EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

What is BLM proposing to do in this plan? 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to amend its 1998 Northeast National 

Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 

(IAP/EIS) to consider making additional portions of the BLM-administered lands (public lands)

in the 4.6-million-acre planning area available for oil and gas leasing. Specifically, this plan

would analyze making available for leasing lands that, pursuant to the terms of the 1998 

Northeast NPR-A IAP/EIS ROD, are currently unavailable. In addition, BLM proposes to

develop performance-based lease stipulations and Required Operating Procedures (ROPs) in the

planning area similar to those stipulations and ROPs included in the Northwest NPR-A 

IAP/EIS ROD of 2004. The stipulations would apply to oil and gas activities, but the ROPs 

would apply to both oil and gas activities and non-oil and gas activities. (For more information, 

see Chapter 1). 

Why is BLM doing this plan? 

The purpose and need to amend the 1998 Northeast NPR-A IAP/EIS is to address the Nation’s 

need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the northeast portion of 

the NPR-A. (For more information, see Chapter 1). 

What is the North Slope Borough’s role in this plan? 

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

cooperating agency in order to maximize use of available resources and special expertise and 

minimize duplication in those areas of overlapping responsibilities. Cooperating agency status

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

Why a “Supplemental” IAP/EIS? 

BLM is undertaking the Northeast NPR-A Supplemental Integrated Activity 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (IAP/EIS) to supplement its Northeast NPR-A Final 

Amended IAP/EIS, which was issued in January 2005 and for which a Record of Decision (ROD) 

was issued on January 11, 2006. This Supplement is necessary because on September 25, 2006 

the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska in National Audubon Society v. Kempthorne 

(case number 1:05-cv-00008-JKS), found inadequate an important aspect of the Amended 

IAP/EIS’s cumulative impact analysis and as a result vacated the ROD. (For more information, 

see Chapter 1). 

How is this Supplement the same and how is it different from the earlier Amended 

IAP/EIS? 

Because this document supplements the Amended IAP/EIS, much of its contents are the same 

or very similar to that contained in the earlier document. The issues (see Chapter 1) and

range of alternatives for BLM’s future management of the planning area (see Chapter 2)

are essentially unchanged from those analyzed in the Northeast NPR-A Final Amended 

IAP/EIS issued in January 2005. Alternative A is the same as in the Amended IAP/EIS. 

ES-1 Executive Summary 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Except for minor edits and the addition of one ROP (ROP L-1), the other alternatives are 

also the same as in the Amended IAP/EIS. Because the planning area’s physical, biological,

and social features have changed little since the publication of the Amended IAP/EIS, much of 

the description of the affected environment (see Chapter 3) repeats information provided in the 

Amended IAP/EIS. And because the alternatives and knowledge about the resources and uses 

are so similar to that which formed the basis for analysis in the Amended IAP/EIS, the types of 

impacts (see Chapter 4) identified are very similar to those described in the Amended IAP/EIS. 

To assure clarity and for the convenience of the reader, however, the Supplement carries 

forward much of the analysis that was in the Amended IAP/EIS. 

The analysis of impacts has changed, though, to address the inadequacy identified by the 

District Court and to reflect changed circumstances and new information since the preparation 

of the Amended IAP/EIS. Changes to the cumulative impact analysis to address the court’s

concern focus on the relationship of oil and gas leasing and development in Northeast NPR-A on 

the one hand and the potential development and impacts from development in the Northwest 

NPR-A on the other. This discussion can be found in section 4.7.3.3, which describes how 

development that may occur under the Northeast NPR-A IAP/EIS’s Alternatives B, C, and D 

could, to differing degrees, facilitate development in Northwest NPR-A more than what may 

occur under Alternative A, and in the “Contribution of Supplement Alternatives to Cumulative 

Effects” sections of the subsections within section 4.7.7, which describe how impacts from 

development in Northwest NPR-A could differ among the alternatives considered in the 

Supplement for the Northeast NPR-A planning area. 

Several circumstances have changed since development of the Amended IAP/EIS that have also 

resulted in changes in the analysis. They include: 

• An increase in the price of oil—The Amended IAP/EIS’s analysis posited oil prices at no 

more than $30/barrel and presented development scenarios based on that price. Current 

prices are well above that figure, and the Department of Energy projects long-term 

prices of approximately $50 per barrel. While it is possible that actual development 

would not be greater than that analyzed in the Amended IAP/EIS, in order to reduce the 

chance that the Supplement’s scenarios would understate the amount of development 

that might occur, BLM presents new scenarios for development in this Supplement that 

are based on higher anticipated prices of oil. (For a discussion of BLM’s estimates of oil 

production and the scenarios for its production, see section 4.2.1.2.) 

• Considering commercial gas development—The Amended IAP/EIS did not analyze 

direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts from commercial gas development. There is no 

guarantee that the current efforts at the federal and state levels to encourage 

commercial gas development on the North Slope will result in a pipeline to bring gas to 

market. Yet important decisions on the long-term future of gas development on the 

North Slope will be made during preparation of this Supplement or shortly thereafter, 

and it is possible that a gas pipeline and North Slope gas development could be the

result. Consequently, the Supplement analyzes the impacts of commercial gas 

development both within the planning area as a result of decisions in this plan and the

cumulative impacts associated with gas development. (For a discussion of cumulative 

impact assumptions, see sections 4.7.2 through 4.7.6.) 

• Other cumulative impact assumption changes—Since issuance of the Amended IAP/EIS, 

the U.S. Minerals Management Service has initiated an EIS for oil and gas leasing in 

the Chukchi Sea and the State of Alaska has suspended consideration of a road that 

would connect Nuiqsut and NPR-A to the existing road network. The cumulative impact 

analysis has been revised to reflect these changes. 

Executive Summary ES-2 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

• Proposed listing of the polar bear—The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed listing

the polar bear as threatened on January 9, 2007. This Supplement analyzes impacts to

polar bears in this context. 

• Additional information—The Supplemental IAP/EIS’s impact analysis has incorporated 

relevant new studies of the area, including some related to resources and to global 

climate change. 

In addition, BLM, with the assistance of the North Slope Borough, has added new information 

regarding the state of, and the potential impacts to, public health (see Public Health sections 

of Chapters 3 and 4). This Supplement also presents potential new mitigation measures to

address adverse impacts to birds and public health in addition to the protective measures 

incorporated in the alternatives themselves as lease stipulations and ROPs. 

What are the major issues and focus of controversy? 

Although potential impacts to a wide variety of natural resources and to humans have been 

identified and analyzed in this planning process and are reflected in this Supplemental 

IAP/EIS, the focus of controversy is on the potential impacts of oil and gas development north

and east of Teshekpuk Lake. The 1998 ROD did not make this area available for leasing, but 

the three action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, and D) offered in this Supplement would make 

some or all of this area available for leasing. This area is considered to have high oil and gas 

value, but is also of great importance for waterfowl (including during the flightless molting 

period), caribou (for calving and relief from insects), and subsistence (both because of 

dependence on potentially affected caribou and because of subsistence harvesting on these 

lands). (For information on these and other resources and uses of the land, see Chapter 3). 

What alternatives is BLM considering? 

The Supplemental IAP/EIS considers essentially the same alternatives as were presented in the 

Amended IAP/EIS. (For more information on the alternatives analyzed in this Supplement, see 

Chapter 2, especially section 2.3 and Table 2-2). 

Alternative A, the no action alternative that would continue the management established in the 

1998 ROD, differs from the other alternatives in two fundamental respects. First, in contrast to 

the other alternatives, it would not make land north and east of Teshekpuk Lake available for 

leasing. Approximately 389,000 acres north and east of Teshekpuk Lake as well as 211,000 

acres in the lake would remain unavailable for leasing. Second, Alternative A would retain 

prescriptive stipulations, rather than adopt performance-based stipulations. While 

performance-based stipulations indicate what objectives shall be achieved, Alternative A’s 

prescriptive stipulations would continue to prescribe what lessees and other users can and

cannot do on public lands within the planning area. 

Alternatives B, C, and D would make portions or all of the lands north and east of Teshekpuk

Lakes available for oil and gas leasing. They also adopt performance-based stipulations and 

ROPs. These alternatives retain a setback around Fish Creek and retain or, in some cases, 

expand setbacks adjacent to other streams and lakes provided in the 1998 IAP/EIS. Alternative 

B would withhold from leasing about 213,000 acres northeast of Teshekpuk Lake. Alternative 

C would make all of the planning area available for leasing. Alternative D would defer leasing 

under Teshekpuk Lake indefinitely, but make all other lands available. It also would impose a

number of strict limits on surface activities around the lake. These limits include forbidding 

permanent oil and gas facilities, with the exception of pipelines, on approximately 217,000 acres 

ES-3 Executive Summary 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

associated with goose molting lakes to the north and east of Teshekpuk Lake, on additional 

lands east and northwest of the lake in important caribou movement areas, and on caribou 

calving areas south and southeast of the lake. Alternative D would also limit new permanent 

surface disturbance on seven approximately 50,000-acre lease tracts north and east of the lake 

to no more than 300 acres per tract. 

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

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

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

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

alternatives proposed in public comments on this document. 

It should be noted that BLM could choose to undertake a phased leasing approach. That is, it 

need not offer all lands that it decides should be classified as available for leasing in the first or 

any subsequent lease sale. This could result in enhanced protection of surface resources by 

giving BLM the opportunity to learn from exploratory drilling and development activities 

resulting from early lease sales, to modify the standards and requirements of the stipulations 

and ROPs, and to adopt additional permit requirements. 

BLM also considered a number of alternatives in addition to the four described above. However, 

the agency eliminated them from detailed analysis because they were outside the scope of the 

plan, failed to meet the purpose and need of the IAP/EIS, did not add substantively to impact 

analysis, and/or were contrary to a legislatively-supported Secretarial decision. (For more

information on alternatives considered but eliminated from detail analysis, see section 2.5). 

How much oil production has been estimated and what impacts have been identified 

for each of the alternatives? 

BLM used the best available information to project oil resources, but until much more 

exploratory drilling occurs in the planning area, there will continue to be great uncertainty 

regarding how much oil is located in the area and where it is located. (For more information on 

oil projections, see section 4.2.1.2). The table below summarizes the oil resource projections for

each alternative analyzed in this Supplement. 

Oil Resource Estimates for Each Alternative 

Alternative A B C D 

Oil (MMbbl) 2,900 3,350 4,050 3,700 

Impact analysis is also complex. Given that BLM does not know precisely where oil will be 

found, what types of exploration and development will occur in any particular area, or precisely 

what types and intensity of non-oil and gas activities will occur and where, the agency has had 

to project impacts that may occur to any resource or use of the land in any part of the planning 

area. It has done so using the best available information, incorporating data and analysis 

gathered or published since publication of the Amended IAP/EIS. (For a description of the

assumptions on activities that may occur under each alternative, see section 4.2). For a 

description of the impacts that may occur under each alternative, see sections 4.3 through 4.6 

and a summary of those impacts in Table 2-3 in Chapter 2). 

Executive Summary ES-4 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Impacts would be of several general types. Except for overland moves, non-oil and gas activities 

would generally occur during the summer, and be of short duration (e.g., aircraft flight or

landing) and localized (e.g., a research or recreational camp). These activities would be unlikely 

to have more than short-term and localized impacts. Seismic activities, overland moves, and

exploratory drilling would all occur during the winter when the ground is frozen and snowcovered and many species have migrated out of the area. These activities could briefly impact 

the species that remain through the winter. Their effects could linger into the following summer 

or longer, in the form of varied impacts to vegetation and soils, and range from the compression

of standing dead vegetation to crushed tussocks and dead or broken shrubs. In addition, should 

these activities coincide in time and place with subsistence activities, they could negatively 

impact that use and have ramifications for sociocultural systems and public health. 

The greatest impacts would be associated with oil and gas development. Placement of gravel 

drilling pads, roads, airstrips, and staging areas, and the activities that take place on them, as 

well as construction of oil and gas pipelines, would permanently disturb or destroy soil and 

vegetation; impound and disturb water; disturb, displace, or kill fish and wildlife; risk 

disturbing or destroying paleontological and cultural (archaeological and historic) resources; 

and potentially affect subsistence (by affecting species or impeding user access), sociocultural 

systems, public health, and recreation. The impacts from developing and using these facilities 

would vary by resource and use. Because the land likely to be disturbed is a very small 

percentage of the 4.6 million surface acres the BLM manages in the planning area, impacts to 

soil, vegetation, water, and paleontological and cultural resources would be minor. Impacts to 

fish, wildlife, subsistence, sociocultural systems, public health, and recreation would extend 

beyond the immediate vicinity of the disturbed ground and, depending on location and 

protective measures used, could be out of proportion with a development’s footprint as a 

percentage of the planning area. A crude oil or refined fuel spill that extended beyond a drilling 

pad, would increase impacts to a wide variety of resources and uses. 

Alternative C, which makes the entire planning area available for leasing, would have the 

greatest impact, primarily because it would likely lead to the most exploratory drilling and 

development of oil. Alternative A, because it makes the smallest area available to leasing, 

would have the least impacts. Alternatives B and D, which make more lands available than 

would be available under Alternative A, but not as much land as in Alternative C, would have 

impact levels between those of Alternatives A and C. 

Several potential occurrences could increase the level of impact to some resources under 

Alternative C, and to a lesser degree under Alternatives B and D, as compared to Alternative A. 

One is oil field development in the caribou insect-relief areas and core calving grounds to the 

south, east, and north of Teshekpuk Lake, which are used by the Teshekpuk Lake Herd caribou

and would retain no-lease or no-surface-activity protections under Alternative A. Development

in these areas could interfere with caribou movements and have some reproductive 

consequences, which could in turn impact subsistence hunters and those dependent on 

subsistence foods with potential sociocultural and public health ramifications. Secondly, 

development in the goose molting habitat north and east of Teshekpuk Lake could interfere 

with waterfowl breeding, brood-rearing, and molting activities. An oil spill in this area that 

reached lakes or other waterbodies used by waterfowl could magnify these impacts. 

Cumulative impacts are those that could occur both as a result of the action taken stemming

from decisions made in this IAP/EIS process and from other past, present, or reasonably 

foreseeable future activities. (For a description of the cumulative impacts, see section 4.7).

Non-oil and gas activities, such as commercial and subsistence hunting, development within 

ES-5 Executive Summary 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Native villages, and industrial activity in Europe and Asia have impacted resources on the 

North Slope in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. Air pollutants associated with 

industrial activities in Europe and Asia are believed primarily responsible for causing Artic 

haze on the North Slope. Development of military facilities and villages has disturbed several 

thousand acres of soil, water, vegetation resources, and fish and wildlife habitat, and these 

effects will persist indefinitely. Much of this development has occurred along the coastline, an 

area that provides important habitat for caribou seeking insect-relief, and for nesting and 

molting waterfowl. As a result of commercial whaling impacting bowhead whale and other 

whale stocks a century ago, limits are placed on the number of whales that can be harvest today 

by Native peoples of the North Slope. Subsistence harvests cause the loss of small numbers of 

waterfowl, caribou, and whales today, but populations of most subsistence species remain 

healthy and their harvest is an important contribution to the health and culture of the residents

of the North Slope. 

Oil and gas activities have had substantial impacts on natural resources and their users on the 

North Slope. Many of the impacts of past activities are likely to persist, and additional oil and 

gas activities both onshore and offshore will continue to impact resources and the people of the 

North Slope. In addressing the inadequacy in the Amended IAP/EIS cited by the district court,

this Supplement specifically points to the potential, under certain circumstances, for 

development in the northeastern part of Northwest NPR-A to be greater or occur sooner under 

Alternatives B, C, and D than under Alternative A, with potential associated additional 

impacts. Oil and gas facilities emit air pollutants. Over 17,000 acres of surface disturbance has 

affected soil, paleontological, cultural, water, vegetation, and fish and wildlife habitat resources 

on the North Slope and thousands of more acres are likely to be directly impacted by gravel 

mining or placement on the tundra. Much of the past disturbance occurred before the 1970s, 

and some has repaired itself through natural processes or through reclamation, but most effects 

of disturbance will persist for many decades. Some disturbed areas, such as gravel mine pits, 

now provide important overwintering habitat for fish. Oil and gas facilities have not only 

displaced caribou and other wildlife, but subsistence hunters also tend to avoid hunting near 

these facilities. For example, Nuiqsut subsistence hunters no longer hunt in traditional areas 

where oil-field infrastructure now exists, even though subsistence resources continue to be 

available. In avoiding infrastructure, subsistence users must travel further in search of fish 

and game than in the past. As oil and gas infrastructure expands on the North Slope, especially 

any expansion in high-use subsistence areas near villages, these negative impacts on 

subsistence, and their related effects on sociocultural systems and public health may be 

exacerbated. Greater oil and gas development, whether in the planning area or elsewhere on

the North Slope, however, would also offer new employment opportunities and new sources of 

revenue for federal, state, and local governments, which could be used to improve services. 

What is next? 

The first step after publication of this Draft IAP/EIS is yours. BLM welcomes comments on the 

Draft IAP/EIS for a period in the summer of 2007; see BLM’s website at: 

http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/planning/npra_general/ne_npra/ne_npr-a_supplement.html 

for the exact date that the comment period ends and information on ways to comment. BLM is 

especially interested in any corrections to the information presented in this Supplement and

your ideas for lessening impacts through mitigation measures. (For examples of mitigation 

measures introduced in this document, see for examples sections 4.3.8.5, 4.4.8.5, 4.3.19.5, and 

4.4.19.5.) Be as specific as possible with both corrections and suggestions for mitigation 

measures. The website will also host an electronic version of this Draft IAP/EIS and other 

Executive Summary ES-6 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

related documents. BLM will conduct public meetings at Barrow, Nuiqsut, and other villages 

near the planning area, as well as in Anchorage and Fairbanks, to gather comments on the 

Draft IAP/EIS. The meetings near the planning area will also serve as hearings to learn of 

concerns regarding impacts to subsistence in accordance with the requirements of Section 810 of 

the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Comments received on the Draft 

IAP/EIS will be considered and analyzed by BLM as it develops a Final IAP/EIS. 

ES-7 Executive Summary 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Executive Summary ES-8