Appendix C 

_________________________________

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Appendix C: Essential Fish Habitat C-2
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

C-3 Appendix C: Essential Fish Habitat 

Regulatory Background 

 

The 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act enacted additional management measures to protect 

commercially harvested fish species from overfishing. Along with reauthorizing the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Reauthorization (16 U.S.C. 1801-1882), one 

of those added measures is to describe, identify, and minimize adverse effects to Essential Fish 

Habitat (EFH). The regulations defining EFH are in 50 CFR Part 600. EFH is defined as habitat 

necessary to the species for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity (i.e. all life stages). 

Those habitats include: aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological 

properties that are used by fish; sediment, hard bottom, and structures underlying the waters; 

and associated biological communities. Potentially impacting activities may have effects on 

essential fish habitats that are direct (e.g. physical disruption) or indirect (e.g. loss of prey 

species). Those effects can be site-specific, habitat-wide, cumulative, and/or synergistic. 

In 2005, a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for EFH in Alaska was issued by the 

National Marine Fisheries Service and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NMFS 

and NPFMC 2005). This included a decision on how EFH should be identified and a current 

description of these habitats by species based on the preferred alternative. The only EFH 

designated in the Northeast NPR-A Planning area is for salmon. This includes all five species of 

Pacific salmon: chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (O. kisutch), pink (O. gorbuscha), 

sockeye (O. nerka), and chum (O. keta). 

Federal agencies are required to consult with the NOAA Fisheries Service (National Marine 

Fisheries Service) on activities, including non-oil and gas activities and oil and gas leasing and 

development that may adversely affect the essential fish habitat. This consultation should be 

consolidated with environmental review required by other statutes, such as the National 

Environmental Policy Act (50 CFR 600.920(e)). 

Salmon EFH 

Generally, there is little evidence of viable, self-sustaining salmon populations in the Beaufort 

and the northern (north of 70o N. latitude) Chukchi Sea. Present salmon “populations” have a 

very difficult time establishing and persisting in the Arctic, most likely because of the marginal 

habitats (Craig 1989a; Fechhelm and Griffiths 2001). Conclusions based on a survey of available 

information describing salmon stocks in the Beaufort Sea (Fechhelm and Griffiths 2001) indicate 

only a few isolated spawning stocks of chum and pink salmon that might occur in the region, 

primarily the Sagavanirktok and Colville rivers. Small runs of pink and chum salmon have been 

noted in the Colville River (Bendock 1979b, McElderry and Craig 1981) and in recent years these 

species have been taken in the Colville and Itkillik rivers as part of the fall subsistence fishery 

(George 2004). However, catches in scientific sampling and in the subsistence fishery are 

extremely low (Pedersen and Shishido 1988 in Craig 1989b; Moulton 1994, 1995, 1996b, 1997) 

and no known spawning sites have been identified for these species. Chinook, coho, and sockeye 

salmon are even rarer than pink and chum salmon in the region. The salmon populations in and 

adjacent to the Planning Area can be considered marginal. 

The preferred alternative selected in the NMFS and NPFMC EIS (2005) determines that: 

“For salmon FMP (Fishery Management Plan) species, the analysis is broken 

into three parts: marine, nearshore, and freshwater. Marine and nearshore 

salmon EFH is generally described to include all marine waters from the mean 

higher tide line to the limits of the EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) since science 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Appendix C: Essential Fish Habitat C-4

recognizes that salmon are 1) distributed throughout all marine waters during 

late juvenile and adult life stages and 2) found nearshore and along coastal 

migration corridors as early juvenile life stages out-migrate and adult life stages 

return to and from freshwater areas, respectively. Freshwater areas used by egg, 

larvae, and returning adult salmon will be analyzed as those areas indexed in 

ADF&G’s Catalogue of Waters Important for the Spawning, Appendix D Final 

EFH EIS – April 2005 D-48 Rearing, or Migration of Anadromous Fishes 

(ADF&G 1998a), specifically Pacific salmon species. Freshwater salmon systems 

are generally defined as those areas above mean higher tide to the upper limits 

of those freshwater systems supporting salmon and may include contiguous 

wetland areas, such as those areas hydrologically connected to the main water 

source via access channels to an adjacent river, stream, lake, pond, etc.” (page D47). 

Although the EIS identifies the 1998 version of ADF&G’s Catalogue of Waters Important for the 

Spawning, there is more current information regarding the distribution of anadromous fish in 

Alaska, available on the worldwide web (ADFG 2005; Johnson et al. 2004). This updated version 

is utilized for the purpose of this analysis (April 10, 2007). 

In the planning area, the Colville River (330-00-10700), Ublutuoch River (330-00-10840-2017), 

Fish Creek (330-00-10840), Judy Creek (330-00-10840-2043), and Ikpikpuk River (330-00-10900) 

meet this criterion. A brief description of habitats utilized by salmon at various life stages follows. 

More details on habitat in the planning area is discussed in section 3.3.5 Fish. 

