spilled off the pad during that blowout. There is 

no history of the effects of a very large spill of crude oil on North Slope tundra vegetation. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-892 

Low-Probability, Very Large Oil Spill 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Overall, past spills (of much smaller volumes) on Alaska’s North Slope have caused minor 

ecological damage, and ecosystems have shown good potential for recovery, with wetter areas 

recovering more quickly (Jorgenson 1997, McKendrick 2000, NRC 2003). It is estimated that a 

spill of 120,000 bbl would cover up to 1,500 acres, with 80% of the oil falling out on less than 30 

acres. From these numbers it is assumed that most of the vegetation affected would be

impacted. A percentage of the vegetation affected would likely suffer longer-term consequences, 

suggesting that recovery would take longer and might not be as complete. 

4.11.4.6 Wetlands and Floodplains 

Biological resource areas that can be classified as having the function and value of wetlands and

floodplains on the North Slope include vegetation soils, and water resources. Please refer to the 

discussions for each of these resources for information on the potential impacts of a very large 

spill. 

4.11.4.7 Fish 

Anadromous/Amphidromous Fish 

As discussed in the analyses for the alternatives, oil spills have been observed to have a range of

effects on fish; the specific effect depends on the concentration of petroleum present, the length

of exposure, and the stage of fish development involved (eggs, larva, and juveniles are most

sensitive; Malins 1977; Hamilton et al. 1979; Starr et al. 1981). If lethal concentrations were 

encountered, or if sublethal concentrations were encountered over a long enough period, fish 

mortality would be likely. Such a situation could occur during a large blowout spill if the spill 

were to enter a body of water with restricted water exchange. The worst-case scenario would be 

a spill that occurred at fall freezeup or at the beginning of spring breakup in the lower reach of 

one of the large rivers that flows into Harrison Bay. Cleanup of a spill when ice was either 

forming into slush pans or breaking apart would be difficult. Petroleum residue would persist 

through the winter (and beyond) if the spill occurred at freezeup. Compounding this problem is 

the likelihood that freshwater fish of all life stages would be congregating in this habitat to 

overwinter. Craig (1989a) calculated that the lower portion of coastal plains rivers on the North 

Slope provide most of the overwintering habitat for freshwater fish. 

Though lethal effects of oil on fish have been established in laboratory studies (Moles et al. 

1979; Rice et al. 1979), large kills following oil spills are not well documented, probably because 

toxic concentrations are seldom reached (Rice 1985). In this scenario, where it is assumed that a 

large quantity of oil reaches numerous fish and the oil is not rapidly diluted, a substantial 

portion of the water body’s resident populations of fish species could be harmed or killed. Adults

and juveniles might be able to avoid contact with oiled waters during a spill in the open-water 

season, but survival would be expected to decrease if oil were to reach a pool or series of pools 

isolated by ice and the fish were unable to avoid contamination. In the latter case, sublethal 

effects would be more likely to occur, and would include changes in growth, feeding, fecundity, 

and survival rates, and temporary displacement. Other possible effects would include localized 

reduction in food resources, and consumption of contaminated prey. Total fish loss would be 

dependent on the extent and duration of the contamination and the effectiveness of the spill 

cleanup. If the entire population of any given species in a drainage were spread out among 

overwintering sites in a river or adjacent lakes, the loss at any given site would not be expected 

to eliminate a population. 

4-893 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Low-Probability, Very Large Oil Spill 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Marine Fish 

A very large nearshore spill during the summer feeding period would likely result in moderate 

to high effects on some marine fish populations. It is possible that a very large spill (≥ 120,000 

bbl) could affect the marine fish population in the immediate area. Both lethal and sublethal 

effects would be expected. Fishes farther offshore of the nearshore feeding area would likely not

be affected. The occurrence of a very large spill during winter could have similar effects when 

released from the ice during the following spring. In either case, recovery would be likely in 5 to

10 years. If such a spill were to occur well offshore in summer, much of its effect would be 

reduced by weathering and the resulting reduction in the amount of oil reaching nearshore 

feeding areas. While the spill would still be expected to result in a moderate to high effect on 

some marine fish populations, its effect would likely be greatly reduced (estimated recovery of 3 

to 5 years). 

4.11.4.8 Birds 

Effects of a Blowout Oil Spill on Birds 

Throughout the summer and fall periods, many tens of thousands of long-tailed ducks, other 

waterfowl, loons, shorebirds and seabirds are present for varying intervals in coastal lagoons 

and nearshore and offshore waters of the Beaufort Sea. Although larger concentrations occur in

areas east and west of the planning area than in areas near shore and offshore of the planning 

area (Johnson et al. 1993; Fischer et al. 2002; Ritchie et al. 2002) there are large numbers of 

birds in near shore and offshore waters of the planning area during the spring and fall staging 

and molting periods. If a 120,000-barrel offshore spill were to occur in the planning area, when 

large concentrations of molting, staging, or migrating birds were present, thousands of birds 

could be contacted by oil, potentially resulting in a substantial loss of birds. A spill that spreads 

out of the planning area to adjacent coastal or offshore areas could impact a larger number of 

birds and could impact several thousand nesting or postbreeding common eiders concentrated

near barrier islands and in coastal lagoons. Other species likely to be affected by a large oil spill 

include scoters, northern pintail, Pacific loon, phalaropes, and glaucous gull. Red-throated and 

yellow-billed loons, whose ACP populations are relatively small, also could be affected. Large 

numbers of molting and staging geese and shorebirds could be affected in coastal areas of the 

planning area. 

A large spill occurring in August or September, and affecting a substantial proportion of the 

thousands of Ross’s gulls that gather east of Point Barrow to feed each fall (Divoky et al. 1988), 

could result in a substantial loss of this species, whose world population most likely does not 

exceed 50,000. 

A terrestrial spill from a pipeline during the breeding, molting or staging periods may enter 

lakes and streams used by waterfowl and shorebirds and could adversily affect nesting, 

foraging, brood-rearing and molting habitat. Oil from the feathers of incubating adults may 

cover eggs, reducing oxygen transfer through the shell and causing embryo mortality. Direct 

mortality to adult birds could occur through hypothermia after contact with oil or by ingestion 

of oil. A spill in the Goose Molting Area during the period of time when large numbers of brant 

are molting could cause a population level effect to brant populations as many as 30% of the 

Pacific Flyway population of brant may be present in the area at one time. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-894 

Low-Probability, Very Large Oil Spill 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Blowout During Open-Water Conditions 

Although spill containment, recovery, and clean-up techniques under ideal weather conditions 

may be effective, these conditions may not exist during a spill incident and some loon, 

waterfowl, shorebird, and seabird habitats are likely to be contacted by oil. Individuals or 

groups of birds are widespread in their offshore distribution, ranging from the shoreline to 30 

miles or more offshore. If a large spill is not contained before reaching areas of bird 

concentrations, hazing tactics may help to reduce the number of birds that may be affected by 

the spill. 

Containment, recovery, and clean-up activities for a large spill are expected to involve hundreds 

of workers and numerous boats, aircraft, and onshore vehicles operating over an extensive area 

for more than one year. Persistence of oil in the environment would vary depending on weather 

conditions and speed of containment, recovery, and cleanup. The presence of such a workforce is

likely to produce hazing effects, by displacing birds from the immediate area of the spill. If a 

reliable system of locating bird concentrations in a specific area can be devised, specific birds or 

groups in danger of oil contact could be targeted with specific hazing tactics. 

Displacement of female waterfowl with broods from coastal habitats by clean-up activity may 

have a negative effect if it prematurely forces them into the offshore marine environment where 

foraging may be more difficult for the ducklings. Disturbance of nesting sea ducks by onshore 

clean-up activities is not expected to have a major impact on their productivity unless

disturbance happens in an area of concentrated nesting effort or to individuals with low and/or 

declining populations. Because of low nesting density of ducks along the coast, few nesting birds 

are likely to be displaced and potentially lose their clutches or broods to predators or exposure

to weather as a result of disturbance by clean-up operations. Helicopter support traffic, human 

presence, and short and long term habitat disturbance probably would be the most disturbing 

factors associated with oil spill clean-up activity. 

Prompt containment and removal of oil from offshore areas, accompanied by hazing tactics 

targeting high-use areas, would likely to result in a substantial reduction of loon, waterfowl, 

and shorebird mortality from a large oil spill. Cleanup also would decrease the amount of oil 

available for uptake by bottom-dwelling organisms that are the principal food of sea ducks and

shorebirds. 

A 120,000-barrel oil spill in offshore waters of the Beaufort Sea could result in the loss of 

thousands of waterfowl and shorebirds utilizing habitats either in offshore areas or along the 

shoreline. Oil from an offshore spill that spread to areas adjacent to the planning area could 

impact more birds in those adjacent areas than in the planning area. 

Blowout During Broken-Ice Conditions 

Containment and oil recovery following a blowout spill that enters the marine environment 

under broken-ice conditions at meltout or freezeup is expected to be less effective than for an 

open-water spill. Under these conditions the spill would be contained in a smaller area than a 

spill in open water, and fewer birds are likely to occupy broken ice unless areas of open water 

are available. However, Pacific loons, long-tailed ducks, king eiders, common eiders, and 

glaucous gulls have been observed in small areas of open water available under these conditions 

(Dau and Hodges 2003). Even after spring melting provides areas of open water, most arriving 

spring migrants likely would occupy overflow areas off river mouths, because those are 

available earlier and are in the vicinity of nesting areas. The hazing effect of clean-up activity or 

4-895 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Low-Probability, Very Large Oil Spill 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

actively hazing birds to displace them from areas where oil is located may be counterproductive, 

because few alternative habitats are available to birds at this time. For sea ducks arriving via 

overland routes, the benefit of spill containment and cleanup would be minor until they begin 

reentering the marine environment following breeding. By this time, the oil would have 

weathered and would be expected to have minor impact to birds. Indirect effects resulting from 

intake of contaminated prey organisms may be higher under broken-ice than open-water 

conditions, because reduced cleanup capability would provide a longer interval for exposure and 

uptake by such organisms. Accumulation of oil in coastal marshes and adjacent habitats could 

present a hazard to departing males following breeding and females with young following 

nesting as they move to offshore areas. Prior to freeze-up, most sea ducks and other waterfowl 

and shorebirds are not likely to be present in great numbers, and oil present in areas with 

broken ice may have weathered and become less hazardous to birds. Long-tailed ducks, eiders, 

and glaucous gulls are at risk until later in the fall than most other species because they remain 

in the area longer than most other species. 

A winter spill entering the environment during the ice-covered period could affect birds after 

the ice melts in the spring. Migrating loons and waterfowl concentrated in open water near

river deltas or other nearshore areas could come in contact with oil or could feed on 

contaminated prey. Losses from a spill contacting terrestrial habitats would not be expected to 

result in substantial effects to bird populations. 

4.11.4.9 Mammals 

Terrestrial Mammals 

For this analysis, it is assumed that a very large spill from a blowout would occur during the 

peak of the mosquito season within the TLH caribou insect-relief area north and east of 

Teshekpuk Lake. Any terrestrial mammals in the immediate vicinity of the blowout could be 

contacted by oil falling onto the surrounding tundra and open water. Loss of thermoregulation 

would not be a factor, except possibly in young caribou calves. Larger, more mobile animals 

such as caribou, bears, and moose would likely move out of the area affected by the blowout, 

reducing their exposure. Smaller, less mobile animals might not be able to move out of the 

affected area, resulting in greater mortality among these species. Some animals could be killed 

from exposure to toxins, either absorbed through the skin or ingested during feeding. Ingestion 

typically results in pulmonary aspiration that can be lethal or predispose the animal to 

infections. Terrestrial mammals would be temporarily disturbed or displaced by cleanup and 

site rehabilitation activities. At this time of year, TLH caribou would be aggregated into large 

groups for insect avoidance. If a blowout occurred in the vicinity of an aggregation, a relatively 

large number (100+) of caribou could be exposed to oil fallout. Movement of insect-harassed 

caribou in the vicinity of the blowout could be disrupted during the duration of the blowout and

the following period of cleanup, reducing caribou foraging efficiency. If foraging efficiency was 

reduced enough to result in reduced weight gain, there could be greater over-winter mortality or

a corresponding reduction in parturition the following year. This effect would only last for 1 

season and would not result in long-term reduction in the population size unless followed or

preceded by a few years of higher mortality or lower parturition from other factors. The amount 

of habitat affected by such a spill would be minimal when compared to the amount of caribou 

habitat available on the North Slope. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-896 

Low-Probability, Very Large Oil Spill 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Marine Mammals 

For marine mammals to come in contact with produced oil from even a very large oil spill 

(VLOS) would require that the spill occur off-shore (which is unlikely due to the very limited 

area off-shore available for leasing in the planning area and its close proximity to the shore – 

there would be no benefit to actually drilling in these areas because of the expense of design 

requirements when any potential petroleum could be reached more efficiently from an onshore

directional drilling approach) or that it occur in the coastal environment or that it enter a major 

river system near the coast during the broken ice period. During other periods clean-up and 

containment would be expected to prevent most produced fluids from entering the marine 

environment. Therefore, the likelihood of a spill impacting marine mammals is dependent not 

only on the location of the spill but the season. 

Winter 

The area immediately off-shore of the planning area is covered by land-fast ice during winter. 

Any spilled fluids would remain on the top of the ice and the success of clean-up efforts is 

expected to be high. No marine mammals with the exception of polar bear (see T&E section) 

would be present so the only threat would be from oil not cleaned up that enter the marine 

system during break-up. The amount of oil would likely be very low and unlikely to have 

significant effects on marine mammals. 

Broken Ice (Fall Freezeup and Spring Breakup) 

During these periods clean-up and containment success is comprised by environmental 

conditions. Spilled fluid reaching the marine environment would generally be contained within 

the ice. In the case of a fall spill, it is expected that most fluid would be frozen within the ice 

and released during summer melt. This could affect marine mammals using the near shore 

environment either through direct contact of impacts to prey species. The number of animals 

affected would be dependent on the aerial extent of the spill and its location as well as the 

animals behavior. Animals that typically occur in groups (beluga whales) may have more 

individuals affected, but may have a relatively lower overall chance of coming into contact with 

a spill because they are not evenly distributed. Actual numbers and movement rates would also 

influence the number impacted. Active clean-up efforts during the melt may cause some 

animals to avoid the area reducing the chance of contact. 

A spill during spring-break-up that reached the lead system or became trapped under ice could 

impact relatively more animals because the oil may become concentrated (constrained by the 

ice) in the open water where migrating and foraging marine mammals are also concentrated – 

increasing the potential for contact and subsequent injury and mortality. 

Summer 

If a VLOS occured along the shore during the summer open-water season or was transported

via a river to the marine system the spill would contaminate marine waters although

containment efforts are expected to be successful during this season. Small numbers of spotted 

seals could be exposed to the spill. Smaller numbers of other marine mammals, such as ringed 

and bearded seals, and beluga whales that generally occur offshore during the summer, could be 

exposed to oil if the spill were to spread offshore. If spotted seals were to be oiled and suffer 

lethal effects from the spill, the small population could take a few years or more to recover. 

4-897 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Low-Probability, Very Large Oil Spill 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Losses of other marine mammals to the spill would likely be small, with recovery of populations 

expected within one generation. 

4.11.4.10 Threatened and Endangered Species 

Bowhead Whale 

As with other marine mammals, if a VLOS were to occur in an area along the northern coast of 

the planning area or along a river tributary to the Beaufort Sea, oil could enter the nearshore 

marine environment and potentially be transported to offshore areas. The season during which

a spill occurred would influence the potential impact, during winter bowhead whales are not 

present and the nearshore area is inaccessible due to land-fast ice. Cleanup and containment 

would be expected to be successful and any remnant oil would be likely to only a negligible 

impact. 

Fall Freezeup 

Under most circumstances, contact with whales migrating through offshore waters during the 

open-water season would be brief. In some years, however, bowhead whales have been observed

very near shore between Point Barrow and Cape Halkett during the westward fall migration. 

For example, 77 individuals were observed feeding near the shoreline between Smith Bay and

Dease Inlet in September 2000 (Treacy 2002a). If bowhead whales were feeding in an area when 

spilled oil was present, contact could be prolonged and some of the oil could be ingested. It is not 

known whether a brief exposure, especially of volatile components, would have effects on lung or

eye function. A late fall spill could become entrained in the pack ice and the oil could be released 

into leads when the ice melted. However, a winter spill would likely melt out in July, so it is not 

likely that oil would be melted out of the ice in time to contact spring leads during the whale 

migration that spring but could affect whales during summer and fall (dependent on detection 

and cleanup success) and prey. 

Spring Breakup 

During their spring migration, bowhead whales often are concentrated in the spring lead

system as they move through the Chukchi Sea, past Point Barrow, and eastward through the 

Beaufort Sea. This behavior makes them vulnerable to any oil entering the spring lead system. 

Once oil enter the lead system it would be somewhat contained and occur at higher 

concentrations than an open water spill. Potentially increasing the chance of contact and the 

number of whales contacted. The relative increased concentration could also increase the 

likelihood of severe injury and subsequent mortality. Oil released in broken ice conditions 

would be more difficult to clean up and more likely to enter the spring lead system. 

Summer 

If a VLOS occured along the shore during the summer open-water season or was transported

via a river to the marine system the spill would contaminate marine waters although

containment efforts are expected to be successful during this season and spread would be 

limited. An early summer or late summer spill would have the most potential to impact 

bowheads. Spills during other time periods would likely exert a greater impact on prey species 

in the near shore environment. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-898 

Low-Probability, Very Large Oil Spill 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Oil Effects 

Effects of an oil spill on bowhead whales would include oiling of the skin, inhalation of 

hydrocarbon vapors or oil, ingestion oil or contaminated prey, fouling of the baleen, reduction of 

food supply, displacement from feeding areas, and possibly death. The effect of fouling baleen 

has not been investigated adequately; the long filamentous bowhead whale baleen may be prone 

to more serious fouling than the coarser baleen of some other species, thereby depriving 

bowhead whales of a greater degree of normal function. The number of whales contacting spilled 

oil would depend on the timing and duration of the spill, ice conditions, effectiveness of 

containment and clean-up operations, and the whales’ ability or inclination to avoid contact. 

Based on conclusions from studies that have examined the effects of oil spills on cetaceans, 

external exposure to spilled oil is unlikely to have serious effects on bowhead whales. Most 

whales exposed to spilled oil would likely experience temporary, nonlethal effects, although 

lethal effects to some individuals could occur. 

Spectacled and Steller's Eiders 

A VLOS could affect both male and female eiders in the terrestrial environment during nest 

initiation (early to late June) and females and young from June into late August. A spill

reaching marine waters could impact male spectacled eiders, from mid- to late June to late July,

and females, from late June to early September, may stage in offshore waters of the planning 

area prior to migration (TERA 1999; Fischer et al. 2002; Troy 2003). 

Broken Ice (Fall Freezeup and Spring Breakup) 

A terrestrial spill during fall freezeup would have no direct effect on eiders as they are not 

present. Some long-term habitat damage/loss would occur but to a relatively small amount of 

the planning area. A VLOS that reached rivers or the marine environment could cause impacts 

to eiders during late spring as oil moved through the river systems possibly entering near river 

lakes and ponds as a result of flood flows. Because of the low density of spectacled eiders and

the almost complete absence of Steller’s eiders the number of birds impacted would likely be 

relatively low when compared to the population. Any oil reaching the marine environment 

during spring break-up could affect migrating eiders in open water near river deltas; however,

most spectacled eiders likely migrate overland in the spring and few birds would be affected. A 

summer spill could impact staging eiders prior to fall migration. The number of eiders affected 

potentially could total tens to low hundreds of individuals. Using average estimated spectacled

eider density calculated from USFWS survey data in the central Beaufort Sea area from 

Harrison Bay to Brownlow Point, and average severity of spill-trajectory paths (and thus, 

exposure of birds to oil), a USFWS model estimated an average of only two eiders would be 

exposed to a large spill (5,912 barrels) within 30 days in July (Stehn and Platte 2000). However, 

in late July, one group of 100 individuals was observed, suggesting a potential for much higher 

mortality should a spill occur in an area of relatively high spectacled eider density. The greatest

potential for spectacled eiders to be impacted by an offshore oil spill would occur in deeper 

offshore waters of Harrison Bay rather than in offshore waters to the east or shallower 

nearshore waters. An oil spill could also contaminate prey populations in eider foraging areas at 

any time of year that could result in secondary impacts on eiders, affecting productivity and/or 

survival. Likewise, negative effects of a spill on shoreline and coastal marsh habitat could affect 

eiders when the eiders are moving from onshore brood-rearing areas to the marine

environment, or in subsequent years. 

4-899 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Low-Probability, Very Large Oil Spill 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Winter 

A winter VLOS would have the same potential impacts as one occurring during fall freezeup 

however cleanup would be expected to be much more successful thus substantially reducing risk 

of adverse impacts. Some habitat damage would occur as a result of cleanup efforts; however. 

Summer 

A large onshore spill released in the planning area during the summer season could affect prenesting, nesting, and brood-rearing spectacled or Steller’s eiders. In the immediate vicinity of 

the spill, some habitat contacted by oil would become unsuitable for nesting, brood-rearing, or 

foraging, and oil entering freshwater aquatic habitats could spread more widely, including into 

river deltas and nearshore marine habitats. Direct mortality could occur from loss of insulating 

capabilities of feathers should eiders come in contact with oil, or by ingesting contaminated 

prey. Oil that may come in contact with eggs, either directly or through contact with partially 

oiled feathers of incubating adults, can negatively impact embryonic development. 

Effects of Oil-Spill Prevention and Response 

A spill that occurred during the summer open-water period would be expected to cause some 

Steller’s eider and spectacled eider mortality. Most mortality would likely occur offshore where 

concentrations of staging spectacled eiders are greatest. Containment, recovery, and clean-up 

activities for a large spill would be expected to involve hundreds of workers and numerous 

boats, aircraft, and onshore vehicles operating over an extensive area for more than 1 year. The 

presence of such a workforce in open water conditions would be likely to act as a general hazing

factor by displacing any eiders from the immediate area of activity and potentially away from 

areas contaminated with oil. Active hazing may also help to reduce the number of eiders that 

may be affected by an oil spill by targeting specific birds or groups in danger of coming in 

contact with oil with specific hazing tactics. Special areas of concern include important foraging 

areas for spectacled eiders located in marine waters adjacent to the planning area in Smith and 

Harrison bays. 

Containment and oil recovery operations following a large spill that entered the marine 

environment under broken-ice conditions at meltout or freezeup would be less effective than for 

a spill in open water. A spill during the ice-covered period or during broken ice conditions may 

be less likely to spread than a spill occurring during the open-water period and few eiders would 

be expected to occur in offshore areas during periods with ice coverage. Many spring migrants 

likely would occupy open overflow areas off river mouths that are open early and are near

nesting areas; the most effective response could be to focus containment and clean-up efforts in 

such areas. During the broken-ice season, the hazing effect of clean-up activity or the active

hazing of eiders to displace them from contaminated areas could be counterproductive, because 

there are few alternative habitats that could be occupied at this time. Since most spectacled

eiders arrive in the area via overland routes (TERA 1999), the benefit of spill containment and 

cleanup would be greatest in nesting habitat. Indirect effects resulting from the intake of 

contaminated prey organisms could be higher under broken-ice than open-water conditions, 

because reduced cleanup capability could provide a longer interval for exposure and uptake by 

such organisms. Entrapped oil in coastal marsh and adjacent habitats could present a hazard to 

departing males after breeding and to females with young after nesting as they move to offshore 

waters. Few spectacled eiders are likely to be present in the offshore waters of the planning 

area by late September, and oil present in broken ice at this time likely would not impact many 

eiders. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-900 

Low-Probability, Very Large Oil Spill 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Some mortality could also result in terrestrial or coastal habitats where post-breeding males or 

unsuccessful females or females with recently fledged young could be affected by an oil spill. An 

onshore spill in summer could enter lakes and streams used by eiders and could result in some

mortality to nesting or brood-rearing eiders. As spectacled eiders nest in low densities, 

disturbance of nesting eiders by onshore clean-up activities would not be expected to result in 

large increases in nest abandonment or overall decreases in productivity. If clean-up activities 

were to displace females with broods from coastal habitats prematurely into the more saline 

offshore marine environment, it could result in decreased duckling survival. Helicopter support 

traffic and human presence would probably cause the greatest disturbance associated with oilspill clean-up activity. 

Polar Bear 

Polar bear are ice dependent and rare on shore during summer. Any summer terrestrial VLOS 

would have negligible impact to polar bears, although some denning habitat may be damaged 

during clean-up efforts. Only spills during other periods that reached marine waters or the 

coast line would be expected to impact polar bears. However, due to generally wide distribution

and low density very few animals would be expected to be impacted if any. 

Broken Ice (Fall Freezeup and Spring Breakup) 

The primary effect of a VLOS during these seasons may be disturbance from clean-up efforts 

causing females to move to other denning areas in the fall, or resulting in early den emergence 

and thus lower reproductive success in the fall. Direct impacts would be similar to other marine 

mammals, with spring break up and concentration of oil in the leads most likely to result in 

adverse impacts. Any spill that impacted polar bear would also impact their prey species. Some 

polar bears not impacted directly by oil may experience reduced foraging success and others 

may be impacted through eating contaminated prey. 

Winter 

Like spills during the broken ice periods, the primary impact may result from clean up activities 

causing den disturbance and reduced reproductive success. This may be more likely for winter 

spills as clean-up efforts should be more effective and thus intense (more vehicles and people). 

However, because clean up is expected to be more effective the potential effects of oil 

contamination are lower. 

4.11.4.11 Cultural Resources 

Because cultural resources in the planning area are located at or near the ground surface, a 

spill that occurred during the summer would have a greater effect on these resources than a 

spill that occurred during the winter. Oil spilled during winter, however, could impact cultural 

resources if the warm oil melted the snow and permafrost and impacted the underlying cultural 

resources. While the contamination of the cultural resources would render some of the data 

recovery valueless, the clean-up procedures would create even greater impacts. Since cultural 

resources are nonrenewable, the effects could result in loss of site integrity. 

4-901 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Low-Probability, Very Large Oil Spill 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.11.4.12 Subsistence 

Effects on subsistence-harvest patterns from a 120,000-bbl oil spill could potentially displace 

and cause a functional loss of habitat to CAH, TLH, and WAH caribou. Effects to subsistence 

would occur as this important subsistence resource became unavailable or undesirable for use,

or experienced long-term (more than 5 years) population and productivity effects. Exposure of 

bowhead whales to spilled oil could result in lethal effects to some individuals, injury to many 

more, and long-term contamination of the fatty tissues and possible chronic ill health for many 

of the whales exposed to the spill. Large numbers of spotted seals could be exposed to the spill 

and suffer losses, with population recovery taking several years, and hunters decreasing 

harvests of subsistence resources for many years due to contamination. Losses of other marine

mammals should be smaller, with recovery occurring within 1 year. If a large spill were to occur 

when large concentrations of molting, staging, or migrating birds were present, tens of 

thousands of birds could be contacted by oil, representing a loss to regional populations and 

affecting subsistence and sports uses in the Y-K Delta as well as locations along the Pacific 

Flyway. A substantial portion of resident fish populations could be harmed or killed by a very 

large oil spill, and other populations could become contaminated. Access to subsistence hunting 

areas and subsistence resources and the use of subsistence resources could change if an oil spill 

reduced the availability of resources or altered their distribution patterns. Extra-regional efforts 

to acquire subsistence foods would be undertaken, possibly taxing the resources of other 

subsistence regions. 

The communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Wainwright, and Nuiqsut would be 

affected by a very large oil spill in the planning area. Even if few individual subsistence species 

were directly lost or displaced, a very large oil spill could potentially contaminate essential 

nearshore whaling areas and onshore terrestrial hunting and fishing areas, causing effects 

when the additive impacts from contamination of the shoreline, tainting concerns, cleanup

disturbance, and disruption of subsistence practices are factored together. 

4.11.4.13 Sociocultural Systems 

Sociocultural systems in the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Wainwright, 

and Nuiqsut could undergo long-term individual, social, and institutional stress and disruption 

from a 120,000-bbl spill. It is expected that considerable stress and anxiety would occur over the 

loss of subsistence resources, contamination of habitat and subsistence resources, fear of the 

health effects of eating contaminated wild foods, fear of changes to harvest regulations (e.g., 

quotas), and the need to depend on the knowledge of others about environmental contamination 

(Fall 1992, McMullen 1993). Individuals and communities would be increasingly stressed 

during the time it would take to modify subsistence-harvest patterns by selectively changing 

harvest areas (if such areas were even available) and there would be increased costs and risks 

associated with travel and hunting in unfamiliar areas. Associated cultural activities, such as 

the organization of subsistence activities among kinship groups and the relationships among 

those who customarily process and share subsistence harvests, would also be modified or would

decline. 

A 120,000-bbl spill would be expected to affect individuals and social systems in ways similar to 

the effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. As shown by that spill, some individuals found a new 

arena for pre-existing personal and political conflict, especially over the dispensation of money 

and contracts. In the smaller communities, clean-up work produced a redistribution of

resources, creating new schisms in the community and increasing social stresses. Many 

members of small communities were on the road to sobriety before the spill; after the spill, some 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-902 

Low-Probability, Very Large Oil Spill 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

people began drinking again, leading to the re-emergence of numerous alcohol-related problems 

(such as child abuse, domestic violence, and accidents). Institutional effects included additional 

burdens on local governments, disruption of existing community plans and programs, strain on

local officials, difficulty dealing with Exxon, community conflict, disruptions of customary habits 

and patterns of behavior, emotional effects and stress-related disorders from confronting 

environmental degradation and death, and violation of community values (Endter-Wada 1992). 

Post-spill stress resulted from the seeming loss of control over individual and institutional 

environments, as well as from secondary episodes such as litigation, which produced secrecy 

over information, uncertainty over outcomes, and community segmentation (Smythe 1990). 

Attempts to mitigate social effects were often ineffective because of concerns over litigation, 

causing a reluctance to intervene out of fear that these actions might benefit adversaries in 

legal battles (IAI 1990b, 1998; Human Relations Area Files, Inc. 1994; ADFG 1995). In response 

to spill hazards, there has been a resurgence in traditional strategies for responding to resource 

shortages, which in traditional times, and following the spill, resulted in an increase in sharing, 

a renewal and strengthening of social connections with extended family members and friends, 

and a cooperative approach to subsistence activities within and between the most affected

communities. 

4.11.4.14 Environmental Justice 

Alaska Iñupiat Natives, a recognized minority, are the predominant residents of the NSB, the 

area potentially most affected by planning area exploration and development. An oil spill could 

affect Iñupiat Natives because they rely on subsistence foods and there could be cumulative 

effects to subsistence resources and harvest practices. 

In the unlikely event that a large spill occurred and contaminated essential nearshore whaling 

areas and onshore terrestrial hunting and fishing areas, major environmental justice effects 

could occur, stemming from contamination of the shoreline, tainting concerns, clean-up

disturbance, and disruption of subsistence practice. Oil-spill contamination and cleanup could 

potentially displace and cause a functional loss of habitat to CAH, TLH, and WAH caribou, as 

well. Such impacts would cause damage to subsistence resources, which would result in 

disproportionately high effects on Alaskan Natives. Oil-spill contamination of subsistence foods 

would be the main health-related concern. Most potential effects to subsistence resources and 

subsistence harvests would be mitigated to some extent, though not eliminated. 

4.11.4.15 Coastal Zone Management 

A very large spill would be very unlikely. If a spill of this size were to occur, the spill itself and 

the resulting clean-up activities could have effects on one or more subsistence resources and 

access to those resources in the vicinity of the spill. 

The NSB Coastal Management Program policies relate to impacts that are “likely and cannot be 

avoided or mitigated” and “development that will likely result in significantly decreased 

productivity of subsistence resources of their ecosystems.” An oil spill of this size would be 

accidental and the probability of such an event is very low. Therefore, it is not considered to be a 

“likely” event, and would not introduce conflict with policy standards. 

The NSB CMP Best Effort Policy 2.4.5.1(b) states that access to subsistence resources can be

restricted when there is no feasible and prudent alternative. This policy could pertain to cleanup activities. If it is determined that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to these 

activities, there would be no conflict with this policy. 

4-903 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Low-Probability, Very Large Oil Spill 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Based on the low probability of an oil spill event of this magnitude, and on compliance with 

existing regulations for spill prevention and response, existing management practices, and 

proposed lease stipulations and ROPs, no conflicts with CMP policies are anticipated. 

4.11.4.16 Recreation Resources 

The impacts to recreation and wilderness resources would primarily relate to reductions in 

aesthetic values and naturalness associated with visible oil sheen and residues on vegetation 

and water. The effects on recreation opportunities would be short term in nature and would 

dissipate as cleanup and rehabilitation proceeded. Effects on wilderness values would depend 

on the care taken during the clean-up process. If the scars on the landscape from clean-up

activities were effectively rehabilitated, the long-term effect on wilderness values would be 

minor. 

The likelihood of a large spill affecting the Colville River would depend on where oil and gas 

development occurred. A large oil spill could possibly impact water quality and outstandingly 

remarkable values, particularly wildlife, archeology, and paleontology, and, to some extent, 

recreation and geology. Impacts on archeology, paleontology and geology would likely depend on 

the care taken during clean up of the spill. Recreation values would recover over time. Such 

impacts would not change the determination that the Colville River is not currently suitable for 

designation as a Wild and Scenic River. 

4.11.4.17 Visual Resources 

A very large spill that occurred along the shore during the summer open-water season would 

have little effect on visual resources overall, as the spill would be confined to beach areas or the 

adjacent shoreline vegetation, up to six miles from the source. The occurrence of a very large 

spill along the shore during the winter could have a similar effect if it were released from the ice 

during the following spring breakup. If a very large spill were to occur onshore during winter, 

little effect would occur as the spill would be absorbed in snow and ice and removed prior to 

breakup. Only if clean-up was not possible, would the spill materials be released into underlying 

vegetation and soils. A very large spill during summer would impact visual resources by the 

visible oil and the resulting damage to the underlying vegetation of up to 62,000 acres. Some of 

the spill would occur on already disturbed areas such as drill pads and production areas, 

however, it is possible that up to 20% of a spill would occur as far as six miles from the source 

and impact vegetation in otherwise undisturbed areas. 

4.11.4.18 Economy 

The estimate of employment used in this analysis for a very large spill of 120,000 bbl is based 

on the most relevant historical experience of a spill in Alaskan waters−the Exxon Valdez oil 

spill of 1989. The employment estimate is based on a ratio of workers to barrels spilled in the 

Exxon Valdez spill. The Exxon Valdez spill was 240,000 bbl. This spill generated enormous 

employment that rose to the level of 10,000 workers doing direct cleanup work in relatively 

remote locations. Smaller numbers of clean-up workers returned in the warmer months of each 

subsequent year until 1992. The planning area spill scenario assumes the spill would occur on 

land, not near the Beaufort or Chukchi seas, and not on possible drainage systems near and 

leading to those seas. If the spill occurred on land not near a sea, the number of workers could 

be less than the proportional effort to clean up the Exxon Valdez spill. If the spill occurred on a

drainage system near a sea, then the clean-up effort would likely be close to that required to 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-904 

Low-Probability, Very Large Oil Spill 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

clean up the Exxon Valdez spill. Based on the experience of this spill, an oil spill of 120,000 bbl 

would generate approximately 5,000 jobs for 6 months in the first year, declining to zero by the 

third year following the spill. 

In the case of the Exxon Valdez spill, numerous local residents quit their jobs to work on the 

cleanup, often at substantially higher wages, which generated inflation in the local economy 

(Cohen 1993). Anecdotal information indicates that housing rents in Valdez in 1989 increased 

by 25% in some cases to 6-fold in others, and inflated rents continued into 1990. The NSB would 

not experience similar inflation effects because cleanup activities would be managed and staged 

out of existing enclave-support facilities. The number of workers actually used to clean up a 

possible 120,000-bbl oil spill would depend on a number of factors, including which procedures 

were called for in the oil-spill contingency plan; the level of preparedness (equipment and 

training) of the entities responsible for cleanup; how efficiently the cleanup activities were 

executed; and the degree of coordination between the numerous responsible entities. 

4.11.4.19 Public Health 

In the event of a very large oil spill, considerable stress and anxiety would occur over the loss of 

subsistence resources, contamination of habitat and subsistence resources, fear of the health 

effects of eating contaminated wild foods, fear of changes to harvest regulations (e.g., quotas), 

and the need to depend on the knowledge of others about environmental contamination (Fall 

1992, McMullen 1993). Reductions in subsistence game populations, displacement of game, and 

fears of contamination could combine to substantially reduce subsistence game intake. If this 

occurred, the prevalence of diabetes and related metabolic disorders would be expected to

increase substantially, based on evidence reviewed in section 4.3.19. Food insecurity would 

increase markedly, and unless sharing networks and government programs were able to 

respond rapidly, hunger and potentially (though less likely) malnutrition could result. 

Social pathology would likely increase. In the case of the Exxon Valdez spill, many members of 

small communities were on the road to sobriety before the spill; after the spill, some people 

began drinking again, leading to the re-emergence of numerous alcohol-related problems (such 

as child abuse, domestic violence, and accidents). Institutional effects included additional 

burdens on local governments, disruption of existing community plans and programs, strain on

local officials, difficulty dealing with Exxon, community conflict, disruptions of customary habits 

and patterns of behavior, emotional effects and stress-related disorders from confronting 

environmental degradation and death, and violation of community values (Endter-Wada 1992). 

Post-spill stress resulted from the seeming loss of control over individual and institutional 

environments, as well as from secondary episodes such as litigation, which produced secrecy 

over information, uncertainty over outcomes, and community segmentation (Smythe 1990). 

Attempts to mitigate social effects were often ineffective because of concerns over litigation, 

causing a reluctance to intervene out of fear that these actions might benefit adversaries in 

legal battles (IAI 1990b, 1998; Human Relations Area Files, Inc. 1994; ADFG 1995). 

In parallel with both increased social pathology and more difficult hunting conditions, injury

rates and mortality could also increase. 

Oilspill contamination of subsistence resources could lead to increases in contaminant-related 

health problems such as cancer and neurodevelopmental delays: these problems are felt to be 

relatively less likely because experience has shown that people tend to avoid resources they

perceive as potentially contaminated, but chronic persistent low-level contamination many 

years after the spill could cause incremental increases in these problems. 

4-905 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Low-Probability, Very Large Oil Spill 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

The impacts to the social determinants of health possible after a very large oil spill are among 

the most concerning issues in the very large oil spill scenario. If, as in the Exxon Valdez oil 

spill, the disruption of sharing networks and increases in social pathology were extensive and 

persistent, substantial decreases in social capital could occur, with ramifications for not only 

psychosocial health but physical health as well (Ritchie and Gill, 2004; Marmot and Wilkinson 

2003). 

4.11.5 Comparison of Alternatives 

Under the various alternatives presented in this amendment, the risk of the occurrence of a 

very large spill and the likelihood that such a spill would contact specific resources would vary. 

The risk of a very large spill would be different under each alternative because the projected 

level of oil and gas activities and production would be different. The likelihood of a very large

spill contacting specific resources would be different under each alternative because the area 

available for oil and gas leasing would be different. The potential impacts of a very large spill 

would not differ among the alternatives. 

The likelihood of a very large blowout spill occurring would be highest under Alternative C 

because the greatest number of wells and the greatest volume of production are projected under

that scenario. The likelihood of contact with surface resources would vary by resource. In 

general, the likelihood of contact would be highest under Alternative C because the greatest 

area would be made available for oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development. 

Under Alternative A, about 30% fewer wells are projected to be drilled and about 30% less oil is 

projected to be produced than under Alternative C. Given these scenarios, it is assumed,

therefore, that the risk of a very large blowout spill would be about 30% less under the 

Alternative A than under Alternative C. 

Under Alternative B, about 20% fewer wells are projected to be drilled and about 20% less oil is 

projected to be produced than under Alternative C. Given these scenarios, it is assumed,

therefore, that the risk of a very large blowout spill would be about 20% less under Alternative 

B than under Alternative C. 

Under Alternative D, about 5% fewer wells are projected to be drilled and about 10% less oil is 

projected to be produced than under Alternative C. Given these scenarios, it is assumed,

therefore, that the risk of a very large blowout spill would be 5 to 10% less under Alternative D 

than under Alternative C. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-906 

Low-Probability, Very Large Oil Spill 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

4.12 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION 

POTENTIAL OF VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION 

MEASURES 

There would be no unusual energy requirements for implementing any of the alternatives or 

their associated mitigation measures (including lease stipulations and required operating 

procedures). Generally speaking, energy requirements and conservation potential would be 

proportional to the amount of oil and gas activities conducted under each alternative. 

4-907 Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

Low-Probability, Very Large Oil Spill 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 4-908

Energy Requirements and

Conservation Potential