Freshwater overwintering habitat, including spawning gravel that does not freeze and kill 

spawned fish eggs, is extremely limited in the northeast Chukchi Sea coast area and probably is 

the largest controlling factor limiting the viability of northern Chukchi Sea salmon stocks at 

present (Craig 1989a; Fechhelm and Griffiths 2001). Most benthic invertebrates, such as insects 

living on streambeds and insects and zooplankton living in the water column, are freshwater prey 

for one or another salmon species. 

For salmon, freshwater spawning areas are also the egg and larvae habitat for up to 11 months 

after spawning. Juveniles of pink and chum salmon, the most common and most adapted salmon 

to the northeastern Chukchi Sea environment, do not require juvenile freshwater rearing habitat 

because the young hatch in early spring and migrate soon after to saltwater. Coho, sockeye, and 

king salmon require year-round juvenile rearing habitat for 1 to 3 years. Sockeye typically 

require freshwater lake rearing habitat for up to 2 years. 

The nearshore (estuarine) zone is used primarily by juvenile salmon smolt during physiological 

adaptation from the freshwater to the saltwater environment. This outmigration takes place from 

the time the ice moves out through August. Feeding during this time, especially in the first few 

days, is thought to be especially critical to survival. Thus, prey and prey habitat are an important 

part of this particular habitat. Additionally, adults returning to spawn will transit the estuarine 

zone and may wait there while their osmoregulatory system adapts from saltwater to freshwater. 

Individual fish probably take only a few days to a week to transit this estuarine area. 

The marine juvenile and adult stages are the principal growth periods of salmon and can last 

from 1 to 6 years. During this period, prey and prey habitat are the most critical components of 

the marine essential fish habitat. Prey commonly consists of animals near the water surface 

(epipelagic zooplankton), particularly copepods. Chinook salmon and larger sockeye, coho, and 

chum salmon also consume fish. There appears to be very limited use of the northern Chukchi 

Sea or Beaufort Sea for these stages. 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

C-5 Appendix C: Essential Fish Habitat 

Besides redefining the way that EFH is identified in Alaska, the NMFS and NPFMC EIS (2005) 

also established an approach to identify Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HPACs) within 

EFH. This designation for particularly critical habitats already existed, but the EIS officially 

adopted a new approach for HPACs. The preferred alternative stated: 

“...the existing HAPC identifications would be rescinded, and the Council would 

adopt an approach that would allow specific sites within EFH, selected to 

address a particular problem, to be identified as HAPCs in the future.” (ROD 

page 2). 

In general, this was a shift from viewing HPACs as broad habitat types to a site-based approach 

in order to better accomplish management objectives. 

Ecologically, the Beaufort Sea and northern Chukchi Sea can be considered a population sink for 

salmon rather than a source, drawing excess salmon from other areas rather than producing a 

surplus that colonizes new areas. The scarcity of salmon documented in the Beaufort Sea and the 

fact that it is close to the northern boundary of the geographic distribution support the population 

sink theory. 

Recent occurrences raise the question of whether significant temperature increases in the Arctic 

caused by climate change could lead to a significant change in salmon distribution in the future. 

Higher salmon catches off of Point Barrow in recent years (personal communication with Craig 

George, 2006) indicates an increase in the number of salmon moving through the northern 

Chukchi Sea. Additionally, local residents living near the Beaufort Sea have noticed increases in 

salmon occurrences over the past 10 to 20 years (Pedersen 1995; Napageak 1996). Several 

published journal notes of first records of salmon in the Canadian Beaufort Sea that occurred in 

the past decade (Babaluk et al. 2000) also indicate the increasing, but still rare, incidence of 

salmon in the Beaufort Sea. 

Action, Potential Effects on EFH, and Mitigation 

The actions covered by this EFH analysis are thoroughly described within chapter 2 of this 

IAP/EIS. In general, the focus is on oil and gas exploration and development activities, including 

associated infrastructure, various scenarios of development, and oil spills. However, non-oil and 

gas activities are also considered. 

Potential effects on salmon EFH from oil and gas activities (and non oil and gas activities) in the 

NE NPR-A Planning Area are the same as those described for other fish habitat in chapter 4, 

environmental consequences. Most alternatives provide similar guidelines for protection, whether 

in the form of Lease Stipulations or ROPs. The primary difference among alternatives is the level 

of anticipated oil and gas development. Therefore, the potential for impacts to EFH is relative for 

each Alternative. The greatest potential for impacts exists under Alternative C, with increasingly 

less risk under Alternatives D, B, and A, respectively. 

Through numerous Lease Stipulations and ROPs the various alternatives attempt to mitigate 

potential impacts to fish and their habitat. These are summarized in Table 2-2. Specific 

application of these stipulations and ROPs to protecting fish habitat is described in sections 4.3.7 

(Alternative A), 4.4.7 (Alternative B), 4.5.7 (Alternative C), and 4.6.7 (Alternative D). Proper 

implementation of these protective measures should ensure that impacts to EFH are minimal. 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Appendix C: Essential Fish Habitat C-6

EFH Finding 

Based on protective measures (stipulations and ROPs) and the low numbers of salmon utilizing 

the systems, oil and gas exploration and development in Northeast NPR-A is not expected to 

impact salmon or their habitat and is assigned the EFH determination: May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect.