U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Volume II: Appendices 

December 2018 

Prepared by: 

US Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

In cooperation with: 

US Fish and Wildlife Service 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

State of Alaska 

North Slope Borough 

Native Village of Kaktovik 

Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government 

Venetie Village Council 

Arctic Village Council 

Estimated Lead Agency Total 

Costs Associated with Developing 

and Producing this EIS

$1,200,000
The Bureau of Land Management’s multiple-use mission 

is to sustain the health and productivity of the public 

lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future 

generations. The Bureau accomplishes this by managing 

such activities as outdoor recreation, livestock grazing, 

mineral development, and energy production, and by 

conserving natural, historical, cultural, and other 

resources on public lands.

Cover Photo: Northward view in central coastal plain area 

near the Sadlerochit River showing gently rolling 

topography typical of the area. Natural oil indications are 

visible of an oil seep that occurs along the coast (Barter 

Island). Photo by David Houseknecht (USGS). 

DOI-BLM-AK-0000-2018-0002-EIS 

BLM/AK/PL-19/002+1610+F020 
Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program i 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

APPENDICES

A Maps and Figures 

B Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Resources in the Public Law 

115-97 Coastal Plain, Alaska

C Collaboration and Coordination

D Laws and Regulations

E ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

F Approach to the Environmental Analysis

G Potential Fossil Yield Classification System

H Water Resources

I Solid and Hazardous Waste

J Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals

K Fish and Aquatic Species

L Cultural Resources

M Subsistence Uses and Resources

N Environmental Justice

O Economy
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix A

Maps and Figures

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

APPENDIX A 

Maps 

1-1 Program Area 

2-1 Alternative B 

2-2 Alternative B, Lease Stipulations 

2-3 Alternative C 

2-4 Alternative C, Lease Stipulations 

2-5 Alternative D1 

2-6 Alternative D1, Lease Stipulations 

2-7 Alternative D2 

2-8 Alternative D2, Lease Stipulations 

3-1 Physiographic Provinces 

3-2 Mineral Occurrences 

3-3 Oil and Gas Infrastructure 

3-4 Hydrocarbon Potential, Alternative B 

3-5 Hydrocarbon Potential, Alternative C 

3-6 Hydrocarbon Potential, Alternative D1 

3-7 Hydrocarbon Potential, Alternative D2 

3-8 Paleontological Resources 

3-9 Hazardous Waste Sites 

3-10 Vegetation 

3-11 Wetlands 

3-12 Fish Habitat and Distribution 

3-13 Essential Fish Habitat and Agency Monitoring Stations 

3-14 Nest Sites, Observations, and Density of Pre-Nesting Spectacled Eider 

3-15 Post-Breeding and Fall Staging Common Eider 

3-16 Post-Breeding and Fall Staging King Eider 

3-17 Post-Breeding and Molting Surf Scoter 

3-18 Post-Breeding and Molting Long Tailed Duck 

3-19 Post-Breeding and Fall Staging Yellow-Billed Loon 

3-20 Frequency of Occurrence of Snow Goose Flocks with >500 Birds Observed During Aerial 

Surveys, 1982–2004 

3-21 Seasonal Distribution of the Porcupine Caribou Herd 

3-22 Seasonal Distribution of the Central Arctic Herd 

3-23 Porcupine Caribou Herd, Alternatives B, C, D1, and D2 

3-24 Polar Bear Habitat 

3-25 Bowhead and Beluga Whale Sightings 

3-26 Seal Sightings 

3-27 Coastal Plain EIS Subsistence Study Communities 

3-28 Kaktovik Subsistence Use Areas 

3-29 Kaktovik Caribou Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain 

3-30 Kaktovik Moose Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain 

3-31 Kaktovik Grizzly and Sheep Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain 

3-32 Kaktovik Furbearer Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain 

3-33 Kaktovik Fish Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain 

3-34 Kaktovik Bird Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain 

3-35 Kaktovik Vegetation and Wood Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain 
Table of Contents 

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-36 Kaktovik Whale Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain 

3-37 Kaktovik Seal Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain 

3-38 Kaktovik Walrus Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain 

3-39 Kaktovik Polar Bear Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain

3-40 Nuiqsut Subsistence Use Areas 

3-41 Nuiqsut Whales Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain 

3-42 Nuiqsut Seal Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain 

3-43 Nuiqsut Wolf and Wolverine Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain 

3-44 Arctic Village and Venetie Subsistence Use Areas 

3-45 Kaktovik Subsistence Use Areas and Areas of Hydrocarbon Potential 

3-46 Special Designations 

APPENDIX A 

Figures 

3-1 Wind Rose Plot for Barter Island, Kaktovik, Alaska 

3-2 Visibility Data for Gates of the Arctic National Park 

3-3 Stratigraphy of the Coastal Plain 

3-4 Generalized Surficial Deposits of the Coastal Plain Area 

3-5 Population Size of Three Caribou Herds in Arctic Alaska, 1977-2017 

3-6 Marine Barge Route—Dutch Harbor to Program Area 

3-7 Average Portion of Harvest of Porcupine Caribou Herd Between the US and Canada 

(1992-1994) 

3-8 Visual Resources Photo 1 

3-9 Visual Resources Photo 2 

Data from geographic information systems (GIS) have been used in developing acreage calculations and 

for generating the maps in this appendix. Calculations are dependent upon the quality and availability of 

data and most calculations in this EIS are rounded to the nearest one hundred acres. Given the scale of 

the analysis, the compatibility constraints between datasets, and lack of data for some resources, all 

calculations are approximate and serve for comparison and analytic purposes only. Likewise, the maps in 

this appendix are provided for illustrative purposes and subject to the limitations discussed above. BLM 

may receive additional GIS data; therefore, acreages may be recalculated and revised later. 
Introduction Program Area

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual

or aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled

from various sources. This information may not meet National

Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through

digital means and may be updated without notification.

Ka kto vik

U.S. Fish a n d Wildlife Service

U.S. Fish a n d Wildlife Service, 

wildern ess a rea

Na tive-co n veyed

Na tive-selected

Sta te

Na tive a llo tmen t

Air Fo rce

Public La w 115-97 Co a sta l Pla in

Outside BLM’s o il a n d ga s lea sin g a utho rity:

Excluded fro m Public La w 115-97 Co a sta l Pla in

Na tive o r o ther min era l o wn ership

Da ta So urce: BLM GIS 2018

Prin t Da te: 10/10/2018 Map 1-1

0 6 12

Miles
Alternatives Map 2-1

Alternative B

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kak to vik

No t o ffered fo r lease sale (n o n e)

Availab le fo r lease sale:

Sub ject to n o surface o ccupan cy

Sub ject to co n tro lled surface use (n o n e)

Sub ject to timin g limitatio n s

Sub ject to o n ly stan dard terms an d co n ditio n s

Pub lic Law 115-97 Co astal Plain

Excluded fro m Pub lic Law 115-97 

Co astal Plain o r o utside the BLM’s 

o il an d gas leasin g autho rity

Data So urce: BLM GIS 2018,

FWS GIS 2018

Prin t Date: 10/15/2018

0 6 12

Miles
Alternatives Map 2-2

Alternative B, Lease Stipulations

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

! Kaktovik

Data Source: BLM GIS 2018,

FWS GIS 2018

Print Date: 10/29/2018

0 6 12

Miles

Available for lease sale, subject 

to no surface occup ancy

Lease stip ulation 1—

rivers and streams

Lease stip ulation 4—

nearshore marine, 

lagoon, and barrier 

island habitat, exp loration

Available for lease sale, subject to

timing limitations

Lease stip ulation 7— Porcup ine

Caribou calving habitat

Available for lease sale

Subject to only stand ard terms 

and cond itions

Public Law 115-97 Coastal Plain

Exclud ed from Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain or outsid e the BLM’s 

oil and gas leasing authority
Alternatives Map 2-3

Alternative C

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kak to vik

No t o ffered fo r lease sale (n o n e)

Availab le fo r lease sale:

Sub ject to n o surface o ccupan cy

Sub ject to co n tro lled surface use (n o n e)

Sub ject to timin g limitatio n s

Sub ject to o n ly stan dard terms an d co n ditio n s

Pub lic Law 115-97 Co astal Plain

Excluded fro m Pub lic Law 115-97 

Co astal Plain o r o utside the BLM’s 

o il an d gas leasin g autho rity

Data So urce: BLM GIS 2018,

FWS GIS 2018

Prin t Date: 10/15/2018

0 6 12

Miles
Alternatives Map 2-4

Alternative C, Lease Stipulations

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

! Kaktovik

Data Source: BLM GIS 2018,

FWS GIS 2018

Print Date: 10/29/2018

0 6 12

Miles

Available for lease sale, subject to no 

surface occup ancy

Lease stip ulation 1— rivers and streams

Lease stip ulation 4— nearshore marine, 

lagoon, and barrier island habitat, 

exp loration

Lease stip ulation 7— Porcup ine Caribou

calving habitat

Lease stip ulation 9— coastal area

Available for lease sale, subject to timing

limitations

Lease stip ulation 7— Porcup ine 

Caribou calving habitat

Lease stip ulation 8— Porcup ine Caribou

p ost-calving habitat

Available for lease sale

Subject to only stand ard terms 

and cond itions

Public Law 115-97 Coastal Plain

Exclud ed from Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain or outsid e the BLM’s 

oil and gas leasing authority
Alternatives Map 2-5

Alternative D1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kaktovik

Not offered for lease sale

Available for lease sale:

Subject to no surface occup ancy

Subject to controlled surface use

Subject to timing limitations 

Subject to only stand ard terms and 

cond itions

Public Law 115-97 Coastal Plain

Exclud ed from Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain or outsid e the BLM’s 

oil and gas leasing authority

Data Source: BLM GIS 2018,

FWS GIS 2018

Print Date: 10/15/2018

0 6 12

Miles
Alternatives Map 2-6

Alternative D1, Lease Stipulations

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

! Ka ktovik

Not offered for lea se sa le 

a n d n ot a va ila ble for surfa ce

occup a n cy

Lea se stip ula tion 3—

sp rin gs/a ufeis

Lea se stip ula tion 7—

Porcup in e Ca ribou 

ca lvin g ha bita t

Da ta Source: BLM GIS 2018,

FWS GIS 2018

Prin t Da te: 10/29/2018

0 6 12

Miles

Ava ila ble for lea se sa le, subject to n o surfa ce occup a n cy

Lea se stip ula tion 1— rivers a n d strea m s

Lea se stip ula tion 2— Ca n n in g River 

delta a n d la kes

Lea se stip ula tion 4— n ea rshore 

m a rin e, la goon , a n d ba rrier 

isla n d ha bita t, exp lora tion

Lea se stip ula tion 5— coa sta l p ola r 

bea r river den n in g ha bita t

Lea se stip ula tion 7—

Porcup in e Ca ribou 

ca lvin g ha bita t

Lea se stip ula tion 9—

coa sta l a rea

Lea se stip ula tion 10—

Wildern ess boun da ry

Ava ila ble for lea se sa le, subject 

to tim in g lim ita tion s

Lea se stip ula tion 4— n ea rshore 

m a rin e, la goon , a n d ba rrier 

isla n d ha bita t

Public La w 115-97 

Coa sta l Pla in

Excluded from Public La w 

115-97 Coa sta l Pla in or 

outside the BLM’s oil a n d 

ga s lea sin g a uthority

Ava ila ble for lea se sa le, subject 

to tim in g lim ita tion s

Lea se stip ula tion 8— Porcup in e

Ca ribou p ost-ca lvin g ha bita t

Ava ila ble for lea se sa le

Subject to on ly sta n da rd 

term s a n d con dition s

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from various

sources. This information may not meet National Map Accuracy

Standards. This product was developed through digital means and may be

updated without notification.
Alternatives Map 2-7

Alternative D2

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kak to vik

No t o ffered fo r lease sale

Availab le fo r lease sale:

Sub ject to n o surface o ccupan cy

Sub ject to co n tro lled surface use

Sub ject to timin g limitatio n s

Sub ject to o n ly stan dard terms an d co n ditio n s

(n o n e)

Pub lic Law 115-97 Co astal Plain

Excluded fro m Pub lic Law 115-97 

Co astal Plain o r o utside the BLM’s 

o il an d gas leasin g autho rity

Data So urce: BLM GIS 2018,

FWS GIS 2018

Prin t Date: 10/15/2018

0 6 12

Miles
Alternatives

Alternative D2, Lease Stipulations

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

Map 2-8

! Kakto vik

No t o ffered fo r lease sale 

and no t available fo r 

surface o ccupancy

Lease stipulatio n 3—

springs/aufeis

Lease stipulatio n 7—

Po rcupine Caribo u 

calving habitat

Data So urce: BLM GIS 2018,

FW S GIS 2018

Print Date: 10/15/2018

0 6 12

Miles

Available fo r lease sale, subject to no surface o ccupancy

Lease stipulatio n 1— rivers and stream s

Lease stipulatio n 2— Canning River 

delta and lakes

Lease stipulatio n 4— nearsho re 

m arine, lago o n, and barrier 

island habitat, explo ratio n

Lease stipulatio n 5— co astal po lar 

bear river denning habitat

Lease stipulatio n 7—

Po rcupine Caribo u 

calving habitat

Lease stipulatio n 9—

co astal area

Lease stipulatio n 10—

W ilderness bo undary

Available fo r lease sale, 

subject to tim ing lim itatio ns

Lease stipulatio n 6—

Central Arctic and 

Po rcupine Herds 

sum m er habitat

Lease stipulatio n 8—

Po rcupine Caribo u 

po st-calving habitat

Public Law 115-97 

Co astal Plain

Excluded fro m 

Public Law 

115-97 Co astal 

Plain o r o utside 

the BLM’s o il 

and gas leasing 

autho rity

Available fo r lease sale, subject to

tim ing lim itatio ns

Lease stipulatio n 4— nearsho re 

m arine, lago o n, and barrier 

island habitat

Available fo r lease sale, subject to

co ntro lled surface use

Lease stipulatio n 8— Po rcupine 

Caribo u po st-calving habitat

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-1

Physiographic Provinces

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kak to vik

Arctic Co astal Plain

Arctic Fo o thills

Arctic Mo untains 

(Amb ler-Chandalar Ridge and Lo w land)

Pub lic Law 115-97 Co astal Plain

Excluded fro m Pub lic Law 115-97 

Co astal Plain o r o utside the BLM’s 

o il and gas leasing autho rity

Data So urce: BLM GIS 2018,

Wahrhaftig GIS 1965

Print Date: 10/15/2018

0 6 12

Miles
#

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-2

Mineral Occurrences

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

#

# #

#

# #

#

Unnamed

Aic hilik

River

Itkilyariak

Creek

Katakturuk

River

Fire Creek Hulahula

River

Unnamed

Kaktovik

# Prosp ec ts or mineral oc c urrenc es Public Law 115-97 Coastal Plain

Exc luded from Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain or outside the BLM’s 

oil and gas leasing authority

Data Sourc e: BLM GIS 2018,

ARDF GIS 2018

Print Date: 10/15/2018

0 6 12

Miles
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-3

Oil and Gas Infrastructure

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

John

River

Siksik River

Matsutnak

River

Staines

River

KogotpakRiver

Nularvi Rk iver

Sikrelurak River

Angun

River

Akutoktak

River

Ekalu

akatRiver

Okerokovik

River

NiguanakRiver

Tamayariak

River

KatakturukRiver

Egaksrak

River

Okpila

kRiver

SadlerochitRiver

AichilikRiver

Jago

River

Hulahula River

Canning River

Marsh

Creek

Carter

Creek

! Kaktov ik

We llhe ads

De v e lopme nt

Se rv ice

Exploratory

e Airs trip

" " Abov e -ground pipe line Data Source : BLM GIS 2018,

AOGCC GIS 2018

Print Date : 10/15/2018

0 6 12

Mile s

Public Law 115-97 Coas tal Plain

Exclude d from Public Law 115-97 

Coas tal Plain or outs ide the BLM’s 

oil and gas le as ing authority
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-4

Hydrocarbon Potential, Alternative B

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kakto vik

No t o ffered fo r lease sale (no ne)

Available fo r lease sale:

Subject to no surface o ccupancy

Subject to co ntro lled surface use (no ne)

Subject to tim ing lim itatio ns

Subject to o nly standard term s and co nditio ns

Hydro carbo n po tential

High

Medium

Lo w

Public Law 115-97 Co astal Plain

Excluded fro m Public Law 115-97 

Co astal Plain o r o utside th e BLM’s 

o il and gas leasing auth o rity

Data So urce: BLM GIS 2018,

FW S GIS 2018, USGS GIS

1998

Print Date: 10/15/2018

0 6 12

Miles
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-5

Hydrocarbon Potential, Alternative C

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kakto vik

No t o ffered fo r lease sale

Available fo r lease sale:

Subject to no surface o ccupancy

Subject to co ntro lled surface use (no ne)

Subject to tim ing lim itatio ns

Subject to o nly standard term s and co nditio ns

Hydro carbo n po tential

High

Medium

Lo w

Public Law 115-97 Co astal Plain

Excluded fro m Public Law 115-97 

Co astal Plain o r o utside th e BLM’s 

o il and gas leasing auth o rity

Data So urce: BLM GIS 2018,

FW S GIS 2018, USGS GIS

1998

Print Date: 10/15/2018

0 6 12

Miles
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-6

Hydrocarbon Potential, Alternative D1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kakto vik

No t o ffered fo r lease sale

Availab le fo r lease sale:

Sub ject to n o surface o ccupan cy

Sub ject to co n tro lled surface use

Sub ject to timin g limitatio n s

Sub ject to o n ly stan dard terms an d co n ditio n s

Hydro carb o n po ten tial

High

Medium

Lo w

Pub lic Law 115-97 Co astal Plain

Excluded fro m Pub lic Law 115-97 

Co astal Plain o r o utside the BLM’s 

o il an d gas leasin g autho rity

Data So urce: BLM GIS 2018,

FWS GIS 2018, USGS GIS

1998

Prin t Date: 10/15/2018

0 6 12

Miles
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Hydrocarbon Potential, Alternative D2

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

Map 3-7

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kakto vik

No t o ffered fo r lease sale

Available fo r lease sale:

Subject to no surface o ccupancy

Subject to co ntro lled surface use

Subject to tim ing lim itatio ns

Subject to o nly standard term s and co nditio ns

(no ne)

Hydro carbo n po tential

High

Medium

Lo w

Public Law 115-97 Co astal Plain

Excluded fro m Public Law 115-97 

Co astal Plain o r o utside th e BLM’s 

o il and gas leasing auth o rity

Data So urce: BLM GIS 2018,

FW S GIS 2018, USGS GIS

1998

Print Date: 10/15/2018

0 6 12

Miles
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-8

Paleontological Resources

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kaktov ik

Potential fos s il yield clas s ification

2-3

3

3-4

5

Water

Data Source: BLM GIS 2018,

USGS GIS 2015

Print Date: 10/15/2018

0 6 12

Miles

Public Law 115-97 Coas tal Plain

Exclud ed from Public Law 115-97 

Coas tal Plain or outs id e the BLM’s 

oil and gas leas ing authority
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-9

Hazardous Waste Sites

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kaktovik

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation—

contaminated site

!( Active

^ Clean-u p complete

") Informational

Data Sou rce: BLM GIS 2018,

ADEC GIS 2018, EPA GIS

2018

Print Date: 10/15/2018

0 6 12

Miles

# Resou rce Conservation and Recovery Act site Pu blic Law 115-97 Coastal Plain

Exclu ded from Pu blic Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain or ou tside the BLM’s 

oil and gas leasing au thority
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-10

Vegetation

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kaktovik

Data Source: BLM GIS 2018,

ACCS GIS 2018

Prin t Date: 10/15/2018

0 6 12

Miles

Herbaceous (m esic; n orth ern an d w estern Alaska)

T ussock tun dra (low sh rub or h erbaceous)

Herbaceous (w et; n orth ern an d w estern Alaska)

Low sh rub

Fresh w ater or saltw ater

Sp arse vegetation (n orth ern an d w estern Alaska)

Oth er

Public Law 115-97 Coastal Plain

Excluded from Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain or outside th e BLM’s 

oil an d gas leasin g auth ority
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-11

Wetlands

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kaktovik

Major river Freshw ater emergent w etland

Estuarine and marine d eep w ater

Riverine

Estuarine and marine w etland

Freshw ater forested /shrub w etland

Freshw ater p ond or lake

Missing d ata

Public Law 115-97 Coastal Plain

Exclud ed from Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain or outsid e the BLM’s 

oil and gas leasing authority

Data Source: BLM GIS 2018,

NWI GIS 2018

Print Date: 10/15/2018

0 6 12

Miles
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kak tovik

Fish Presence - ADFG Anadrom ous Waters Catalog

" Dolly Varden

" Pink Salm on, Dolly Varden 

and Whitefish

" Chum Salm on, Pink Salm on,

Dolly Varden and Whitefish

" Pink Salm on and Whitefish

Fish overw intering in spring s

Anadrom ous Dolly Varden

and Arctic Gray ling

Resident Dolly Varden and 

juvenile Arctic Gray ling

Arctic Gray ling

U nfrozen lak e (%)

0

1-25

26-49

50-74

75-96

* Spring

AWC stream

Coastline

Public Law 115-97 Coastal Plain

Excluded from Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain or outside the BLM’s 

oil and g as leasing authority

Data Source: BLM GIS 2018,

ADFG GIS 2018

Print Date: 10/15/2018

0 6 12

Miles

Fish Habitat and Distribution 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-12
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-13

Essential Fish Habitat and Agency Monitoring Stations

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

# #

Kaktovik

Es s ential fis h habitat - Arc tic Cod

Es s ential fis h habitat - Pink and Chum Salmon

# FWS gaging s tation

# USGS gaging s tation

# Climate monitoring

gaging s tation

Public Law 115-97 Coas tal Plain

Exc luded from Public Law 115-97 

Coas tal Plain or outs ide the BLM’s 

oil and gas leas ing authority

Data Sourc e: BLM GIS 2018,

NOAA GIS 2018,

ADFG GIS 2018

0 6 12

Miles
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-14

Nest Sites, Observations, and Density of Pre-Nesting Spectacled Eider

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kakto vik

S pectacled Eider n est site

2005

2014, 2017 ^

All spectacled eider

o bservatio n s fro m th e No rth

S lo pe Eider aerial survey,

1992-2006, an d th e Arctic

Co astal Plain breedin g

w aterbird aerial survey, 1992-

2014, aerial survey sig h tin g s

1999-2007

In terpo lated den sity

(birds/km 2) o f spectacled

eiders fro m bird o bservatio n s

co llected durin g th e ACP

aerial breedin g pair w aterbird

survey, 2012-2015. Birds

o ccured in lo w to m edium lo w

den sities w ith in th e pro g ram

area.

Hig h den sity (0.07)

Lo w den sity (0)

Public Law 115-97 Co astal Plain

Excluded fro m Public Law 115-97 

Co astal Plain o r o utside th e BLM’s 

o il an d g as leasin g auth o rity

Data S o urce: BLM GIS 2018,

FWS GIS 2005, 2014, 2017,

FWS ACP GIS 2007

Prin t Date: 10/15/2018

0 6 12

Miles
r

River

River

Po st-breedin g surveys 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-15

Post-Breeding and Fall Staging Common Eider

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

John River

Siksik River

Matsutnak River

Staines

River

KogotpakRiver

Nularvi Rk ive

Sikrelurak River

Angun River

Akutoktak

River

EkaluakatRiver

Okerokovik

NiguanakRiver

Tamayariak

River

Katakturuk River

Egaksrak

OkpilakRiver

SadlerochitRiver

AichilikRiver

Jago River

Hulahula River

Canning River

Marsh

Creek

Carter Creek

Beaufort Sea

Beaufort 

Lagoon

Hum p h rey Po in t

T ap kaurak Po in t

Jago Lagoon

Arey Lagoon

An derso n Po in t

Co llin so n Po in t

Bro w n lo w Po in t

Simpson

Cove

Tapkaurak 

Lagoon

Oruktalik 

Lagoon

Griffin Po in t

Angun 

Lagoon

Pokok 

Bay

Camden Bay

Data So urce: 

Dau GIS 1999–2007, 

Dau an d Larn ed GIS 2008, 

Dau an d Bo llin ger GIS 2009

(late Jun e/early July) 

Fall stagin g surveys

(late July/early August)

1999

2001

2002

2003

Data So urce:

Lysn e et al. GIS 1999, 2001–2003

Prin t Date: 10/15/2018 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

0 6 12

Miles

2008

2009

1999–2007

Public Law 115-97 Co astal Plain

Excluded fro m Public Law 115-97 

Co astal Plain o r o utside th e BLM’s 

o il an d gas leasin g auth o rity
r

River

River

Po st-breedin g surveys 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-16

Post-Breeding and Fall Staging King Eider

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

John River

Siksik River

Matsutnak River

Staines

River

KogotpakRiver

Nularvi Rk ive

Sikrelurak River

Angun River

Akutoktak

River

EkaluakatRiver

Okerokovik

NiguanakRiver

Tamayariak

River

Katakturuk River

Egaksrak

OkpilakRiver

SadlerochitRiver

AichilikRiver

Jago River

Hulahula River

Canning River

Marsh

Creek

Carter Creek

Beaufort Sea

Beaufort 

Lagoon

Hum p h rey Po in t

T ap kaurak Po in t

Jago Lagoon

Arey Lagoon

An derso n Po in t

Co llin so n Po in t

Bro w n lo w Po in t

Simpson

Cove

Tapkaurak 

Lagoon

Oruktalik 

Lagoon

Griffin Po in t

Angun 

Lagoon

Pokok 

Bay

Camden Bay

Data So urce: 

Dau GIS 1999–2007, 

Dau an d Larn ed GIS 2008, 

Dau an d Bo llin ger GIS 2009

(late Jun e/early July)

Fall stagin g surveys

(late July/early August)

1999

2001

2002

2003

Data So urce:

Lysn e et al. GIS 1999, 2001–2003

Prin t Date: 10/15/2018 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

0 6 12

Miles

2008

2009

1999–2007

Public Law 115-97 Co astal Plain

Excluded fro m Public Law 115-97 

Co astal Plain o r o utside th e BLM’s 

o il an d gas leasin g auth o rity
r

River

River

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-17

Post-Breeding and Molting Surf Scoter

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

John River

Siksik River

Matsutnak River

Staines

River

KogotpakRiver

Nularvi Rk ive

Sikrelurak River

Angun River

Akutoktak

River

EkaluakatRiver

Okerokovik

NiguanakRiver

Tamayariak

River

Katakturuk River

Egaksrak

OkpilakRiver

SadlerochitRiver

AichilikRiver

Jago River

Hulahula River

Canning River

Marsh

Creek

Carter Creek

Beaufort Sea

Beaufort 

Lagoon

Hump hrey Po in t

Ta p k a ura k Po in t

Jago Lagoon

Arey Lagoon

An derso n Po in t

Co llin so n Po in t

Bro wn lo w Po in t

Simpson

Cove

Tapkaurak 

Lagoon

Oruktalik 

Lagoon

Griffin Po in t

Angun 

Lagoon

Pokok 

Bay

Camden Bay

Da ta So urce: 

Da u GIS 1999–2007, 

Da u a n d La rn ed GIS 2008, 

Da u a n d Bo llin ger GIS 2009

Po st-breedin g surveys 

(la te Jun e/ea rly July)

Mo ltin g surveys

(la te July/ea rly August)

1999

2001

2002

2003

Da ta So urce:

Lysn e et a l. GIS 1999, 2001–2003

Prin t Da te: 10/15/2018 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

0 6 12

Miles

2008

2009

1999–2007

Public La w 115-97 Co a sta l Pla in

Excluded fro m Public La w 115-97 

Co a sta l Pla in o r o utside the BLM’s 

o il a n d ga s lea sin g a utho rity
r

River

River

Po st-breedin g surveys 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-18

Post-Breeding and Molting Long Tailed Duck

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

John River

Siksik River

Matsutnak River

Staines

River

KogotpakRiver

Nularvi Rk ive

Sikrelurak River

Angun River

Akutoktak

River

EkaluakatRiver

Okerokovik

NiguanakRiver

Tamayariak

River

Katakturuk River

Egaksrak

OkpilakRiver

SadlerochitRiver

AichilikRiver

Jago River

Hulahula River

Canning River

Marsh

Creek

Carter Creek

Beaufort Sea

Beaufort 

Lagoon

Hum p h rey Po in t

T ap kaurak Po in t

Jago Lagoon

Arey Lagoon

An derso n Po in t

Co llin so n Po in t

Bro w n lo w Po in t

Simpson

Cove

Tapkaurak 

Lagoon

Oruktalik 

Lagoon

Griffin Po in t

Angun 

Lagoon

Pokok 

Bay

Camden Bay

Data So urce: 

Dau GIS 1999–2007, 

Dau an d Larn ed GIS 2008, 

Dau an d Bo llin ger GIS 2009

(late Jun e/early July)

Fall stagin g surveys

(late July/early August)

1999

2001

2002

2003

Data So urce:

Lysn e et al. GIS 1999, 2001–2003

Prin t Date: 10/15/2018 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

0 6 12

Miles

2008

2009

1999–2007

Public Law 115-97 Co astal Plain

Excluded fro m Public Law 115-97 

Co astal Plain o r o utside th e BLM’s 

o il an d gas leasin g auth o rity
r

River

River

Po st-breedin g surveys 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-19

Post-Breeding and Fall Staging Yellow-Billed Loon

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

John River

Siksik River

Matsutnak River

Staines

River

KogotpakRiver

Nularvi Rk ive

Sikrelurak River

Angun River

Akutoktak

River

EkaluakatRiver

Okerokovik

NiguanakRiver

Tamayariak

River

Katakturuk River

Egaksrak

OkpilakRiver

SadlerochitRiver

AichilikRiver

Jago River

Hulahula River

Canning River

Marsh

Creek

Carter Creek

Beaufort Sea

Beaufort 

Lagoon

Hum p h rey Po in t

T ap kaurak Po in t

Jago Lagoon

Arey Lagoon

An derso n Po in t

Co llin so n Po in t

Bro w n lo w Po in t

Simpson

Cove

Tapkaurak 

Lagoon

Oruktalik 

Lagoon

Griffin Po in t

Angun 

Lagoon

Pokok 

Bay

Camden Bay

Data So urce: 

Dau GIS 1999–2007, 

Dau an d Larn ed GIS 2008, 

Dau an d Bo llin ger GIS 2009

(late Jun e/early July)

Fall stagin g surveys

(late July/early August)

1999

2001

2002

2003

Data So urce:

Lysn e et al. GIS 1999, 2001–2003

Prin t Date: 10/15/2018 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

0 6 12

Miles

2008

2009

1999–2007

Public Law 115-97 Co astal Plain

Excluded fro m Public Law 115-97 

Co astal Plain o r o utside th e BLM’s 

o il an d gas leasin g auth o rity
Map 3-20
This page intentionally left blank.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-21

Seasonal Distribution of the Porcupine Caribou Herd

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

Gen era l distribution , a ll a n im a ls, p re-ca lvin g

Ap ril 1–Ma y 31

Yea rs of da ta : 34

Ca lvin g p eriod, just cow s a n d ca lves 

Ma y 26–Jun e 10

Yea rs of da ta : 37

Post-ca lvin g p eriod, just cow s

Jun e 11–30

Yea rs of da ta : 22

Mid-sum m er, a ll a n im a ls

July 16–August 7

Yea rs of da ta : 27

Ea rly sum m er, a ll a n im a ls

July 1–15

Yea rs of da ta : 33

0 15 30

Miles

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual

or aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled

from various sources. This information may not meet National

Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through

digital means and may be updated without notification.

Da ta Source: BLM GIS 2018,

Yukon En viron m en ta l

GIS 2018

Prin t Da te: 10/15/2018

Percen t of yea rs tha t ca ribou a re p resen t

 < 20%

20–30%

30–40%

 > 40%

Public La w 115-97 

Coa sta l Pla in

Excluded from Public 

La w 115-97 Coa sta l 

Pla in or outside the 

BLM’s oil a n d ga s 

lea sin g a uthority
Winte r Spring migration Calving

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-22

Seasonal Distribution of the Central Arctic Herd

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

Data Source : BLM GIS 2018, means and may be updated without notification.

Prich ard e t al. 2018, ABR GIS

2017

0 10 20

Mile s

Ke rne l d e nsity isople th

50% (h igh d e nsity)

75% (me d ium d e nsity)

95% (low d e nsity)

De ce mbe r 1–April 30

O e strid fly h arrassme nt

July 16–August 7

May 1–May 29

Mosquito h arassme nt

June 25–July 15

May 30–June 15

Late summe r

August 8–Se pte mbe r 15 

Post-calving

June 16–June 24

Fall migration

Se pte mbe r 16–Nove mbe r 30

Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain

Ex clud e d from Public 

Law 115-97 Coastal 

Plain or outsid e th e 

BLM’s oil and gas 

le asing auth ority
Ca lvin g p eriod, just cow s a n d ca lves 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-23

Porcupine Caribou Herd, Alternatives B, C, D1, and D2

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual

or aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled

from various sources. This information may not meet National

Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through

digital means and may be updated without notification.

Da ta Source: BLM GIS 2018, Yukon

En viron m en ta l GIS 2018, Prin t Da te: 10/15/2018

Altern a tive B:

Lea se stip ula tion 7— Porcup in e Ca ribou 

ca lvin g ha bita t, tim in g lim ita tion , 

Ma y 20-Jun e 20

Public La w 115-97 Coa sta l Pla in

Excluded from Public La w 115-97 

Coa sta l Pla in or outside the BLM’s 

oil a n d ga s lea sin g a uthority

Altern a tive C:

Lea se stip ula tion 7— Porcup in e Ca ribou ca lvin g ha bita t, 

n ot offered for lea se sa le or n o surfa ce occup a n cy

Lea se stip ula tion 7— Porcup in e Ca ribou ca lvin g 

ha bita t, tim in g lim ita tion , Ma y 20-Jun e 20

Altern a tives D1 a n d D2:

Lea se stip ula tion 7— Porcup in e Ca ribou ca lvin g ha bita t, 

n ot offered for lea se sa le

Lea se stip ula tion 7— Porcup in e Ca ribou ca lvin g ha bita t, 

n o surfa ce occup a n cy

Ma y 26–Jun e 10

Yea rs of da ta : 34

Ca lvin g p eriod, just cow s a n d ca lves 

Ma y 26–Jun e 10

Yea rs of da ta : 34

Ca lvin g p eriod, just cow s a n d ca lves 

Ma y 26–Jun e 10

Yea rs of da ta : 34

Post-ca lvin g p eriod, just cow s

Jun e 11–30

Yea rs of da ta : 22

Altern a tive B:

Lea se stip ula tion 8— Porcup in e Ca ribou 

p ost-ca lvin g ha bita t, required op era tin g 

p rocedure 23

Post-ca lvin g p eriod, just cow s

Jun e 11–30

Yea rs of da ta : 22

Post-ca lvin g p eriod, just cow s

Jun e 11–30

Yea rs of da ta : 22

Altern a tives D 1 a n d D2

Lea se stip ula tion 8— Porcup in e 

Ca ribou p ost-ca lvin g ha bita t, 

con trolled surfa ce use a n d tim in g 

lim ita tion , Jun e 15-July 20

Altern a tive C:

Lea se stip ula tion 8— Porcup in e Ca ribou p ostca lvin g ha bita t, tim in g lim ita tion , Jun e 15-July 20

Percen t of yea rs tha t 

ca ribou a re p resen t

 < 20%

20–30%

30–40%

 > 40%

0 15 30

Miles
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-24

Polar Bear Habitat

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^ ^

^

^

^

^

^ ^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^^

^

^

^

^

^ ^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^ ^

^

^

^

^^

^

^

Kakto vik

^ Po ten tial po lar bear den n in g h abitat 

(Durn er et al. 2006)

Po lar Bear h abitat (Durn er data)

Po lar bear critical h abitat

Barrier Islan d Un it

Barrier Islan d No Disturban ce Zo n e

Terrestrial Den n in g Un it

Sea Ice Un it

Public Law 115-97 Co astal Plain

Excluded fro m Public Law 115-97 

Co astal Plain o r o utside th e BLM’s 

o il an d g as leasin g auth o rity

Data So urce: BLM GIS 2018,

FW S GIS 2010, USGS GIS

2005

Prin t Date: 10/15/2018

0 6 12

Miles
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-25

Bowhead and Beluga Whale Sightings

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kakto vik

#

* Bo w he ad w hale sightin g

(2012–2016)

Be lu ga w hale sightin g 

(2012–2016)

5-mile co astal bu ffe r

Pu blic Law 115-97 Co astal Plain

Exclu de d fro m Pu blic Law 115-97 

Co astal Plain o r o u tside the BLM’s 

o il an d gas le asin g au tho rity

Data So u rce : BLM GIS 2018,

ASAMM GIS 2016

Prin t Date : 10/15/2018

0 6 12

Mile s
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-26

Seal Sightings

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kaktovik

# Bearded seal

Small u nidentified pinniped

" Unidentified pinniped

5-mile coastal bu ffer

Pu blic Law 115-97 Coastal Plain

Exclu ded from Pu blic Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain or ou tside the BLM’s 

oil and gas leasing au thority

Data Sou rce: BLM GIS 2018,

ASAMM GIS 2016

Print Date: 10/15/2018

0 6 12

Miles
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-27

Coastal Plain EIS Subsistence Study Communities

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

##0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

!. !.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

Shaktoolik

Elim Golovin

White Mountain

Nulato

Koyukuk

Galena Ruby

Manley Hot Springs

Nenana Chicken

Old Crow

 Fort

McPherson

Tsiigehtchic

Inuvik

Aklavik

Tuktoyaktuk

Dawson

City Mayo

Y U K O N

T E R R I T O R Y

C A N A D A

N O R T H W E S T

T E R R I T O R Y

C A N A D A

Minto

Kobuk

Kiana

Eagle Tanana

Noatak

Huslia

Hughes

Circle

Beaver

Ambler

Alatna

Wiseman

Venetie

Selawik

Rampart

Nuiqsut

Noorvik

Deering

Central

Bettles

Atqasuk

Shungnak

Kotzebue

Kivalina

Kaktovik

Coldfoot

Buckland

Point Lay

Livengood

Utqiagvik

Allakaket

Wainwright

Fort Yukon

Evansville

Prudhoe Bay

Chalkyitsik

Birch Creek

Arctic Village

Anaktuvuk Pass

Stevens Village

Chena

Hot

Springs

Circle

Hot

Springs

Dalton Highwa

GMU 26A y

GMU 24B

GMU 26B

GMU 26C

GMU 25A

GMU

24A

GMU

25D GMU

25B

GMU

20E

!. Subsistence study community

!. Canadian study community

#0 Caribou study community

! Other community

Game management unit (Alaska Department of Fish and Game)

Central Arctic Herd range

Porcupine Herd range

Public Law 115-97 Coastal Plain

Excluded from Public Law 115-97

Coastal Plain or outside the BLM's

oil and gas leasing authority

Data Source: BLM GIS 2018

Map prepared by: Stephen R.

Braund & Associates

Print Date: 09/26/2018

0 20 40

Miles
Kaktovik Subsistence Use Areas

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-29

Kaktovik Caribou Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kakto vik

! Caribo u, lifetim e prio r to 1979 Public Law 115-97 Co astal Plain

Excluded fro m Public Law 115-97

Co astal Plain o r o utside th e BLM's

o il an d g as leasin g auth o rity

Data So urce: BLM GIS 2018,

1) Pedersen 1979 2) SR B&A

2010

Map prepared by: Steph en R .

Braun d & Asso ciates

Prin t Date: 09/06/2018

0 6 12

Miles

Hig h

Lo w

Overlappin g

subsisten ce

use areas

caribo u,

1996–2006

2

1 !!
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-30

Kaktovik Moose Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kakto vik

! Mo o se, lifetim e prio r to 1979 Public Law 115-97 Co astal Plain

Excluded fro m Public Law 115-97

Co astal Plain o r o utside th e BLM's

o il an d g as leasin g auth o rity

Data So urce: BLM GIS 2018,

1) Pedersen 1979 2) SR B&A

2010

Map prepared by: Steph en R .

Braun d & Asso ciates

Prin t Date: 09/06/2018

0 6 12

Miles

Hig h

Lo w

Overlappin g

subsisten ce

use areas

m o o se,

1996–2006

2

1 !!
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-31

Kaktovik Grizzly and Sheep Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kaktovik

! Sheep, lifetime prior to 1979

Grizzly, lifetime prior to 1979

Public Law 115-97 Coastal Plain

Excluded from Public Law 115-97

Coastal Plain or outside the BLM's

oil and gas leasing authority

Data Source: BLM GIS 2018,

1) Pedersen 1979

Map prepared by: Stephen R.

Braund & Associates

Print Date: 09/06/2018

0 6 12

Miles

1

1

!!
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-32

Kaktovik Furbearer Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kak tovik

! Furbe are r Hunting, Circ a 1923-1983 Public Law 115-97 Coastal Plain

Ex c lud e d from Public Law 115-97

Coastal Plain or outsid e th e BLM's

oil and gas le asing auth ority

Data Sourc e : BLM GIS 2018,

1) Pe d e rse n, Coffing and

Th om pson 1985 2) SRB&A

2010

Map pre pare d by: Ste ph e n R.

Braund & Assoc iate s

Print Date : 09/06/2018

0 6 12

Mile s

High

Low

O ve rlapping

subsiste nc e

use are as

w olf and w olve rine ,

1996–2006

2

1 !!
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-33

Kaktovik Fish Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kak tovik

! Fishin g , life tim e prior to 1979 P ublic Law 115-97 Coastal P lain

Exclude d from P ublic Law 115-97

Coastal P lain or outside the BLM's

oil an d g as le asin g authority

Data Source : BLM GIS 2018,

1) P e de rse n 1979 2) SRB&A

2010

Map pre pare d by: Ste phe n R.

Braun d & Associate s

P rin t Date : 09/06/2018

0 6 12

Mile s

Hig h

Low

Ove rlappin g

subsiste n ce

use are as

fish,

1996– 2006

2

1 !!
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-34

Kaktovik Bird Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kak tovik

! Wildfow l, life tim e prior to 1979 Public Law 115-97 Coastal Plain

Exclude d from Public Law 115-97

Coastal Plain or outside the BLM's

oil an d g as le asin g authority

Data Source : BLM GIS 2018,

1) Pe de rse n 1979 2) SR B&A

2010

Map pre pare d by: Ste phe n R .

Braun d & Associate s

Prin t Date : 09/06/2018

0 6 12

Mile s

Hig h

Low

Ove rlappin g

subsiste n ce

use are as

e ide r an d g oose ,

1996– 2006

2

1 !!
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-35

Kaktovik Vegetation and Wood Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kaktovik

Vegetation, lifetime prior to 1979

! Wood, lifetime prior to 1979

Public Law 115-97 Coastal Plain

Excluded from Public Law 115-97

Coastal Plain or outside the BLM's

oil and gas leasing authority

Data Source: BLM GIS 2018,

1) Pedersen 1979

Map prepared by: Stephen R.

Braund & Associates

Print Date: 09/06/2018

0 6 12

Miles

1

1 !!
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-36

Kaktovik Whale Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kak tovik

! Whale , life tim e prior to 1979 Public Law 115-97 Coastal Plain

Exclude d from Public Law 115-97

Coastal Plain or outside the BLM's

oil an d g as le asin g authority

Data Source : BLM GIS 2018,

1) Pe de rse n 1979 2) SR B&A

2010

Map pre pare d by: Ste phe n R .

Braun d & Associate s

Prin t Date : 09/06/2018

0 6 12

Mile s

Hig h

Low

Ove rlappin g

subsiste n ce

use are as

bow he ad,

1996– 2006

2

1 !!
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-37

Kaktovik Seal Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kakto vik

! Seal, lifetim e prio r to 1979 Public Law 115-97 Co astal Plain

Excluded fro m Public Law 115-97

Co astal Plain o r o utside th e BLM's

o il an d g as leasin g auth o rity

Data So urce: BLM GIS 2018,

1) Pedersen 1979 2) SR B&A

2010

Map prepared by: Steph en R .

Braun d & Asso ciates

Prin t Date: 09/06/2018

0 6 12

Miles

Hig h

Lo w

Overlappin g

subsisten ce

use areas

seal,

1996–2006

2

1 !!
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-38

Kaktovik Walrus Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kak tovik

! Walrus, life tim e prior to 1979 Public Law 115-97 Coastal Plain

Exclude d from Public Law 115-97

Coastal Plain or outside the BLM's

oil an d g as le asin g authority

Data Source : BLM GIS 2018,

1) Pe de rse n 1979 2) SR B&A

2010

Map pre pare d by: Ste phe n R .

Braun d & Associate s

Prin t Date : 09/06/2018

0 6 12

Mile s

Hig h

Low

Ove rlappin g

subsiste n ce

use are as

w alrus,

1996– 2006

2

1 !!
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-39

Kaktovik Polar Bear Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kaktovik

! Polar bear, lifetime prior to 1979 Public Law 115-97 Coastal Plain

Excluded from Public Law 115-97

Coastal Plain or outside the BLM's

oil and gas leasing authority

Data Source: BLM GIS 2018,

1) Pedersen 1979

Map prepared by: Stephen R.

Braund & Associates

Print Date: 09/06/2018

0 6 12

Miles

1 !!
Nuiqsut Subsistence Use Areas

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-41

Nuiqsut Whales Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kak tovik

Whaling, 1973–1986

! Whale s, life tim e prior to 1979

P ublic Law 115-97 Coastal P lain

Exclud e d from P ublic Law 115-97

Coastal P lain or outsid e the BLM's

oil and gas le asing authority

Data Source : BLM GIS 2018,

1) P e d e rse n 1986 2)

P e d e rse n 1979 3) SRB&A

2010

Map pre pare d by : Ste phe n R.

Braund & Associate s

P rint Date : 09/06/2018

0 6 12

Mile s

High

Low

Ove rlapping

subsiste nce

use are as

bow he ad ,

1995–2006

3

1

!! 2
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-42

Nuiqsut Seal Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kak tovik

Se al, 1973– 1986

! Se al, life tim e prior to 1979

P ublic Law 115-97 Coastal P lain

Exclude d from P ublic Law 115-97

Coastal P lain or outside the BLM's

oil an d g as le asin g authority

Data Source : BLM GIS 2018,

1) P e de rse n 1986 2)

P e de rse n 1979 3) SRB&A

2010

Map pre pare d by: Ste phe n R.

Braun d & Associate s

P rin t Date : 09/06/2018

0 6 12

Mile s

Hig h

Low

Ove rlappin g

subsiste n ce

use are as

se al,

1995– 2006

3

1

!! 2
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-43

Nuiqsut Wolf and Wolverine Subsistence Use Areas in Coastal Plain

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kakto vik

Public Law 115-97 Co astal Plain

Excluded fro m Public Law 115-97

Co astal Plain o r o utside th e BLM's

o il an d g as leasin g auth o rity

Data So urce: BLM GIS 2018,

1) SR B&A 2010

Map prepared by: Steph en R .

Braun d & Asso ciates

Prin t Date: 09/06/2018

0 6 12

Miles

Hig h

Lo w

Overlappin g

subsisten ce

use areas

w o lf an d w o lverin e,

1995–2006

1
Arctic Village and Venetie Subsistence Use Areas

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-45

Kaktovik Subsistence Use Areas and Areas of Hydrocarbon Potential

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

!

!

Beaufort

 Lagoon

Hum phre y P t

Angun River

Niguanak R iver Griffin P t

Sadlerochit Rive

K

r

atakturuk

River

Canning River

Shaviovik

River

Kadleroshilik River

Kavik River

Foggy

Island

Bay

Prudhoe

 Bay

CAN AD A

B R O O K S

R A N G E

P rud hoe

Bay

Kak tovik

River

Sagavanirktok

River

Dalton Highw ay

Brownlow Pt

Mikkelsen

 Bay

Camden Bay

Hula

h

ula

River

Jago

Rive

And e rson P t

r

B e a u f o r t S e a

Demarcation

 Bay

Kongakut River

Egaksrak River

Aichilik

River

Ad d itional Kak tovik

use are as off the

m ap to the w e st at

Te she k puk Lak e .

Data Source : BLM GIS 2018,

1) SRB&A 2010

Map pre pare d by : Ste phe n R.

Braund & Associate s

P rint Date : 09/06/2018

0 6 12

Mile s

High

Low

Ove rlapping

subsiste nce

use are as

all re source s,

1996–2006

1

High hy d rocarbon pote ntial

E E

E E

Low hy d rocarbon pote ntial

Me d ium hy d rocarbon pote ntial

P ublic Law 115-97 Coastal P lain

Exclud e d from P ublic Law 115-97

Coastal P lain or outsid e the BLM's

oil and gas le asing authority
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Map 3-46

Special Designations

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

J a g o R i v e r

C a n n i n g R i v e r

O k p i l a k R i v e r

Kaktovik

H

u l a

h

u l a

R i v e r

Wild and sc enic river, suitable

Wild and sc enic river, eligible

Minimal management

Marine p rotec ted area

Marine p rotec ted area, interfac e

Public Law 115-97 Coastal Plain

Exc luded from Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain or outside the BLM’s 

oil and gas leasing authority

Data Sourc e: BLM GIS 2018,

NOAA GIS 2017, FWS GIS

2015

Print Date: 10/15/2018

0 6 12

Miles
A. Maps and Figures

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Source: Iowa State University (copyright: used with permission), Iowa Environmental Mesonet (IEM) 

website: http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/

Figure 3-1: Wind Rose Plot for Barter Island, Kaktovik, Alaska
A. Maps and Figures

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Source: IMPROVE 2018a

Figure 3-2: Visibility Data for Gates of the Arctic National Park
A. Maps and Figures

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Source: US Geological Survey (USGS 1998b) Fact Sheet 0028-02 Figure 3

Figure 3-3: Stratigraphy of the Coastal Plain
A. Maps and Figures

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Source: Clough et al. 1987

Figure 3-4: Generalized Surficial Deposits of the Coastal Plain Area
A. Maps and Figures

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Source: Lenart 2018

Figure 3-5: Population Size of Three Caribou Herds in Arctic Alaska, 1977-2017
A. Maps and Figures

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-6: Marine Barge Route—Dutch Harbor to Program Area

Source: Porcupine Caribou Management Board 2010

Figure 3-7: Average Portion of Harvest of Porcupine Caribou Herd Between the US and Canada 

(1992-1994)
A. Maps and Figures

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-8: Visual Resources Photo 1

Typical layout for central processing facility with airstrip and pipeline (Alpine CPF on State land).
A. Maps and Figures

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-9: Visual Resources Photo 2

Typical layout for exploration well with ice pad and ice road (Stoneyhill site in NPR-A).
Appendix B

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for 

Oil and Gas Resources in the Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain, Alaska

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program B-i 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

APPENDIX B. REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO FOR OIL AND 

GAS RESOURCES IN THE PUBLIC LAW 115-97 COASTAL PLAIN, ALASKA.................. B-1

B.1 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... B-1

B.2 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... B-2

B.3 Description of Geology ............................................................................................................... B-2

B.3.1 Undeformed Area .......................................................................................................... B-5

B.3.2 Deformed Area .............................................................................................................. B-5

B.4 Past Oil Exploration ..................................................................................................................... B-6

B.5 Oil Occurrence and Development Potential ......................................................................... B-6

B.6 Method and Assumptions for Hypothetical Development Scenario Projections ......... B-7

B.6.1 Surface Disturbance Limitations................................................................................. B-8

B.7 Hypothetical Baseline Scenario .............................................................................................. B-10

B.7.1 Leasing ........................................................................................................................... B-11

B.7.2 Exploration ................................................................................................................... B-12

B.7.3 Development ............................................................................................................... B-13

B.7.4 Production .................................................................................................................... B-18

B.7.5 Abandonment and Reclamation .............................................................................. B-19

B.8 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program EIS Alternatives Hypothetical 

Scenarios ...................................................................................................................................... B-19

B.8.1 Alternative A ................................................................................................................ B-19

B.8.2 Alternative B ................................................................................................................ B-19

B.8.3 Alternative C ............................................................................................................... B-20

B.8.4 Alternative D1 ............................................................................................................. B-20

B.8.5 Alternative D2 ............................................................................................................. B-20

B.9 Surface Disturbance Due to Potential Future Oil Development ................................... B-21

B.9.1 Production Facilities ................................................................................................... B-21

B.9.2 Support Facilities ......................................................................................................... B-21

B.9.3 Roads and Pipelines .................................................................................................... B-21

B.9.4 Gravel Mines ................................................................................................................ B-22

B.9.5 Potential Surface Disturbance Estimates ............................................................... B-22

B.10 Economic Impacts ...................................................................................................................... B-23

B.11 References ................................................................................................................................... B-26
Table of Contents 

B-ii Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLES Page 

B-1 Estimated Mean Undiscovered Petroleum Resources in the Undeformed ANILCA 

1002 Area ...................................................................................................................................................... B-5

B-2 Estimated Mean Undiscovered Petroleum Resources in the Deformed ANILCA 

1002 Area ...................................................................................................................................................... B-6

B-3 Estimated Hypothetical Development Time Frames ....................................................................... B-10

B-4 Estimated Surface Disturbance by Facility .......................................................................................... B-22

B-5 Hypothetical Projected Facilities and Estimated Surface Disturbance by Alternative ............. B-23

B-6 Projected Direct and Indirect Jobs: Potential Exploration, Development, and 

Production Phases .................................................................................................................................... B-23

B-7 Projected Direct and Indirect Labor Income: Potential Exploration, Development, 

and Production Phases ............................................................................................................................ B-24

B-8 Projected North Slope Borough, State, and Federal Government Revenues............................ B-25

FIGURES Page 

B-1 Conceptual Layout of a Stand-Alone Oil Development Facility .................................................... B-14

B-2 Conceptual Layout of a Caribou Area Stand-alone Oil Development Facility .......................... B-15

MAP Page 

B-1 Hydrocarbon Potential ............................................................................................................................... B-3
Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program B-iii 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Full Phrase

3D three-dimensional 

Arctic Refuge Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 

BBO billion barrels of oil 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

Coastal Plain Public Law 115-97 Coastal Plain 

CPF central processing facility 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EIS environmental impact statement 

Leasing EIS Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Environmental Impact Statement 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NPR-A National Petroleum Reserve Alaska 

ROD Record of Decision 

TAPS Trans-Alaska Pipeline System 

TCF trillion cubic feet 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

VSM vertical support member 
This page intentionally left blank.
Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program B-1

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix B. Reasonably Foreseeable 

Development Scenario for Oil and Gas 

Resources in the Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain, Alaska

B.1 SUMMARY

This hypothetical development scenario represents a good faith effort to project reasonably foreseeable 

oil and gas exploration, development, production, and abandonment in accordance with the Tax Cuts 

and Jobs Act of 2017, Public Law 115-97 (Dec. 22, 2017) (PL 115-97) Coastal Plain (Coastal Plain), and 

40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1508.8(b). Estimating the level of future oil and gas activity in this 

area is difficult at best. Timing and location of future commercially viable discoveries cannot be more 

accurately projected until these undiscovered resources are explored. The hypothetical baseline 

scenario projects development under standard lease terms and encompasses restrictions in the enacting 

legislation. Scenarios by alternative incorporate the management considered in the Coastal Plain Oil and 

Gas Leasing Program Environmental Impact Statement (Leasing EIS) into the hypothetical projections.

The Coastal Plain encompasses approximately 1,563,500 acres of federal land in the northernmost end 

of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (Arctic Refuge). Alaska Native allotment lands and Alaska Native 

lands that are patented or interim conveyed are excluded from the program area. 

Very little oil and gas exploration has occurred in this area, and there are no proven plays1 at this point. 

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that there is a 95 percent probability that the 

1002 Area (as per ANILCA) of the Arctic Refuge2 contains a technically recoverable volume of least 

5.92 billion barrels of oil (BBO). It says there is a 5 percent probability that the technically recoverable 

volume of oil could exceed 15.16 BBO. The mean estimate of technically recoverable oil for the 

ANILCA 1002 Area of the Arctic Refuge is 10.35 BBO. Of this, 90 percent was estimated to be 

economically recoverable at $55 per barrel (2005 dollars, approximately $70 in 2018 dollars; Attanasi 

2005). Alaska North Slope crude is currently priced around $65 per barrel (ycharts.com 2018), and the 

US Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that crude oil prices will continue to rise in the 

next 20 years (EIA 2018). More recent estimates published by the EIA estimate mean oil production in 

the Coastal Plain at 3.4 BBO produced by 2050 (Van Wagner 2018). 

Technically recoverable associated and unassociated natural gas resources are estimated at 7.04 trillion 

cubic feet (TCF; Attanasi 2005). Proposed gas pipelines connecting the North Slope to potential markets 

would first connect to better understood and established fields before connecting to the Coastal Plain. 

There are estimated to be 225 million barrels of natural gas liquids in the program area; some amount of 

natural gas liquids would be produced as a byproduct of oil production in some formations. 

 

1A play is a group of oil fields or prospects in the same region that are controlled by the same set of geological 

circumstances.

2

Similar in area and boundary, but not identical to the Coastal Plain program area boundary.
B. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Resources in the Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain, Alaska 

B-2 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

B.2 INTRODUCTION

This hypothetical development scenario provides an estimate of the levels of petroleum-related activities 

and associated surface disturbances under an unconstrained baseline scenario. It is also a discussion of 

how those projected activities may vary under each alternative. In addition, this document presents a 

description of the geology and the oil and gas resource estimates in the Coastal Plain and identifies the 

assumptions used to develop hypothetical projections. 

The petroleum-related activities projected in this hypothetical development scenario is useful only in a 

general sense. This is because the timing and location of future commercial-sized discoveries cannot be 

accurately predicted until exploration drilling begins; however, it is reasonable to expect that new 

technologies and designs developed in the future will augment exploration and development and will 

enhance the safety and efficiency of operations, while minimizing the effects of oil activity on the 

environment. To minimize the chance that the resultant impact analysis will understate potential 

impacts, the hypothetical scenarios described in this document represent optimistic high-production, 

successful discovery and development scenarios in a situation of favorable market prices. 

Current state-of-the-art technologies, methods, and designs are used to project hypothetical scenarios 

for future petroleum development. Petroleum-related activities include such major undertakings as 

conducting seismic operations; constructing ice roads and snow trails 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. 

Potential impacts caused by the extraction of energy resources cannot be assessed without estimating 

future activity on at least a hypothetical level. 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 resources is influenced by profit 

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

elsewhere. Consequently, future development and associated potential impacts are influenced 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. 

Until a transportation system to move gas to market is constructed, it is assumed that comingled gas 

produced with oil would be separated and reinjected into the formation as part of the reservoir 

enhanced recovery process. 

B.3 DESCRIPTION OF GEOLOGY

A thin layer of deposits covers the bedrock geology in most places in the Coastal Plain; therefore, 

information and understanding of the bedrock geology has been obtained primarily from geophysical 

remote sensing, observations in the mountains south of the area, and wells drilled west and north of the 

area (Bird 1999). As a result, localized geology is not as well understood as it is in most oil fields, where 

data collected from wells are used to inform geologic understanding. 

The geology of the Coastal Plain is split into undeformed and deformed areas, demarcated by the Marsh 

Creek anticline, which runs northeast-southwest across the Coastal Plain (see Map B-1, Hydrocarbon 

Potential). Northwest of the Marsh Creek anticline, the undeformed area rocks are generally gently 
Hypothetical Development Scenario Hydrocarbon Potential

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kaktov ik

Marsh Creek anticline Hydrocarbon potential

Hig h

Medium

Low

Public Law 115-97 Coastal Plain

Ex cluded from Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain or outside the BLM’s 

oil and g as leasing authority

Data Source: BLM GIS 2018

Print Date: 10/31/2018 Map B-1

0 6 12

Miles
This page intentionally left blank.
B. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Resources in the Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain, Alaska

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program B-5

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

dipping to nearly horizontal. Southeast of the anticline, the deformed area rocks show significantly more 

folding and faulting. Rocks with petroleum potential in the Coastal Plain area are mostly younger than 

Devonian and are divided into the Ellesmerian sequence of Mississippian to Triassic age, the Beaufortian 

sequence of Jurassic to Early Cretaceous age, and the Brookian sequence of Early Cretaceous to 

Cenozoic age (USGS 1998). The Ellesmerian sequence is up to two-thirds of a mile thick, primarily 

composed of equal amounts of carbonate and clastic rocks. The Brookian sequence consists of up to 4 

miles of marine and nonmarine siliciclastic deposits originating from the ancestral Brooks Range. 

The most likely petroleum reservoir rocks beneath the Coastal Plain are intrabasement carbonate rocks, 

Beaufortian sandstone similar to that of the Kemik sandstone or Thomson sand of local usage, and 

Brookian turbidite sandstone in the Canning Formation or deltaic sandstone in the Sagavanirktok and 

Jago River Formations. The timing of hydrocarbon generation relative to the formation of traps is judged 

to be favorable for the retention of oil in the Coastal Plain. Structural traps are believed to have formed 

before, during, and after oil generation and migration (Bird and Magoon 1987). 

B.3.1 Undeformed Area

Approximately 80 percent of petroleum resources are estimated to be in the undeformed northwestern 

portion of the ANILCA 1002 Area (USGS 1998). The identified potential plays in this area, in order of 

greatest to least potential, are the Topset play, Turbidite play, Wedge play, Thompson play, 

Undeformed Franklinian play, and Kemik play. Total undiscovered, technically recoverable resources 

from these plays are estimated to be 6.420 BBO (Attanasi 2005).

Table B-1, below, gives estimates of recoverable petroleum resources in the undeformed area. 

Development is expected to begin in the Topset play, which is estimated to contain over half the 

recoverable undiscovered oil in the program area. Initial interest is expected to be in test wells drilled in 

areas where seismic data reveals traps or where the formation is particularly thick. Areas where 

multiple plays overlap are also expected to receive early exploration and development interest. 

Table B-1

Estimated Mean Undiscovered Petroleum Resources in the Undeformed ANILCA 1002 

Area

Play Name Oil (BBO) Gas (TCF) Natural Gas Liquids 

(Billion Barrels of Liquid)

Topset 4.325 1.193 0.010

Turbidite 1.279 1.12 0.065

Wedge 0.438 0.226 0.005

Thompson 0.246 0.47 0.039

Kemik 0.047 0.116 0.010

Undeformed Franklinian 0.085 0.30 0.029

Total 6.420 3.424 0.159

Source: Attanasi 2005

Note: Totals are technically recoverable amounts.

Note: The ANILCA 1002 Area is similar in area and boundary, but not identical to the Coastal Plain program area boundary.

B.3.2 Deformed Area

Potential plays in the deformed area, in order of greatest to least potential, are the Thin-Skinned Thrust 

belt play, Niguanak/Aurora play, Deformed Franklinian play, and Ellesmerian Thrust Belt play. Total 
B. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Resources in the Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain, Alaska 

B-6 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

undiscovered resources from these plays are estimated to be 1.267 BBO (Attanasi 2005). Table B-2, 

below, gives estimates of recoverable petroleum resources in the deformed area. Plays there are 

expected to be developed only in localized areas if seismic data and test wells indicate a very promising 

field. 

Table B-2 

Estimated Mean Undiscovered Petroleum Resources in the Deformed ANILCA 1002 

Area 

Play Name Oil (BBO) Gas (TCF) Natural Gas Liquids 

(Billion Barrels of Liquid)

Thin-Skinned Thrust Belt 1.038 1.608 0.017

Ellesmerian Thrust Belt 0.000 0.876 0.018

Deformed Franklinian 0.046 0.86 0.046

Niguanak/Aurora 0.183 0.273 0.016

Total 1.267 3.617 0.096

Source: Attanasi 2005 

Note: Totals are estimated technically recoverable amounts. 

Note: The ANILCA 1002 Area is similar in area and boundary, but not identical to the Coastal Plain program area boundary.

B.4 PAST OIL EXPLORATION 

Due to a prohibition on oil and gas leasing until the passage of PL 115-97, very little exploration has 

occurred in the Coastal Plain. A single oil and gas exploratory well was drilled within the boundary of 

the Coastal Plain (although it was drilled on Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation surface estate, which is 

excluded from the PL 115-97 definition of the Coastal Plain). Results of the KIC#1 exploration well 

drilled in 1985/1986 have been maintained strictly confidential by the data owners, which are Chevron, 

BP, and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. A two-dimensional seismic survey was conducted by an 

industry group in the winters of 1984/1985 and 1985/1986 (DOI 1987). The data collected have 

contributed to every analysis of oil and gas potential in the Coastal Plain since. 

B.5 OIL OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 

Estimates of oil occurrence and development potential were developed based on the locations of the 

plays discussed above in Description of Geology. Areas where plays with larger estimated undiscovered 

resources overlap were considered as high occurrence potential, areas where only one or two plays 

with significant undiscovered resources overlap were considered moderate potential, and areas with 

only minor plays were considered low potential. The highest estimated potential areas are in the 

western and northern part of the Coastal Plain. See Map B-1, above, for a depiction of potential areas. 

Since no infrastructure exists in the Coastal Plain, developers are expected to follow oil occurrence 

potential very closely, rather than trying to build off existing infrastructure, as might occur in a field with 

existing development; however, the closest infrastructure outside the Coastal Plain is near the 

northwest border of the area. This coincides with the area of highest occurrence potential. Moving 

farther from the existing infrastructure near the northwest border of the Coastal Plain, areas would be 

increasingly less economical to reach; therefore, estimated development potential (which accounts for 

economic considerations in addition to resource occurrence) coincides with estimated occurrence 

potential for the Coastal Plain. 
B. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Resources in the Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain, Alaska

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program B-7

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

B.6 METHOD AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR HYPOTHETICAL DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 

PROJECTIONS

There are many uncertainties associated with projecting future petroleum exploration and development. 

These uncertainties include the amount and location of technically and economically recoverable oil; the 

timing of oil field discoveries and associated development; the future prices of oil and gas, and, more to 

the point, the many exploration companies’ individual assessment of future prices and other competitive 

calculations that play into corporate investment decisions; and the ability of industry to find petroleum 

and to mobilize the requisite technology to exploit it.

To address these uncertainties, the BLM has made reasonable assumptions based on the previous twodimensional seismic exploration of the Coastal Plain, the history of development in the National 

Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and other North Slope developments, its own knowledge of the 

almost entirely unexplored petroleum endowment of the Coastal Plain and current industry practice, 

and professional judgment. In making these assumptions, the BLM has striven to minimize the chance 

that the resultant impact analysis will understate potential impacts; therefore, the hypothetical scenarios 

are intended to represent optimistic high-production, successful discovery, and development scenarios 

in a situation of favorable market prices. 

The amount of infrastructure that would be necessary to develop the projected amount of oil is also 

estimated at upper, but reasonable, limits. For example, the assumption is that each satellite production 

pad could disturb approximately 12 acres and contain 30 wells (approximately 2.5 wells per acre); 

however, as ConocoPhillips develops newer well pads in the Colville River Unit (commonly referred to 

as Alpine) and the Greater Moose’s Tooth Unit, this suggests that, on average, pad sizes for that many 

wells may be closer to 10 acres (approximately 3.3. wells per acre). 

These estimates account for advances in technology that have allowed development on the North Slope 

to become less impactful on the surrounding environment. For example, the older well pads in Alpine 

had a ratio of 1.6 to 2.2 wells per acre.

The time frame used for the hypothetical development scenarios is the estimated minimum amount of 

time in which development of the Coastal Plain could reach the 2,000-acre threshold discussed below. 

Because there are very little data on and no infrastructure in the Coastal Plain, there would be a lag time 

between the first lease sale and the beginning of production in the area. The activities that are projected 

to occur and the estimated timing of those activities are further described in the Hypothetical Baseline 

Scenario, below. The overall minimum time anticipated for all wells to be completed in the Coastal Plain 

under any hypothetical scenario is approximately 50 years, recognizing the timeframe for production 

could be more or less than 50 years given the speculative nature of the development scenarios. Because 

it is unlikely that all projected wells would be producing at the same time, peak production from the 

Coastal Plain is anticipated at some point before 50 years, potentially as early as 20 years after the first 

lease sale. Once peak production is reached, production from a field is anticipated to continue for up to 

another 35 years, depending on resource production, market forces, and operator financial decisions; 

therefore, it could be 85 years or more after the first lease sale before all facilities described in the 

scenarios are abandoned and reclaimed. However, just as development is expected to occur in phases, 

reclamation would occur in phases. The first field to be developed could be reclaimed long before the 

last field is abandoned.
B. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Resources in the Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain, Alaska

B-8 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Additional assumptions, some of which also tend to support an optimistic set of hypothetical 

development scenarios, are as follows:

 Multiple lease sales would be held, with the first sale within first year after the signing of the 

Record of Decision (ROD).

 Processed area-wide three-dimensional (3D) seismic data would be available for licensing to all 

potential bidders at the time of the first lease sale.

 Industry would aggressively lease and explore the tracts offered.

 Economic conditions (particularly oil and gas prices) would be high enough to support 

development in the Coastal Plain.

 Undiscovered oil deposits would be discovered in all potential areas (high, medium, and low).

 Several industry groups would independently explore and develop new fields in the Coastal 

Plain.

 Operators would enter agreements to share road and pipeline infrastructure, where feasible.

 Discoveries could be announced any time during a 10-year period (primary lease term) following

lease sale, or during a subsequent 10-year lease renewal period (per 43 CFR 3135.1-6).

 Up to three anchor fields, with a minimum of 400 million barrels of proven producible reserves 

in each, would be discovered.

 Future oil production would use existing North Slope infrastructure, including the Trans-Alaska 

Pipeline System (TAPS).

 A plant for compressing produced natural gas into liquid natural gas would be located outside of 

the Coastal Plain.

 Production wells would likely have horizontal wellbores, with the lateral portion coinciding with 

the target formation.

 Each producing horizontal oil well would require a horizontal injection well.

 Once all wells are online for a field, the projected yield would be 100,000 barrels of oil per day 

(peak production) for approximately 3 years, with an 8 percent annual production decline.3

 The maximum production range from CPF to satellite pads is an approximately 35-mile radius.

 Production activities would continue year-round for approximately 10 to 50 years, depending on 

field size.

 Production would end when the value of production cannot meet operating expenses.

 Fuel for equipment operation would be barged or hauled overland.

 Gas would be vented or flared only in emergency situations.

B.6.1 Surface Disturbance Limitations

Section 20001(c)(3) of PL 115-97 states:

 

3

Peak production estimate is based on production projections for Willow and Pikka Nanushuk developments on 

the North Slope. Decline estimate is based on standard decline estimates from the State of Alaska and the 

estimates used in NPR-A analyses.
B. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Resources in the Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain, Alaska

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program B-9

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

SURFACE DEVELOPMENT—In administering this section, the Secretary shall authorize up to 

2,000 surface acres of Federal land on the Coastal Plain to be covered by production and 

support facilities (including airstrips and any area covered by gravel berms or piers for support 

of pipelines) during the term of the leases under the oil and gas program under this section.

The BLM interprets this provision of PL 115-97 as limiting to 2,000 the total number of surface acres of 

all Federal land across the Coastal Plain, regardless of whether such land is leased, which may be 

covered by production and support facilities at any given time. BLM is applying this acreage limit to nonleased Federal lands because Section 20001(c)(2) of PL 115-97 provides for the issuance of rights-of-way 

or easements across the Coastal Plain regardless of lease status and since in some cases production and 

support facilities (e.g., pipelines) may be constructed pursuant to such rights-of-way or easements. BLM 

is applying this limit to the total acreage of production and support facilities existing at any given 

moment in time, as opposed to the cumulative total acreage of production and support facilities that 

may ever exist, because the language “during the term of the leases” in Section 20001(a)(3) indicates a 

temporal limit was intended by Congress. Under this interpretation the reclaimed acreage of Federal 

land formerly containing production and support facilities would no longer count towards the 2,000-acre 

limit. 

The BLM interprets this limitation to generally refer to acres of land directly occupied by facilities that 

are primarily used for development, production, and transportation of oil and gas in and from the 

Coastal Plain. In applying that standard, 1) “facility” is given its ordinary dictionary definition which is, 

something that is built, installed, or established to serve a particular purpose; here, the development, 

production, and transportation of oil and gas in and from the Coastal Plain; 2) the limitation does not 

apply to surface disturbance indirectly related to or resulting from those facilities, as those surface acres 

are not “covered by” the facilities themselves; and 3) given the explicit language of PL 115-97 relating to 

“piers” for supporting pipelines, the limitation applies only to those portions of oil and gas facilities that 

actually touch the land’s surface. Thus, BLM interprets the types of “production and support” facilities 

that will count toward the 2,000-acre limit as including any type of gravel or other fill constructed facility 

which touches the land’s surface, to include: gravel pads used for processing facilities (including wells), 

production facilities, or pump or compressor stations; gravel airstrips or roads; and any other area 

covered by gravel berms or piers for support of pipelines. Examples of types of facilities or disturbance 

that will not count toward the 2,000-acre limit include facilities constructed with snow or ice (e.g., ice 

roads/pads) and the portion of facilities that do not touch the land’s surface (e.g., elevated pipelines). 

Facilities constructed with snow or ice have a fleeting existence, and thus this aspect of BLM’s 

interpretation is consistent with the temporal limit intended by Congress. Moreover, inclusion of such 

facilities would make Congress’s clear purpose – establishment of an oil and gas program on the Coastal 

Plain – impracticable. By referencing “piers for support of pipelines” as counting towards the 2,000-acre 

limit, PL 115-97 strongly implies that the elevated portion of pipelines that do not touch the ground do 

not count towards the limit. In addition, the BLM interprets “production and support facilities” to 

exclude gravel mines given that they supply raw materials for construction of oil and gas facilities but are 

not themselves oil and gas facilities any more than are mills that supply steel for construction of pipelines 

and other facilities.

The BLM employs this interpretation of Section 20001(c)(3) of PL 115-97 as an assumption in each of 

the action alternatives analyzed in the EIS. This interpretation limits surface use in any instance where 

the construction of facilities substantially disturbs the tundra surface but does not restrict the use of 
B. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Resources in the Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain, Alaska

B-10 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

winter snow/ice surfaces which melt away each summer and leave the tundra surface largely 

undisturbed. It also appropriately conserves surface resources and provides an incentive to rapidly 

reclaim impacted land while still allowing for a reasonable amount of practical and feasible oil and gas 

development to occur. 

B.7 HYPOTHETICAL BASELINE SCENARIO

This hypothetical baseline scenario projects an estimated projection of activity in the Coastal Plain, 

assuming all potentially productive areas will be open to leasing, subject to standard terms and 

conditions. The exception is those areas designated as closed to leasing by law, regulation, or executive 

order. The activities and methods described in the hypothetical baseline scenario are based on the 

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

For a further description of typical activities and methods in the North Slope, see Section 4.2.1.2 of the 

National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska Final Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 

(IAP/EIS) (BLM 2012).

The baseline hypothetical development scenario is meant to convey the most likely unconstrained 

development scenario, with no management restrictions except those mandated by law. The 

hypothetical scenario provides the mechanism to analyze the effects that discretionary management 

decisions under the Leasing EIS alternatives would have on estimated future oil activity. Development 

activities and methods are not projected to vary from the hypothetical baseline scenario unless noted in 

the descriptions of individual hypothetical alternatives scenarios. 

Table B-3, below, describes the general time frames in which hypothetical exploration, development, 

and production might occur in the Coastal Plain. As described in Method and Assumptions for Hypothetical 

Development Scenario Projections, a time lag of at least 8 years is expected between the first lease sale and 

the beginning of production. As previously discussed, the time frames below represent an optimistic, 

aggressive hypothetical scenario. Activities projected to occur within 5 years after the signing of the 

ROD are considered short term; activities projected to occur more than 5 years after ROD signature 

are considered long term. 

Table B-3

Estimated Hypothetical Development Time Frames

Project Phase Estimated Time from ROD 

Signature Projected Activities

3D seismic exploration Complete by the time ROD is 

published

Area-wide 3D seismic exploration

Leasing Within 1 year of ROD First lease sale

Exploration 2 years after ROD (winter)  First application for permit to 

drill submitted for exploration 

well

 First exploration well drilled

 Assumes discovery with first 

exploration well
B. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Resources in the Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain, Alaska

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program B-11

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project Phase Estimated Time from ROD 

Signature Projected Activities

Additional seismic exploration 3 years after ROD (winter)  Seismic exploration on lease 

block with discovery to locate 

future delineation exploration 

wells

 Process seismic data and 

determine location of 

delineation wells to be drilled 

the following winter

Additional exploration wells 4 years after ROD (winter) Drill 3 to 5 additional wells to 

define the prospect and identify 

satellite pad locations

Master development plan and EIS 5 to 6 years after ROD  Conduct NEPA analysis on 

master development plan for 

anchor field

 Continue drilling 2 to 3 

exploration wells to identify 

CPF and satellite pad locations 

Development 7 years after ROD  Begin laying gravel for anchor 

pad, begin CPF construction

 Continue drilling 2 to 3 

exploration wells to identify 

satellite pad locations

 Begin drilling production wells 

on anchor pad

Production begins 8 years after ROD  First production from anchor 

pad

 Winter gravel and construction 

on satellite pads

Production increases 9 to 40 years after ROD  All wells completed on anchor 

pad

 All wells completed on satellite 

pads

Development of additional fields 11 to 85 years after ROD  Construct facilities and drill 

wells in additional fields

 Production continues for 

approximately 35 years after 

reaching peak production in 

each field

Abandonment and reclamation 19 to 130 years after ROD  Plug wells that are no longer 

economically productive

 Remove retired equipment, dig 

up vacant gravel pads and roads 

and reclaim the area

B.7.1 Leasing

PL 115-97 mandates two lease sales: the first within 4 years and the second within 7 years. Under this 

hypothetical scenario, the assumption is that the first sale would occur within a year of the publication 

of the ROD for the Leasing EIS. Another assumption is that 3D seismic studies would have been 

completed by the time the ROD is published. A final assumption is that industry would lease areas 

offered and would follow up with an aggressive exploration and development schedule. 
B. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Resources in the Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain, Alaska

B-12 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

B.7.2 Exploration

The BLM estimates that approximately 900 square miles would be surveyed by 3D seismic vehicles.4

This would require travel by vibroseis seismic vehicles and smaller support vehicles. Vibroseis trucks are 

mounted on rubber tracks to minimize ground pressure. No air-guns or dynamite are expected to be 

used. Multiple vehicles could be used simultaneously miles apart to conduct vibroseis exploration, or 

convoys of four to five trucks could travel in a line, which is less common. 

It is assumed that cable-less geophone receivers (autonomous recording nodes) would be placed in lines 

perpendicular to source lines. Source and receiver lines would be typically 330 to 1,320 feet apart. 

Seismic operations would be accompanied by ski-mounted camp buildings towed by bulldozers or other 

tracked vehicles. There could be two to three strings with four to eight modular buildings in each string. 

Camps are assumed to move weekly. Seismic exploration will be further detailed in the seismic 

environmental assessment, which is in preparation. All seismic operations would be conducted in the 

winter to minimize impacts on the tundra (BLM 2018). 

Exploration wells are expected to be drilled to confirm fields indicated by seismic results. Initial 

exploration wells would likely be drilled vertically to the basement (approximately 13,000 to 15,000 

feet) to define the entire stratigraphic column. Water needed for ice pad construction and drilling muds 

could be imported from nearby lakes and rivers or from snowmelt; water demand would vary based on 

the site geology and the density of drilling mud required. 

A typical ice pad for exploration drilling is 1 foot thick and requires 500,000 gallons of water (DOI 

2005). Current drilling technology is self-contained, so there are no reserve pits that could leak or pose 

an attractive nuisance to wildlife. Traditionally, drilling muds and cuttings are placed in surface waste 

disposal impoundments, known as reserve pits. 

Using grind and inject technology, cuttings are now crushed and slurried with seawater in a ball mill, 

then combined with the remaining drilling muds and reinjected into confining rock formation 3,000 to 

4,000 feet underground in an approved injection well (DOI 2005). This reduces the environmental 

impacts of disposing of drill cuttings because it avoids the need to bury cuttings on-site or haul them to 

a landfill. Drilling muds and additives are reconditioned and recycled to the extent possible. Drilling an 

exploration well in a previously unexplored area may take weeks or months, depending on depth, data 

collection program, and borehole conditions. Once the well is completed, additional down-well testing 

and characterization can take up to a month (DOI 2005). 

Following a promising discovery in an exploration well, delineation wells may be drilled to further 

characterize the discovery. These wells require similar resource commitments and require about the 

same time for drilling as an initial exploration well. After drilling, logging, and other downhole evaluation 

activities are complete, exploration and delineation wells may either be completed and suspended for 

future use or plugged and abandoned according to regulatory requirements, with all wastes removed 

from the site (DOI 2005). 

 

4The 900-square-mile estimate is the size of a typical 3D survey, as witnessed in NPR-A and on adjacent state 

lands.
B. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Resources in the Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain, Alaska

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program B-13

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

B.7.3 Development 

For the purposes of this hypothetical scenario, the assumption is that economic conditions would 

remain favorable to produce oil from the program area. Another assumption is that economically 

feasible oil accumulations would be discovered in all potential areas and that multiple anchor fields (each 

containing at least 400 million barrels of proven producible reserves) would be discovered. Further, it is 

assumed that several different operators would independently explore and develop new fields in the 

Coastal Plain. See Figure B-1, Conceptual Layout of a Stand-Alone Oil Development Facility, for a 

conceptual rendering of a hypothetical anchor field and associated facilities. 

In caribou areas, potential roads would be built on north-south and east-west orientations to the extent 

possible to limit interference with caribou migration. Figure B-2, Conceptual Layout of a Caribou Area 

Stand-alone Oil Development Facility, shows how the hypothetical layout could be adjusted for caribou 

mitigation if deemed appropriate by permitting agencies. 

To protect the tundra, potential ice roads would be most likely used for most development activities. 

Ice roads are constructed seasonally and are used to transport drill rigs, modular units, and other large 

or heavy equipment for central processing facilities (CPFs) and other supplies. They are constructed by 

compacting snow using low-ground pressure vehicles (approximately 1 to 2 pounds per square inch). 

The compacted tracks capture more snow blown by wind until they are compacted again after a week 

or two of accumulation. Once accumulation is complete, larger tracked vehicles with higher ground 

pressure or wheeled vehicles, such as a water truck or front-end loader, compact the snow to the 

desired road width. Water is then dispersed on the compacted snow to create ice buildup. The rate of 

ice buildup in cold conditions is approximately 1.5 inches per day. Using ice chips shaved from frozen 

lakes can increase the buildup rate to 4.5 inches per day and reduce the amount of water needed by 

approximately 75 percent. The minimum ice depth for use by full-size vehicles is 6 inches, and roads are 

typically 35 feet wide. 

Ice road construction uses approximately 1 million gallons of water per mile, although use of ice chips 

can reduce water use substantially. Crews can construct about 1 mile per day (BLM 2012). Construction 

of ice roads for specific projects using traditional techniques may be limited by freshwater availability in 

the program area. Innovative techniques that minimize use of freshwater resources or identify additional 

water sources could allow for additional construction. Examples of these alternative sources and 

techniques are naturally deep lakes and pools along rivers that do not freeze to the bottom in winter, 

melting lake and river ice, trapping and melting snow, creating water reservoirs by excavating deep pools 

in lakes or along stream channels in conjunction with gravel removal operations, and desalinating marine 

water obtained beyond the barrier islands. Additional NEPA analysis at the site-specific level would 

assess water needs and measures to address water supply issues.

Potential snow trails could be used for smaller equipment, such as seismic trucks, camps, and 

maintenance vehicles. Low-ground pressure vehicles are used to pre-pack snow and groom trails if 

needed. Snow trails are typically thinner than ice roads and are wide enough for one vehicle only. If 

snow trail maintenance is necessary, a tracked vehicle would tow a rounded groomer to smooth out the 

trail.
B. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Resources in the Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain, Alaska

B-14 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure B-1. Conceptual Layout of a Stand-Alone Oil Development Facility*

*Facility locations and sizes are conceptual and are not to scale
B. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Resources in the Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain, Alaska

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program B-15

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure B-2. Conceptual Layout of a Caribou Area Stand-alone Oil Development Facility*

*Facility locations and sizes are conceptual and are not to scale
B. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Resources in the Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain, Alaska

B-16 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

In this hypothetical scenario, potential development would start following the discovery of an anchor 

field. The first anchor field discovered is expected be in the western half of the Coastal Plain, most likely 

in the Topset play. Potential development would likely begin with the construction of a gravel pad for 

wells, CPF, airstrip, storage tanks, communications center, waste treatment unit, and a camp for 

workers. Typically, these facilities occupy a total of approximately 50 acres (BLM 2012). Most equipment 

for construction, including the modules for a CPF, would be transported to the anchor field on ice roads 

from a barge landing. Camden Bay has been identified as the most likely location for a barge landing 

(DOI 1987), although it is possible that operators could use existing landing facilities at Point Thomson. 

A barge landing and an associated staging pad to store equipment and modules until ice roads can be 

constructed would typically disturb approximately 10 acres, including the barge landing and a gravel 

staging pad. An average of two barge transports per year is anticipated; the number of transports would 

vary based on ice conditions and the large equipment needed for upcoming development phases.

A seawater treatment plant could also be constructed along the coast, if needed, to source saline water 

for waterflooding, reservoir pressure support, or other subsurface uses. Groundwater aquifers or local 

lakes and rivers are typically the preferred water sources, due to the cost and maintenance 

requirements of a seawater desalination plant; however, due to the limited information about 

groundwater resources in the Coastal Plain, those sources may not be sufficient to meet water needs. 

Thus, for the purpose of analysis, it is assumed that a seawater treatment plant would be required. 

Seawater treatment plants from other Arctic developments require approximately 15 acres of surface 

disturbance.5 A road and seawater transport pipeline would be constructed from the seawater 

treatment plant to the CPF. Typical gravel roads in the Arctic require 7.5 acres of surface disturbance 

per mile (BLM 2012). 

Following the construction of a gravel anchor pad for a potential CPF, airstrip, wells, and worker camp, 

facility construction and production drilling is expected to begin. A CPF is the long-term operational 

center for production activities in an anchor field. It generally contains equipment for processing oil, gas, 

and water, as follows:

 Separators for oil, gas, and water, with an output of sales-quality oil

 Filters for produced oil to extract solids

 Processors to remove water and natural gas liquids from associated gas, followed by gas 

compression and reinjection into the reservoir through gas injection wells

 Compressors for gas and pumps for water injection back into the reservoir

In addition to a potential CPF, it is expected that a potential generator, airstrip, storage tanks, a 

communications center, waste treatment units, and a maintenance shop would be constructed on the 

anchor pad. Living quarters and offices may or may not be constructed on an anchor pad with the rest 

of the facilities. All potential buildings would be supported aboveground on pilings to accommodate 

ground settling or frost heaving. 

Potential production wells would extend horizontally in the target formation and could take 

approximately 45 to 60 days to drill. This rate of drilling allows approximately eight wells to be drilled 

 

5The seawater treatment plant and gravel support pad at Prudhoe Bay measure 15 acres.
B. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Resources in the Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain, Alaska

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program B-17

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

per year, thus taking about 4 years to drill the total of 30 wells on the average pad. Depending on drill 

rig availability, drilling could take place on multiple well pads at the same time. Drilling and completing 

each potential well would require anywhere from 420,000 to 1.9 million gallons of water (BLM 2012). 

Wells are expected to be hydraulically fractured for initial stimulation; however, this process requires 

less water than the multi-stage hydraulic fracturing used in unconventional reservoirs. Water flooding 

using parallel injection wells would increase oil recovery by pushing oil toward producer wells and to 

maintain reservoir pressure. Water demand for maintaining reservoir pressure is proportional to the oil 

production from the field; a field with a daily production rate of 50,000 barrels of oil per day would 

require approximately 2 million gallons of water per day. The potential anchor pad is expected to have a 

Class I or Class II disposal well, or both, which are used to dispose of industrial wastes and fluids 

associated with oil and gas production, respectively (EPA 2018). Solid, unburnable waste would be 

disposed of in large trash receptacles or other approved containers and hauled to approved off-site 

landfills. On-site burial of solid wastes is not anticipated.

It is anticipated that a potential production pipeline would be constructed to connect a CPF to the TAPS 

to move produced oil to market. Vertical support members (VSMs) are counted as ground disturbance

at a rate of approximately 0.04 acres per mile (USACE 2017). Potential pipelines would also connect 

each potential satellite pad to the nearest potential CPF. It is assumed that potential pipelines for water, 

fuel, and electric cables to supply satellite pads would also be run on the same VSMs. A potential 

pipeline to transport future petroleum production from native lands south of Kaktovik could be 

constructed across the northern Coastal Plain to connect to TAPS or other export infrastructure. 

Following the completion of a potential anchor pad, development is expected to begin on potential 

satellite pads around the anchor field. Potential satellite pads would consist of wells and the minimum 

amount of required equipment and pump production back to the nearest CPF via pipeline for 

processing. Potential satellite pads in the Coastal Plain are each anticipated to contain approximately 30 

wells and occupy approximately 12 acres of surface disturbance.6 In this analysis, satellite pads could be 

used to produce from areas of the anchor field that are not accessible from the anchor pad; 

alternatively, they could be used to produce from smaller fields that would not be economically viable if 

they needed a dedicated CPF.

Natural Gas Development

The most probable use of natural gas in the near term would be if Kaktovik were to build a pipeline to 

transport excess gas from nearby wells to replace imported diesel or fuel oil as the primary source of 

power and heat to the village. In the longer term, gas could be exported to markets outside the North 

Slope.

The State of Alaska is pursuing a plan to build a liquid natural gas transport pipeline from the North 

Slope to markets in Asia. The Chinese oil industry has expressed interest in partial funding of the 

project in exchange for a share of gas from the pipeline. Additionally, memoranda of understanding to 

sell gas to companies in Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam have been secured. The pipeline is scheduled 

to come online in 2025 (Energywire 2018). Gas transported through the pipeline is expected to come 

from established fields with proven reserves initially. If proven gas resources are discovered in the 

 

6Nanushuk DEIS measured 2.75 acres of pad per well; Alpine well-head area is approximately 2.5 acres per well for 

newer well pads (USACE 2017).
B. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Resources in the Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain, Alaska

B-18 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Coastal Plain they could be connected to the pipeline to maintain capacity as the primary fields are 

depleted. Estimated potential natural gas production from the Coastal Plain ranges from 0 to 7 TCF of 

gas produced (Attanasi 2005). These production estimates do not include gas that would be reinjected 

into the formation to maintain reservoir pressure. 

If natural gas resources were to be developed, the addition of potential gas compression equipment to 

existing CPF pads in oil fields would result in an approximately 13 additional acres of ground disturbance 

per CPF for gas compression and pumping equipment. Potential gas pipelines are expected to be 

installed on the same VSMs as oil pipelines, so no additional acres for potential gas pipelines would be 

disturbed. 

Unconventional Development

No unconventional development is anticipated in the Coastal Plain in the period analyzed in this 

hypothetical development scenario. There is currently no unconventional oil and gas production on 

Alaska’s North Slope; due to the high costs of and difficult operating conditions in the Arctic, the 

viability of hydraulic fracturing to produce from unconventional petroleum resources has not been 

proven, from a technology or commercial viability standpoint (BLM 2012). Coal bed methane potential 

appears low, and its production is unlikely due to a lack of infrastructure to transport methane gas from

northern Alaska to market. 

B.7.4 Production

Once all wells in a development are online, production is anticipated to peak at an estimated 100,000 

barrels per day7 from each field after 3 years. From that point onward, production is estimated to 

decline at a rate of approximately 8 percent per year.8 Produced resources would be processed at a 

CPF to separate water and gas from salable oil and natural gas liquids. Water and gas would be 

reinjected into the formation to enhance oil recovery; oil and natural gas liquids would be shipped to 

market, likely via TAPS. 

Field production can last from 10 to 50 years before abandonment (BLM 2012). In the Coastal Plain, 

assuming the 100,000 barrel-per-day peak production and the 8 percent decline per year, it would take 

an estimated 35 years after reaching peak production to get to the point of abandoning a potential field. 

Reinjecting produced gas and water helps maintain oil reservoir energy and improve hydrocarbon 

recovery efficiency by pushing oil toward the production wells, increasing the ultimate oil recovery. 

Associated gas and water injection wells are needed where no gas sales line exists and where water 

disposal is not allowed at the surface (BLM 2012).

Depending on market forces, the size and number of fields discovered, and the timing of development, 

the projected ultimate recovery in the Coastal Plain is estimated to be anywhere from 1.5 BBO to 10 

BBO, based on the estimated daily production rate for the two to four main developments. Hypothetical 

production rates and estimated ultimate recovery are not expected to change significantly under any of 

the alternatives. This is because the management under the alternatives is expected to change the 

configuration of facilities but not the total amount of production. Minor changes in the amount and time 

 

7

Estimate based on production projections for Willow and Pikka Nanushuk developments on the North Slope.

8

Estimate based on standard decline estimates from the State of Alaska and the estimates used in NPR-A analyses.
B. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Resources in the Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain, Alaska

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program B-19

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

sequence of production cannot be predicted at this time, given the limited data on the formations, 

reservoirs, and resources in the Coastal Plain.

B.7.5 Abandonment and Reclamation 

Abandonment and reclamation occur once a well pad or field is no longer producing enough oil to cover 

costs. Typically, abandonment and reclamation take from 2 to 5 years following the termination of 

production (BLM 2012). Wells are plugged with cement to prevent fluid migration between formations, 

and the well casing is cut and plugged below the surface and buried. On-site equipment, facilities, and 

solid wastes are removed from the site. Gravel from pads and roads would be removed and reused in 

other areas or placed back in the gravel mine it was extracted from. Gravel pits that are not refilled 

would have side slopes constructed and would be reclaimed as wildlife ponds. Pipelines and VSMs would 

be removed and scrapped or reused in other developments. 

Once all satellite pads feeding to a CPF are no longer producing or when the flow of produced oil is 

reduced to the point that operation is no longer economically viable, the CPF would be 

decommissioned. Following reclamation, the acreage would be regained against the 2,000-acre surface 

disturbance limit. This could allow for additional development of future fields as initial development is 

reclaimed. 

B.8 COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM EIS ALTERNATIVES 

HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS

B.8.1 Alternative A

Under Alternative A (the No Action Alternative), no federal minerals in the Coastal Plain would be 

offered for future oil and gas lease sales following the ROD for the Leasing EIS. Alternative A would not 

include the direction under PL 115-97 to establish and administer a competitive oil and gas program for 

leasing, developing, producing, and transporting oil and gas in and from the Coastal Plain in the Arctic 

Refuge. Under this alternative, current management actions would be maintained, and resource trends 

would continue, as described in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Revised Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (USFWS 2015). Alternative A is being considered to provide a baseline for the 

comparison of impacts under the action alternatives. 

Because no leasing, exploration, or development would occur under this alternative, no production 

would occur, and no surface would be disturbed. 

B.8.2 Alternative B

Due to minimal restrictions and stipulations under this alternative, hypothetical development would be 

expected to occur in approximately the same manner as the hypothetical baseline scenario. In the long 

term, four CPFs are projected to be built. Hypothetically, this could include two in the high potential 

area, one in the medium potential area south of Kaktovik, and one in the low potential area. This 

hypothetical scenario includes the possibility that one CPF could be located on state or native lands. 

Approximately 17 satellite pads are projected to be developed (in addition to the four production pads 

associated with the CPFs), and it is estimated that approximately 208 miles of gravel road would be 

needed to connect facilities. 

It is projected that one seawater treatment plant and at least one barge landing and storage pad would 

be needed under this hypothetical scenario. It is possible that one or more of the CPF development 
B. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Resources in the Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain, Alaska

B-20 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

clusters under the hypothetical scenario would be roadless. This would entail an expanded airstrip at 

the CPF with the capacity to handle the larger cargo planes that would be required. In a hypothetical 

roadless development scenario, it is expected that service roads would still connect satellite pads to the 

central CPF, so no airstrips would be required at satellites. 

An ice road would be constructed each winter under this hypothetical scenario to transport larger and 

heavier supply items required for the coming year. Any equipment or supplies not transported during 

the winter would need to be flown in. Additional flights would be needed, compared to a hypothetical 

roaded development. Roadless development would depend on sufficient water resources for the 

construction of ice roads each winter. Under the hypothetical development scenario for this alternative, 

it is expected that the 2,000-acre surface disturbance cap would be reached. See Surface Disturbance Due 

to Oil and Gas, below, for more details on the surface disturbance projected to be created under the 

hypothetical development scenario for this alternative. 

B.8.3 Alternative C

Under this alternative, hypothetical development would be expected to occur in approximately the 

same manner as the hypothetical baseline scenario. In the long term, three CPFs are projected to be 

built under a hypothetical scenario. This could include two in the high potential area and one in the 

medium potential area south of Kaktovik. Approximately 18 satellite pads are projected to be developed 

under a hypothetical scenario, in addition to the three production pads associated with the CPFs. It is 

estimated that approximately 213 miles of gravel road would be needed to connect facilities, and one 

seawater treatment plant and one barge landing and storage pad would be needed under a hypothetical 

scenario. Under the hypothetical development scenario for this alternative, it is expected that the 2,000-

acre surface disturbance cap would be reached. See Surface Disturbance Due to Oil and Gas, below, for 

more details on the surface disturbance projected to be created under the hypothetical development 

scenario for this alternative.

B.8.4 Alternative D1

Due to restrictions and stipulations under this alternative, the potential locations for drill pads and CPFs 

under a hypothetical development scenario could be limited, and pad configurations could change. In the 

long term, two CPFs are projected to be built under a hypothetical scenario. Typically, this could include 

one in the high potential area and one in the medium potential area south of Kaktovik. The assumption 

is that approximately 21 satellite pads would be developed under this hypothetical scenario, in addition 

to the two production pads associated with the CPFs. It is estimated that approximately 218 miles of 

gravel road would be needed to connect facilities, and one seawater treatment plant and one barge 

landing and storage pad would be needed under a hypothetical scenario. Under the hypothetical 

development scenario for this alternative the 2,000-acre surface disturbance cap is expected to be 

reached. See Surface Disturbance Due to Oil and Gas, below, for more details on the surface disturbance 

projected to be created under the hypothetical development scenario for this alternative.

B.8.5 Alternative D2

Due to restrictions and stipulations under this alternative, the potential locations for drill pads and CPFs 

under a hypothetical development scenario could be limited, and pad configurations could change. In the 

long term, two CPFs are expected to be built under a hypothetical scenario. Typically, this could include 

one in the high potential area and one in the medium potential area south of Kaktovik. The assumption 

is that approximately 21 satellite pads would be developed under a hypothetical development scenario, 
B. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Resources in the Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain, Alaska

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program B-21

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

in addition to the two production pads associated with the CPFs. It is estimated that approximately 217 

miles of gravel road would be needed to connect facilities, and one seawater treatment plant and one 

barge landing and storage pad would be needed under a hypothetical scenario. Under the hypothetical 

development scenario for this alternative, the 2,000-acre surface disturbance cap is expected to be 

reached. See Surface Disturbance Due to Oil and Gas, below, for more details on the surface disturbance 

projected to be created under the hypothetical development scenario for this alternative. Because a 

timing limitation stipulation would be applied to the entire Coastal Plain under this alternative, the time 

frames for reaching peak production could be extended, compared with the other action alternatives.

B.9 SURFACE DISTURBANCE DUE TO POTENTIAL FUTURE OIL DEVELOPMENT

B.9.1 Production Facilities

A CPF is the operational center for long-term production. A typical pad for a CPF and associated 

facilities, which include an airstrip, workers camp, and production well pad, is approximately 50 acres 

(BLM 2012). Similar projects estimate gravel needs at 10,000 cubic yards per acre (BLM 2012), for a 

total of 500,000 cubic yards per 50-acre CPF. 

A typical satellite well pad associated with potential future development in the Coastal Plain is projected 

to have approximately 30 wells and occupy approximately 12 acres. A well pad of this size would 

require approximately 120,000 cubic yards of gravel.9 Pads would be constructed to a thickness 

sufficient to maintain a stable thermal regime. This hypothetical scenario assumes an approximately 5-

foot thickness, based on data from Point Thomson (USACE 2012).

B.9.2 Support Facilities

A seawater treatment plant supplies water needed for drilling and water flooding. The total area for 

comparable Arctic seawater treatment plants and their required support pads is approximately 15 acres. 

A potential future pad of this size would require approximately 150,000 cubic yards of gravel. 

B.9.3 Roads and Pipelines 

Roads from similar oil and gas developments create a ground disturbance of approximately 7.5 acres per 

mile (BLM 2012). Roads are projected to be the greatest source of disturbance associated with potential 

future petroleum development in the Coastal Plain. Depending on the hypothetical development 

scenario for each alternative, anywhere from an estimated 1,550 to 1,650 acres of road could be built. 

Road requirements are somewhat elastic in that operators could route roads through Native or State 

lands or even build some roadless developments if there were a possibility of the 2,000-acre disturbance 

cap being exceeded. 

Potential pipelines would be used to transport oil to the potential CPFs and eventually to TAPS. They 

are also used to transport water, fuel, and electricity to satellite pads. Pipeline VSMs are counted toward 

the 2,000-acre disturbance cap, but spans are not. VSMs in the Arctic create approximately 0.04 acres of 

surface disturbance per pipeline mile (BLM 2012). The estimate is that approximately 210 to 250 miles 

of pipeline would be constructed in the Coastal Plain under the hypothetical development scenarios for 

each alternative, depending on field design; this would disturb approximately 8.4 to 10 acres of ground.

 

9Based on gravel need estimates from NPR-A IAP/EIS (BLM 2012).
B. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Resources in the Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain, Alaska

B-22 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

B.9.4 Gravel Mines

Potential pits would be constructed to supply gravel needs for pads and roads related to potential future 

development. It is estimated that between 12,600,000 and 12,900,000 cubic yards of gravel would be 

required to construct roads, airstrips and pads for wells, CPFs, seawater treatment plants and storage 

under the hypothetical development scenarios for each alternative. Gravel could be sourced from hard 

rock or unconsolidated sand and gravel deposits, depending on what sources are available in the area 

surrounding development. Due to the number of outcrops and surface deposits in the Coastal Plain, 

potential pits are expected to be constructed next to facilities or roads used for satellite access, and 

additional road construction is not expected to be needed to access potential gravel mines. 

In estimating potential gravel mine sizes, a low-disturbance case was created, assuming that potential pits 

would be excavated to a 50-foot depth as is industry standard practice. A maximum-disturbance case 

assumes an average pit depth of 25 feet in the case of technical challenges, such as water infiltration or 

material not adhering well enough in side slopes to reach full excavation depth. 

In the low-disturbance case, factoring in additional acreage for side slopes and overburden storage, it is 

estimated that approximately 165 to 176 acres of surface disturbance would be required to supply all 

Coastal Plain gravel needs from potential development in the future; in the maximum-disturbance case, 

up to 320 acres of surface disturbance could be required. 

The BLM’s interpretation of PL 115-97 is that gravel mines are not oil and gas production or support 

facilities, so they would not count toward the 2,000-acre surface disturbance cap. 

B.9.5 Potential Surface Disturbance Estimates

Tables B-4 and B-5, below, show potential surface disturbance estimates for the construction of 

potential oil and gas production facilities and infrastructure. 

Table B-4

Estimated Surface Disturbance by Facility

Baseline Facility Sizes10 Acres of Estimated 

Surface Disturbance

CPF, airstrip, anchor well pad 50

Satellite pads 12

Gravel roads connect CPF to satellites 7.5 per mile

VSMs 0.04 per mile

Seawater treatment plant 15

Barge landing and equipment storage 10

Sources: BLM 2004, 2012; USACE 2017

 

10Baseline facility sizes were determined based on facility sizes from comparable North Slope projects, such as 

Alpine, and the professional expertise of BLM and Alaska Department of Natural Resources staff.
B. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Resources in the Public Law 115-97

Coastal Plain, Alaska 

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program B-23

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table B-5 

Hypothetical Projected Facilities and Estimated Surface Disturbance by Alternative1

Facility Type

Alternative B Alternative C Alternatives D1 and D2 

(and Baseline Scenario)

Number of 

Potential 

Facilities

Estimated 

Acres of 

Disturbance

Number of 

Potential 

Facilities

Estimated 

Acres of 

Disturbance

Number of 

Potential 

Facilities

Estimated 

Acres of 

Disturbance

CPF, airstrip, 

anchor well pad

4 200 3 150 2 100

Satellite pads 17 204 18 216 21 252

Roads: CPF to 

satellites

208 miles 1,560 213 miles 1,598 218 miles 1,635

VSMs 279 miles 11 282 miles 11 289 miles 11

Seawater 

treatment plant

1 15 1 15 1 15

Barge landing and 

storage 

1 10 1 10 1 10

Total 

(approximate)

- 2,000 - 2,000 - 2,000

Sources: BLM 2004, BLM 2012, USACE 2017 

1All potential facility numbers and surface disturbance acreages are general hypothetical estimates and are not based on specific 

project proposals. Acreages are approximate and rounded to the nearest acre. 

- = not applicable

B.10 ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Issuance of an oil and gas lease under the directives of Section 20001(c)(1) of PL 115-97 has no direct 

impacts on the environment; however, it is a commitment of oil and gas resources for potential future 

exploration and development, subject to environmental review and permits, that would result in future 

indirect impacts from exploration and development activities. Indirect impacts because of a lease sale 

include direct and indirect impacts from post-lease activities, including seismic and drilling exploration, 

development, and transportation of oil and gas in and from the Coastal Plain. Therefore, an analysis is 

provided of the potential direct and indirect impacts that may follow a leasing decision along with the 

potential cumulative impacts throughout the entire program area. 

Following issuance of an oil and gas lease, subsequent potential future development of oil and gas 

resources in the Coastal Plain would have direct and indirect economic impacts on the economy. Table 

B-6, below, estimates the number of direct and indirect jobs that would be created because of potential

future exploration, development, and production in the Coastal Plain.

Direct and indirect income projected to be created by potential future Coastal Plain development is 

shown in Table B-7, below. 

Table B-6 

Projected Direct and Indirect Jobs: Potential Exploration, Development, and Production 

Phases 

Effects Jobs (average number of part-time and full-time jobs) Annual Average Peak

Direct Exploration 250 650

Development 480 680

Production 730 1,150
B. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Resources in the Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain, Alaska

B-24 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Effects Jobs (average number of part-time and full-time jobs) Annual Average Peak

Indirect Exploration 190 560

Development 3,180 4,570

Production 3,160 4,970

Source: Northern Economics estimates, based on the following models and data sources: i) Alaska Department of Natural 

Resources Cash Flow model (modified for use in this analysis), ii) MAG-PLAN model (used to estimate some of the capital 

expenditures); iii) Spring 2018 Revenue Forecast published by the Alaska Department of Revenue (for data on transportation 

costs); iv) Annual Energy Outlook 2018 published by the Energy Information Administration (for data on oil price projections); 

v) IMPLAN model (used to estimate direct, indirect, induced effects); vi) Attanasi and Freeman 2009 (used to estimate some 

capital expenditures of petroleum development)

Table B-7

Projected Direct and Indirect Labor Income: Potential Exploration, Development, and 

Production Phases

Effects Labor Income (in Millions of 2017 Dollars) Annual Average Peak

Direct Exploration $29 $77

Development $97 $140

Production $125 $197

Indirect Exploration $10 $30

Development $214 $307

Production $212 $307

Source: Northern Economics estimates based on the following models and data sources: i) Alaska Department of Natural 

Resources Cash Flow model (modified for use in this analysis), ii) MAG-PLAN model (used to estimate some of the capital 

expenditures); iii) Spring 2018 Revenue Forecast published by the Alaska Department of Revenue (for data on transportation 

costs); iv) Annual Energy Outlook 2018 published by the Energy Information Administration (for data on oil price projections); 

v) IMPLAN model (used to estimate direct, indirect, induced effects); vi) Attanasi and Freeman 2009 (used to estimate some 

capital expenditures of petroleum development)

Government revenues projected to be created by leasing and potential future Coastal Plain development 

are shown in Table B-8, below. These revenues represent estimates of the taxes and royalties that 

would be collected from leasing, developing, producing, and transporting oil and gas resources from the 

Coastal Plain. These estimates are based on the hypothetical baseline scenario detailed in Section B.5. 

Additionally, local governments could experience increased economic activity and revenues from an 

increase in hotel/bed tax collections. 

The stipulations applied under Alternatives B, C, D1, and D2 could result in unquantifiable diversions 

from the hypothetical baseline scenario presented above. The impacts associated with stipulations could 

result in additional consultations with stakeholders, studies for permitting, delays for timing limitations, 

and construction of additional facilities and infrastructure. Some of these actions could result in higher 

employment and income effects due to additional expenditures that would be necessary to comply with 

the required operating procedure, including additional spending on consultation and studies. Some of 

these actions could also delay exploration, development, and production and would therefore also delay 

potential employment and income effects and revenues that could accrue to the local, state, and federal 

governments.
B. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Resources in the Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain, Alaska

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program B-25

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table B-8

Projected North Slope Borough, State, and Federal Government Revenues

Government Revenues (in Millions of 2017 Dollars) Annual Average Total

North Slope Borough property taxes $52 $1,192

State royalties $894 $21,463

State taxes $2,151 $49,473

Federal royalties $894 $21,463

Federal taxes $462 $11,082

Source: Northern Economics estimates based on the following models and data sources: i) Alaska Department of Natural 

Resources Cash Flow model (modified for use in this analysis), ii) MAG-PLAN model (used to estimate some of the capital 

expenditures); iii) Spring 2018 Revenue Forecast published by the Alaska Department of Revenue (for data on transportation 

costs); iv) Annual Energy Outlook 2018 published by the Energy Information Administration (for data on oil price projections); 

v) Attanasi and Freeman 2009 (used to estimate some capital expenditures of petroleum development)
B. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Resources in the Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain, Alaska

B-26 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

B.11 REFERENCES

Attanasi, E. D. 2005. Undiscovered Oil Resources in the Federal Portion of the 1002 Area of the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge: An Economic Update. USGS Open-File Report 2005-1217. Internet 

website: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1217/pdf/2005-1217.pdf.

Attanasi, E. D., and P. A. Freeman. 2009. Economics of undiscovered oil and gas in the North Slope of 

Alaska: economic update and synthesis: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1112. 

Internet website: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1112/pdf/ofr2009-1112.pdf.

Bird, K. 1999. Geographic and Geologic Setting in the Oil and Gas Resource Potential of the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge 1002 Area, Alaska, by Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Assessment 

Team, U. S. Geological Survey Open File Report 98-34. Internet website: 

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1998/ofr-98-0034/ANWR1002.pdf.

Bird, K., and L. Magoon. 1987. Petroleum Geology of The Northern Part of The Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge, Northeastern Alaska. US Geological Survey Bulletin 1778. Internet website: 

http://dggs.alaska.gov/webpubs/usgs/b/text/b1778.pdf.

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2004. Alpine Satellite Development Plan Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Internet website: https://www.blm.gov/eis/AK/alpine/dspfeisdoc.html.

_____. 2012. National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement. Internet website: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/planAndProject

Site.do?methodName=renderDefaultPlanOrProjectSite&projectId=67091.

_____. 2018. SAExploration Inc. Seismic Application (in progress). Internet website: 

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/projectSummary.do?methodName=

renderDefaultProjectSummary&projectId=111085

DOI (Department of Interior). 1987. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, Coastal Plain Resource 

Assessment Report and Recommendation to the Congress of the United States and Final 

Legislative Environmental Impact Statement. Washington, D.C., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

U.S. Geological Survey, and Bureau of Land Management. Internet website: 

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fedgov/70039559/report.pdf

_____. 2005. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the 

Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area, Alaska. October 2005. Internet website: https://

eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=renderDefault

PlanOrProjectSite&projectId=66967.

EIA (US Energy Information Administration). 2018. Annual Energy Outlook 2018: Table 12: Petroleum 

and Other Liquids Prices, Reference case. Internet website: https://www.eia.

gov/outlooks/aeo/tables_ref.php.

Energywire. 2018. China chases elusive North Slope gas bonanza. Margaret Kriz Hobson, E&E News 

reporter. Published: April 17, 2018. Internet website: https://www.eenews.

net/stories/1060079247.
B. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Resources in the Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain, Alaska

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program B-27

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2018. UIC Well Classes. Internet website: 

https://www.epa.gov/uic. 

USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers). 2012. Point Thomson Project EIS. Internet website: 

http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/AlaskaGas/Report3/Report_PtThom_FEIS/index.html

_____. 2017. Nanushuk Project EIS/DEIS. Internet website: http://www.nanushukeis.com/

documents.html.

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2015. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan. Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/home/arctic-ccp/.

USGS (US Geological Survey). 1998. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment. 

Fact Sheet 0028–01.

Van Wagner, D. 2018. Analysis of Projected Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge. United States Energy Information Administration. Internet website: 

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/anwr.php.

Ycharts.com. 2018. Alaska North Slope Crude Oil First Purchase Price. Internet website: 

https://ycharts.com/indicators/alaska_north_slope_crude_oil_first_purchase_price.
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix C

Collaboration and Coordination

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program C-i 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page 

APPENDIX C. COLLABORATION AND COORDINATION ........................................................... C-1

C.1 List of Preparers ........................................................................................................................... C-1

C.2 Government-to-Government Consultation .......................................................................... C-3

C.3 ANCSA Corporation Consultation ........................................................................................ C-3
This page intentionally left blank.
Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program C-1

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix C. Collaboration and Coordination

C.1 LIST OF PREPARERS

Preparer Name Role/Responsibility

BLM 

Interdisciplinary 

Team

Nicole Hayes Project Manager

Cathy Hillis GIS

Cindy Hamfler GIS

Erin Julianus Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation; Subsistence Uses and 

Resources

Scott Guyer Climate and Meteorology; Soil Resources; Vegetation and 

Wetlands

Alan Peck Air Quality; Water Resources

Steve Masterman 

(Alaska Department of 

Natural Resources)

Physiography

Paul Decker 

(Alaska Department of 

Natural Resources)

Geology and Minerals

Rob Brumbaugh Petroleum Resources

Jessie Chmielowski Petroleum Resources

Brent Breithaupt Paleontological Resources

Joe Galluzzi Sand and Gravel Resources

Richard Kemnitz Water Resources

Mike McCrum Solid and Hazardous Waste

Melody Debenham Solid and Hazardous Waste

Matt Whitman Fish and Aquatic Species

Casey Burns Birds; Terrestrial Mammals; Marine Mammals

Jack Winters 

(State of Alaska)

Terrestrial Mammals

Craig Perham 

(Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management) 

Marine Mammals

Donna Wixon Land Ownership and Uses

Bob King Cultural Resources

Joe Keeney Cultural Resources

Randy Goodwin Recreation; Special Designations (includes Marine Protected 

Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Wilderness 

Characteristics, Qualities, and Values); Visual Resources; 

Transportation

Tom Bickauskus Recreation; Special Designations (includes Marine Protected 

Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness Characteristics, 

Qualities, and Values)

Stewart Allen Economy

James Lima 

(Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management)

Sociocultural Systems; Environmental Justice

Sara Longan Public Health and Safety
C. Collaboration and Coordination

C-2 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Preparer Name Role/Responsibility

Environmental 

Management and 

Planning Solutions, 

Inc. (EMPSi)

Chad Ricklefs, AICP Project Manager

Amy Lewis Assistant Project Manager; Public Involvement Lead

David Batts Principal-in-Charge

Marcia Rickey, GISP GIS Lead

Jenna Jonker GIS

Alex Dierker GIS

Francis Craig GIS; Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

Angie Adams Special Designations Team Lead

Zoe Ghali Social Systems Team Lead

Katie Patterson, JD Nonrenewable Resources Team Lead; Petroleum 

Resources; Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

Sean Cottle CARA/Comment Analysis Lead; Special Designations

(includes Marine Protected Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, 

Wilderness Characteristics, Qualities, and Values)

Sarah Crump Decision File/Administrative Record Lead; ePlanning Lead

Katlyn Lonergan Decision File/Administrative Record

Kate Krebs Facilitator

Amy Cordle Air Quality; Climate and Meteorology; Acoustics

Kevin Doyle Paleontological Resources; Cultural Resources

Derek Holmgren Soil Resources; Water Resources; Visual Resources; Public 

Health and Safety

Meredith Zaccherio Vegetation and Wetlands

Lindsay Chipman, PhD Fish and Aquatic Species

Kevin Rice Birds; Terrestrial Mammals; Marine Mammals

Peter Gower, AICP, CEP Landownership and Use; Recreation; Transportation 

Matthew Smith Public Health and Safety 

Randy Varney Technical Editing

Cindy Schad Word Processing / 508 Compliance

ABR, Inc. Robert Burgess Renewable Resources Team Lead; Birds

Wendy Davis Vegetation and Wetlands

Terry Schick Vegetation and Wetlands

John Seigle Fish and Aquatic Species 

Adrian Gall Birds; Marine Mammals

Alexander Prichard Terrestrial Mammals; Marine Mammals

Brian Lawhead Terrestrial Mammals; Marine Mammals

DOWL Keri Nutter Soil Resources; Sand and Gravel Resources 

Adam Morrill Solid and Hazardous Waste 

Leyla Arsan Fish and Aquatic Species

HDR, Inc. Edward Liebsch Climate and Meteorology 

Patricia Terhaar, PG Physiography; Geology and Minerals 

Anna Kohl Paleontological Resources 

Jon Zufelt, PhD, PE Water Resources 

Joe Miller Water Resources

Northern 

Economics, Inc.

Leah Cuyno, PhD Economy 

Michael Fisher, PMP Economy

Patrick Burden Economy

Michael Downs, PhD Environmental Justice 
C. Collaboration and Coordination

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program C-3

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Preparer Name Role/Responsibility

Stephen R. Braund 

& Associates 

(SRB&A)

Stephen Braund Cultural Resources; Subsistence Uses and Resources; 

Sociocultural Systems; Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

Paul Lawrence Cultural Resources; Subsistence Uses and Resources; 

Sociocultural Systems; Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

Elizabeth Sears Subsistence Uses and Resources; Sociocultural Systems; 

Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

Jake Anders Cultural Resources 

C.2 GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION

Location Date Tribal Government

Arctic Village May 23, 2018 Arctic Village Council and Native Village of Venetie

Venetie June 11, 2018 Native Village of Venetie, Venetie Village Council, Arctic 

Village Council

Kaktovik June 13, 2018 Native Village of Kaktovik

Fort Yukon August 30, 2018 Beaver Village Council, Chalkyitsik Village Council

Arctic Village October 2, 2018 Native Village of Venetie, Venetie Village Council, Arctic 

Village Council

Kaktovik October 9, 2018 Native Village of Kaktovik

Anchorage October 17, 2018 Beaver Village Council

C.3 ANCSA CORPORATION CONSULTATION

Corporation Date

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation April 25, May 18, June 16, July 27, and October 19, 2018

Doyon Limited July 6, 2018

Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation June 13, and October 9, 2018
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix D

Laws and Regulations

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program D-i 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

APPENDIX D. LAWS AND REGULATIONS ................................................................................ D-1

D.1 International Agreements .......................................................................................................... D-1

D.1.1 International Porcupine Caribou Herd Agreement.............................................. D-1

D.1.2 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears (Range States 

Agreement) .................................................................................................................... D-1

D.1.3 Inuvialuit-Iñupiat Polar Bear Management Agreement (I–I Agreement) .......... D-1

D.2 Federal Laws and Regulations ................................................................................................... D-2

D.2.1 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) ......................................................................... D-2

D.2.2 US Fish and Wildlife Service ...................................................................................... D-3

D.2.3 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ................................................................ D-4

D.2.4 National Marine Fisheries Service ............................................................................ D-5

D.2.5 US Army Corps of Engineers..................................................................................... D-6

D.2.6 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management .................................................................... D-6

D.3 Executive Orders ......................................................................................................................... D-6

D.4 State of Alaska .............................................................................................................................. D-6

D.4.1 Alaska Department of Natural Resources .............................................................. D-6

D.4.2 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ........................................... D-7

D.4.3 Alaska Department of Fish and Game ..................................................................... D-8

D.4.4 Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission .................................................... D-8

D.4.5 Alaska Department of Public Safety ......................................................................... D-8

D.5 North Slope Borough ................................................................................................................. D-8
This page intentionally left blank.
Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program D-1

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix D. Laws and Regulations

Requirements of federal, state, and local laws and regulations associated with future development in the 

Coastal Plain are provided below.

D.1 INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

D.1.1 International Porcupine Caribou Herd Agreement

In 1987, the United States and Canadian governments signed the Agreement between the Government 

of the United States of America and the Government of Canada on the Conservation of the Porcupine 

Caribou Herd. This bilateral agreement recognizes that the Porcupine caribou herd (PCH) regularly 

migrates across the international boundary between Canada and the United States. It further recognizes

that the herd should be conserved according to ecological principles that emphasize the importance of 

conserving habitat, including calving, post-calving, migrating, wintering, and seeking insect relief habitat. 

The main objectives of the agreement are to conserve the PCH and its habitat through international 

cooperation and coordination so that the risk of irreversible damage or long-term adverse effects, 

including cumulative effects, as a result of use of caribou or their habitat is minimized. It also ensures

opportunities for customary and traditional uses of the PCH. The agreement set up the International 

Porcupine Caribou Board, composed of representatives from both countries, who give advice and 

recommendations to the countries on the conservation and management of the herd. The International 

Porcupine Caribou Board, in turn, set up the Porcupine Caribou Technical Committee, composed of 

biologists from each country, to advise them in their recommendations. This agreement was signed by 

the United States on July 17, 1987, in Ottawa, Canada, and entered into force in this country at that 

time.

D.1.2 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears (Range States Agreement)

This is an agreement between the governments of Canada, Denmark, Norway, the former Union of 

Soviet Socialist Republics, and the United States. It recognizes the responsibilities of circumpolar 

countries for coordinating actions to protect polar bears. The agreement prohibits hunting, killing, and 

capturing polar bears, except for bona fide scientific and conservation purposes, preventing serious 

disturbance to the management of other living resources, and by local people under traditional rights. 

This multilateral agreement also commits each associated country to adhere to sound conservation 

practices by protecting the ecosystem of polar bears. Special attention is given to denning areas, feeding 

sites, and migration corridors, based on best available science through coordinated research. The 

agreement was signed by the United States on November 15, 1973, in Oslo, Norway; it was ratified on 

September 30, 1976, and went into force in this country on November 1, 1976.

D.1.3 Inuvialuit-Iñupiat Polar Bear Management Agreement (I–I Agreement)

Signed in 1988 and reaffirmed in 2000 by the Inuvialuit Game Council and the North Slope Borough 

(NSB) Fish and Game Management Committee, the I–I Agreement is a voluntary user-to-user agreement 

between Inuvialuit (in Canada) and Inupiat (in Alaska) hunters. It provides for annual quotas, hunting 

seasons, protection of bears in or during construction of dens, females accompanied by cubs-of-the-year 

and yearlings, collection of information and specimens to monitor harvest composition, and annual 

meetings to exchange information on the harvest, research, and management. The I-I also establishes a 
D. Laws and Regulations

D-2 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

joint commission to implement the I-I Agreement, and a technical advisory committee, consisting of 

biologists from agencies in the US and Canada involved in research and management. Their function is to 

collect and evaluate scientific data and make recommendations to the joint commission.

D.2 FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS

The following summarizes federal laws and regulations relevant to the oil and gas leasing program on the 

Coastal Plain. Some obligations would be placed directly on the applicant. Others would be required of 

federal agencies before they would grant authorizations to oil and gas companies.

D.2.1 Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) sets out policy and provides the means 

by which the federal government, including the BLM and the federal cooperating agencies, 

examines major federal actions that may have significant impacts on the environment. Examples 

are the oil and gas leasing and development contemplated in this environmental impact 

statement (EIS) (42 United States Code [USC] 4321 et seq.).

 Section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 USC 185; 43 Code of Federal Regulations 

[CFR] 2880), provides the BLM with the authority to issue right-of-way grants for oil and natural 

gas pipelines and related facilities (not authorized by appropriate leases).

 Section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) establishes 

procedures for federal land management agencies to evaluate the effect of federal actions on 

subsistence uses and needs, the availability of other lands for the purposes sought to be 

achieved, and other alternatives that would reduce or eliminate the use, occupancy, or 

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

 The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (Section 20001(c)(1) of Public Law [PL] 115-97, December

22, 2017) directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the BLM, to establish and 

administer a competitive oil and gas program for the leasing, development, production, and 

transportation of oil and gas in and from the Coastal Plain in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 

(Arctic Refuge). PL 115-97 amends ANILCA Section 1003 to authorize oil and gas leasing in the 

Coastal Plain and authorizes the BLM to issue rights-of-way or easements across the Coastal 

Plain for the exploration, development, production, or transportation necessary to carry out the 

oil and gas leasing program.

 The BLM issues geophysical permits to conduct seismic activities, as described in 43 CFR 3150.

 The BLM reviews and approves applications for permit to drill (including drilling plans and 

surface-use plans of operations) and subsequent well operations, as prescribed in 43 CFR 3160,

for development and production on federal leases.

 As described in 43 CFR 3130 and 3180, the BLM approves lease administration requirements,

including unit agreements and plans of development, drilling agreements, and participating area 

determinations for exploring for and developing oil and gas leases.

 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (PL 89-66) requires the BLM to

consider the effects of federal undertakings on historic properties.

 The BLM consults with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the effects of its actions on threatened and endangered 

species and designated critical habitat. 
D. Laws and Regulations

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program D-3

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 The BLM conducts Executive Order (EO) 13075 tribal consultation and consultation under the

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971.

 Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the BLM conducts an 

essential fish habitat consultation with NMFS regarding authorized, funded, or undertaken 

actions that may adversely affect essential fish habitat.

 The BLM issues material sale permits.

D.2.2 US Fish and Wildlife Service

 The USFWS manages the Arctic Refuge, as defined under Section 303(2) of ANILCA, which 

establishes the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and additions as part of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. The purposes for which the Arctic Refuge is established and is managed are as 

follows: (i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats; (ii) to fulfill the international 

treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats; (iii) to 

provide, in a manner consistent with the purposes set forth above in (i) and (ii), the opportunity 

for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and (iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent 

practicable and in a manner consistent with the purposes set forth in (i), water quality and 

necessary water quantity win the refuge. PL 115-97 amended Section 303(2)(B) of ANILCA to 

add as a purpose of the Arctic Refuge “to provide for an oil and gas program on the Coastal 

Plain.”

 The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended through the 

National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act, is “to administer a network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.” Under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, each 

refuge shall adhere to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The USFWS is 

required to monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge. 

 The USFWS Mitigation Policy of January 23, 1981 (reinstated via 2016 policy withdrawal 

effective July 30, 2018) provides direction on how to develop mitigation recommendations to 

offset the impacts of development on species or their habitats.

 The Endangered Species Act (ESA) states that all federal agencies shall, in consultation with and 

with the assistance of the Secretary of the Interior or Commerce (Secretary), ensure that any 

action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species. Furthermore, an agency’s 

action shall not destroy or adversely modify the habitat of such species that the Secretary 

determines to be critical. Section 9 (16 USC 1538) of the ESA identifies prohibited acts related 

to endangered species and prohibits all persons, including all federal, state, and local government

employees, from taking listed species of fish and wildlife, except as specified under provisions for 

exemption (16 USC 1535(g)(2) and 1539). Generally, the USFWS manages land and freshwater 

species, while NMFS manages marine species, including anadromous salmon; however, the 

USFWS is responsible for some marine animals, such as nesting sea turtles, walrus, polar bears, 

sea otters, and manatees.

 All marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA)

(16 USC 1361 et seq.). Jurisdiction of the MMPA is shared by NMFS and the USFWS, depending 

on the species being considered. Under the MMPA, the taking of marine mammals without a 
D. Laws and Regulations

D-4 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

permit or exception is prohibited. “Take” under the MMPA, means “to harass, hunt, capture, or 

kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.” The MMPA defines 

harassment as “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the 

potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].” Under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, the 

USFWS may issue a letter of authorization for incidental take, for up to 1 year, of small numbers 

of marine mammals, where the take would be limited to harassment (Incidental Harassment 

Authorization). 

 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703-712) makes it illegal for anyone to take, possess, 

import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any 

migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird, except under the terms of a valid 

permit issued under federal regulations. The migratory bird species protected by the act are 

listed in 50 CFR 10.13

 The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits taking eagles, including their parts, nests, or 

eggs. If a project may result in take, and after avoidance and minimization measures are 

established, the USFWS may issue an eagle take permit.

 Under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the USFWS provides consultation on impacts on 

fish and wildlife resources. 

D.2.3 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The EPA’s authority to regulate oil and gas development is contained in the Clean Water Act of 1972 

(CWA) (33 USC 1251 et seq.), Clean Air Act of 1963 (CAA) (42 USC 7401 et seq.), and the Safe 

Drinking Water Act of 1974 (42 USC 300f et seq.). These authorities are discussed below.

 Under Section 402 of the CWA (33 USC 1342), the EPA has delegated authority to the State of 

Alaska to issue permits for discharging pollutants from a point source into waters of the US for 

facilities, including oil and gas, operating within state jurisdiction. Point-source discharges that 

require an Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (APDES) permit include sanitary and 

domestic wastewater, gravel pit and construction dewatering, hydrostatic test water, and

stormwater discharges (40 CFR 122).

The EPA co-administers the CWA Section 404 program with the US Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE). The EPA develops and interprets policy, guidance, and the Section 404(b)(1) 

Guidelines, which are the environmental criteria used in evaluating permit applications. The EPA 

also determines the scope of geographic jurisdiction and the applicability of statutory 

exemptions to the permit requirements. It approves and oversees state and tribal assumption of 

Section 404 permitting authority, reviews permit applications for compliance with the guidelines,

and provides comments to the USACE. The EPA can elevate specific permit cases or policy 

issues pursuant to Section 404(q), under which it has the authority to prohibit, deny, or restrict 

the use of any defined area as a disposal site. Lastly, the EPA has independent authority to 

enforce Section 404 provisions.

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 USC 300f et seq.), the EPA’s responsibilities are to

manage the underground injection control program and the direct implementation of Class I and 

Class V injection wells in Alaska. These wells cover injection of nonhazardous and hazardous 
D. Laws and Regulations

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program D-5

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

waste through a permitting process for fluids that are recovered from down hole. Also covered 

are municipal waste, stormwater, and other fluids that did not come up from down hole (40 

CFR 124A, 144, and 146). The EPA oversees the Class II program delegated to the State of 

Alaska and managed by the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which includes Class 

II enhanced oil recovery, storage, and disposal wells that may receive nonhazardous produced 

fluids originating from down hole, including muds and cuttings (40 CFR 147).

 Under Section 311 of the CWA, as amended (33 USC 1321, 40 CFR 112), the EPA requires a 

“spill prevention containment and countermeasure plan” for storage of over 660 gallons of fuel 

in a single container or over 1,320 gallons in aggregate aboveground tanks.

 Under the CWA, as amended (Oil Pollution Act; 33 USC 40; FRP Rule; 40 CFR 112, Subpart D, 

Sections 112.20–112.21) the EPA requires a “facility response plan” to identify and ensure the 

availability of sufficient response resources for the worst case discharge of oil to the maximum 

extent practicable, “...generally for facilities that transfer over water to or from vessels, and 

maintaining a capacity greater than 42,000 gallons, or any facility with a capacity of over one 

million gallons.”

 Under Sections 165 (42 USC 7475) and 502 of the CAA (42 USC 7661a), the State of Alaska is 

authorized to issue air quality permits for facilities operating within state jurisdiction for the 

Title V operating permit (40 CFR 70) and the “prevention of significant deterioration” permit 

(40 CFR 52.21) to address air pollution emissions. The EPA maintains oversight authority of the 

State’s program. 

 Under Section 309 of the CAA (42 USC 7609), the EPA requires a review and evaluation of the 

draft and final EIS for compliance with Council on Environmental Quality guidelines.

 The EPA retains oversight authority over the APDES program.

D.2.4 National Marine Fisheries Service

NMFS is responsible for the stewardship of national marine resources. The agency conserves and 

manages fisheries to promote sustainability and prevent lost economic potential associated with 

overfishing, declining species, and degraded habitats.

 Provides consultation under the ESA, Section 7(a)(2) on the effects on threatened or 

endangered species

 Provides consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act on the effects on fish and 

wildlife resources

 Provides consultation under the MMPA on the effects on marine mammals; issues Incidental 

Harassment Authorization under the MMPA for incidental takes of protected marine mammals 

(bowhead whales and ringed seals)

 Provides consultation under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

for effects on Essential Fish Habitat; the act requires federal agencies to consult with the 

Secretary of Commerce on any action authorized, funded, or undertaken or proposed to be 

authorized, funded, or undertaken by such agency that may adversely affect essential fish habitat 

identified under the act
D. Laws and Regulations

D-6 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

D.2.5 US Army Corps of Engineers

The USACE has the authority to issue or deny permits for placing dredge or fill material in the waters of 

the US, including wetlands, and for work or structures in, on, over, or under navigable waters of the US. 

These USACE authorities are set forth as follows.

 Under Section 404 of the CWA (33 USC 1251 et seq.), the USACE regulates discharges of 

dredge and fill material in waters of the US, including wetlands.

 Under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC 403), the USACE has 

regulatory authority for work and structures performed in, on, over, or under navigable waters 

of the US.

 Under Section 103 of the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 USC 

1413), the USACE issues Section 103 ocean dumping permits for transport of dredged material 

for ocean disposal.

D.2.6 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management provided subject matter expertise in the drafting and review 

of this NEPA document as part of the BLM Interdisciplinary Team. The Interagency Working Group on 

Coordination of Domestic Energy Development and Permitting in Alaska, established under EO 13580, 

adopted the concept of integrated Arctic management to ensure that decisions on development and 

conservation made in the Arctic are driven by science, stakeholder engagement, and government 

coordination.

D.3 EXECUTIVE ORDERS

In addition to the statutory authorities described above, a number of EOs may apply, as follows: EOs 

13783 (promoting energy independence and economic growth), 11988 (floodplain management), 11990 

(protection of wetlands), 13158 (Marine Protected Areas), 12898 (environmental justice), 13007 (Indian 

sacred sites), 13175 (tribal consultation), and 13112 (invasive species control). 

D.4 STATE OF ALASKA

The State issues several permits. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources issues temporary water 

use and water rights permits, permits for cultural resource surveys, cultural resource concurrences, and 

other authorizations for activities associated with oil and gas development. The Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game issues fish habitat permits. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation issues 

prevention of significant deterioration and other air quality permits as part of implementation plans. The 

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation is responsible for issuing several permits and plan 

approvals for oil and gas exploration and development, including the storage and transport of oil and 

cleanup of oil spills. The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission issues drilling permits and 

approves production, injection, and disposal plan for exploration and development. Additional State 

authorities are presented below.

D.4.1 Alaska Department of Natural Resources 

 Issues rights-of-way and land use permits for use of State land, ice road construction on State 

land, and State freshwater bodies under Alaska Statute (AS) 38.05.850

 Issues “temporary water use and water rights” permits under AS 46.15 for water use necessary 

for construction and operations
D. Laws and Regulations

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program D-7

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 Issues Alaska cultural resource permits for surveys under the Alaska Historic Preservation Act 

(AS 41.35.080)

 Issues cultural resources concurrences for development on State land (but not on federally 

managed land) that may affect historic or archaeological sites under the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 470 et seq.), and the Alaska Historic 

Preservation Act (AS 41.35.010 through .240)

 Adjudicates instream flow reservations and other applications for reserved water rights under 

AS 46.15.145, Reservation of Water; permissible in-stream uses are protection of fish and 

wildlife habitat, migration, and propagation; recreation and parks; navigation and transportation; 

and sanitation and water quality

 The Office of History and Archaeology identifies and protects historic properties in Alaska and 

is led by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO); the National Historic Preservation Act 

Section 106 requires federal agencies to avoid or minimize impacts on properties listed on or 

eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and requires federal agencies to 

check for sites that may be eligible and determine eligibility. This consultation is done through 

the SHPO.

D.4.2 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

 Issues an APDES “wastewater discharge permit” for wastewater disposal into all State waters 

under a transfer of authority from the EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

Program under Section 402 of the CWA, as amended (33 USC 1342); AS 46.03.020, .100, .110, 

.120, and .710; 18 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) Chapters 15 and 70, and Section 72.500;

these permits may include a mixing zone approval where appropriate; in addition to developing, 

issuing, modifying, and renewing permits, the APDES program includes the Storm Water 

Program, Compliance and Enforcement, Federal Facilities, and the Pretreatment Program

 Issues a certificate of reasonable assurance for permits issues by the USACE under Section 404 

of the CWA; these permits may include discharge of dredge and fill material into Waters of the 

US

 Issues a Class I well wastewater disposal permit for underground injection of non-domestic 

wastewater under AS 46.03.020, .050, and .100

 Reviews and approves all public water systems, including plans, monitoring programs, and 

operator certifications under AS 46.03.020, .050, .070, and .720, 18 AAC, Section 80.005

 Approves domestic wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal plans for domestic 

wastewaters (18 AAC, Chapter 72)

 Approves financial responsibility for cleanup of oil spills (18 AAC, Chapter 75)

 Reviews and approves the “oil discharge prevention and contingency plan” under the Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990 and the “certificate of financial responsibility” for storage or transport of 

oil under AS 46.04.030 and 18 AAC, Chapter 75; The State review applies to oil exploration and 

production facilities, crude oil pipelines, oil terminals, tank vessels and barges, and certain nontank vessels

 Issues Title V operating permits and prevention of significant deterioration permits under CAA 

Amendments (Title V) for air pollutant emissions from construction and operation (18 AAC 

Chapter 50)
D. Laws and Regulations 

D-8 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

 Issues solid waste disposal permits for State lands under AS 46.03.010, 020, 100, and 110; AS 

46.06.080; 18 AAC Section 60.005; and 200 

 Reviews and approves solid waste processing and temporary storage facilities plans for handling 

and temporarily storing solid waste on federal and State lands under AS 46.03.005, 010, and 020 

and 18 AAC, Section 60.430 

 Approves the siting of hazardous waste management facilities 

D.4.3 Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

 AS 16.05.841—The Fishway Act, deals exclusively with fish passage; applies to streams with 

documented resident fish use and without documented use by anadromous fish 

 AS 16.05.871—The Anadromous Fish Act, applies to streams specified in the Anadromous 

Waters Catalog as important for the spawning, rearing, or migration of anadromous fishes; AS 

16.05.871 is a broader authority than AS 16.05.841 and extends to anadromous fish habitat 

 AS 16.05.841 and AS 16.05.871—Issues “fish habitat permits” for activities in streams used by 

fish that the agency determines could represent impediments to fish passage or for travel in, 

excavation of, or culverting of anadromous fish streams 

 Issues public safety permit for nonlethal hazing of wild animals that are creating a nuisance or a 

threat to public safety 

 Evaluates potential impacts on fish, wildlife, and fish and wildlife users and presents any related 

recommendations to the Alaska Department of Natural Resource or, via the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act, to federal permitting agencies 

D.4.4 Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

 Issues permits to drill under 20 AAC Section 25.05 

 Issues approval for annular disposal of drilling waste (20 AAC Section 25.080) 

 Authorizes plugging, abandonment, and location clearance (20 AAC Section 25.105 through 

25.172) 

 Authorizes production practices (20 AAC Section 25.200–25.245) 

 Authorizes Class II waste disposal and storage (20 AAC Section 25.252) 

 Approves workover operations (20 AAC Section 25.280) 

 Requires information and documentation as requested by the Commissioner (20 AAC Section 

25.300–25.320) 

 Authorizes enhanced recovery operations under 20 AAC Section 25.402–460 

D.4.5 Alaska Department of Public Safety 

 Fire marshal approval 

D.5 NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH

The NSB, as a Home Rule Borough, issues development permits and other authorizations for oil and gas 

activities under the terms of its ordinances (NSB Municipal Code Title 19). The Iñupiat History, 

Language, and Culture Division is responsible for traditional land use inventory clearance. 
Appendix E

ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program E-i 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

APPENDIX E. ANILCA SECTION 810 PRELIMINARY EVALUATION.......................................... E-1

E.1 Subsistence Evaluation Factors .................................................................................................. E-1

E.2 ANILCA Section 810(a) Evaluations and Findings for All Alternatives and 

the Cumulative Case .................................................................................................................... E-2

E.2.1 Evaluation and Finding for Alternative A: No Action ........................................... E-4

E.2.2 Evaluation and Finding for Alternative B .................................................................. E-4

E.2.3 Evaluation and Finding for Alternative C ............................................................... E-10

E.2.4 Evaluation and Finding for Alternative D1 ............................................................. E-12

E.2.5 Evaluation and Finding for Alternative D2 ............................................................. E-14

E.2.6 Evaluation and Finding for the Cumulative Case .................................................. E-15

E.3 Notice and Hearings .................................................................................................................. E-19

E.4 Subsistence Determinations under the ANILCA Section 810(a)(3)(A), (B), 

and (C) .......................................................................................................................................... E-20

E.5 References .................................................................................................................................... E-21

MAP Page 

E-1 High Use Porcupine Caribou Herd Calving Area .............................................................................. E-25

TABLES Page 

E-1 Lease Restrictions in High-Use Porcupine Caribou Herd Calving Area ...................................... E-27

E-2 Summary of Impacts on Abundance and Availability of Major Subsistence Resources 

for Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Arctic Village, and Venetie ............................................................................ E-28

E-3 Summary of Impacts on Access to Major Subsistence Resources for Kaktovik, 

Nuiqsut, Arctic Village, and Venetie ...................................................................................................... E-29
This page intentionally left blank.
Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program E-1

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E. ANILCA Section 810 

Preliminary Evaluation

E.1 SUBSISTENCE EVALUATION FACTORS

Section 810(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), 16 United States 

Code (USC) 3120(a), requires that an evaluation of subsistence uses and needs be completed for any 

federal determination to “withdraw, reserve, lease, or otherwise permit the use, occupancy, or 

disposition of public lands.” As such, an evaluation of potential impacts on subsistence under ANILCA 

Section 810(a) must be completed for the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Environmental 

Impact Statement (Leasing EIS or EIS). ANILCA requires that this evaluation include findings on three 

specific issues, as follows:

 The effect of use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands on subsistence uses and needs

 The availability of other lands for the purposes sought to be achieved

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

lands needed for subsistence purposes

Per Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Instruction Memorandum No. AK-2011-008 (BLM 2011), three 

factors are considered when determining if a significant restriction of subsistence uses and needs may 

result from the proposed action, alternatives, or in the cumulative case, as follows: 

 Reduction in the abundance of harvestable resources used for subsistence purposes

 Reduction in the availability of resources used for subsistence caused by alteration of their 

distribution, migration patterns, or location

 Legal or physical limitations on access of subsistence users to harvestable resources

Each alternative must be analyzed according to these criteria. ANILCA Section 810 also requires that 

cumulative impacts be analyzed. This approach helps the reader separate subsistence restrictions that 

could be caused by activities proposed under the five alternatives from those that could be caused by 

past, present, or future activities that have occurred or could occur in the surrounding area. 

An alternative would be considered to significantly restrict subsistence uses if, after consideration of 

protection measures, such as lease stipulations or required operating procedures, it can be expected to 

substantially reduce the opportunity to use subsistence resources (BLM 2011). Substantial reductions 

are generally caused by large reductions in resource abundance, a major redistribution of resources, 

extensive interference with access, or major increases in the use of those resources by non-subsistence 

users.

If the analysis determines that the proposed action, alternatives, or the cumulative case may significantly 

restrict subsistence uses, the BLM is required to notify the State of Alaska and appropriate regional and 

local subsistence committees. It also must conduct ANILCA Section 810 hearings in potentially affected 

communities. 
E. ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

E-2 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

It is possible that the finding may be revised to “will not significantly restrict subsistence uses” based on 

changes to alternatives, new information, or new mitigation measures resulting from the hearings. If the 

significant restriction remains, the BLM may prohibit the action or finalize the evaluation by making the 

following determinations:

 A significant restriction of subsistence uses would be necessary, consistent with sound 

management principles for the use of public lands

 The proposed activity would involve the minimal amount of public land necessary to accomplish 

the purpose of the use, occupancy, or other disposition

 Reasonable steps would be taken to minimize adverse effects on subsistence uses and resources 

resulting from such actions (Section 810(a)(3))

The BLM can then authorize use of the public lands. 

E.2 ANILCA SECTION 810(A) EVALUATIONS AND FINDINGS FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES 

AND THE CUMULATIVE CASE

This ANILCA Section 810 preliminary evaluation relies primarily on the information contained in the 

Leasing EIS. Chapter 3 describes areas and resources important for subsistence, and specific 

communities’ degree of dependence on various fish and wildlife resources. It also describes the 

environmental consequences anticipated under each alternative, which the BLM uses to determine 

whether each alternative and the cumulative case would cause a significant restriction to subsistence 

uses. Consistent with NEPA and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance, this preliminary 

evaluation does not analyze or present impacts under a worst-case scenario. Rather, it discusses impacts 

under each alternative based on the assumptions and discussion in the hypothetical development 

scenario (Appendix B). 

Issuance of oil and gas leases under the directives of Section 20001(c)(1) of Public Law (PL) 115-97 

would have no direct impacts on the environment because by itself a lease does not authorize any on 

the ground oil and gas activities; however, a lease does grant the lessee certain rights to drill for and 

extract oil and gas subject to further environmental review and reasonable regulation, including 

applicable laws, terms, conditions, and stipulations of the lease. The impacts of such future exploration 

and development activities that may occur because of the issuance of leases are considered potential 

indirect impacts of leasing. Such post-lease activities could include seismic and drilling exploration, 

development, and transportation of oil and gas in and from the Coastal Plain. Therefore, the analysis in 

Chapter 3 is of potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts from on-the-ground post-lease 

activities.

The Leasing EIS uses a hypothetical development scenario (see Appendix B) to inform the impact 

analysis for each alternative; however, additional National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

ANILCA Section 810 analyses would occur with future site-specific proposals. The regulations governing 

leasing and development provide for multiple decision stages prior to any ground-disturbing activities 

being authorized and require further compliance with applicable laws, including NEPA, during postleasing decision stages. Until the BLM receives and evaluates an application for an exploration permit, 

permit to drill, or other authorization that includes site-specific information about a particular project, 

impacts of actual exploration and development that might follow lease issuance are speculative, as so 

much is unknown as to location, scope, scale, and timing of that exploration and development. At each 
E. ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program E-3

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

decision stage, the BLM retains the authority to approve, deny, or reasonably condition any proposed 

on the ground-disturbing activity based on compliance with applicable laws and policies. Therefore, the 

analysis of effects of exploration and development in this Leasing EIS necessarily reflects a more general, 

programmatic approach than could occur at the post-lease project-specific stage.

The EIS focuses on describing potential subsistence impacts to four communities: Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, 

Arctic Village, and Venetie. Kaktovik and Nuiqsut engage in subsistence activities in and around the 

program area. Kaktovik uses the program area to procure most of the resources they harvest (Map 3-

28 through Map 3-39 in Appendix A). Nuiqsut’s marine mammal and furbearer use areas overlap the 

program area (Map 3-40 through Map 3-43 in Appendix A). Arctic Village and Venetie subsistence 

use areas do not overlap the program area, but these communities rely heavily on resources that use 

the program area, specifically caribou from the Porcupine Caribou Herd (PCH) (Map 3-44 in 

Appendix A). 

While the EIS describes potential impacts to subsistence use of all resources, this preliminary evaluation 

focuses on impacts to subsistence use of fish, marine mammals (bowhead and beluga whales, bearded 

seals), and caribou. Other resources such as waterfowl, polar bears, and furbearers may be culturally 

important to residents of these communities, but they do not comprise the majority of the wild foods 

consumed by residents of Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Arctic Village, or Venetie (Section 3.4.3, Subsistence 

Uses and Resources). Residents of Kaktovik and Nuiqsut rely most heavily on fish, marine mammals, and 

caribou. Combined, these resources make up 98 percent of the harvest for Kaktovik and 97 percent of 

the harvest for Nuiqsut (Tables 3-32 and 3-33 in Chapter 3). Fish and large mammals (caribou and 

moose) make up 86 percent of the harvest for Venetie (Table 3-35 in Chapter 3). Nineteen percent 

of Venetie’s annual harvest is caribou, although they receive appreciably more through sharing with 

other communities (Van Lanen et al. 2012; Kofinas et al. 2016). Detailed harvest data for Arctic Village is 

not available but it is likely similar to the harvest documented for Venetie.

In addition to Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Arctic Village, and Venetie, 18 communities have positive customary 

and traditional use determinations for the PCH and/or the Central Arctic Herd (CAH) (Map 3-27, 

Subsistence Study Communities, in Appendix A). These 22 communities, referred to in the EIS as the 

caribou study communities, could be affected by impacts on caribou abundance and availability, and were 

therefore included in Chapter 3. Those communities with the greatest reliance (where caribou 

accounts for greater than 10 percent of the annual subsistence harvest, and on average over 50 percent 

of households use caribou) include Alatna, Anaktuvuk Pass, Bettles, Coldfoot, Eagle, Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, 

Point Lay, Utqiagvik, Venetie, Wainwright, Wiseman, and likely Arctic Village (although detailed harvest 

data is not available for this community). Alatna, Bettles, Point Lay, Utqiagvik and Wainwright harvest 

caribou primarily from the Western Arctic Herd, and Eagle harvests caribou primarily from the 

Fortymile Herd. These herds would not be impacted by development in the program area. Coldfoot, 

and Wiseman harvest primarily CAH caribou. The majority of Nuiqsut’s harvest consists of Teshekpuk 

Lake Caribou Herd animals, although Nuiqsut also harvests caribou from the CAH. Anaktuvuk Pass 

harvests a combination of Western Arctic, Teshekpuk Lake, and CAH caribou. Teshekpuk Lake caribou 

would not be impacted by future oil and gas exploration, development, and production activities in the 

program area, and potential impacts on CAH caribou are expected to be low for Alternatives B, C, D1, 

and D2. Kaktovik, Arctic Village and Venetie rely heavily on PCH caribou. Therefore, Kaktovik, Arctic 

Village, and Venetie are the only communities that may be appreciably affected by changes in the 

abundance or availability of PCH caribou. For these reasons, caribou-related discussion in this 
E. ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

E-4 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

preliminary evaluation focuses exclusively on impacts on the PCH caribou from future on-the-ground 

activities and consequent impacts on subsistence use of them by these three communities. 

E.2.1 Evaluation and Finding for Alternative A: No Action

Alternative A would not comply with the directive in Section 20001 of PL 115-97 to establish and 

administer a competitive oil and gas program for leasing, developing, producing, and transporting oil and 

gas in and from the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain. There would be no oil and gas lease sales in the 

program area. Current management actions and resource trends would continue in the program area, as 

described in the Arctic Refuge Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) (USFWS 2015). 

Existing impacts on subsistence uses and resources, described in Section 3.4.3, Subsistence Uses and 

Resources, would continue along current trends.

E.2.1.1 Evaluation of the Effect of Use, Occupancy, or Disposition on Subsistence Uses and 

Needs

The United States (US) Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) determined that the preferred alternative 

selected in the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Arctic Refuge Revised CCP (USFWS 2015) and 

subsequent cumulative effects would not significantly restrict subsistence use of resources in the 

program area.

E.2.1.2 Evaluation of the Availability of Other Lands for the Purpose Sought to be Achieved

Alternative A does not propose the disposition or use of public lands with regard to the proposed 

action; therefore, evaluating the availability of other lands is not applicable. 

E.2.1.3 Evaluation of Other Alternatives that would Reduce or Eliminate the Use, Occupancy, 

or Disposition of Public Lands Needed for Subsistence

Alternative A would eliminate the use of public lands needed for subsistence purposes, but it does not 

meet the purpose of the proposed action, nor does it comply with PL 115-97.

E.2.1.4 Findings

Alternative A will not result in a significant restriction in subsistence uses. A positive determination 

pursuant to ANILCA Section 810 is not required.

E.2.2 Evaluation and Finding for Alternative B

Section B.8.2, Alternative B in Appendix B, speculates up to four central processing facilities (CPFs)

would be built under Alternative B: two CPFs would be built in the high potential area, one CPF would 

be built in the medium potential area on State or native lands, or just south of Kaktovik, and one CPF 

would be built in the low potential area. Under this scenario, three or four production pads, 17 satellite 

pads, and 208 miles of road, a seawater treatment plant, and at least one barge landing and storage pad 

would be built. The 2,000-acre surface disturbance limit would be reached under Alternative B. 

The hypothetical development scenario anticipates that future development would occur in the same 

manner as the baseline scenario described in Appendix B under Alternative B. The entire Coastal Plain 

would be offered for lease sale, and when compared to the other action alternatives, this alternative has 

the largest amount of acres where only Required Operating Procedures (ROPs) would apply (Table 

2-1 in Chapter 2). Approximately 359,400 acres would be subject to a no surface occupancy (NSO) 

stipulation to protect caribou calving habitat, fish and hydrologic resources, and subsistence activities 
E. ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program E-5

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

adjacent to major rivers. There would be zero acres subject to controlled surface use (CSU), and 

585,400 acres would be subject to timing limitations (TLs). Only standard terms and conditions would 

apply to approximately 618,700 acres. Map 2-1, Alternative B and Map 2-2, Alternative B, Lease

Stipulations (Appendix A) illustrate where NSO, TLs, and standard terms and conditions would be 

adopted.

E.2.2.1 Evaluation of the Effect of Use, Occupancy, or Disposition on Subsistence Uses and 

Needs

This preliminary evaluation summarizes potential impacts on major subsistence resources (fish, marine 

mammals, and caribou) for residents of Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Arctic Village, and Venetie before a 

discussion of other issues, such as impacts on resource access anticipated under Alternative B. Table E2 classifies each impact as minor, moderate, or major, based on the discussion in the EIS and BLM policy 

guidance (BLM 2011). Table E-3 summarizes the extent to which impacts on access would affect 

subsistence users.

Fish

Section 3.3.2, Fish and Aquatic Species, describes potential impacts on non-salmon fish (primarily Dolly 

Varden and Bering cisco), which are important subsistence resources for residents of Kaktovik (Table 

3-32). Impacts from future oil and gas exploration, development, and production that may affect 

subsistence harvest of non-salmon fish are as follows: 

 Habitat loss or alteration

 Disturbance or displacement

 Injury or mortality due to noise, entrainment, or contaminants

Select streams listed in Chapter 2 would have 0.5- to 1-mile setbacks for surface development under 

Alternative B; all other fish-bearing streams would have a 500-foot setback, and all of the nearshore 

marine, lagoon, and barrier island habitats of the Southern Beaufort Sea (within the boundary of the 

Arctic Refuge) would be subject to NSO. In addition, an impact and conflict avoidance and monitoring 

plan to assess, minimize and mitigate the effects of infrastructure on coastal habitats would be required. 

Numerous mitigation measures would be implemented to address impacts on fish and fish habitat, 

namely Lease Stipulations 1, 3, 4, and 9, and ROPs 3, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 40, and 

41. While potential impacts on fish would be most pronounced under this alternative, it is likely that the 

proposed mitigation measures would effectively reduce impacts on fish that are important to residents 

of Kaktovik. Dolly Varden or Bering cisco abundance or availability would not likely be affected to the 

extent that subsistence use of these fish would be significantly impaired.

Marine Mammals

Section 3.3.5, Marine Mammals, describes potential impacts on bowhead whales and ringed/bearded 

seals, which are important subsistence resources for residents of Kaktovik and Nuiqsut (Tables 3-32 

and 3-33). Impacts from future oil and gas exploration, development, and production that may affect 

subsistence harvest of marine mammals are mortality or injury due to vessel strikes and disturbance or 

displacement due to vessel traffic or noise and activity associated with onshore infrastructure.

Whales and seals could be injured or killed by vessel strikes, although such events would be highly 

unlikely. Collisions with whales are rare for slow-moving vessels such as barges, and ringed/bearded 
E. ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

E-6 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

seals are able to avoid oncoming vessels (George et al. 1994; Laist et al. 2001). There is no indication 

that vessel strikes would be a major source of mortality for whales or bearded/ringed seals during 

marine transport associated with future on-the-ground activities in the program area.

Large vessel traffic in the vicinity of Kaktovik could temporarily disturb or displace whales or 

bearded/ringed seals. These animals demonstrate habituation to noise and activity associated with vessel 

traffic and onshore infrastructure when disturbance does not result in physical injury, discomfort, or 

social stress (NRC 2003). This impact would not have population-level effects. 

Potential impacts on marine mammals important for subsistence would be minor or effectively mitigated 

under Alternative B. Specifically, Lease Stipulation 4 would require NSO in nearshore marine, lagoon 

and barrier island habitats, Lease Stipulation 9 would require that lessees implement a conflict avoidance 

and monitoring plan for coastal areas. In addition, the standard terms and conditions that would apply 

under Alternative B would sufficiently mitigate residual impacts to subsistence use of bowhead whales 

and seals by residents of Kaktovik and Nuiqsut. 

Caribou

Table 3-22 lists potential impacts on terrestrial mammals, including caribou. Impacts from future oil 

and gas exploration, development, and production that may affect subsistence use of caribou are as 

follows:

 Habitat loss or alteration

 Mortality or injury due to vehicle collisions

 Altered movement patterns due to linear infrastructure

 Altered caribou behavior due to aircraft traffic

 Displacement of maternal caribou during calving

Direct habitat loss associated with future on-the-ground activities would occur on 2,000 acres in the 

program area. Additional habitat in the vicinity of infrastructure would be affected by dust deposition, 

gravel spray, thermokarst, flow alteration, and impoundments. Direct habitat loss would reduce forage 

availability for caribou. Aside from concentrations of the high-quality tussock tundra and moist sedgewillow tundra vegetation types, which are a critical feature of the PCH primary calving grounds, foraging 

habitat is abundant across the program area. 

Development in the PCH calving grounds may have behavioral effects on maternal caribou which could 

affect population size (described below); nevertheless, it is not likely that development on 2,000 acres in 

the calving grounds, insect relief habitat, or general summer habitat would reduce forage enough to 

affect caribou health or body fat reserves on a large scale. Caribou would be displaced from areas that 

no longer have suitable forage, but displacement is not expected to be widespread. Caribou could still 

forage within the total footprint of a CPF and its associated satellite well pads, for example. Caribou 

abundance or availability and the subsistence use thereof would not likely be affected as a result of 

direct habitat loss.

Small numbers of PCH caribou could be killed or injured due to vehicle collisions associated with future 

oil and gas exploration, development, and production in the program area during construction, drilling, 

and operations. Collision risk would be highest during insect harassment, when caribou move 
E. ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program E-7

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

unpredictably and often seek relief on gravel pads, roads, and airstrips. Alternative B proposes a number 

of mitigation measures to reduce vehicle collisions with caribou. ROP 23 would require that lessees 

design and implement a traffic management and vehicle use plan, and ROP 42 would prohibit chasing 

wildlife (specifically caribou) with vehicles. These measures sufficiently mitigate mortality risk to caribou 

on the North Slope (A. Prichard, pers. comm.1). Residual mortality would likely be very low and would 

not significantly affect the abundance of caribou for subsistence use.

Movement patterns could be altered due to future linear infrastructure under Alternative B. The most 

common source of disturbance associated with roads is vehicle traffic. Traffic volumes greater than 15 

vehicles per hour have been shown to deflect caribou or delay their road crossings (Curatolo and 

Murphy 1986; Cronin et al. 1994). Caribou crossing success would vary by season, behavioral 

motivation, level of habituation, and activity levels. Movements in response to insect harassment 

between late June and mid-August would be most likely to be affected.

Caribou are highly motivated to seek relief in coastal areas during insect harassment (Cronin et al. 1994; 

Murphy and Lawhead 2000). Thus, they are less likely to be affected by roads and vehicle traffic from 

mid- to late summer if appropriate mitigation measures are used. Some deflection or movement delays 

may occur prior to PCH habituation to development but is not expected to be widespread. The 

mitigation measures proposed under Alternative B (Lease Stipulations 3, 4, 7 and 9, and ROPs 23 and 

42) would be adequate to maintain caribou passage to coastal areas. Caribou would still be available to 

subsistence hunters along the coast during traditional timeframes. 

A CPF or one or more satellite pads could be located south of Kaktovik in the area bounded by the 

Hulahula and Jago Rivers. This is an important subsistence use area for residents of Kaktovik (Map 3-

28, Kaktovik Subsistence Use Areas in Appendix A). The majority of Kaktovik’s subsistence use area 

that is bounded by the Hulahula and Jago Rivers would be subject to NSOs or TLs. Development would 

not significantly affect the availability of caribou for subsistence use. 

Caribou behavior could be altered by future oil and gas exploration, development, and production,

specifically from aircraft traffic (see Section 3.3.4, Terrestrial Mammals). Responses vary depending on 

the season, degree of habituation, aircraft type, altitude, flight patterns, weather conditions, frequency of 

overflights, and the sex and age composition of caribou groups. Low-level flights or maneuvering in the 

presence of unhabituated caribou can elicit increased speed and abrupt direction change. Alternatively, 

caribou can become habituated to aircraft, particularly when aircraft pilots maintain altitudes greater 

than 500 feet above ground level and do not haze or harass the caribou (Valkenburg and Davis 1983). 

The EIS describes potential impacts of aircraft associated with future on-the-ground activities on caribou 

and caribou behavior in detail. In general, caribou responses to aircraft adhering to effective stipulation 

measures tend to be short-lived (Fullman et al. 2017).

Although short-lived, caribou responses to aircraft can affect subsistence hunters. Residents of Nuiqsut 

consistently highlight aircraft disturbance of caribou as a concern and state that aircraft activity makes 

animals more wary and harvest more difficult (Stinchcomb 2017). The extent of this potential impact is 

highly contingent on the location of frequently used flight paths, which would depend on the locations of 

CPFs and other major facilities. Air traffic in the vicinity of Kaktovik associated with future oil and gas 

 

1A. Prichard, [ABR, Inc. – Environmental Research and Services Senior Scientist], personal communication with E. 

Julianus [BLM Wildlife Biologist], EMPSi, [27 July 2018].
E. ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

E-8 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

activities would increase under Alternative B, and could increase further if one or more CPF 

development clusters were roadless, as is described in Appendix B. If a CPF development cluster is 

either along the coast or in the area bounded by the Hulahula and Jago Rivers (Map 3-29, Kaktovik 

Caribou Subsistence Use Areas, in Appendix A), which would be permissible under Alternative B, 

caribou could be more difficult to harvest. Arctic Village and Venetie would not be affected by this 

short-term impact; however, this could affect the availability of caribou for residents of Kaktovik. 

ROPs 34, 36 and 40 would require lessees to follow numerous mitigation measures to ensure that the 

effects of aircraft on caribou and caribou hunting would be minimized. These strict operating procedures 

are used on BLM-administered lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and are 

generally successful in reducing most impacts. ROP 36 would also apply under Alternative B. It would 

require that lessees, operators, and contractors work closely with residents of Kaktovik during all 

phases of project application, design, and implementation. If done effectively, this consultation would 

assist permittees in the design and orientation of facilities, including airstrips, such that frequent, lowlevel traffic in caribou subsistence use areas would be nonexistent or considered minor to moderate 

(Table E-2). It is likely that residual impacts associated with future on-the-ground activities would not 

significantly affect caribou availability for residents of Kaktovik, if these requirements are followed 

closely. 

Displacement of maternal caribou during calving was one of the primary issues raised during scoping. Oil 

and gas development on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge and its potential impact on the PCH 

calving grounds has been the subject of much discussion for decades. As a result, PCH habitat, 

movement, and population dynamics have been well studied. Studies on the CAH and others have 

shown that maternal caribou with young calves would avoid infrastructure by up to 2.49 miles (Lawhead 

et al. 2004; Haskell and Ballard 2004). The literature generally suggests that calving would most likely 

shift to the east or southeast if displacement of maternal caribou occurs during the calving season 

(Griffith et al. 2002). This could result in reduced calf survival, as areas east of the program area are 

characterized by suboptimal forage and, as a result, higher calf mortality and lower pregnancy rates 

(Russell et al. 1996). These areas also have higher predation rates, which contributes to higher calf 

mortality (Young et al. 2002). 

The likelihood or extent to which impacts to PCH caribou abundance could occur depends largely on 

the extent of surface development associated with future on-the-ground activities happening within 

important calving grounds. The EIS defines important calving grounds as the high-use PCH calving area 

(area used in greater than 40 percent of years). This area spans 2,745,109 acres across northeastern 

Alaska and Canada (Yukon Environmental 2018, Map C-1). More surface development within this area 

could result in greater displacement of maternal caribou during calving, and thus could contribute to 

lower pregnancy rates and lower calf survival rates (Griffith et al. 2002). Alternatively, less or no surface 

development in this area, and the calving grounds in general, would result in less, negligible, or no 

displacement.

A total of 592,800 acres (22 percent) of the total high-use calving area could be leased and subject to 

surface occupancy under Alternative B (Table J-12 in Appendix J; Table E-1). Development on all of 

the acres subject to surface occupancy within the high-use calving area is not possible given the 2,000-

acre surface disturbance limit mandated by PL 115-97. All of this area would be subject to TLs. Research 

has demonstrated that TLs effectively mitigate the majority of impacts to caribou, but they do not 
E. ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program E-9

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

effectively mitigate the displacement of maternal caribou during calving. Thus, caribou could still be 

displaced within areas subject to TLs.

Under Alternative B, a maximum of two CPFs and associated well pads and roads could potentially be 

located within the medium and low hydrocarbon potential areas, with one CPF potentially sited on 

private lands and one within or partially within the high-use PCH calving area. Surface disturbance 

associated with one CPF in the high-use PCH calving area could total up to 488 acres based on Figure 

B.2., Conceptual Layout of a Caribou Area Stand-alone Oil Development Facility, in Appendix B. 

Depending on the configuration of the oil field, displacement of maternal caribou around 488 acres of 

surface disturbance could total up to 118,500 acres (4 percent) of the high-use calving area based on 

2.49 miles of observed displacement around infrastructure during calving. However, the precise location 

of infrastructure, and thus the extent of overlap between surface disturbance and the high-use PCH 

calving area, is unknown. It is likely that there would be no or very little surface disturbance within the 

high-use PCH calving area, given that the hypothetical development scenario suggests that future 

development would move from west to east, would be concentrated along the coast, and that lessees 

would attempt to minimize lengthy travel from coastal and existing infrastructure, and between CPFs. It 

is also possible that the access to CPFs could be roadless, thereby further reducing potential surface 

disturbance within important caribou habitat. 

Griffith et al. (2002) modeled calf survival under development scenarios outlined by Tussing and Haley 

(1999). They predicted an 8 percent decline in annual calf survival if full development of the program 

area occurred. The 2,000-acre surface disturbance limit was not used in the model. While the full 

development described by Tussing and Haley (1999) and Griffith et al. (2002) would not occur under 

Alternative B, displacement on up to 4 percent of the high-use calving area is possible. The hypothetical 

development scenario suggests that future development within the high-use area would be either 

nonexistent or well below levels that would cause 4 percent displacement. It is not likely that 

widespread displacement would occur under Alternative B. Therefore, while the PCH caribou 

population size would continue to fluctuate, potential impacts to herd size as a result of displacement of 

maternal caribou would be negligible. Caribou abundance for Kaktovik, Arctic Village, and Venetie would 

not be significantly impacted. 

Subsistence Access

Kaktovik and Nuiqsut are the only communities whose subsistence use areas overlap the program area. 

Thus, they are the only communities that could be legally or physically prohibited from accessing these 

areas. Potential impacts on subsistence access from future oil and gas exploration, development, and 

production are as follows:

 Loss of subsistence use areas due to direct overlap with infrastructure

 Physical obstruction of subsistence users or activities by infrastructure

 Legal or regulatory barriers

Under Alternative B, numerous lease stipulations and ROPs would ensure that Kaktovik and Nuiqsut 

residents’ ability to access resources is maintained. These include Lease Stipulations 1, 3, 4, 7, 9 and 

ROPs 23, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, and 42. Legal and physical access to subsistence resources may be 

altered, depending on the locations of CPFs and industry-established safety areas; however, it is likely 

that large-scale access to subsistence resources would be maintained. 
E. ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

E-10 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

E.2.2.2 Evaluation of the Availability of Other Lands for the Purpose Sought to be Achieved

Section 1003 of ANILCA, 16 USC 3143, deferred the decision to conduct leasing in the program area 

until authorized by Congress. PL 115-97 provides that decision, and requires the Secretary of the 

Interior, acting through the BLM, to conduct leasing in the program area. The purpose of the EIS is to 

inform the BLM’s implementation of PL 115-97; Alternative B would fulfill this purpose. Lands outside 

the program area are not subject to PL 115-97 and would therefore not fulfill this purpose.

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

or Disposition of Public Lands Needed for Subsistence

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

that make more land in the program area unavailable for oil and gas leasing or those that would not 

allow oil and gas activity. Alternatives C, D1, and D2 would make more land in the program area 

unavailable for oil and gas leasing. Alternative A would not allow oil and gas leasing to occur. The 

purpose of the EIS is to inform the BLM’s implementation of PL 115-97; Alternatives C, D1, and D2 

would fulfill this purpose. Alternative A would not fulfill this purpose.

E.2.2.4 Findings

Alternative B will not result in a significant restriction to subsistence uses. Potential impacts on 

subsistence resources and access from future oil and gas exploration, development, and production 

would be minimal or would be adequately mitigated by stipulations or ROPs under which lessees must 

operate. PCH caribou abundance may be affected due to minor displacement of maternal caribou, but 

large-scale displacement and consequent large decreases in the abundance of PCH caribou available for 

subsistence use is unlikely. A positive determination pursuant to ANILCA Section 810 is not required.

E.2.3 Evaluation and Finding for Alternative C

Section B.8.3, Alternative C in Appendix B anticipates that three CPFs would be built under 

Alternative C: 2 CPFs would be built in the high potential area and one CPF would be built in the 

medium potential area sound of Kaktovik. Under this hypothetical scenario, two production pads, 21 

satellite pads, and 217 miles of road, a seawater treatment plant, and one barge landing and storage pad 

would be built. The 2,000-acre surface disturbance cap would be reached within the high and medium 

potential areas.

Under Alternative C, approximately 932,500 acres would be subject to NSO which would protect 

caribou calving habitat, in addition to other resources and uses (Table 2-1 in Chapter 2). 317,100 

acres would be subject to TLs, and 313,900 would be subject to the ROPs or standard terms and 

conditions. Map 2-3, Alternative C and Map 2-4, Alternative C, Lease Stipulations, in Appendix A

illustrate where NSOs, TLs, and areas subject only to standard terms and conditions would be adopted.

E.2.3.1 Evaluation of the Effect of Use, Occupancy, or Disposition on Subsistence Uses and 

Needs

Fish

Potential impacts on subsistence fish species from future oil and gas exploration, development, and 

production under Alternative C would be similar to that described under Alternative B, although facility 

locations may differ due to the lands available for lease. Similar mitigation measures would be used, 
E. ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program E-11

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

although lands along the coast would be designated as NSO (Lease Stipulations 1, 4 and 9). Minor 

impacts on fish are not anticipated to affect fish availability or abundance for residents of Kaktovik.

Marine Mammals

The potential impacts of disturbing and displacing bowhead whales and ringed seals from future oil and 

gas activities under Alternative C would be similar to that described under Alternative B; however, 

facility locations may differ, due to the lands available for lease. These minor impacts are not anticipated 

to affect bowhead whale or ringed seal availability or abundance. 

Caribou

Direct habitat loss or alteration from future oil and gas activities would be similar to that described 

under Alternative B, because development of 2,000 acres in the program area would not vary by 

alternative. Direct habitat loss or alteration would not appreciably affect the availability or abundance of 

caribou for subsistence use.

Mortality or injuries from vehicle collisions would be similar to that described under Alternative B. ROP 

23 would apply under Alternative C and would sufficiently address collision risk. Low-incidence 

mortality would not significantly affect the abundance of caribou for subsistence use.

Altered movement patterns due to linear infrastructure associated with future on-the-ground activities 

would be minor under Alternative C. The mitigation measures proposed under Alternative C would 

reduce impacts on caribou movement. The majority of Kaktovik’s subsistence use area that is bounded 

by the Hulahula and Jago Rivers would be subject to NSOs or TLs. Altered movement patterns would 

not significantly affect the availability of caribou for subsistence use by Kaktovik. Altered PCH caribou 

movement patterns during spring and summer would not affect residents of Arctic Village or Venetie.

Altered caribou behavior due to aircraft traffic associated with future on-the-ground activities would be 

the same as that described under Alternative B. Aircraft traffic associated with Kaktovik would be the 

same as that described under Alternative B and would likely cause some caribou disturbance in the 

vicinity of Kaktovik; however, additional CPFs, airstrips, and heavily used flight paths would also be 

located outside Kaktovik’s primary subsistence use areas. Additionally, ROPs 34, 36, and 40 would also 

apply under Alternative C, further reducing adverse impacts on hunters. Minor impacts of aircraft on 

caribou behavior would not significantly affect caribou availability for residents of Kaktovik. 

Under Alternative C, the majority of the high-use calving area within the program area could be leased 

but would be subject to NSO (Table J-12 in Appendix J; Table E-1). Eighty-three thousand four 

hundred acres (3 percent) would be subject to TLs and 13,700 acres (0.5 percent) would be subject to 

standard terms and conditions only. As discussed under Alternative B, caribou could still be displaced 

within areas subject to TLs.

Under Alternative C, a maximum of one CPF and associated well pads and roads could potentially be 

located within the medium hydrocarbon potential area. This CPF could likely be sited on private lands. If 

so, the CPF would be located north of the high-use calving area. Some maternal caribou could be 

displaced as a result of the CPF, but displacement would not be widespread. If a CPF were sited on 

private lands, one to two well pads could be located within the high-use calving area. If two well pads 

were located within this area, surface disturbance could total up to 24 acres. Displacement of maternal 
E. ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

E-12 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

caribou around two well pads could total up to 26,648 acres (less than 1 percent) of the high-use calving 

area based on 2.49 miles of observed displacement around infrastructure during calving.

As discussed under Alternative B, the precise location of future oil and gas-related infrastructure, and 

thus the extent of overlap between surface disturbance and the high-use calving area, is unknown. The 

majority of the high-use calving area would be NSO under Alternative C. In addition, it is likely that 

there would be no or very little surface disturbance within the high-use calving area, given that the 

hypothetical development scenario suggests that future development would move from west to east, 

would be concentrated along the coast, and that a CPF in the medium potential hydrocarbon area would 

likely be sited on private lands. Based on these assumptions, potential impacts to herd size as a result of 

displacement of maternal caribou would be negligible. Caribou abundance for Kaktovik, Arctic Village, 

and Venetie would not be significantly impacted.

Subsistence Access

Access to subsistence resources would be similar to Alternative B, and, in general, this access would be 

maintained. 

E.2.3.2 Evaluation of the Availability of Other Lands for the Purpose Sought to be Achieved

Evaluation of the availability of other lands is identical to that described under Alternative B (see 

Section E.2.2.2, above). 

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

or Disposition of Public Lands Needed for Subsistence

Evaluation of other alternatives is identical to that described under Alternative B (see Section E.2.2.3, 

above).

E.2.3.4 Findings

Alternative C will not result in a significant restriction to subsistence uses. Potential impacts on 

subsistence resources and access from future oil and gas exploration, development, and production 

would be minimal or would be adequately mitigated by stipulations or ROPs under which lessees must 

operate. A positive determination pursuant to ANILCA Section 810 is not required.

E.2.4 Evaluation and Finding for Alternative D1

Section B.8.4, Alternative D1 in Appendix B anticipates that two CPFs would be built: one CPF 

would be built in the high potential area and one in the medium potential area south of Kaktovik. Under 

this scenario, two production pads, 21 satellite pads, and 218 miles of road, a seawater treatment plant, 

and one barge landing and storage pad would be built. The 2,000-acre surface disturbance cap would be 

reached in the high and medium potential areas.

Approximately 526,300 acres would be closed to leasing to protect caribou calving habitat under 

Alternative D1 (Table 2-1 in Chapter 2). Of the remaining 1,037,200 acres available for leasing, 

708,600 would be subject to NSO, 123,900 would be subject to CSU, 0 would be subject to TLs, and 

204,700 would be subject to standard terms and conditions only. Map 2-5, Alternative D1 and Map 2-

6, Alternative D1, Lease Stipulations, in Appendix A illustrate where NSO, CSU, and standard terms 

and conditions would be adopted.
E. ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program E-13

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

E.2.4.1 Evaluation of the Effect of Use, Occupancy, or Disposition on Subsistence Uses and 

Needs

Fish

Potential impacts on subsistence fish species would be similar to those described under Alternatives B 

and C, although future facility locations may differ due to the lands available for lease. More extensive 

mitigation measures would be used, a 0.5- to 4-mile setback for surface development would apply on all 

streams and waterbodies, and NSO would apply along the coast. While minor impacts on fish could still 

occur from future oil and gas exploration, development, and production, they are not anticipated to 

affect fish availability or abundance for residents of Kaktovik.

Marine Mammals

Disturbance and displacement of bowhead whales and ringed seals associated with future on-the-ground 

activities would be similar to that described under Alternatives B and C, although future facility locations 

may differ due to the lands available for lease. These potential minor impacts are not anticipated to 

affect bowhead whale or ringed seal availability or abundance. 

Caribou

Direct habitat loss or alteration from future oil and gas exploration, development, and production would 

be similar to that described under Alternatives B and C, as development of 2,000 acres in the program 

area would not vary by alternative. Direct habitat loss or alteration from future on-the-ground activities 

would not affect the availability or abundance of caribou for subsistence use.

Mortality or injuries due to vehicle strikes associated with future oil and gas development in the Coastal 

Plain would be similar to that described under Alternatives B and C. ROP 23 would apply under 

Alternative D1 as well and would sufficiently address collision risk. Low-incidence mortality would not 

significantly affect the abundance of caribou for subsistence use.

Altered movement patterns due to roads and pipelines associated with future oil and gas development in 

the Coastal Plain would be similar to what is expected to occur under Alternative C, but the extent of 

this impact would be lessened. This is because the areas important for caribou movement would be 

largely subject to NSO, TLs, or would not be offered for lease sale. This would apply to spring migration 

and movements to and from the coast in response to insect harassment, and potentially to fall migration. 

Although some delays and deflections while crossing roads and pipelines are expected, PCH caribou 

movements would be relatively undisturbed and would not significantly affect the availability of caribou 

for subsistence use by residents of Kaktovik.

A total of 14,300 acres (0.5 percent) of the high-use calving area could be leased and subject to surface 

occupancy under Alternative D1 (Table J-12 in Appendix J; Table E-1). 5,400 acres (0.2 percent) 

would be subject to CSU and 8,900 acres (0.3 percent) would be subject to standard lease terms and 

conditions only. Caribou could be displaced within these areas.

Similar to Alternative C, a maximum of one CPF and associated well pads and roads could potentially be 

located within the medium hydrocarbon potential area under Alternative D1. This CPF would likely be 

sited on private lands. Since these assumptions are identical to Alternative C, impacts to maternal 

caribou would likewise be the same. Displacement would not be widespread and could occur on up to 

26,648 acres (less than 1 percent) of the high-use calving area if one to two well pads were constructed 
E. ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

E-14 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

in this area. Based on these assumptions, potential impacts to herd size as a result of displacement of 

maternal caribou from future on-the-ground activities would be small or negligible. Caribou abundance 

for Kaktovik, Arctic Village, and Venetie would not be significantly impacted. 

Subsistence Access

Access to subsistence resources would be similar to Alternative B. In general, access to subsistence 

resources would be maintained. 

E.2.4.2 Evaluation of the Availability of Other Lands for the Purpose Sought to be Achieved

Evaluation of the availability of other lands would be similar to Alternative B (see Section E.2.2.2, 

above). 

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

or Disposition of Public Lands Needed for Subsistence

Evaluation of other alternatives is identical to that described under Alternative B (see Section E.2.2.3, 

above).

E.2.4.4 Findings

Alternative D1 will not result in a significant restriction in subsistence uses. Potential impacts on 

subsistence resources and access from future oil and gas exploration, development, and production 

would be minimal or would be adequately mitigated by stipulations or ROPs under which lessees must 

operate. A positive determination pursuant to ANILCA Section 810 is not required.

E.2.5 Evaluation and Finding for Alternative D2

Alternative D2 would place TLs on 204,700 acres in lieu of standard terms and conditions, which would 

be implemented under Alternative D1 as described above. TLs would restrict activity during caribou 

calving and post-calving when caribou are present, between May 15 and July 30. Map 2-7, Alternative 

D2, and Map 2-8, Alternative D2, Lease Stipulations, in Appendix A illustrate where NSO, CSU, TLs, 

and areas subject to standard terms and conditions only would be adopted.

Section B.8.5, Alternative D2 in Appendix B anticipates that two CPFs would be built under 

Alternative D2: one CPF would be built in the high-potential area and one in the medium-potential area 

sound of Kaktovik. Under this scenario, two production pads, 21 satellite pads, and 217 miles of road, a 

seawater treatment plant, and one barge landing and storage pad would be built. The 2,000-acre surface 

disturbance cap would be reached in the high- and medium- potential areas.

E.2.5.1 Evaluation of the Effect of Use, Occupancy, or Disposition on Subsistence Uses and 

Needs

Fish

Potential impacts on fish would be identical to those described under Alternative D1 (see Section

E.2.4.1, above).

Marine Mammals

Potential impacts on marine mammals would be identical to those described under Alternative D1 (see 

Section E.2.4.1, above).
E. ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program E-15

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Caribou

Direct habitat loss or alteration from future oil and gas exploration, development, and production would 

be similar to that described under Alternatives B, C, and D1, as development of 2,000 acres in the 

program area would not vary by alternative. Direct habitat loss or alteration from future activities in the 

Coastal Plain would not affect the availability or abundance of caribou for subsistence use.

Mortality or injuries due to vehicle strikes associated with future oil and gas development in the Coastal 

Plain would be similar to those described under Alternatives B, C, and D1. ROP 23 would apply under 

Alternative D2, and Lease Stipulation 6 would be adopted as part of a suite of mitigation measures. 

These measures would sufficiently address collision risk. Low-incidence mortality from future activities 

would not significantly affect the abundance of caribou for subsistence use.

Alteration of movement patterns associated with future oil and gas development in the Coastal Plain 

would be similar to that expected under Alternative D1. Caribou movement would be relatively 

undisturbed and would not significantly affect the availability of caribou for subsistence use by Kaktovik 

residents. 

Displacement of maternal caribou associated with future oil and gas development in the Coastal Plain 

would be similar to that expected under Alternative D1. Potential impacts to caribou abundance as a 

result of maternal caribou displacement would be small or negligible. Caribou abundance for Kaktovik, 

Arctic Village, and Venetie would not be significantly impacted. 

Subsistence Access

Access to subsistence resources would be similar to Alternative B, and this access would be maintained. 

E.2.5.2 Evaluation of the Availability of Other Lands for the Purpose Sought to be Achieved

Evaluation of the availability of other lands would be similar to that described under Alternative B (see 

Section E.2.2.2, above). 

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

or Disposition of Public Lands Needed for Subsistence

Evaluation of other alternatives is identical to that described under Alternative B (see Section E.2.2.3, 

above).

E.2.5.4 Findings

Alternative D2 will not result in a significant restriction in subsistence uses. Potential impacts on 

subsistence resources and access from future oil and gas exploration, development, and production 

would be minimal, or they would be adequately mitigated by stipulations or ROPs under which lessees 

must operate. A positive determination pursuant to ANILCA Section 810 is not required.

E.2.6 Evaluation and Finding for the Cumulative Case

The goal of the cumulative case analysis presented in Chapter 3 is to evaluate the incremental impact 

of the actions considered in the EIS, in conjunction with all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future activities in or near the Coastal Plain, specifically, in the Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Arctic Village, and 

Venetie subsistence use areas.
E. ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

E-16 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Actions included in the cumulative case analysis are listed in Section F.2.2 in Appendix F. Past and 

present actions that have affected subsistence uses and resources are as follows:

 Oil and gas exploration, development, and production on the North Slope

 Transportation

 Subsistence activities

 Recreation and tourism

 Scientific research

 Community development

 Climate change

Reasonably foreseeable future actions include the following: 

 Road and pipeline between Kaktovik and the Dalton Highway/Trans-Alaska Pipeline

 Oil and gas development in the Colville-Canning Area

 Oil and gas activity in the vicinity of Alpine

E.2.6.1 Evaluation of the Effect of Use, Occupancy, or Disposition on Subsistence Uses and 

Needs

Actions included in the cumulative case analysis are listed in Section F.2.2 in Appendix F. These 

actions fall in to six broad categories: oil and gas exploration and development, transportation, 

subsistence activities, recreation and tourism, scientific research, and community development. 

Additionally, climate change is considered a variable that could contribute to potential cumulative effects 

of the proposed alternatives and reasonably foreseeable future actions. This section describes the 

potential impacts each of these categories could have to Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Arctic Village, and Venetie 

subsistence uses. 

Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, and Production

Oil and gas exploration, development, and production is ongoing and planned within the onshore North 

Slope, State and Federal waters in the Beaufort Sea, and in the Western Canadian Arctic. These 

activities include exploration work, infrastructure development, construction, and maintenance, gravel 

mining, and production associated with existing wells. These activities are expected to continue under all 

alternatives. 

Section 3.4.3, Subsistence Uses and Resources, identifies cumulative infrastructure development on 

the North Slope as a major impact to subsistence activities. This is corroborated by other analyses and 

810 evaluations. In the NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan/EIS, the BLM (2012) indicated that, irrespective of 

the alternative selected, cumulative activity on the North Slope had the potential to significantly restrict 

subsistence access for a number of communities. Increased infrastructure has contributed to a feeling of 

being “boxed in” by development in and around Nuiqsut. Impacts to Nuiqsut’s ability to access 

subsistence resources, according to previous EISs, would be significant.

Similar to issues associated with development around Nuiqsut, ongoing and proposed oil and gas 

activities associated with Point Thomson and Liberty, would impact lands in the vicinity of Kaktovik, and 

would potentially restrict subsistence activities and access to subsistence resources within their 
E. ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program E-17

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

subsistence use area. Past, present, and future development would not mirror the scenario observed for 

Alpine-associated development and Nuiqsut. Future development within the program area beyond the 

surface disturbance limit of 2,000 acres would require additional action by Congress, and is not included 

in the hypothetical development scenario (Appendix B). Future development associated with the 

Leasing EIS would not surround Kaktovik, but residents may still feel surrounded if there is development 

to the west, south, and east of their traditional hunting areas2. This could occur under Alternative B. 

Future development associated with oil and gas activities could occur along the coast, where multiple 

ports or seawater treatment plants could be constructed, and within the important subsistence use area 

bounded by the Hulahula and Jago Rivers. It could also occur under Alternatives C, D1, and D2, as 

future on-the-ground development could occur on corporation lands directly south of Kaktovik. 

Numerous measures would be adopted to mitigate potential impacts to subsistence access. Under all 

alternatives, Lease Stipulation 1 would implement NSO along rivers that are important for subsistence 

use by residents of Kaktovik. Lease Stipulation 9 would require lessees to develop and implement an 

impact and conflict avoidance and monitoring plan to assess, minimize, and mitigate the effects of the 

infrastructure and its use on subsistence users. ROPs 18, 20, and 23 would require that roads and other 

infrastructure be designed to avoid or minimize impacts to subsistence access to tradition hunting and 

fishing areas. ROPs 36-40 would require that lessees participate in extensive consultation with 

subsistence communities. Lessees would be required to coordinate directly with Kaktovik and seek 

input from local advisory councils such as the North Slope and Eastern Interior Subsistence Regional 

Advisory Councils. They would be required to develop a plan to prevent unreasonable conflicts with 

subsistence activities, and to develop a subsistence access plan prior to beginning exploration or 

development. All future development plans would be subject to BLM review prior to approval. 

Public testimony indicates that residents believe conflict avoidance and subsistence access plans mitigate 

potential impacts to subsistence. However, access patterns have changed in response to development 

on the North Slope, and residents still report feeling “boxed in” by existing development (SRB&A 2017). 

Potential impacts to subsistence access would likely be effectively mitigated under Alternatives B, C, D1, 

and D2. However, cumulative impacts associated with Point Thomson, Liberty, and other projects could 

result in more than no effect or slight inconvenience3 on the ability of harvesters to reach and use active 

subsistence harvest sites. Therefore, cumulative impacts of oil and gas exploration, development, and 

construction could significantly impact Kaktovik’s ability to access subsistence resources.

The BLM (2012) found that caribou availability for residents of Nuiqsut could be significantly impacted as 

a result of development in the vicinity of Alpine. Impacts to PCH caribou availability would not affect 

Nuiqsut, as their caribou subsistence use area does not overlap with the PCH range nor is there 

documented harvest of PCH caribou by Nuiqsut. Cumulative impacts to PCH caribou would not 

significantly impact residents of Nuiqsut under all alternatives.

Ongoing and future actions along the coast may contribute to some impacts to caribou availability. 

These impacts to caribou availability for Kaktovik are limited to aircraft and vehicle disturbance and are 

described below in Transportation. 

 

2

S. Braund, [Stephen R. Braund and Associates Senior Scientist], personal communication with E. Julianus [BLM 

Wildlife Biologist], EMPSi, [08 September 2018].

3

Significance threshold defined on page 6-1 of BLM Instruction No. AK-2011-008.
E. ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

E-18 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Potential impacts from future oil and gas exploration, development, and production to PCH caribou 

abundance for residents of Kaktovik, Arctic Village, and Venetie under Alternatives B, C, D1, and D2, 

would be minor due to the speculative locations of future proposed infrastructure and more restrictive 

lease stipulations and ROPs. Ongoing or future development are not expected to impact caribou 

abundance. Therefore, the cumulative impact, in conjunction with Alternatives B, C, D1, and D2, would 

not significantly restrict subsistence uses of PCH caribou. 

Transportation

Surface, air, and marine transportation within Kaktovik and Nuiqsut’s subsistence use areas would 

continue under all alternatives. This includes roads and vehicular traffic, shipping and barging, and aircraft 

traffic. Increased activity associated with future oil and gas developments would result in higher levels of 

vessel, ground, and air traffic. This increased activity is likely under Alternatives B, C, D1, and D2. Under 

each alternative, NSOs, TLs, and standard terms and conditions would be sufficient to effectively 

mitigate potential impacts of transportation associated with future on-the-ground activities on 

subsistence resources. Potential impacts to caribou abundance, availability, or access to subsistence 

resources for Kaktovik would not be significant under all alternatives. Impacts to caribou availability due 

to development in the vicinity of Nuiqsut were found to be potentially significant for Nuiqsut. However, 

potential impacts to caribou from future oil and gas activities associated with all alternatives would not 

contribute to cumulative effects on Nuiqsut’s resource availability. 

Subsistence Activities

Subsistence activities on the North Slope would continue under all alternatives. Although subsistence 

practices are somewhat fluid and subject to annual variation, current and past hunting, gathering, fishing, 

and trapping activities would be similar in the types of activities and areas used by the communities in 

the program area in the foreseeable future. Subsistence activities would not vary by alternative and 

would not contribute to adverse effects on the abundance or availability of subsistence resources, nor 

would they impact subsistence users’ ability to access subsistence resources.

Recreation and Tourism

Recreation and tourism would continue under all alternatives. Recreation and tourism activities would 

occur independent of development activities proposed under each of the proposed alternatives, and 

thus are not expected to vary by alternative. Although these activities occur across the North Slope, 

recreation and tourism are most concentrated in the Arctic Refuge and Kaktovik, where polar bear 

viewing is a popular activity. Recreation and tourism do have the potential to adversely affect the 

availability of subsistence resources if these resources are disturbed by aircraft conducting flightseeing 

tours. Such activities are carefully managed to avoid impacts to subsistence (USFWS 2015) and would 

not significantly affect the availability of subsistence resources. The abundance of subsistence resources 

would not be affected by recreation and tourism. Subsistence users’ ability to access subsistence 

resources would not be affected. 

Scientific Research

Scientific research is ongoing in the program area and within Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Arctic Village, and 

Venetie’s subsistence use areas. It is likely that scientific research would increase under Alternatives B, 

C, D1, and D2, particularly if mitigation measures are adopted that require companies to fund research 

documenting and monitoring impacts on specific resources, such has been done elsewhere (BLM 2012). 

Research activities typically involve vessel, air, and overland transport of researchers and equipment, and 
E. ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program E-19

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

could contribute to cumulative effects. Research activities could affect the availability of subsistence 

resources under Alternatives B, C, D1, and D2. Caribou could be disturbed during aerial surveys, but 

impacts would be short-lived. The availability of subsistence resources would not be significantly 

impacted by research activities under the cumulative case if Alternatives B, C, D1, or D2 are adopted, 

nor would the abundance of or access to subsistence resources be significantly impacted.

Community Development

Community development projects would occur under all alternatives. The type and size of development 

projects could vary by alternative. Kaktovik would likely undertake community development projects if 

Alternatives B, C, D1, or D2 are selected. More projects may occur in or near Kaktovik if Alternatives 

C, D1, or D2 are selected. NSOs would be in place along the majority of the coast under these 

alternatives, creating a situation where seawater treatment plants or port and airport infrastructure may 

be more likely to be constructed or expanded in or near Kaktovik. Community development projects 

would not contribute to adverse impacts on the abundance or availability of subsistence resources, nor 

would they impact subsistence users’ ability to access subsistence resources. 

Climate Change

Climate change is an ongoing factor considered in cumulative effects analyses on the North Slope. 

Climate change could affect the habitat, behavior, distribution, and populations of fish and wildlife within 

the program area. It could also impact access to these resources. The trends in climate change that 

were described in BLM 2018a are expected to continue.

E.2.6.2 Evaluation of the Availability of Other Lands for the Purpose Sought to be Achieved

Evaluation of the availability of other lands is identical to that described under Alternative B (see 

Section C.2.2.2, above). 

E.2.6.3 Evaluation of Other Alternatives that would Reduce or Eliminate the Use, Occupancy, 

or Disposition of Public Lands Needed for Subsistence

Evaluation of other alternatives is identical to that described under Alternative B (see Section E.2.2.2, 

above). 

E.2.6.4 Findings

The cumulative case, when taken in conjunction with Alternatives B, C, D1, and D2, will not result in a 

significant restriction to subsistence uses for the communities of Nuiqsut, Arctic Village, and Venetie.

The cumulative case, when taken in conjunction with Alternatives B, C, D1, and D2, may result in a 

significant restriction to subsistence uses for the community of Kaktovik due to potential decrease in 

access to fish, marine mammals, and PCH caribou. A positive determination pursuant to ANILCA 

Section 810 is required.

E.3 NOTICE AND HEARINGS

ANILCA Section 810(a) provides that there shall be no “withdrawal, reservation, lease, permit, or other 

use, occupancy, or disposition of the public lands which would significantly restrict subsistence uses,” 

until the federal agency gives the required notice and holds a hearing in accordance with ANILCA 

Section 810(a)(1) and (2). The BLM will provide notice in the Federal Register that it made positive 

findings pursuant to ANILCA Section 810 that the cumulative case presented in the EIS met the “may 

significantly restrict” threshold. As a result, public hearings will be held in the potentially affected 
E. ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

E-20 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

community of Kaktovik. Notice of this hearing will be provided in the Federal Register and in local media, 

including the Arctic Sounder and KBRW, the Utqiagvik radio station with coverage to all villages on the 

North Slope. The meeting date and time will be posted on BLM’s website at 

https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/plans-in-development/alaska/coastal-plain-eis. 

E.4 SUBSISTENCE DETERMINATIONS UNDER THE ANILCA SECTION 810(A)(3)(A), (B),

AND (C)

ANILCA Section 810(a) provides that there would be no “withdrawal, reservation, lease, permit, or 

other use, occupancy or disposition of the public lands which would significantly restrict subsistence 

uses,” until the federal agency gives the required notice and holds a hearing, in accordance with ANILCA 

Section 810(a)(1) and (2), and makes the following three determinations required by ANILCA Section 

810(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C): 1) that such a significant restriction of subsistence use is necessary, consistent 

with sound management principles for the use of the public lands; 2) that the proposed activity would 

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

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

impacts on subsistence uses and resources resulting from such actions (16 USC 3120(a)(3)(A), (B), and 

(C)).

The BLM has found in this preliminary evaluation that the cumulative case considered in this EIS may 

significantly restrict subsistence uses. The BLM will undertake the notice and hearing procedures 

required by ANILCA Section 810 (a)(1) and (2), in conjunction with releasing the draft EIS in order to 

solicit public comment from the potentially affected community of Kaktovik.

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

met will be analyzed in the Final ANILCA Section 810 Evaluation. The Final Evaluation will integrate 

input voiced during the hearing by the residents of Kaktovik.
E. ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program E-21

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

E.5 REFERENCES

ADFG (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 2018. 2018–2019 Alaska hunting regulations governing 

general, subsistence, and commercial uses of Alaska’s wildlife. Anchorage Printing, Anchorage, 

Alaska.

BLM (US Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management). 2011. Bureau of Land Management 

instructions and policy for compliance with Section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act. Instruction Memorandum No. AK-2011-008. Internet website: 

https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-ak-2011-008.

_____. 2012. National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska Integrated Activity Plan/Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office. 2012. 

_____. 2018. Alpine Satellite Development Plan for the Proposed Greater Mooses Tooth 2 

Development Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. Bureau of Land Management, 

Alaska State Office. September 2018. Anchorage, Alaska.

BLM GIS. 2018. GIS data used in the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program EIS alternatives, affected 

environment, and impact analysis. Alaska Bureau of Land Management.

Cronin, M. A., W. B. Ballard, J. Truett, and R. Pollard. 1994. Mitigation of the Effects of Oilfield 

Development and Transportation Corridors on Caribou. Final report prepared for the Alaska 

Oil and Gas Association, Anchorage, by LGL Alaska Research Associates, Anchorage.

Curatolo, J. A., and S. M. Murphy. 1986. “The effects of pipelines, roads, and traffic on the movements of 

caribou, Rangifer tarandus.” Canadian Field-Naturalist 100: 218–224.

Fullman, T. J., K. Joly, and A. Ackerman. 2017. “Effects of environmental features and sport hunting on 

caribou migration in northwestern Alaska.” Movement Ecology 5: 4.

George, J. C., L. M. Philo, K. Hazard, D. Withrow, G. M. Carroll, and R. S. Suydam. 1994. “Frequency of 

killer whale attacks and ship collisions based on scaring on bowhead whales of the BeringChukchi-Beaufort Seas Stock.” Arctic 47(3): 247–255.

Griffith, D. B., D. C. Douglas, N. E. Walsh, D. D. Young, T. R. McCabe, D. E. Russell, R. G. White, R. D. 

Cameron, and K. R. Whitten. 2002. Section 3: The Porcupine Caribou Herd. Pp. 8-37, in Arctic 

Refuge Coastal Plain Terrestrial Wildlife Research Summaries (D. C. Douglas, P. E. Reynolds, 

and E. B. Rhode, editors). US Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Biological 

Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR-2002-0001. 

Haskell, S. P., and W. B. Ballard. 2004. “Factors limiting productivity of the Central Arctic caribou herd 

of Alaska.” Rangifer 24: 71–78. 

Johnson, C. B., and B. E. Lawhead. 1989. Distribution, Movements, and Behavior of Caribou in the 

Kuparuk Oilfield, Summer 1988. Report by Alaska Biological Research, Inc., to ARCO Alaska, 

Inc., and the Kuparuk River Unit, Anchorage, Alaska. 
E. ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

E-22 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Kofinas, G., S. B. BurnSilver, J. Magdanz, R. Stotts, and M. Okada. 2016. Subsistence Sharing Networks 

and Cooperation: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska. BOEM Report 2015-023 DOI; 

AFES Report MP 2015-02. School of Natural Resources and Extension, University of Alaska 

Fairbanks.

Laist, D. W., A. R. Knowlton, J. G. Mead, A. S. Collet, and M. Podesta. 2001. “Collisions between ships 

and whales.” Marine Mammal Science 17: 35–75.

Lawhead, B. E., A. K. Prichard, M. J. Macander, and M. Emers. 2004. Caribou Mitigation Monitoring Study 

for the Meltwater Project, 2003. Third annual report for ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, 

by ABR, Inc., Fairbanks.

Murphy, S. M., and B. E. Lawhead. 2000. Caribou. Chapter 4, pp. 59–84, in The Natural History of an Arctic 

Oil Field: Development and the Biota (J. Truett and S. R. Johnson, editors). Academic Press, San 

Diego, California. 

NRC (National Research Council). 2003. Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on 

Alaska’s North Slope. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Russell, D.E., D. van de Wetering, R.G. White, and K.L. Gerhart. 1996. Oil and the Porcupine caribou 

herd-can we quantify the impacts?. Rangifer Special Issue 9: 255-257.

SRB&A (Stephen R. Braund & Associates). 2017. Nuiqsut Caribou Subsistence Monitoring Project: 

Results of Year 8 Hunter Interviews and Household Harvest Surveys. Prepared for 

ConocoPhillips, Alaska, Inc. Anchorage.

Stinchcomb, T. R. 2017. Social-ecological soundscapes: examining aircraft-harvester-caribou conflict in 

Arctic Alaska. M.S. Thesis. University of Alaska Fairbanks. Fairbanks, Alaska.

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2015. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge revised comprehensive 

conservation plan. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 1. 

Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/home/arctic-ccp/.

Valkenburg, P., and J. L. Davis. 1985. “The Reaction of Caribou to Aircraft: A comparison of two herds.” 

Pp. 7–9, in Proceedings of the First North American Caribou Workshop, 1983 (A. H. Martell 

and D. E. Russell, editors). Canadian Wildlife Service, Whitehorse, Yukon.

Van Lanen, J. M., C. Stevens, C. Brown, B. K. Maracle, and D. Koster. 2012. Subsistence and Mammal 

Harvests and Uses, Yukon Flats, Alaska 2008–2010 Harvest Report and Ethnographic Update. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage.

Walsh, N. E., B. Griffith, and T. R. McCabe. 1995. Habitat use by the Porcupine caribou herd during 

predicted insect harassment.” Journal of Wildlife Management 65: 465-473.

Wilson, R. R., L. S. Parrett, K. Joly, and J. R. Dau. 2016. “Effects of roads on individual caribou 

movements during migration.” Biological Conservation 195: 2–8.
E. ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program E-23

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Young, D. D., T. R. McCabe, and M. S. Udezitz. 2002. Section 6: Predators. Pp. 51-53 in Arctic Refuge 

Coastal Plain Terrestrial Wildlife Research Summaries (D. C. Douglas, P. E. Reynolds, and E. B. 

Rhode, editors). US Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Biological Science Report 

USGS/BRD/BSR-2002-0001.

Yukon Environmental GIS. 2018. GIS data provided by Yukon Environmental, Mike Suitor, July 2018.
This page intentionally left blank.
ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

Map E-1

High Use Porcupine Caribou Herd Calving Area

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM DRAFT EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from

various sources. This information may not meet National Map

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital

means and may be updated without notification.

Kak tovik

Data S ource: BLM GIS 2018,

Yuk on En viron men tal

GIS 2018

Prin t Date: 10/11/2018

0 6 12

Miles

Percen t of years of caribou are presen t

>40%

Public Law 115-97 Coastal Plain

Excluded from Public Law 115-97 

Coastal Plain or outside the BLM’s 

oil an d gas leasin g authority

Calvin g period, just cow s an d calves 

May 26– Jun e 10

Years of data: 37

A L A S K A 

C A N A D A
This page intentionally left blank.
E. ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program E-27

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table E-1

Lease Restrictions in High-Use Porcupine Caribou Herd Calving Area

Lease Stipulations Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D1 Alternative D2

No surface occupancy/not 

offered for lease sale

728,300 135,500 631,200 714 714

Timing limitation 0 564,900 83,400 0 0

Controlled surface use 0 0 0 5,400 5,400

Standard terms and conditions 0 27,900 13,700 8,900 8,900

Source: BLM GIS 2018
E. ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

E-28 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table E-2

Summary of Impacts on Abundance and Availability of Major Subsistence Resources for Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Arctic Village, and 

Venetie

Resource Impact Context

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D1

Alternative 

D2 Cumulative

Abundance

Availability

Abundance

Availability

Abundance

Availability

Abundance

Availability

Abundance

Availability

Abundance

Availability

Fish Habitat loss or alteration Site-specific 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2

Fish Disturbance or 

displacement Regional 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2

Fish Injury or mortality Site-specific 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2

Marine 

mammals Injury or mortality Site-specific 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0

Marine 

mammals

Disturbance or 

displacement Regional 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2

Caribou Habitat loss or alteration Site-specific 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2

Caribou Mortality or injury Site-specific 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

Caribou Altered movement Local 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 2 2

Caribou Altered behavior Local 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 2

Caribou Displacement of maternal 

caribou Regional 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 2

Notes:

1. Table does not specify the degree to which each community is affected.

2. Gray (0) indicates no impact, yellow (1) indicates minor impact, orange (2) indicates moderate impact, and red (3) indicates major impact.
E. ANILCA Section 810 Preliminary Evaluation

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program E-29

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table E-3

Summary of Impacts on Access to Major Subsistence Resources for Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Arctic Village, and Venetie

Resource Potential Effect Context

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D1

Alternative 

D2 Cumulative

LegalPhysicalLegalPhysicalLegalPhysicalLegalPhysicalLegalPhysicalLegalPhysical

Fish Use of traditional fishing areas Local 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3

Marine 

mammals

Use of traditional marine 

mammal hunting areas Local 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3

Caribou Use of traditional caribou 

hunting areas Local 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 3

Notes:

1. Table does not specify the degree to which each community is affected.

2. Gray (0) indicates no impact, yellow (1) indicates minor impact, orange (2) indicates moderate impact, and red (3) indicates major impact.
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix F

Approach to the Environmental Analysis

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program F-i 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

APPENDIX F. APPROACH TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .............................................. F-1

F.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... F-1

F.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts ........................................................................................................ F-1

F.2.1 Social Costs of GHG Emissions ................................................................................. F-2

F.3 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................................................... F-4

F.3.1 Method ............................................................................................................................. F-4

F.3.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ................................ F-5

F.3.3 Actions Not Included in the Cumulative Analysis ............................................... F-11

F.4 Resource Indicators and Assumptions .................................................................................. F-11

F.4.1 Climate and Meteorology .......................................................................................... F-12

F.4.2 Air Quality ..................................................................................................................... F-12

F.4.3 Acoustic Environment ................................................................................................ F-13

F.4.4 Physiography ................................................................................................................. F-14

F.4.5 Geology and Minerals ................................................................................................. F-14

F.4.6 Petroleum Resources ................................................................................................. F-15

F.4.7 Paleontological Resources ......................................................................................... F-15

F.4.8 Soil Resources .............................................................................................................. F-16

F.4.9 Sand and Gravel Resources ....................................................................................... F-16

F.4.10 Water Resources ......................................................................................................... F-17

F.4.11 Solid and Hazardous Waste ...................................................................................... F-18

F.4.12 Vegetation and Wetlands ........................................................................................... F-19

F.4.13 Fish and Aquatic Species ............................................................................................ F-22

F.4.14 Birds ................................................................................................................................ F-25

F.4.15 Terrestrial Mammals ................................................................................................... F-27

F.4.16 Marine Mammals .......................................................................................................... F-29

F.4.17 Landownership and Use ............................................................................................. F-30

F.4.18 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... F-31

F.4.19 Subsistence Uses and Resources ............................................................................. F-32

F.4.20 Sociocultural Systems ................................................................................................. F-34

F.4.21 Environmental Justice .................................................................................................. F-35

F.4.22 Recreation ..................................................................................................................... F-36

F.4.23 Special Designations .................................................................................................... F-37

F.4.24 Visual Resources .......................................................................................................... F-38

F.4.25 Transportation ............................................................................................................. F-39

F.4.26 Economy ........................................................................................................................ F-39

F.4.27 Public Health ................................................................................................................. F-41

F.5 References .................................................................................................................................... F-42

TABLES Page 

F-1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Considered in the 

Cumulative Effects Analysis ....................................................................................................................... F-6
This page intentionally left blank.
Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program F-1

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix F. Approach to the Environmental 

Analysis

F.1 INTRODUCTION

Issuance of oil and gas leases under the directives of Section 20001(c)(1) of Public Law (PL) 115-97 

would have no direct impacts on the environment because by itself a lease does not authorize any on 

the ground oil and gas activities; however, issuance of a lease represents an irretrievable commitment of 

oil and gas resources for potential future exploration and development activities, subject to further 

environmental review and authorization, that would result in impacts on the environment. The impacts 

of such future exploration and development activities that may occur because of the issuance of leases 

are considered potential indirect impacts of leasing. Such post-lease activities could include seismic and 

drilling exploration, development, and transportation of oil and gas in and from the Coastal Plain. 

Therefore, the analysis in Chapter 3 is of potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts from on-theground post-lease activities.

The methodology for the impact assessment conforms to the guidance found in the following sections of 

the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA): 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1502.24 (Methodology and Scientific 

Accuracy); 40 CFR 1508.7 (Cumulative Impact); and 40 CFR 1508.8 (Effects). CEQ regulations require 

that agencies “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate” the impact of all alternatives. Since the action 

alternatives presented in this environmental impact statement (EIS) offer specific areas of the Coastal 

Plain as available for lease sale (subject to applicable laws, terms, conditions, and stipulations of the lease, 

as well as project specific environmental review and permits), rather than project-level exploration and 

development of oil and gas, the focus of the analysis is on the potential impacts of these future phases, 

which may follow leasing.

F.2 DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Direct and indirect impacts are considered in Chapter 3, consistent with direction provided in 40 CFR 

1502.16.

Direct Effects—Effects that are caused by the proposed action and occur at the same time and 

place (40 CFR 1508.8). Examples of direct effects are filling of wetlands through the placement 

of gravel pads, and direct mortality of wildlife or vegetation.

Indirect Effects—Effects that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time or 

farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects “may include 

growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, 

population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural 

systems, including ecosystems” (40 CFR 1508.8). Indirect effects are caused by the proposed 

action but do not occur at the same time or place as the direct effects.

Potential effects are quantified where possible using GIS and other applications; in the absence of 

quantitative data, best professional judgment prevailed. Impacts are sometimes described using ranges of 
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

F-2 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

potential impacts or in qualitative terms. The standard definitions for terms used in the analysis are as 

follows, unless otherwise stated:

Context—Describes the area or location (site-specific, local, program area-wide, or regional) 

in which the potential impact would occur. Site-specific impacts would occur at the location of 

the action, local impacts would occur in the general vicinity of the program area, program areawide impacts would affect most or all of the program area, and regional impacts would extend 

beyond the program area boundaries.

Duration—Describes the length of time an effect would occur, either short term or long term. 

Short term is anticipated to begin and end within the first 5 years after the action is 

implemented. Long term lasts beyond 5 years to the end of or beyond the 20-year program 

time frame.

Intensity—Impacts are discussed using quantitative data where possible.

F.2.1 Social Costs of GHG Emissions

A protocol to estimate what is referenced as the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) associated with 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions was developed by a federal Interagency Working Group on Social 

Cost of Carbon (IWG), to assist agencies in addressing Executive Order (EO) 12866, which requires 

federal agencies to assess the cost and the benefits of proposed regulations as part of their regulatory 

impact analyses. The SCC is an estimate of the economic damages associated with an increase in carbon 

dioxide emissions and is intended to be used as part of an economic cost-benefit analysis for proposed 

rules. As explained in the Executive Summary of the 2010 SCC Technical Support Document “[t]he 

purpose of the [SCC] estimates...is to allow agencies to incorporate the social benefits of reducing 

carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions into cost-benefit analyses of regulatory actions that have small, or 

‘marginal,’ impacts on cumulative global emissions” (IWG 2010). While the SCC protocol was created 

to meet the requirements for regulatory impact analyses during rulemakings, BLM has received requests 

to expand the use of SCC estimates to program and project-level National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) analyses.

The decision was made not to expand the use of the SCC protocol for the oil and gas leasing actions 

discussed in this Leasing EIS for several reasons. Most notably, these leasing actions are not rulemaking 

for which the SCC protocol was originally developed. Second, on March 28, 2017, the President issued 

EO 13783 which, among other actions, directed that the IWG be disbanded and that the technical 

support documents upon which the protocol was based be withdrawn as no longer representative of 

governmental policy. The EO further directed agencies to ensure that estimates of the social cost of 

carbon and greenhouse gases used in regulatory analyses “are based on the best available science and 

economics” and are consistent with the guidance contained in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

Circular A-4, “including with respect to the consideration of domestic versus international impacts and 

the consideration of appropriate discount rates” (EO 13783, Section 5(c)). In compliance with OMB 

Circular A-4, interim protocols have been developed for use in the rulemaking context. However, the 

Circular does not apply to non-rulemaking program or project decisions, so there is no EO requirement 

to apply the SCC protocol to program decisions like this Leasing EIS.
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program F-3

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Further, NEPA does not require a cost-benefit analysis (40 CFR Section 1502.23), although NEPA does 

require consideration of “effects” that include “economic” and “social” effects (40 CFR 1508.8(b)). The 

economic analysis in this EIS, as discussed in Section 3.4.10, Economy, is a regional economic impact 

analysis utilizing input-output modeling. Regional economic impact analyses describe effects that agency 

activities may have on economic conditions and local economic activity, generally expressed as projected 

changes in employment, labor income, and economic output (Watson et al. 2007). Any increased 

economic activity that is expected to occur with the proposed action is simply an economic impact, 

rather than an economic benefit. Some people may perceive increased economic activity as a ‘positive’ 

impact that they desire to have occur whereas another person may view increased economic activity as 

negative or undesirable due to potential increase in local population, competition for jobs, and concerns 

that changes in population will change the quality of the local community. Economic impacts are distinct 

from “economic benefits” as defined in economic theory and methodology (Watson et al. 2007; 

Kotchen 2011), and the socioeconomic impact analysis required under NEPA is distinct from an 

economic cost-benefit analysis, which is not required.

The fact that climate impacts associated with GHG emissions were not quantified in terms of monetary 

costs does not mean that climate impacts were ignored in this EIS. The EIS refers readers to Sections 

3.1.1.1 and 3.1.1.2, respectively, of the Greater Mooses Tooth 2 (GMT2) Development Project Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) (BLM 2018) for descriptions of climate change 

trends in the Arctic and on the North Slope. Also, regarding the potential effects of climate change on 

the region, the reader is referred to Section 3.1.1.3 of the GMT2 SEIS (BLM 2018). In addition to the 

qualitative climate change discussions discussed above, the BLM quantified the direct and indirect GHG 

emissions associated with potential energy development that could result from post-leasing oil and gas 

activities discussed in this EIS (see Tables 3-3 and 3-4). Furthermore, Table 3-2 provides an inventory 

of recent GHG emissions at various geographic scales, in units of million metric tons per year, for which 

development-related emissions can be compared against to provide an estimate of the relative 

contribution of such emissions at various geographic scales.

The BLM took the approach of referencing climate change trends and potential climate impacts at 

different scales and calculating direct and indirect GHG emissions because climate change and potential 

climate impacts, in and of themselves, are often not well understood by the public (Etkin and Ho 2007; 

NRC 2009). Therefore, the BLM has provided data and information in a manner that follows many of 

the guidelines for effective climate change communication developed by the National Academy of 

Sciences (NRC 2010) by making the information more readily understood and relatable to the decisionmaker and the public. This approach recognizes that there are adverse environmental impacts associated 

with the development and use of fossil fuels and discusses potential impacts qualitatively and effectively 

informs the decision-maker and the public of the potential for GHG emissions and the potential 

implications of climate change.

Finally, the SCC protocol does not measure the actual incremental impacts of a project on the 

environment and does not include all damages or benefits from carbon emissions. The SCC protocol 

estimates economic damages associated with an increase in carbon dioxide emissions—typically 

expressed as a one metric ton increase in a single year—and includes, but is not limited to, potential 

changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, and property damages from increased flood risk 

over hundreds of years. The estimate is developed by aggregating results “across models, over time, 

across regions and impact categories, and across 150,000 scenarios” (Rose et al. 2014). The dollar cost 
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

F-4 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

figure arrived at based on the SCC calculation represents the value of damages avoided if, ultimately, 

there is no increase in carbon emissions. However, the dollar cost figure is generated in a range and 

provides little benefit in assisting the BLM Authorized Officer’s decision for program or project-level 

analyses, especially given that there are no current criteria or thresholds that determine a level of 

significance for social cost of carbon monetary values.

F.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The cumulative impact analysis considers impacts of a proposed action and its alternatives that may not 

be consequential when considered individually; however, when they are combined with impacts of other 

actions, they may be consequential. As defined by CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.7 and 1508.25[a][2]), a 

cumulative impact is as follows:

...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 the cumulative impacts analysis is to determine if the impacts of the actions considered 

in this EIS, together with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, could interact 

or accumulate over time and space, either through repetition or combined with other impacts, and 

under what circumstances and to what degree they might accumulate. 

Additional requirements of other regulatory agencies would further reduce any cumulative impacts.

F.3.1 Method

The method used for cumulative impacts analysis in this EIS consists of the following steps:

 Identify issues, characteristics, and trends in the affected environment that are relevant to 

assessing cumulative effects of the action alternatives. This includes discussions on lingering 

effects from past activities that demonstrate how they have contributed to the baseline 

condition for each resource. This information is summarized in Chapter 3.

 Describe the potential direct and indirect effects of future oil and gas exploration, development, 

and production. As noted above, issuance of oil and gas leases under the directives of Section 

20001(c)(1) of PL 115-97 would have no direct impacts on the environment because by itself a 

lease does not authorize any on the ground oil and gas activities; however, issuance of a lease 

represents an irretrievable commitment of oil and gas resources for potential future exploration 

and development activities, subject to further environmental review and authorization, that 

would result in impacts on the environment. The impacts of such future exploration and 

development activities that may occur because of the issuance of leases are considered potential 

indirect impacts of leasing. Such post-lease activities could include seismic and drilling 

exploration, development, and transportation of oil and gas in and from the Coastal Plain. 

Therefore, the analysis in Chapter 3 for each resource is of potential direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts from on-the-ground post-lease activities.
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program F-5

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 Define the spatial (geographic) and temporal (time) frame for the analysis. This timeframe may 

vary between resources depending on the historical data available and the relevance of past 

events to the current baseline. 

 Identify past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFFAs) such as other types of 

human activities and natural phenomena that could have additive or synergistic effects. 

Summarize past and present actions, within the defined temporal and spatial time frames, and 

identify any RFFAs that could have additive, countervailing, or synergistic effects on identified 

resources. 

 Use a specific method to screen all of the direct and indirect effects, when combined with the 

effects of external actions, to capture those synergistic and incremental effects that are 

potentially cumulative in nature. Both adverse and beneficial effects of external factors are 

assessed and then evaluated in combination with the direct and indirect effects for each 

alternative on the various resources to determine if there are cumulative effects. 

 Evaluate the impact of the potential cumulative effects and assess the relative contribution of the 

action alternatives to cumulative effects. 

 Discuss rationale for determining the impact rating, citing evidence from the peer-reviewed 

literature, and quantitative information where available. When confronted with incomplete or 

unavailable information, ensure compliance with 40 CFR 1502.22.

The analysis also considers the interaction among the impacts of the proposed action with the impacts 

of various past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, as follows:

 Additive—the impacts of actions add together to make up the cumulative impact

 Countervailing—the impacts balance or mitigate the impacts of other actions

 Synergistic—the impact of the actions together is greater than the sum of their individual 

impacts

In this EIS, both the temporal and geographic scope of the cumulative impact analysis could vary 

according to the resource under consideration. Generally, the appropriate timeframe for cumulative 

impacts analysis spans from the 1970s through full realization of the hypothetical development scenario 

(Appendix B), which is anticipated to occur approximately 50 years after the Record of Decision for 

this EIS is signed, recognizing the timeframe for production could be more or less than 50 years given 

the speculative nature of the hypothetical development scenarios. The geographic scope generally 

encompasses the program area and the North Slope but extends beyond these areas for some 

resources (e.g., terrestrial wildlife), including into Canada. Details associated with the impact indicators, 

geographic scope, and analysis assumptions for each resource are found in Section F.4, below.

F.3.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Relevant past and present actions are those that have influenced the current condition of the resource. 

For the purposes of this EIS, past and present actions are both human controlled and natural events. 

Past actions were identified using agency documentation, NEPA analyses, reports and resource studies, 

peer-reviewed literature, and best professional judgment.

The term reasonably foreseeable future action (RFFA) is used in concert with the CEQ definitions of 

indirect and cumulative effects, but the term itself is not defined further. Most regulations that refer to 
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

F-6 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

“reasonably foreseeable” do not define the meaning of the words but do provide guidance on the term. 

For this analysis, RFFAs are those that are external to the proposed action and are likely (or reasonably 

certain) to occur, although they may be subject to a degree of uncertainty. Typically, they are based on 

such documents as plans, permit applications, and fiscal appropriations. RFFAs considered in the 

cumulative effects analysis consist of projects, actions, or developments that can be projected, with a

reasonable degree of confidence to occur over the next 50 years. 

Recent environmental reports, surveys, research plans, NEPA compliance documents, and other source 

documents have been evaluated to identify these actions. RFFAs were assessed to determine if they 

were speculative and would occur within the analytical timeframe of the EIS. Projects and activities 

considered in the cumulative effects analysis are summarized in Table F-1 and are discussed in more 

detail below. 

Table F-1

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Considered in the Cumulative 

Effects Analysis

Category Area Actions/Activities Description

Oil and gas 

exploration, 

development, and 

production

 Onshore North 

Slope

 State and federal

waters (Beaufort 

Sea)

 Western 

Canadian Arctic

 Geological and 

geophysical surveys

 Infrastructure 

development

 Gravel mining

 Geotechnical borehole 

surveys

 Construction and 

maintenance

 Exploration activities

 Production wells

 Surface, air, and marine 

traffic

 Scientific research for 

avian studies, bathymetry, 

cultural resources, and 

fisheries (directly related 

to oil and gas)

Competitive oil and gas lease 

sales, lease exploration, and 

development have occurred 

across the North Slope; 

continued activity is expected. 

The number of flights by cargorated planes associated with oil 

and gas development tends to 

increase dramatically during 

summer. 

See below for an additional 

discussion.

Transportation 

(separate from oil 

and gas)

 Surface

 Air

 Marine

 Roads and vehicular traffic 

in communities

 International marine 

vessel traffic

 Shipping/barging to 

Kaktovik

 Aircraft traffic

Surface, air, and marine 

transportation services are 

available in the program area. 

Federal, state, and tribal 

governments maintain plans for 

ongoing maintenance and 

development. 

Marine transportation is 

projected to increase with 

decreases in sea ice associated 

with climate change.

See below for an additional 

discussion.
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program F-7

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Category Area Actions/Activities Description

Subsistence 

Activities

 Kaktovik

 Nuiqsut

 Arctic Village

 Venetie

 Western 

Canadian Arctic 

 Hunting

 Trapping

 Fishing

 Whaling

 Sealing

 Traveling

 Berry Picking

Anticipate a continuation of 

traditional past and present 

subsistence practices (See 

Section 3.4.3, Subsistence Uses 

and Resources)

See below for an additional 

discussion.

Recreation and 

Tourism

 Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge

 Various locations 

across the North 

Slope

 Beaufort Sea and 

nearshore areas

 North American 

Arctic

 Wildlife/Scenic viewing 

and photography

 Sport/commercial hunting 

and fishing

 Boating and river 

recreation

 Camping

 Hiking

 Ecotourism

Past and present recreational 

uses of the Program Area are 

expected to continue (See 

Section 3.4.6, Recreation).

See below for an additional 

discussion.

Scientific Research  Onshore North 

Slope

 Nearshore 

waters

 OCS waters

 Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge

 Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge studies

 Biological, geophysical, 

archaeological, and 

socioeconomic surveys

 Stock and harvest 

assessments

Scientific research and surveys 

have occurred throughout the 

Program Area and are expected 

to continue.

See below for an additional 

discussion.

Community 

Development

 Kaktovik

 Arctic Village

 Venetie

 Utqiaġvik 

 North Slope 

Borough

 Demographic/population 

change

 Migration

 Infrastructure 

development projects

Anticipate a continuation of 

infrastructure development 

projects. 

See below for an additional 

discussion.

Climate Change Global Trends in climate change are 

described in GMT2 SEIS (BLM 

2018 Section 3.2.4) and are 

projected to continue and 

interact with other 

reasonably foreseeable future 

actions within the program 

area

Long-term changes in 

temperature and precipitation, 

with associated changes in the 

atmosphere, water resources, 

permafrost, vegetation, wetlands, 

fish and wildlife habitat, and 

subsistence practices

Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, and Production

Onshore oil development has been a primary agency of industrial change on the North Slope. Oil and 

gas exploration has occurred on the North Slope since the early 1900s, and oil production started at 

Prudhoe Bay in 1977. Onshore gas production from the Barrow gas field began over 60 years ago. 

Associated industrial development has included the creation of industry-supported airfields at 

Deadhorse and Kuparuk and an interconnected industrial infrastructure that includes roads, pipelines, 

production and processing facilities, gravel mines, and docks. Air traffic is also associated with oil and gas 

development (primarily over the summer [May-August]), using small propeller-driven aircraft and larger 

cargo-rated planes, such as the DC-6 and C-130. Oil and gas activities that have occurred in the 

Beaufort Sea include exploration wells and seismic surveys, geohazard surveys, geotechnical sampling 

programs, and baseline biological studies and surveys.
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

F-8 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Both onshore and offshore reasonably foreseeable future oil and gas activities are considered in the

cumulative effects analysis. The discussion does not include small discoveries and undiscovered 

resources that are unlikely to be developed within the temporal scope of this EIS. The following 

reasonably foreseeable future onshore oil and gas projects are included in the cumulative effects analysis:

 SAExploration 3-Dimensional (3D) Seismic Exploration Surveys—Proposed 3D 

seismic exploration of the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge would begin in winter 2018/2019. 

The project will include access to the program area from Deadhorse, storage of fuel, and up to 

two mobile camps, each capable of housing up to 160 people. It is expected that there would be 

a total of 360 miles of snow trails associated with moving up to two camps across the program 

area. There would be approximately 50 trailers including support trailers that make up a camp. 

Fuel would be delivered daily by ground vehicle to camps. Crew changes would occur twice 

weekly, either by aircraft or ground vehicle. Seismic operations would be conducted using 12 

to15 rubber-tracked vibrators and 20,000 to 25,000 wireless autonomous recording devices for 

each of the two crews. Vibroseis vehicles would be positioned between 41, 25, and 200 feet 

from an adjacent receiver point on a given line. In a typical square mile, there would be 4 linear 

miles of receivers and 8 linear miles of source.

 Liberty—The Liberty Prospect is located 5 miles offshore in about 20 feet of water, inside the 

Beaufort Sea’s barrier islands. It is 20 miles east of Prudhoe Bay and about 8 miles east of the 

Hilcorp Alaska LLC-operated Endicott oil field. Development would include construction of a 

gravel island for production facilities, including 16 wells. Oil produced from the island would be 

piped through a subsea pipe to an elevated 1.5-mile-long onshore pipeline to a tie in with the 

onshore Badami oil pipeline. 

 Point Thomson—Point Thomson is a gas condensate field that is producing condensate that is 

shipped via a 22-mile oil pipeline to Pump Station 1 on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. The drill site 

and production facilities are on State onshore lands just west of the Arctic Refuge. The project 

includes production pads, process facilities, an infield road system, a pipeline, infield gathering 

lines, and an airstrip.

 Nanushuk—The project is southeast of the East Channel of the Coleville River, approximately 

52 miles west of Deadhorse and about 6.5 miles from Nuiqsut (at the southernmost project 

boundary). The project will include construction of the Nanushuk pad, comprised of Drill Site 1 

and a Central Processing Facility, Drill Site 2, Drill Site 3, an operations center pad, infield 

pipelines, the export/import Nanushuk pipeline, infield roads, an access road, a tie-in pad, and a 

potable water system. The project also includes temporary discharges to 5.8 acres of 

jurisdictional waters of the United States (US) for screeding at the Oliktok Dock.

 Alpine CD-5—This Alpine field satellite development drill site is on Alaska Native village 

corporation lands near Nuiqsut and is the first commercial oil production from the National 

Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A). CD-5 went into production in late 2015. As a satellite to 

the Alpine Central Processing Facility (CPF), CD-5 has only minimal on-site processing facilities; 

however, it required 6 miles of gravel road, four bridges, and 32 miles of pipelines including 

completion of a gravel road and natural gas pipeline from Alpine CPF into Nuiqsut. 

ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. plans to continue drilling an additional 18 wells at CD-5 after the 

original 15 wells are completed for an eventual total of 33 wells.

 Greater Mooses Tooth—The Greater Mooses Tooth-1 (GMT1) project is the first 

commercial development on federal lands in the NPR-A; first oil production was achieved in 
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program F-9

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

October 2018. The GMT1 development involves an 11.8-acre drilling pad, with a 7.6-mile-long 

road, two bridges, and pipelines that connect to Alpine CPF through the existing CD-5 road and 

pipeline extension. The drilling pad can support up to 33 wells; initially it will only have nine 

wells. Production from GMT1 is expected to peak at 25,000 to 30,000 barrels of oil per day. 

The Greater Mooses Tooth-2 (GMT2) project is also on federal lands in the NPR-A. The 

project could include up to 48 wells drilled from a 14-acre drill pad, 8 miles to the southwest of 

GMT1. The proposed 8.2-mile gravel road and pipeline would connect through GMT1 and on to 

Alpine CPF through the existing CD-5 extension. Construction for GMT2 could begin in early 

2019. GMT2 anticipated peak production will be higher than GMT1 at 35,000 to 40,000 barrels 

of oil per day.

 Willow—The Willow oil and gas prospect is located on Federal oil and gas leases 

ConocoPhillips holds within the Bear Tooth Unit of the NPR–A, approximately 30 air miles 

west of Nuiqsut. The proposed project includes the construction, operation, and maintenance 

of a central processing facility, infrastructure pad, up to five drill pads with up to 50 wells on 

each pad, access and infield roads, an airstrip, pipelines, and a gravel mine on BLM-managed 

lands within the NPR-A. The Master Development Plan/EIS being prepared by the BLM will 

analyze the connected action of a temporary island to facilitate module delivery via sealift barges 

which would occur within waters managed by the State of Alaska. First production is currently 

anticipated around 2024-2025.

 Greater Prudhoe Bay/Kuparuk—This main producing part of the North Slope is expected 

to have numerous small developments as smaller accumulations of oil are discovered and can be 

produced using existing infrastructure.

 Alaska LNG Project—This development would include a gas treatment plant at Prudhoe Bay, 

a 42-inch-diameter, high-pressure, 800-mile pipeline, and eight compressor stations to move the 

gas to a proposed liquefaction plant at Nikiski, on the Kenai Peninsula. The pipeline would be 

designed to accommodate an initial mix of gas from the Prudhoe Bay and Point Thomson fields 

and room to accommodate other gas fields in the decades ahead. 

 Alaska Stand Alone Gas Pipeline—This pipeline is envisioned to be a reliable, affordable 

energy source to Alaskan communities. Production from this project would emphasize in-State 

distribution, although surplus gas would also likely be condensed and exported. The 727-mile, 

low pressure pipeline route would generally parallel the Trans Alaska Pipeline System and the 

Dalton Highway corridor. The pipeline would be underground with approximately 5 elevated 

stream crossings; compressor stations; possible fault crossings; pigging facilities; and off-take 

valve locations. A gas conditioning facility would need to be constructed near Prudhoe Bay and 

would likely require one or more large equipment modules to be offloaded at the West Dock 

loading facility. Shipments to West Dock would likely require improving the dock facilities and 

dredging to deepen the navigational channel to the dock head.

Transportation

In addition to air, land, and marine transport associated with oil and gas activities, there is frequent 

marine and air traffic associated with coastal communities on the North Slope. It is reasonable to 

assume that trends associated with transportation to facilitate the maintenance and development of 

coastal communities will continue. Typically, vessels offshore of the program area are those that support 

oil and gas industries, barges or cargo vessels used to supply coastal villages, smaller vessels used for 

hunting and location transportation during the open water period, research vessels, and a limited 
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

F-10 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

number of recreational vessels. Passenger and air cargo flights between Fairbanks and each of the 

communities in the Arctic Refuge and across the North Slope often include several scheduled flights of 

small propeller-driven aircraft. Government agencies, researchers, and recreationists often charter 

aircraft for travel and research. Aircraft traffic is expected to continue; levels of traffic may increase 

because of increased industrial activity, tourism, and community development. 

Subsistence Activities

Subsistence activities occur throughout the program area and in the surrounding areas. Subsistence 

hunters primarily use off-highway vehicles, boats, and snowmachines for access. The types of subsistence 

uses and activities that were described in Section 3.4.3, Subsistence Uses and Resources, are expected 

to continue. Current and past hunting, gathering, fishing, and trapping subsistence activities would be 

similar in the types of activities and areas used by the communities in the program area in the 

foreseeable future.

Recreation and Tourism

Until recently, recreation and tourism activities are generally pursued by non-resident visitors to the 

program area and surrounding areas. While a very small number of local residents have historically 

participated in recreational guiding and tourism, since 2010 residents have developed tourism around 

polar bear viewing, and in 2017 over 50 percent of the visitors to the program area are served by 

locally-owned tourism businesses. With the exception of adventure cruise ships that transit the Beaufort 

Sea coast in small numbers, there is a concentration of air sightseeing traffic in the Arctic Refuge. The 

types of recreation and tourism that were described in Section 3.4.6, Recreation, are expected to 

continue. Current and past sport hunting and fishing, or other recreation or tourism-related activities 

would be similar in the types of activities and areas used by the communities in the analysis area in the 

foreseeable future. Transport associated with recreation and tourism includes aircraft and powered and 

non-powered vessel traffic. 

Scientific Research

There are scientific research programs that take place in the program area and the Arctic Refuge. These 

activities involve vessel, air, and overland transport of researchers and equipment, and could contribute 

to cumulative effects. This would come about through the disturbance of terrestrial and marine wildlife, 

impacts on subsistence harvest, or sediment/soil disturbance through biological or chemical sampling.

Community Development

Community development projects in Arctic communities involve both large and small infrastructure 

projects. For example, the new airport in Kaktovik is a past community development project. Smaller 

projects resulting from and leading to community growth could further increase demand for public 

services and infrastructure, such as airport construction upgrades, roads, port and dock construction, 

telecommunications, alternative energy infrastructure, and telecommunications projects.

Climate Change

Climate change is an ongoing factor in the consideration of cumulative effects in the Arctic. Climate 

change could affect the habitat, behavior, distribution, and populations of fish and wildlife within the 

program area. Climate change could also affect the availability of, or access to, subsistence resources. 
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program F-11

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The trends in climate change that were described in the GMT2 Final SEIS (BLM 2018), and incorporated 

by reference into this EIS, are expected to continue.

F.3.3 Actions Not Included in the Cumulative Analysis

Developments for which a solid proposal has not been submitted or which seem unlikely to occur 

within the foreseeable future are considered speculative. These may include projects that are discussed 

in the public arena but are not currently authorized by law or for which there is no current proposal 

before an authorizing agency. Speculative developments are not considered reasonably foreseeable and 

are not evaluated as part of the cumulative impacts analysis. 

Oil and Gas Activities on Non-Federal Lands

The program area is next to State of Alaska lands and waters and contains inholdings owned by Alaska 

Native Corporations. Although there are no present plans to develop these non-federal lands for oil and 

gas, leasing in the Coastal Plain could result in exploration and development of recoverable 

hydrocarbons. Future NEPA analyses associated with Coastal Plain leasing will consider oil and gas 

activities on non-federal lands once project-specific details are available.

Arctic Strategic Transportation and Resources (ASTAR) 

The ASTAR project is analyzing conceptual regional infrastructure corridors that could meet the needs 

of the North Slope and Northwest Arctic Borough The current vision of the proposed road network 

would help to link isolated communities and develop oil fields across the region; it does not currently 

connect to Arctic Village or Venetie. Effects of the project could include increased cultural connectivity, 

reduced costs to North Slope communities for dry goods, fuel, and consumables, decreased costs for 

rehabilitating legacy wells in the NPR-A, more efficient development of state and federal hydrocarbon 

resources, and increased economic activity providing job opportunities for the region. ASTAR is in its 

preliminary stages; definitive transportation corridor routing would be developed in coordination with 

the communities and the North Slope Borough.

F.4 RESOURCE INDICATORS AND ASSUMPTIONS 

For organizational purposes, Chapter 3 is divided into sections by subject area (such as water 

resources, terrestrial mammals, and recreation). Though they are described and analyzed in discrete 

sections, these subjects are dynamic and interrelated. A change in one resource can have cascading or 

synergistic impacts on other resources. For example, water quality affects fish populations, which in turn 

influences subsistence harvests, which can have implications for other human outcomes such as health 

and sociocultural systems. As a result, there is some overlap among the resource sections in Chapter 3

and the impacts described in one section may depend on the analysis from another section. 

During the writing process, resource specialists shared data and discussed interrelated aspects of the 

analyses to better capture the interrelated nature of environmental resources. The indicators, analysis 

areas, and assumptions used for each resource analysis are detailed below.
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

F-12 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

F.4.1 Climate and Meteorology

Impacts and Indicators

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators 

Emissions of greenhouse 

gases from exploration, 

production, processing, and 

consumption of oil and gas.

Cumulative addition to global 

atmospheric concentrations of 

GHGs, potentially contributing to 

climate change.

Mass per year (tons per year or 

metric tons per year) of greenhouse 

gas (GHG) emissions from 

petroleum production.

Impact Analysis Area

 Direct/Indirect—Program area; development/production GHG emissions estimates. 

 Cumulative—Coastal Plain GHG emissions compared with Alaska, the US, and global total GHG 

emissions.

Analysis Assumptions

 Coastal Plain oil production will not significantly increase the global market, that is, it would not 

significantly alter global demand and consumption of fossil fuels. 

F.4.2 Air Quality

Impacts and Indicators

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators 

Leasing Direct  Exceedances of National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and Alaska Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (AAAQS)

 Impacts on Air-quality Related 

Values (AQRVs)

Fuel combustion in 

construction equipment, 

aircraft, vehicles, and 

machinery such as drill rigs, 

generators, pumps, and 

compressor by phase

Indirect, short term (seismic 

surveys and exploratory drilling)

Indirect, long term (buildout of 

develop units and production)

 Exceedances of NAAQS/AAAQS

 Impacts on AQRVs

Construction of ice roads 

and airstrips to access and 

construct the central 

processing facilities (CPFs) 

and satellite well pads. 

Development of gravel pits, 

which are not included in 

the 2,000-acre surface 

disturbance cap, to provide 

materials for road and pad 

construction 

Indirect, long term

Localized, intermittent, and 

temporary 

 Exceedances of NAAQS/AAAQS

Operation of gravel pits Indirect, long-term

Localized, temporary

 Exceedances of NAAQS/AAAQS
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program F-13

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators 

Use of roads Indirect, long-term

Localized

 Exceedances of NAAQS/AAAQS

Regional sources of air 

emissions

Cumulative  Exceedances of NAAQS/AAAQS

 Impacts on AQRVs

Impact Analysis Area

 Direct/Indirect—Program area

 Cumulative—North Slope 

Analysis Assumptions

 Because the location, timing, and level of future oil and gas development on the Coastal Plain is 

unknown at this time, the BLM has determined that a qualitative assessment is the appropriate 

form of analysis for this EIS. 

 Future on-the-ground actions requiring BLM approval will require further NEPA analysis based 

on specific and detailed information about what kind of activity is proposed and where it will 

take place. Additional site-specific terms and conditions that may be required before any oil and 

gas activity is authorized will be determined as part of this future site-specific NEPA analysis.

F.4.3 Acoustic Environment

Impacts and Indicators

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

 Noise generated by 

drilling 

 Noise generated by 

aircraft used in fluid 

minerals activities

 Noise generated in the 

construction and 

operation of roads, well 

pads, and other ancillary 

support activities

Noise disturbance to people 

and wildlife

 Sound intensity index—the 

relationship of background noise 

to an introduced sound level.

 Distance to inaudibility

 Number of flights per day

 Acres closed to leasing and 

designated NSO

Impact Analysis Area

 Direct/Indirect—Program area

 Cumulative—Program area and community of Kaktovik

Analysis Assumptions

 Ambient noise levels are approximately 35 decibels (dB) on the Coastal Plain.

 Decibels typically attenuate at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance.

 Relationships of sound differences and audibility tables tabulated for the GMT2 SEIS analysis 

(BLM 2018) are generally representative of this EIS.
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

F-14 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

F.4.4 Physiography

Impacts and Indicators

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

 Temporary structures 

along coast

 Gravel infrastructure

 Gravel mines

Coastal erosion and deposition is 

both a direct and an indirect 

impact.

Gravel infrastructure and mines 

are a direct impact on 

topography.

 Footprint of gravel fill, in acres

 Size of gravel mines, in acres

Impact Analysis Area

 Direct/Indirect—Hypothetical development footprint for future gravel infrastructure and gravel 

mining within the program area

 Cumulative—Program area

Analysis Assumptions

 None

F.4.5 Geology and Minerals

Impacts and Indicators

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

 Gravel fill at locations of 

important bedrock 

exposures

 Development could 

affect the risk of some 

geologic hazards

 No impacts on mineral 

resources other than 

petroleum and aggregate 

resources, which are 

addressed in other 

sections

Direct impacts on important 

bedrock exposures

Discussion is qualitative

Impact Analysis Area

 Direct/Indirect—Hypothetical development footprint for future gravel infrastructure and gravel 

mining within the program area

 Cumulative—Program area

Analysis Assumption

 Mineral exploration and leasing, other than for petroleum and aggregate, will continue to be 

disallowed in the program area.
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program F-15

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

F.4.6 Petroleum Resources

Impacts and Indicators

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

Extraction of oil and gas Reduction of oil and gas 

resources available for future use

Percentage of estimated total 

available reserves removed

Spills of oil and gas and 

releases of gas to the 

atmosphere

Loss of oil and gas resources for 

productive use

Number and volume of spills and gas 

leaks

Exploration phase Improved understanding of 

petroleum oil and gas resources 

n/a

Impact Analysis Area

 Direct/Indirect—Reduction in oil and gas resources available in the program area. 

 Cumulative—Program area

Analysis Assumptions

 Oil and gas development will occur under all action alternatives. 

 Development will occur in a similar manner and will have similar impacts as other North Slope 

oil and gas developments.

F.4.7 Paleontological Resources 

Impacts and Indicators

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

Ground disturbance caused 

by facilities development 

 Gravel fill at locations of 

bedrock exposures with 

high potential fossil yield 

classification (PFYC) 

rankings

 Gravel extraction

 Drilling 

If gravel fill is placed over certain 

bedrock outcrops identified as 

having high paleontological yield 

potential, it would make them 

inaccessible for research.

Infrastructure and increased 

human access would increase 

access to paleontological 

resources, which could result in 

potential looting and removal as 

well as adding to the identification 

and scientific body of knowledge 

of resources in the area. 

 PFYC ranking of mapped units

 Proximity to mapped units with 

assigned PFYC rankings

Impact Analysis Area

 Direct/Indirect—Program area

 Cumulative—Program area

Analysis Assumption

 PFYC rankings of 3, 4, 5, and U will require further field investigation for individual exploration 

projects.
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

F-16 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

F.4.8 Soil Resources

Impacts and Indicators

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

 Material resources 

extraction sites

 Access roads, pads, 

staging areas, and 

airstrips (gravel fill or 

ice)

 Off-tundra travel

 Construction of 

structures, such as 

pipeline vertical support 

members, and building 

foundations

 Reclamation of 

embankments and pads

 Direct surface disturbance to 

vegetation

 Removal of surface-insulating 

organics to cause thaw of 

frozen soils and destruction of 

surface landforms

 Sand and gravel mining in 

streams affecting stream 

structure 

 Placement of fill for 

construction of pads and 

roads

 Installation of piling for vertical 

support members and 

infrastructure foundations

 Acres of disturbance to soil and 

permafrost

 Changes to soil and permafrost 

from placing fills for 

embankments and pad

 Changes to erosion of soil from 

placement of fills for 

embankments and pad

 Extent of fugitive dust 

 Changes in drainage patterns due 

to permafrost thaw and 

redirection by embankments

Impact Analysis Area

 Direct/Indirect—Program area

 Cumulative—Program area

Analysis Assumptions

 Up to 2,000 acres of disturbance will occur on/across frozen soils under each action alternative.

 Pads and roads will be constructed to minimize potential thaw of frozen soils (use of thicker 

embankments or insulation).

 Water ponding will occur at base of embankments.

 Ice roads will be used to access material sites.

 Roads and pads will be reclaimed.

F.4.9 Sand and Gravel Resources

Impacts and Indicators

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

 Material resources 

extraction sites

 Ice access roads 

 Reclamation

 Direct surface disturbance to 

vegetation; removal of surfaceinsulating organics to cause 

frozen soils to thaw and 

destruction of surface 

landforms

 Sand and gravel mining in 

streams 

 Placement of fill for 

construction of pads and 

roads

 Acres/volume of material 

removed
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program F-17

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

(see above)  Changes in surface drainage 

and water impoundment

 Changes in erosion where 

surface vegetation is removed.

(see above)

Impact Analysis Area

 Direct/Indirect—Program area

 Cumulative—Program area

Analysis Assumptions

 Sand and gravel will be extracted in both uplands and floodplains.

 Access roads constructed from ice roads will be required to access material sources.

 Material resources are not included in 2,000-acre development limitation.

F.4.10 Water Resources

Impacts and Indicators

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

Sand and gravel mining  Removal of subsurface material

 Alteration of surface water 

flow patterns

 Creation of thaw bulbs in 

permafrost

 Placement of gravel fill, 

disrupting recharge

 Increased sedimentation

 Change to surface water flow

 Change to water levels

 Change to surface water quality

 Change to groundwater

Camps and facilities  Lower water levels from 

potable water, fire 

suppression, and maintenance 

activities

 Discharge of treated domestic 

wastewater

 Change to surface water quality

 Change to water levels

 Change to surface water flow

Construction and 

maintenance of gravel pads, 

roads and air access facilities

 Alteration of flow patterns

 Oil spills 

 Change to surface water flow

 Change to surface water quality

 Change to water levels

 Change to groundwater levels

 Change to marine water quality

Installation of culverts and 

bridges

 Alteration to stream 

hydraulics and drainage 

patterns

 Inundation and starvation of 

areas

 Change to surface water flow

 Change to surface water quality

Pipeline construction  Increased sedimentation 

during construction

 Water contamination due to 

oil spills

 Change to surface water flow

 Change to surface water quality
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

F-18 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

Snow roads  Alteration of natural drainage 

patterns

 Change to surface water flow

Ice roads, bridges, pads, and 

airstrips

 Alteration of natural drainage 

patterns

 Lower lake levels

 Ice jamming during breakup

 Change to surface water flow

 Change to surface water quality

 Change to water levels

Barge docks and seawater 

treatment plant construction 

and operation

 Increased turbidity during 

construction

 Oil spills

 Coastal erosion from barge 

waves

 Change to marine water quality

 Change to surface water flow

 Change to surface water quality

Drilling and operation  Disturbance of tundra soils 

 Oil spills

 Lower water levels from 

hydrostatic testing

 Change to surface water flow

 Change to surface water quality

 Change to groundwater level

 Change to marine water quality

Impact Analysis Area

 Direct/Indirect—Program area

 Cumulative—Program area

Analysis Assumptions

 The eastern and western program area boundaries follow the Staines River to the west and 

Aichilik River to the east.

 Impacts to water resources are similar to those describe in the GMT2 SEIS (BLM 2018) and 

other North Slope EISs. Discussions of impacts will be modified where data specific to the 

program area is available.

 The hypothetical development scenarios have similar impact but vary in scale and intensity, 

depending on what project is ultimately developed.

 No specific developments or infrastructure needs have been identified beyond the scenarios 

identified in Appendix B.

F.4.11 Solid and Hazardous Waste

Impacts and Indicators

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

Management of solid waste 

generated by the 

development and operation 

of facilities:

 Exploratory drilling 

 Facility operations 

 Seismic activities

 Road/facility construction

Introduction of 

contaminants including 

 Introduction of contaminants 

including petroleum products 

and heavy metals caused by 

the development and 

operation of facilities

 Temporary and permanent 

storage of solid waste 

generated from activities 

(storage area, landfill, or 

monofill)

 Solid waste cubic yards per day 

(based on annual average

 Solid waste generated per day, 

calculations for air emissions of 

burning solid waste.

 Sewage lagoon to be x acres to 

treat y volume per day (based on 

annual average).

 Underground injection control 

wells depth of discharge and 

quantity 
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program F-19

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

petroleum products caused 

by: 

 Spills

 Vehicle 

accidents/rollovers

 Well blowouts

 Pipeline leaks

 Tank overfills

Disposal of unregulated 

nonhazardous fluids

 Injection of 

nonhazardous fluids 

through Class I UIC

 Air quality impacts from 

burning solid waste

 Design and implementation of 

wastewater facilities

 Creation of landfill, monofill, 

other

 Management of spills

 Underground injection well

 Staging and storage areas

 Underground injection control 

(Class I or II wells)

(see above)

Impact Analysis Area

 Direct/Indirect—Direct impacts evaluated for the geographic extent of hypothetical future 

development areas (up to 2,000 acres of development) within the program area. The indirect 

impacts area is 0.25 mile outside of the direct impact geographic area.

 Cumulative—Cumulative impacts are evaluated for the same geographic area as the indirect 

impacts area.

Analysis Assumptions

 Projects will require a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), a SPCC, a solid waste 

general permit, and an ODPCP.

 Facilities will require a facility response plan to operate.

 Wastewater design will require approval from the DEC.

 Class I or II underground injection wells will require a permit/authorization from DEC.

 Storage of greater than 55 gallons (individual container) of oils and other hazardous materials 

will have appropriate secondary containment.

 Best management practices will be implemented to prevent the discharge or accidental spill of 

petroleum or hazardous materials.

 Access to the landfill or sewage lagoon will be controlled.

F.4.12 Vegetation and Wetlands

Impacts and Indicators—Vegetation 

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

Seismic exploration:

Development of rolligon or 

other all-terrain vehicle 

(ATV) trails

Vegetation and plant community 

alteration from rolligon or ATV 

traffic

Acreages of vegetation types in 

accessible areas for each alternative, 

stratified by oil potential and EISspecific development stipulations; no 

indicator available to assess possible 

plant community changes.
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

F-20 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

Exploration drilling: Ice 

placement for ice roads and 

pads

Vegetation and plant community 

alteration from ice placement and 

operation of ice roads

Acreages of vegetation types in 

accessible areas for each alternative, 

stratified by oil potential and EISspecific development stipulations; no 

indicator available to assess possible 

plant community changes.

Exploration drilling:

Water withdrawal from 

lakes to support ice-road 

and pad construction and 

other uses

Lacustrine (emergent) vegetation 

alteration from changing water 

levels

No quantitative indicator available

Project construction:

Direct effects of gravel 

mining

Permanent loss of vegetation 

types

Acreages of vegetation types in 

accessible areas for each alternative, 

stratified by oil potential and specific 

development stipulations.

Project construction:

Direct effects of gravel 

placement for roads and 

pads

Permanent loss of vegetation 

types

Acreages of vegetation types in 

accessible areas for each alternative, 

stratified by oil potential and EISspecific development stipulations.

Project operations:

Indirect effects of gravel 

roads and pads and pipeline 

corridors

Vegetation and plant community 

alteration from drifted snow and 

altered drainage patterns

Acreages of vegetation types in 

accessible areas for each alternative, 

stratified by oil potential and EISspecific development stipulations; no 

indicator available to assess possible 

plant community changes.

Project operations:

Traffic on gravel roads

Vegetation and plant community 

alteration from gravel spray and 

dust fallout

Acreages of vegetation types in 

accessible areas for each alternative, 

stratified by oil potential and EISspecific development stipulations; no 

indicator available to assess possible 

plant community changes.

Project construction and 

operations: All 

disturbances with the 

capacity to introduce nonnative/invasive species

Changes to plant community 

structure with the potential 

introduction of invasive or 

noxious non-native plants

No indicator available to assess 

possible plant community changes.

Project construction and 

operations: Oil and 

contaminant spills

Vegetation and plant community 

alteration from tundra spills

No indicator available to assess 

possible spill locations in relation to 

vegetation types.

Impacts and Indicators—Wetlands 

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

Seismic exploration

Development of rolligon or 

other ATV trails

Alteration of wetland types from 

rolligon or ATV traffic

Acres of wetlands and water types 

in accessible areas for each 

alternative, stratified by oil potential 

and EIS-specific development 

stipulations
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program F-21

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

Exploration drilling: Ice 

placement for ice roads and 

pads

Alteration of wetland types from 

ice placement and operation of 

ice roads

Acres of wetlands and water types 

in accessible areas for each 

alternative, stratified by oil potential 

and EIS-specific development 

stipulations

Exploration drilling:

Water withdrawal from 

lakes to support ice road 

and pad construction and 

other uses

Lacustrine fringe and aquatic 

wetland alteration from changing 

water levels

Qualitative discussion

Project construction:

Gravel mining

Permanent loss of wetlands and 

waters of the US

Acres of wetlands and water types 

in accessible areas for each 

alternative, stratified by oil potential 

and EIS-specific development 

stipulations

Project construction:

Direct effects of gravel 

placement for roads and 

pads

Permanent loss of wetlands and 

Waters of the US

Acres of wetlands and water types 

in accessible areas for each 

alternative, stratified by oil potential 

and EIS-specific development 

stipulations

Project operations: 

Indirect effects of gravel 

roads and pads and pipeline 

corridors

Alteration of wetland types from 

drifted snow and altered drainage 

patterns

Acres of wetlands and water types 

in accessible areas for each 

alternative, stratified by oil potential 

and EIS-specific development 

stipulations

Project operations: 

Traffic on gravel roads

Alteration of wetland types from 

gravel spray and dust fallout

Acres of wetlands and water types 

in accessible areas for each 

alternative, stratified by oil potential 

and EIS-specific development 

stipulations

Project construction and 

operations: All 

disturbances with the 

capacity to introduce nonnative/invasive species

Changes to plant community 

structure in wetlands with the 

potential introduction of invasive 

or noxious non-native plants

Qualitative discussion on possible 

plant community changes

Project construction and 

operations: Oil and 

contaminant spills

Wetland and plant community 

alteration from spills on tundra

Qualitative discussion on possible 

spill locations in relation to wetland 

types

Impact Analysis Area—Vegetation and Wetlands

 Direct/Indirect—Program area

 Cumulative—Program area

Analysis Assumptions—Vegetation and Wetlands

 The final footprint of the anchor development, consisting of 1 CPF, roads connecting to six 

satellite pads, a seawater treatment plant and access road, comprises approximately 750 acres 
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

F-22 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

for consideration of direct effects. The indirect area was calculated by buffering the 750-acre 

gravel footprint by 328 feet for an indirect effects area of 6,607 acres. 

 The relative proportions for each area open for development under the alternatives and 

development stipulations will be affected in similar proportions under the anchor footprint. This 

is because spatially explicit information about where potential projects might be developed was 

absent for this programmatic EIS format.

F.4.13 Fish and Aquatic Species

Impacts and Indicators

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

Seismic Surveys: 

Use of rolligons or other 

ATVs

Use of vibroseis to image 

the subsurface

Habitat Alteration—Flow 

alteration and fish passage: 

Compaction of ice over and 

surrounding waterbodies could 

cause short-term delays in melt. 

Disturbance, injury, or 

mortality—Increased sound 

pressure in unfrozen 

waterbodies, including springs, 

could disturb, injure, or kill fish.

Qualitative discussion based on best 

available information.

Water withdrawal from 

lakes or streams for ice 

roads, water supply, dust 

suppression, and other uses

Alteration or loss of winter and 

summer aquatic habitat due to 

water withdrawal activities may 

include the following:

 Changes in water levels 

 Ice compaction 

 Changes in water chemistry

– Declines in dissolved 

oxygen

– Increases in solutes

 Alteration of water flow 

during breakup (seasonal 

changes to water quantity and 

quality) 

 Changes in permafrost or 

groundwater sources 

 Loss of littoral habitat and 

wet meadow zones due to 

shallowing

 Increased freezedown of 

substrate used by some 

aquatic invertebrates

Injury or mortality of fish from 

entrainment or impingement at 

water intake.

Types and extent of effects by 

aquatic habitat (lakes, rivers, springs) 

Describe stream miles and acreage 

that could be affected
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program F-23

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

Water withdrawal from 

marine or brackish water 

(Seawater Treatment Plant 

[STP])

Alteration or loss of aquatic 

habitat due to water withdrawal 

activities, may include changes in 

local salinity. 

Injury or mortality of fish from 

entrainment or impingement at 

water intake.

Type of habitat around STP intake 

offshore.

Changes to water quality baseline 

because of water withdrawal 

described in Section 3.2.10, Water 

Resources

Onshore STP facility 

construction

 Alteration of marine or 

brackish water habitat 

(sedimentation) during 

construction.

 Disturbance (temporary 

alteration of fish migratory 

route), injury, or mortality of 

fish due to ice trenching 

(winter construction) for 

intake pipe placement.

General footprint of ice trenching 

within 0.5-mile buffer zone (to be 

confirmed from water quality or 

water resource section) to account 

for:

 noise effects

 sedimentation

STP discharge to marine 

waters

Changes to salinity or other 

water quality from discharge of 

brine from saltwater treatment 

plant

 Changes to water quality 

baseline described in Section 

3.2.10, Water Resources

 Acres of expected mixing zone.

Gravel mining for road and 

pad construction

 Alteration or loss of aquatic 

habitat

 Creation of deep aquatic 

habitat in gravel pits

 Changes in water quality, 

including turbidity and 

mobilization of contaminants

 Direct mortality, if mining 

occurs in water bodies

Acres of potential habitat affected 

by mining (acres of gravel sites, 

assuming all acres would be in 

rivers), and acres of gravel sites in 

the 50-year floodplain (indirect 

impacts on aquatic habitat).

New gravel roads, pads, 

culverts, and bridges

Direct aquatic habitat loss or 

blockage of fish passage

Indirect aquatic habitat alteration 

from:

 Gravel dust and spray

 Temporary and periodic 

turbidity, sedimentation, and 

contaminant mobilization 

during gravel placement, 

compaction, and grading

 Changes in natural drainage 

patterns, such as water 

impoundment and ice 

damming

Describe direct and indirect effects 

by aquatic habitat types and their 

context on the landscape.
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

F-24 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

Vehicle traffic on ice or 

gravel infrastructure

Displacement of fish due to 

blocked fish passage from 

delayed melt of ice roads or pads 

and ice plugs in culverts or 

blockage at bridges

Habitat and water quality 

alterations due to dust, gravel 

spray, or sediment runoff from 

gravel roads

Describe ice infrastructure effects 

and their context on the landscape.

Acres within 328 feet of gravel 

infrastructure that would be altered 

by dust or gravel spray.

Changes resulting from erosion or 

thermokarst described in Section 

3.2.8, Soils

Barging of materials Disturbance and displacement of 

fishes during barging

Invasive invertebrate and fish 

species introduced from released 

ballast water 

Accidental spills in marine waters

General description of noise 

associated with barging.

Barge landing or dock Potential alteration of rearing or 

nearshore foraging habitat

Disturbance and displacement of 

fishes

Acres of fill required, type of 

infrastructure required (such as 

overwater structure or sea wall)

Number of barge trips required

Pipeline construction

 Trenching for optic cable 

at stream and roadcrossings (assumes 

trenching in, under, or 

next to pipe)

Loss or alteration of habitat Describe direct and indirect effects 

of placing VSMs in the water column 

by aquatic habitat types and their 

context on the landscape.

Bridge construction

 placement of bridge piers 

or pile foundations in 

water

 pile driving

Loss or alteration of aquatic 

habitat from changes in water 

flow or ice-blockage during 

spring breakup

Disturbance or displacement of 

fish during in-water bridge 

construction (or assume all work 

in winter and thus no in-water 

work)

Disturbance, injury, or mortality 

of fish due to noise or vibration 

during bridge construction

Describe fish-bearing streams that 

could require bridges, describe 

overwintering habitat at or near 

those waterbodies.

Ice roads and snow 

management

Displacement of fish or alteration 

of habitats due to changes in 

hydrology, melt, and runoff

Miles of ice road anticipated, if 

known

General snow management 

practices
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program F-25

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

Potential spills from:

 storage, use, and 

transport of waste and 

hazardous materials 

(including crude oil, fuels, 

salt water, drilling fluids, 

and other chemicals).

 wells, pipelines, or other 

infrastructure.

Habitat alteration or loss due to 

spills or leaks

Injury or mortality of fish from 

spilled material if it enters water 

bodies

Described on broad level by habitat 

type (e.g., nearshore, mountain 

streams, and springs) and species 

affected

ATV activity on tundra (for 

operations, pipeline 

maintenance, and spill 

preparedness and planning)

Habitat alteration due to 

compression or damage to 

vegetation resulting in soil 

exposure, sediment runoff, and 

contaminant mobilization

Qualitatively describe by habitat

type (e.g., mountain streams and 

springs) and species affected.

Impact Analysis Area

 Direct/Indirect—The program area plus the upstream extent of overwintering habitat for fishes. 

The nearshore area within the barge route, STP mixing zone, or other connected actions.

 Cumulative—Many of the species have life histories that include migrations from the program 

area west to Utqiagvik, east to the Mackenzie River, and upstream into freshwaters of the larger 

Arctic Coastal Plain 

Analysis Assumptions

 The BLM leases are for onshore development; offshore activities could be considered connected 

actions, but the analysis does not include offshore infrastructure.

 A barge landing or dock will be part of the alternatives.

 There is more fish and aquatic invertebrate use of program area waters than have been 

confirmed to date (use over a broader area and by a higher number of species). 

 There are contradictions in known ranges for certain species, such as Pink salmon, and slimy 

sculpin. These species are present and use the program area. 

 Alternatives will include water withdrawal either from freshwater sources or, more likely, from 

marine waters via an onshore STP.

F.4.14 Birds

Impacts and Indicators

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

Seismic surveys by rolligon 

in winter

Compaction of snow and 

vegetation, delayed melt in 

rolligon footprints

Habitat affected (qualitative)

Gravel placement for roads 

and pads

Habitat loss Acres of habitat affected 

Gravel placement (roads 

and pads) and construction 

of pipeline corridors

Habitat alteration from drifted 

snow and altered drainage 

patterns

Acres of habitat affected (use dust 

fallout buffer)
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

F-26 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

Road traffic on gravel roads Habitat alteration from gravel 

spray and dust fallout

Acres of habitat affected (use dust 

fallout buffer)

Ice placement for ice roads 

and pads to support winter 

exploration and construction 

Habitat alteration by ice roads 

and pads

Habitat affected (qualitative)

Water withdrawal from 

lakes to support ice road 

construction, water supply, 

dust suppression, and other 

uses

Habitat alteration by 

reduced/fluctuating water levels, 

loss of nesting sites on 

lakeshores, and reduced water 

quality and fish availability

Describe extent of effect in 

qualitative terms by aquatic habitat 

(lakes, rivers, springs)

Water withdrawal from and 

discharge to the marine 

environment (STP) 

Alteration of aquatic habitat 

(salinity) for fish (consumed by 

birds) and potential injury to or 

mortality of fish at intake

Describe changes in water quality 

(refer to Section 3.2.10, Water 

Resources) and area of potential 

mixing zone

Gravel mining Habitat loss: with rehabilitation 

after abandonment, potential 

creation of avian habitats 

previously absent on that site for 

some species

Habitat affected (qualitative)

Road traffic, air traffic, noise, 

and human activities

Disturbance and displacement of 

birds from affected areas

Acres of habitat affected (noise 

buffer)

Road traffic Injury and mortality from 

accidental collisions

Describe potential for vehicle 

collisions

Potential spills from:

 storage, use, and 

transport of waste and 

hazardous materials 

(including crude oil, fuels, 

salt water, drilling fluids, 

and other chemicals).

 wells, pipelines, or other 

infrastructure.

Injury and mortality from 

accidental releases, discharges, or 

insecure containment

Habitat alteration or loss due to 

spills or leaks

Describe potential for accidental 

exposure for individuals and habitats

Human activities and waste 

management

Attraction of predators and 

scavengers, including increased 

abundance of some birds, and 

resulting decrease in survival and 

nesting success for prey species

Potential impacts on bird 

populations and predator/prey 

dynamics

Barging materials and 

modules

Disturbance and displacement of 

birds from nearshore habitats, 

potential alteration of aquatic 

habitats by open-water dredging

Describe potential displacement of 

birds

Human activities, including 

road and air traffic

Disturbance and displacement of 

large flocks of staging snow geese

Potential disturbance and 

displacement (no estimate of 

distance effect)

Impact Analysis Area

 Direct/Indirect—Program area and adjacent marine habitats; 

 Cumulative—North Slope from NPR-A east to Arctic Refuge and Canada border
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program F-27

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Analysis Assumptions

 For many actions, impacts can be described qualitatively either because resource and impact 

data are unavailable, or project details are uncertain or unknown at the time of this preliminary 

analysis. For most types of habitat impacts and for some types of behavioral disturbance, semiquantitative estimates of areas affected are possible. 

 Habitat Loss and Alteration (including disturbance and displacement): In the absence of spatially 

specific information, little can be said aside from total areas potentially affected. An upper limit 

of 2,000 acres is set by the Public Law 115-97. 

– Using a drawing of a standardized anchor field footprint (one CPF and six radiating access 

roads to six drill pads, one STP pad and 30-mile access road, totaling 750 acres), estimate the 

area within 328 feet (for impacts of dust fallout, gravel spray, thermokarsting, and 

impoundments) and within 656 feet (for impacts of disturbance and displacement).

– Extrapolate to a footprint of 2,000 acres using the proportional increase in area that was 

calculated for each buffer area based on the 750-acre footprint.

F.4.15 Terrestrial Mammals

Impacts and Indicators

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

Seismic exploration Direct and indirect effects on 

vegetation and behavioral 

disturbance affecting caribou, 

other ungulates, carnivores 

(including denning grizzly bears), 

and small mammals

Area (acres or square miles [mi2]) 

available for seismic activity under 

different alternatives 

Ice placement for ice roads 

and pads to support winter 

exploration and 

construction 

Habitat alteration by ice roads 

and pads

Area (acres or mi2) available for ice 

road placement by habitat type and 

alternative, and by high, medium, 

low oil potential

Gravel placement for roads 

and pads

Direct habitat loss Area (acres or mi2) available for 

gravel road placement by habitat 

type and alternative, and by high, 

medium, low oil potential

Traffic on gravel roads Habitat alteration from gravel 

spray and dust fallout

Area (acres or mi2) of affected 

habitat, by habitat type

Gravel mining Direct habitat loss

With rehabilitation after 

abandonment

Indirect habitat loss by 

disturbance during mining

Area (acres or mi2) of affected 

habitat, by habitat type

Road traffic, air traffic, noise, 

and human activities

Disturbance and displacement of 

caribou and other species from 

affected areas

Proportion of years that areas are 

used by PCH per season.

Roads and pipelines Potential obstructions to caribou 

movements to and from insectrelief habitat

Proportion of CAH caribou using 

the program area alternatives by 

season (based on percent of 
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

F-28 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

(see above) Habitat loss due to spills or leaks seasonal use density from kernel 

density)

Proportion of years areas are used 

by PCH caribou by season

Road traffic Injury and mortality from 

accidental collisions

Qualitative assessment

Potential spills from:

 storage, use, and 

transport of waste and 

hazardous materials 

(including crude oil, fuels, 

salt water, drilling fluids, 

and other chemicals).

 wells, pipelines, or other 

infrastructure.

Injury and mortality from 

accidental releases and discharges 

or insecure containment

Describe potential accidental 

exposure for individuals and habitats

Human activities and waste 

management

Attraction of predators and 

scavengers, potential defense of 

life and property, mortality of 

grizzly bears

Increase in red fox density and 

decline in arctic fox density

Qualitative assessment

Roads and pads Increased or altered access for 

subsistence hunters, non-local 

hunters, and other recreationists

Qualitative assessment

Impact Analysis Area

 Direct/Indirect—Program area (non-marine habitats)

 Cumulative—Annual ranges of the PCH and CAH caribou herds.

Analysis Assumptions

 Subsistence hunting will be allowed along gravel roads.

 Access approvals for recreation or non-subsistence uses within the program area will be dealt 

with at the APD phase when users apply for use permit.

 Oil development may be more likely in the high oil potential area, less likely in the low oil 

potential area.

 Zone of influence during calving season—Maternal caribou may be displaced by up to 2.5 miles 

from roads and pads during and immediately after calving, spanning 3 weeks, based on research 

in North Slope oilfields.

 Roads and pipelines may deflect and delay caribou movements, but those effects can be 

mitigated by appropriate design features (pipeline height 7 feet or more, pipeline/road 

separation 500 feet or more) and management of human activities, as developed in the existing 

North Slope oilfields.
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program F-29

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 Occupied grizzly bear dens will be avoided by at least 0.5 mile, as stipulated by the State of 

Alaska.

F.4.16 Marine Mammals

Impacts and Indicators

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

Winter activities:

Seismic exploration; 

construction and use of ice 

roads and pads; gravel 

mining/blasting, hauling, and 

placement

Direct habitat loss of polar bear 

critical habitat and potential 

maternal denning habitat from 

gravel mining and placement

Alteration of habitat and 

temporary loss of use of polar 

bear critical habitat and potential 

maternal denning habitat from 

construction of ice roads and 

pads 

Behavioral disturbance of polar 

bears, especially denning females. 

Possible den abandonment and 

loss of cubs

Temporary alteration of ringed 

seal habitat, including lair habitat

Behavioral disturbance of ringed 

seals

Acreage of critical and maternal 

polar bear denning habitat affected 

by seismic exploration

Apply distance buffer of 1 mile 

around maternal dens from 

literature-based assessment of 

disturbance from equipment 

operation and noise, and regulatory 

requirements under ITRs

Acreage of nearshore, coastal 

habitat (less than 3m bathymetry 

limit) possibly used as lair sites for 

ringed seals that could be affected by 

seismic exploration

Apply NMFS-approved distance 

buffer around known ringed seal 

lairs

Marine vessel traffic during 

open-water season

Behavioral disturbance of marine 

mammals by vessel passage and 

off-loading during open-water 

season

Behavioral disturbance to polar 

bears onshore related to landings 

of marine vessels

Apply distance buffers along vessel 

route, from literature-based 

assessment of disturbance responses 

Traffic, aircraft, noise, and 

human activities throughout 

the year

Behavioral disturbance and 

displacement from affected areas

Injury and mortality from vehicle 

strikes

Apply distance buffer of 1 mile from 

literature-based assessment of 

disturbance from equipment 

operation and noise, and nodisturbance buffer around barrier 

islands unit of critical habitat

Waste management and use 

and storage of hazardous 

materials throughout the 

year

Potential attraction and injury or 

mortality of some polar bears

Injury and mortality from 

accidental releases and discharges 

or insecure containment

Qualitative assessment, considering 

ROPs for waste handling and 

human/bear interaction plans
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

F-30 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Impact Analysis Area

 Direct/Indirect—Program area (including docking structures and adjacent marine habitats) and 

associated marine transportation routes.

 Cumulative—Range of affected species population/stock, such as the Southern Beaufort Sea 

stock of polar bears and Western Arctic stock of bowhead whales

Analysis Assumptions

 Onshore activities will affect polar bears only, except for those in the vicinity of marine docking 

structures and module-staging pads at the coast.

 Alternatives will avoid destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat (to be 

addressed in the Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion, which are being prepared 

separately.

 Maternal den surveys for polar bears will be conducted before any activities occur in the 

program area, so that occupied dens can be avoided by at least 1 mile during exploration and 

development. It is unlikely that all dens will be identified during den surveys.

 An average of two barge landings per year is anticipated; the number of transports would vary 

based on ice conditions and the large equipment needed for upcoming development phases.

 Barge landings may require benthic habitat modification, such as dredging or screeding, that has 

direct effects (habitat modification) and indirect effects (loss of habitat use through disturbance 

from noise and activity).

F.4.17 Landownership and Use

Impacts and Indicators

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

 Areas open/closed to 

leasing and infrastructure 

development 

 Protective measures that 

influence the placement 

or design of uses

Restrictions on infrastructure 

development, including type, 

location, and design

 Acres made available for lease 

sale where new oil and gas 

related uses could be developed 

 Acres where protection 

measures would influence the 

design, location, and season or 

type of use

Landownership changes Conveyance of lands out of 

federal ownership

Acres of landownership 

Impact Analysis Area

 Direct/Indirect—Program area 

 Cumulative—Program area

Analysis Assumptions

 Demand for ancillary uses and permits, such as for communication sites, will increase in 

conjunction with oil and gas development.

 There will be no lands conveyed into or out of federal ownership as part of this EIS.
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program F-31

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

F.4.18 Cultural Resources

Impacts and Indicators

Note: Types of impact are not mutually exclusive and may occur across all actions impacting resource.

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

Construction:

 Ground disturbance 

 Traffic

 Human presence 

 Ice roads

 Water use requirements

 Physical destruction or 

damage

 Removal of the cultural 

resource from its original 

location/loss of context

 Vulnerability to erosion

 Theft and vandalism

 Number of previously 

documented AHRS and TLUI 

sites in potentially affected area

 Eligibility status of cultural 

resource sites

 Traditional knowledge of 

culturally sensitive areas and 

traditional use areas and sites

Proposed operational 

infrastructure:

 CPFs

 Drill rigs and pads

 Pipelines/VSMs

 Roads

 Material sites

 Change in character and 

setting

 Change in use or access to 

traditional sites 

 Proximity of proposed Project 

components to culturally 

sensitive areas

 Same as above

Operations:

 Traffic 

 Human presence

 Maintenance and security 

activities

 Proposed program 

policies

 Introduction of vibration, 

noise, or atmospheric 

elements, such as visual, dust, 

and olfactory

 Increased access to culturally 

sensitive areas

 Same as above

Oil Spills  Physical destruction or 

damage, including issues with 

dating damaged artifacts

 Same as above

General Development  Loss of cultural identity with a 

resource

 Impacts on beliefs and 

traditional religious practices

 Neglect of a cultural resource 

that causes its deterioration

 Lack of access to traditional 

use areas and impacts on 

broader cultural landscape

 Same as above

Impact Analysis Area

 Direct/Indirect—Program area 

 Cumulative—North Slope

Analysis Assumptions

 All unsurveyed areas of the program area could contain cultural resources. Furthermore, past 

surveys have been cursory and likely did not adequately identify cultural resources.
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

F-32 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 Cultural resource sites are treated as eligible for listing on the NRHP, until they are sufficiently 

evaluated as determined by the BLM.

F.4.19 Subsistence Uses and Resources

Impacts and Indicators

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

Noise, traffic, and human 

activity:

 Construction noise

 Gravel mining

 Air traffic

 Ground traffic

 Seismic activity

 Barge traffic

 Drilling noise

 Human presence

Reduced resource availability due 

to changes in resource 

abundance, migration, 

distribution, or behavior

Increased costs and time 

associated with harvesting 

resources

Increased safety risks associated 

with traveling farther to harvest 

resources

Reduced user access due to 

harvester avoiding development 

and human activity

Increased competition with 

outsider populations

 Results of Section 3.3.4, 

Terrestrial Mammals and 

Section 3.3.5, Marine Mammals 

regarding impacts of noise, traffic, 

and human activity on wildlife

 Percent of harvests coming from 

program area (where data are 

available)

 Percent of harvesters using the 

program area, by resource

 Analysis of material and cultural 

importance of subsistence species

 Analysis of Alaska Wildlife 

Harvest database—Requires data 

sharing agreement and estimate 1 

month or more to develop 

agreement and analyze data.

 Traditional knowledge regarding 

impacts on subsistence uses, 

resources, and activities.

Infrastructure

 Gravel roads

 Ice roads

 Pipelines

 Gravel pads

 Bridges

 Gravel Mines

 Runways

Loss of subsistence use areas to 

development infrastructure

Physical obstructions to hunters 

traveling overland

Physical obstructions to hunters 

along the coast due to pipelines

Reduced resource availability due 

to changes in resource 

abundance, migration, 

distribution, or behavior

Increased costs and time 

associated with harvesting 

resources

Increased safety risks associated 

with traveling farther to harvest 

resources

 See above
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program F-33

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

(see above) Reduced user access due to 

harvester avoiding development 

infrastructure

Increased user access due to use 

of project roads for subsistence 

activities

Increased competition along new 

hunting corridors (roads)

(see above)

Contamination

 Oil spills

 Air pollution

 Release, discharge, or 

insecure containment of 

hazardous materials or 

wastes

Reduced resource availability due 

to changes in resource 

abundance

Reduced resource availability due 

to harvester avoiding 

contaminated resources

Reduced user access due to 

harvester avoidance because of 

concerns about contamination

 Results of Section 3.3.4, 

Terrestrial Mammals and 

Section 3.3.5, Marine Mammals 

regarding impacts of oil spills on 

wildlife

 Results of Section 3.2.2, Air 

Quality and Section 3.4.11, 

Public Health and Safety 

regarding impacts of air pollution 

on wildlife and human health

 Traditional knowledge

Legal or regulatory 

barriers

 Security restrictions

Reduced user access due to 

security restrictions around 

development infrastructure

Reduced user access due to 

harvester avoidance resulting 

from concerns about security 

restrictions/personnel

Reduced resource availability due 

to inability to hunt in or around 

certain infrastructure

 Percent of harvests coming from 

study area (where data are 

available)

 Percent of harvesters using the 

study area, by resource

 Traditional knowledge

Increased 

Employment/Revenue

Increased subsistence activity due 

to cash from employment and 

other revenue

Decreased subsistence activity 

due to increased employment 

and resulting lack of time

Decreased overall community 

harvests resulting from lack of 

time to engage in subsistence 

activities

 Results of Section 3.4.10, 

Economy

 Traditional knowledge

General development Impacts on cultural practices, 

values, and beliefs

 Traditional knowledge
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

F-34 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Impact Analysis Area

 Direct/Indirect—All areas used by the 22 Alaskan caribou study communities and seven 

Canadian user groups subsistence study communities 

 Cumulative—Same as direct/indirect analysis area

Analysis Assumption

 There will be oil and gas exploration, construction, drilling, and operations activities occurring in 

the Coastal Plain similar to other developments on the North Slope.

F.4.20 Sociocultural Systems

Impacts and Indicators

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

Changes in income and 

employment levels

 No economic activity 

associated with regional or 

village corporation to many 

Arctic Village and Venetie 

residents

 Influx of cash and impacts on 

social ties and political 

organizations

 Hiring super household 

hunters

 Lack of time for subsistence 

activities

 Increased cash to support 

subsistence activities

 Results of Section 3.4.10, 

Economy regarding potential 

changes in employment and 

income

 Results of Section 3.4.3, 

Subsistence Uses and Resources 

 Traditional knowledge

Disruptions to subsistence 

activities and uses

 Social stresses associated with 

reduced harvests or changes 

in effort, costs, and risk

 Changes in social ties and 

organizations resulting from 

changes in subsistence 

providers

 Loss of traditional use areas 

and knowledge associated 

with those places

 Results of Section 3.4.3, 

Subsistence Uses and Resources 

regarding impacts on subsistence

 Traditional knowledge

Influx of non-resident 

temporary workers 

associated with project

 Conflicts between subsistence 

users and workers

 Discomfort hunting in 

traditional use areas

 Results of economy chapter 

regarding outside workers

 Results of Section 3.4.3, 

Subsistence Uses and Resources 

 Traditional knowledge

Influx of outsiders into 

community

 Increased social problems

 Lack of infrastructure to 

support populations

 Lack of knowledge and 

respect of traditional values, 

history, and beliefs

 Results of Section 3.4.6, 

Recreation

 Results of Section 3.4.11, Public 

Health and Safety

 Traditional knowledge
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program F-35

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

Changes in available 

technologies

 Changes in equipment for 

subsistence

 Changes in transportation 

routes

 Changes in social ties, sharing, 

and interactions

 Results of Section 3.4.10, 

Economy regarding potential 

changes in employment and 

income

 Traditional knowledge

General development  Impacts on belief systems

 Impacts on cultural identity

 Traditional knowledge

Impact Analysis Area

 Direct/Indirect—All of the subsistence study communities (Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Arctic Village, and 

Venetie). 

 Cumulative—Same as direct/indirect analysis area

Analysis Assumption

 There will eventually be oil and gas exploration, development, and production activities in the 

Coastal Plain similar to other developments on the North Slope 

F.4.21 Environmental Justice

Impacts and Indicators

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

 Exploration phase 

activities

 Development/constructio

n phase activities

 Operations phase 

activities

 Production of oil and gas 

resources

Direct and Indirect Effects

 Subsistence effects

 Sociocultural effects

 Economic effects

 Public health and safety effects

High and adverse effects identified in 

other resource area analyses that 

can be shown to disproportionately 

accrue to minority populations, lowincome populations, or Alaska 

Native tribal entities as defined or 

described under CEQ guidance on 

the implementation of EO 12898

Impact Analysis Area

 Direct/Indirect—All of the subsistence study communities (Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Arctic Village, and 

Venetie). 

 Cumulative—Same as direct/indirect analysis area

Analysis Assumptions

 Environmental justice impacts will derive from disproportionately high and adverse human health 

or environmental effects identified in other resource area analyses that could accrue to minority 

populations, low-income populations, and/or Alaska Native tribal entities. This could include 

such effects identified in any specific resource analysis, but primarily with subsistence, 

sociocultural, economics, and public health and safety.

 Minority populations and low-income populations are be defined by CEQ guidance on the 

implementation of EO 12898. The general reference population for this analysis is the State of 

Alaska.
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

F-36 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 Communities specifically included in the local and regional analyses of direct and indirect 

Environmental justice effects are Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Arctic Village, and Venetie. These 

communities have been identified based on the results of the subsistence, sociocultural, 

economic, and/or public health and safety analyses in conjunction with community demographic 

information establishing minority and/or low-income population status.

F.4.22 Recreation

Impacts and Indicators

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

Disturbance in priority 

recreation areas (direct)

 Change in the quality of the 

recreation setting or user 

experiences 

 Displacement of recreation 

opportunities (from surface 

disturbance) 

 Change in the level of access 

to recreation, including 

specially permitted 

commercial activities

 Change in the social setting 

due to a concentration of 

users in a smaller area 

 Acres of areas made available for 

lease sales that overlap popular 

recreation areas and are not 

subject to NSO stipulations

 Acres of surface disturbance that 

overlap popular recreation areas 

Noise, lights, and human 

activity (direct and indirect)

 Change in the quality of the 

recreation setting and/or user 

experiences 

 Displacement of recreation 

opportunities (from surface 

disturbance) 

 Acres where protective 

measures that minimize impacts 

on recreation would apply

Change in resource values 

(e.g., wildlife) that 

contribute to the quality of 

the recreation setting 

(indirect)

Change in the quality of the 

recreation setting and/or user 

experiences 

 Acres where protective 

measures that minimize impacts 

on the resource and that 

contribute to recreation settings 

and experiences would apply

Impact Analysis Area

 Direct/Indirect—Program area

 Cumulative—Program area

Analysis Assumptions

 Current recreation in the planning area will continue.

 The potential for user interactions between all types of users will increase with increasing use.
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program F-37

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

F.4.23 Special Designations

Impacts and Indicators

Action Impacting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

Marine Protected Areas

Lease Stipulation 4 –

Nearshore marine, lagoon 

and barrier island habitats of 

the Southern Beaufort Sea 

within the boundary of the 

Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge

Lease Stipulation 9 – Coastal 

Area

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Lease Stipulation 1 – Rivers 

and Streams

Wilderness

Lease Stipulation 10 –

Wilderness Boundary

TL stipulation on major coastal 

waterbodies and coastal islands 

between May 15 and until the 

later of November 1 or sea ice is 

within 10 miles of the coast of 

each season, whichever is later.

NSO stipulation on coastal 

waters, lagoons or barrier islands 

within the boundaries of the 

Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain area 

or 2 miles inland of the coast.

NSO stipulation for WSRs in the 

program area within the setback 

distances outlined in Chapter 2, 

Alternatives.

NSO stipulation within 3 miles of 

the southern and eastern 

boundaries of the Coastal Plain 

adjacent to the Mollie Beattie 

Wilderness Area.

 Natural Heritage, the primary 

conservation focus

 ORVs, tentative classification, and 

free-flowing nature of the river 

segment or corridor

 Changes to the untrammeled and 

naturalness of the program area, 

opportunities for solitude or 

primitive and unconfined 

recreation, and unique or 

supplemental values

Impact Analysis Area

 Direct/Indirect 

– MPAs—All marine waters and lagoons located within and off the northern coast of the 

program area.

– WSRs—Up to 4 miles of either side of the ordinary high water mark of the eligible or 

suitable rivers in the program area. 

– Wilderness Characteristics, Quality, and Values—Program area. 

 Cumulative 

– MPAs—All marine waters and lagoons located within the Arctic Refuge and off the northern 

coast of the program area.

– WSRs—Up to 4 miles of either side of the ordinary high water mark of the eligible or 

suitable rivers in the Arctic Refuge. 

– Wilderness Characteristics, Quality, and Values—All lands in the Arctic Refuge, with an 

emphasis on the Mollie Beattie Wilderness Area. 

Analysis Assumptions

 The MPA in the program area will continue to be managed in accordance with EO 13158, 

Marine Protected Areas, May 26, 2000, and guidance from the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration on their website: https://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/

dataanalysis/mpainventory/mpaviewer/
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

F-38 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 Any eligible or suitable rivers in the program area will be managed under interim protective

measures required by the WSR Act and BLM Manual 6400 until Congress makes a decision 

regarding WSR designation into the NWSRS.

 The BLM will not permit any actions that would adversely affect the free-flowing nature, ORVs, 

or tentative classification of any portion of the eligible or suitable rivers or actions that will 

reduce water quality to the extent that rivers would no longer support the ORVs. 

F.4.24 Visual Resources

Impacts and Indicators

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

Surface disturbances, gravel 

mining, and construction of 

structures, including 

pipelines

New structures and disturbances 

that do not resemble other 

elements in an undeveloped 

landscape

Changes to the form, line, color, and 

texture of landform, vegetation, and 

water, as well as changes to dark 

skies and wildlife

Impact Analysis Area

 Direct/Indirect—Program area

 Cumulative—Program area

Analysis Assumptions

 Visual resources in the program area will become more sensitive to visual change; in other 

words, they will increase in value over time.

 Visual resources will become increasingly important to residents of and visitors to the area.

 Residents of, and visitors to the program area are sensitive to changes in visual quality and to 

the overall scenic quality of the area that contributes to living conditions and the visitor 

experience.

 Activities that cause the most contrast and are the most noticeable to the viewer will have the 

greatest impact on scenic quality.

 As the number of acres of disturbance increase, the amount of impacts on visual resources will 

also increase.

 The severity of a visual impact depends on a variety of factors, including the size of a project, 

such as the area disturbed and physical size of structures; the location and design of structures, 

roads, and pipelines; and the overall visibility of disturbed areas and structures.

 The more protection that is associated with the management of other resources and special 

designations, the greater the benefit to the visual resources of the surrounding viewsheds. 

 Best management practices and project design, avoidance, or mitigation can reduce but not 

entirely prevent impacts on visual resources.

 Due to the slow rate of recovery of vegetation and surface conditions, all impacts on visual 

resources from surface disturbances will be long-term.

 The BLM visual resource management system/visual resource contrast rating process (BLM 

Handbook H-8431-1) will be used for site-specific actions.
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program F-39

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

F.4.25 Transportation

Impacts and Indicators

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

 Areas available or 

unavailable for new 

transportation 

infrastructure

 Seasonal or other timingrelated restrictions on 

access

 Change in the location or type 

of new transportation 

infrastructure allowed

 Acres made available for leasing 

that are not subject to NSO 

stipulations where transportation 

infrastructure could be placed

 Acres subject to CSU or TLs that 

could influence the type, location, 

or design of transportation 

infrastructure 

New infrastructure limiting 

public or subsistence access

Change in the level (increase or 

decrease) of access for public or 

subsistence use

Acres made available for leasing that 

are not subject to NSO stipulations 

where transportation infrastructure 

could increase or decrease the level 

of access for the public or 

subsistence user 

Impact Analysis Area

 Direct/Indirect—Program area

 Cumulative—Program area

Analysis Assumptions

 Roads developed for oil and gas development will not be available for public use but could be 

seasonally available for subsistence users. 

 Commercial and visits from non-residents will continue to increase, thereby increasing the 

demand for public access

 Those seeking access in the decision area have different and potentially conflicting ideas of what 

should constitute public access on public lands. 

 The primary means of access in the decision area will continue to be by aircraft and, to a lesser 

extent, boat (summer) and snowmachine (winter).

F.4.26 Economy

Impacts and Indicators

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

 Exploration phase 

activities

 Development/constructio

n phase activities

 Operations phase 

activities

 Production of oil and gas 

resources

 Direct and Indirect Effects

 Employment effects

 Income effects

 Fiscal effects

 Effects on public 

infrastructure and services

 Effects on relevant/selected 

economic sectors

 Average part-time and full-time 

jobs (number of jobs)

 Income (wages in dollars)

 Government revenues and 

expenditures (dollars)

 Increase or decrease in 

economic activity by sector 

(most likely qualitative)
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

F-40 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Impact Analysis Area

 Direct/Indirect—Local (Kaktovik), Regional (NSB), State

 Cumulative—Same as direct/indirect

Analysis Assumptions

 Description of potential oil and gas activities and time frames under each alternative—This will 

include scenarios or assumptions regarding exploration, development, and production activities, 

such as road/ice road construction, on-shore pipelines, processing facilities, and camps. This will 

be the basis for quantifying the magnitude and scale of economic impacts. Information will be 

developed by the Project team based on geological prospects, examples of scenarios from 

previous EISs and environmental assessments in the North Slope, and subject matter experts.

 Production volumes by year—This data will be used to calculate potential royalty payments and 

other State and the Federal government tax payments. 

 Oil price forecasts—This information will be used to quantify potential royalty payments and 

other fiscal effects of the proposed project. Oil price projections can be obtained from the 

Alaska Department of Revenue (ADOR Revenue Sources) and from the Energy Information 

Administration (EIA) Annual Outlook. Alternatively, a constant price scenario could be adopted 

by the Project team.

 Construction costs (CAPEX) and construction schedule—This information will be used to 

calculate indirect (or multiplier) effects of construction spending as well as potential government 

revenues including oil and gas property taxes and state corporate income taxes. This data can 

also be used to estimate direct employment requirements associated with the construction. The 

MAG-PLAN model and data from previous oil and gas development studies in the North Slope 

can be used to develop rough-order of magnitude cost estimates.

 Annual operations and maintenance costs of the facilities—This information will be used to 

calculate indirect (or multiplier) effects of operations and maintenance spending as well as 

potential government revenues, including state corporate income taxes. This data can also be 

used to estimate direct employment requirements associated with the operations phase (if 

direct jobs data are not available). The MAG-PLAN model and data from previous oil and gas 

development studies in the North Slope can be used to develop rough-order of magnitude cost 

estimates.

 Tariffs and transportation costs—This information will be used to calculate the basis for 

calculating royalty payments. Data on existing tariffs and transportation costs are published by 

the ADOR Revenue Sources Book.

 Landownership—If available, this information will be used to determine potential royalty and 

right-of-way payments that will accrue to the landowners.
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program F-41

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

F.4.27 Public Health

Impacts and Indicators

Action Affecting Resource Type of Impact Impact Indicators

Surface disturbance 

associated with oil and gas 

development

Impacts on subsistence harvest  Acres of subsistence harvesting 

area disturbed

 Change in wildlife patterns and 

avoidance of oil and gas 

development

Oil and gas development Increase in air pollution Change in quantity of air 

pollutants introduced from oil and 

gas operations

Oil and gas development Increase in water pollution  Possibility of catastrophic oil 

spill

 Change in quantity of water 

pollutants introduced from oil 

and gas operations

Oil and gas development Change in demand for the 

Kaktovik public health system

 Change in unintentional 

accidents and injuries

 Change in oil and gas revenue 

for the North Slope Borough 

and Kaktovik

Oil and gas development Economic impacts on health Change in oil and gas revenue for 

Kaktovik residents, the North 

Slope Borough, and Kaktovik

Oil and gas development Accidents and safety Changes in Kaktovik resident 

travel patterns for subsistence 

harvest

Impact Analysis Area

 Direct/Indirect—Program area, including Kaktovik

 Cumulative—Program area, including Kaktovik

Analysis Assumptions

 A health impact assessment will be required for specific oil and gas developments once the lease 

sale is complete.
F. Approach to the Environmental Analysis

F-42 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

F.5 REFERENCES

BLM (US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management). 2018. Alpine Satellite Development 

Plan for the Proposed Greater Mooses Tooth 2 Development Project Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement. Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office. September 

2018. Anchorage, Alaska.

Etkin, D., and E. Ho. 2007. Climate change: Perceptions and discourses of risk. Journal of Risk Research 

10(5): 623-641.

EO (Executive Order) 13783. 2017. Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth. Signed 

March 28, 2017.

IWG (Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon). 2010. Technical Support Document: 

Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Released 

February 2010.

Kotchen, M. J. 2011. Cost-benefit analysis. Chapter in: Encyclopedia of climate and weather, Second 

edition. Schneider, S.H., editor-in-chief. New York, Oxford University Press: pp 312-315.

NRC (National Research Council). 2009. Informing decisions in a changing climate: Washington D.C., 

The National Academies Press. 

_____. 2010. Informing an effective response to climate change: Washington D.C.., The National 

Academies Press.

Rose, S. K., D. Turner, G. Blanford, J. Bistline, F. de la Chesnaye, and T. Wilson. 2014. Understanding 

the Social Cost of Carbon: A Technical Assessment. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: Report #3002004657.

Watson, P., J. Wilson, D. Thilmany, and S. Winter. 2007. Determining economic contributions and 

impacts: What is the difference and why do we care? The Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy 

37(2):140–146.
Appendix G

Potential Fossil Yield Classification System

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program G-i 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

APPENDIX G. POTENTIAL FOSSIL YIELD CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ....................................... G-1

G.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. G-1

G.1.1 Class 1—Very Low....................................................................................................... G-1

G.1.2 Class 2—Low ................................................................................................................. G-2

G.1.3 Class 3—Moderate....................................................................................................... G-2

G.1.4 Class 4—High ................................................................................................................ G-3

G.1.5 Class 5—Very High ...................................................................................................... G-3

G.1.6 Class U—Unknown Potential .................................................................................... G-4

G.1.7 Class W—Water .......................................................................................................... G-4

G.1.8 Class I—Ice .................................................................................................................... G-5

G.1.9 Special Notes ................................................................................................................. G-5

G.2 Coastal Plain Geologic Units’ PFYC Descriptions............................................................... G-5

G.2.1 Unconsolidated and poorly consolidated surficial deposits ............................... G-6

G.2.2 Sagavanirktok Formation (Tertiary) ......................................................................... G-6

G.2.3 Jago River Formation (Upper Cretaceous) ............................................................ G-6

G.2.4 Canning Formation (Cretaceous-Tertiary)............................................................. G-6

G.2.5 Seabee Formation (Upper Cretaceous) .................................................................. G-6

G.2.6 Hue Shale (Lower Cretaceous) ................................................................................. G-6

G.2.7 Kemik Sandstone (Lower Cretaceous) ................................................................... G-7

G.2.8 Wahoo Limestone (Lisburne Group) (Carboniferous) ....................................... G-7

G.2.9 Alapah Limestone (Lisburne Group) (Carboniferous)......................................... G-7

G.2.10 Ivishak Formation (Sadlerochit Group) (Triassic) ................................................. G-7

G.2.11 Echooka Formation (Sadlerochit Group) (Permian) ............................................ G-7

G.2.12 Kongakut Formation (Lower Cretaceous) ............................................................. G-7

G.2.13 Kingak Shale (Jurassic) ................................................................................................. G-8
This page intentionally left blank.
Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program G-1

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix G. Potential FossilYield 

Classification System

G.1 INTRODUCTION

The Potential Classification Yield Classification (PFYC) system allows Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

employees to make initial assessments of paleontological resources; to analyze potential effects of a 

proposed action under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and to conduct other BLM 

resource-related activities. The PFYC system can also highlight the areas for paleontological research 

efforts or predict illegal collecting. The system provides a consistent and streamlined approach to 

determine if a potential action may affect paleontological resources. 

The PFYC system provides baseline guidance for assessing paleontological resources. The classification 

should be considered early in an analysis and should be used to assist in determining the need for 

further assessment or actions. When considering proposed actions, the PFYC system should be used in 

conjunction with a map of known fossil localities. 

Occurrences of paleontological resources are known to be correlated with mapped geologic units (i.e., 

formations). The PFYC is created from available geologic maps and assigns a class value to each 

geological unit, representing the potential abundance and significance of paleontological resources that 

occur in that geological unit. PFYC assignments should be considered as only a first approximation of 

the potential presence of paleontological resources, subject to change, based on ground verification. 

In the PFYC system, geologic units are assigned a class based on the relative abundance of significant 

paleontological resources and their sensitivity to adverse impacts. This classification is applied to the 

geologic formation, member, or other mapped unit. The classification is not intended to be applied to 

specific paleontological localities or small areas in units. Although significant localities of paleontological 

resources may occasionally occur in a geologic unit that has been assigned a lower PFYC classification, 

widely scattered important fossils or localities do not necessarily indicate a higher class assignment.

Instead, the overall abundance of scientifically important localities is intended to be the major 

determinant for the assigned classification. 

The descriptions for the class assignments below serve as guidelines rather than as strict definitions.

Knowledge of the geology and the paleontological potential for individual geological units are considered 

when developing PFYC assignments. These assignments must be developed using scientific expertise 

with input from a BLM paleontologist; however, they may include collaboration and peer review from 

outside researchers who are knowledgeable about both the geology and the nature of paleontological 

resources that may be found in each geological unit. Each state has unique geologic maps and unique 

PFYC assignments. It is possible, and occasionally desirable, to have different assignments for a similar 

geologic unit across separate states. 

G.1.1 Class 1—Very Low

These are geologic units that are not likely to contain recognizable paleontological resources. Units 

assigned to Class 1 typically have one or more of the following characteristics:
G. Potential Fossil Yield Classification System

G-2 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 Geologic units are igneous or metamorphic, excluding air-fall and reworked volcanic ash units.

 Geologic units are Precambrian in age. 

Management concerns for paleontological resources in Class 1 units are usually negligible or not 

applicable. Paleontological mitigation is unlikely to be necessary, except in very rare or isolated 

circumstances that result in the unanticipated presence of paleontological resources, such as unmapped 

geology contained in a mapped geologic unit. For example, young fissure-fill deposits often contain 

fossils but are too limited in extent to be represented on a geological map; a lava flow that preserves 

evidence of past life, or caves that contain important paleontological resources. (Such exceptions are the 

reason that no geologic unit is assigned a Class 0.)

Overall, the probability of affecting significant paleontological resources is very low, and further 

assessment of paleontological resources is usually unnecessary. An assignment of Class 1 normally does 

not trigger a further analysis, unless paleontological resources are known or found to exist; however, 

standard stipulations should be put in place before any land use action is authorized, in order to 

accommodate an unanticipated discovery. 

G.1.2 Class 2—Low

This is assigned to geologic units that are not likely to contain paleontological resources. Such units 

typically have one or more of the following characteristics: 

 Field surveys have verified that significant paleontological resources are not present or are very 

rare.

 Units are generally younger than 10,000 years before present.

 There are recent aeolian (wind-driven) deposits.

 Sediments exhibit significant physical and chemical changes (i.e., diagenetic alteration) that make 

fossil preservation unlikely.

Except where paleontological resources are known or found to exist, management concerns for 

paleontological resources are generally low and further assessment is usually unnecessary, except in 

occasional or isolated circumstances. Paleontological mitigation is necessary only where paleontological 

resources are known or found to exist. 

The probability of affecting significant paleontological resources is low. Localities containing important 

paleontological resources may exist, but they are occasional and should be managed on a case-by-case 

basis. An assignment of Class 2 may not trigger further analysis unless paleontological resources are 

known or found to exist; however, standard stipulations should be put in place before any land use 

action is authorized to accommodate unanticipated discoveries. 

G.1.3 Class 3—Moderate

This is assigned to sedimentary geologic units where fossil content varies in significance, abundance, and 

predictable occurrence. Units assigned to Class 3 have some of the following characteristics: 

 Fossils are marine in origin, with sporadic known occurrences of paleontological resources.

 Paleontological resources may occur intermittently, but abundance is known to be low.
G. Potential Fossil Yield Classification System

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program G-3

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 Units may contain significant paleontological resources, but these occurrences are widely 

scattered.

 The potential for an authorized land use to affect a significant paleontological resource is known 

to be low-to-moderate.

Management concerns for paleontological resources are moderate because the existence of significant 

paleontological resources is known to be low. Common invertebrate or plant fossils may be found in 

the area, and opportunities may exist for casual collecting.

Paleontological mitigation strategies will be proposed, based on the nature of the proposed activity. 

This classification includes units of moderate or infrequent occurrence of paleontological resources. 

Management considerations cover a broad range of options that may include record searches, predisturbance surveys, monitoring, mitigation, or avoidance. Surface-disturbing activities may require 

assessment by a qualified paleontologist to determine whether significant paleontological resources 

occur in the area of a proposed action and whether the action could affect the paleontological 

resources. 

G.1.4 Class 4—High

This is assigned to geologic units that are known to contain a high occurrence of paleontological 

resources. Units assigned to Class 4 typically have the following characteristics: 

 Significant paleontological resources have been documented but may vary in occurrence and 

predictability.

 Surface-disturbing activities may adversely affect paleontological resources.

 Rare or uncommon fossils, including nonvertebrate (such as soft body preservation) or unusual 

plant fossils, may be present.

 Illegal collecting may affect some areas.

Management concerns for paleontological resources in Class 4 are moderate to high, depending on the 

proposed action. 

Paleontological mitigation strategies will depend on the nature of the proposed activity, but field 

assessment by a qualified paleontologist is normally needed to assess local conditions. 

The probability for affecting significant paleontological resources is moderate to high and depends on the 

proposed action. Mitigation planners must consider the nature of the proposed disturbance, such as 

removal or penetration of protective surface alluvium or soils, potential for future accelerated erosion, 

or increased ease of access that could result in looting. Detailed field assessment is normally required 

and on-site monitoring or spot-checking may be necessary during land-disturbing activities. In some 

cases, avoiding known paleontological resources may be necessary. 

G.1.5 Class 5—Very High

These are highly fossiliferous geologic units that consistently and predictably produce significant 

paleontological resources. Units assigned to Class 5 have some or all the following characteristics: 
G. Potential Fossil Yield Classification System

G-4 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 Significant paleontological resources have been documented and occur consistently.

 Paleontological resources are highly susceptible to adverse impacts from surface-disturbing 

activities.

 The unit is frequently the focus of illegal collecting.

Management concerns for paleontological resources in Class 5 areas are high to very high. 

A field survey by a qualified paleontologist is almost always needed. Paleontological mitigation may be 

necessary before or during surface-disturbing activities. 

The probability for affecting significant paleontological resources is high. The area should be assessed 

before land tenure adjustments. Pre-work surveys are usually needed, and on-site monitoring may be 

necessary during land use activities. Avoidance or resource preservation through controlled access, 

designation of areas of avoidance, or special management designations should be considered. 

G.1.6 Class U—Unknown Potential

These are such geologic units that cannot receive an informed PFYC assignment. Characteristics of Class 

U may include the following: 

 Geological units may exhibit features or preservation conditions that suggest significant 

paleontological resources could be present, but little information about the actual 

paleontological resources of the unit or area is known.

 Geological units represented on a map are based on lithologic character or basis of origin but 

have not been studied in detail.

 Scientific literature does not exist or does not reveal the nature of paleontological resources.

 Reports of paleontological resources are anecdotal or have not been verified.

 The area or geologic unit is poorly or under studied.

 BLM staff has not yet been able to assess the nature of the geologic unit.

Until a provisional assignment is made, geologic units that have an unknown potential have medium to 

high management concerns. 

Lacking other information, field surveys are normally necessary, especially before a ground-disturbing 

activity is authorized. An assignment of Class U may indicate the unit or area is poorly studied, and field 

surveys are needed to verify the presence or absence of paleontological resources. Literature searches 

or consultation with professional colleagues may allow an unknown unit to be provisionally assigned to 

another PFYC, but the geological unit should be formally assigned to a class after adequate survey and 

research is performed to make an informed determination. 

G.1.7 Class W—Water

This class is assigned to any surface area that is mapped as water. Most bodies of water do not normally 

contain paleontological resources; however, shorelines should be carefully considered for uncovered or 

transported paleontological resources. Reservoirs are a special concern because important 

paleontological resources are often exposed during low water intervals. In karst areas, sinkholes and 
G. Potential Fossil Yield Classification System

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program G-5

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

cenotes1 may trap animals and contain paleontological resources. Dredging river systems may disturb 

sediments that contain paleontological resources. 

G.1.8 Class I—Ice

Includes any area that is mapped as ice or snow. Receding glaciers, including exposed lateral and 

terminal moraines, should be considered for their potential to reveal recently exposed paleontological 

resources. Other considerations are melting snow fields that may contain paleontological resources,

with possible soft-tissue preservation. 

G.1.9 Special Notes

When developing PFYC assignments, the following should be considered: 

 Standard stipulations should always be in place before any land use action is authorized, in order 

to accommodate an unanticipated discovery. 

 Class 1 and 2 and Class 4 and 5 units may be combined for broad applications, such as largescale planning or programmatic assessments, or when geologic mapping at an appropriate scale 

is not available. Resource assessment, mitigation, and other management considerations will 

need to be addressed when actual land-disturbing activities are proposed. 

 Where large projects affect multiple geologic units with different PFYCs, field surveys and 

monitoring should be applied appropriately. For example, the BLM Authorized Officer may 

determine that on-the-ground (pedestrian) surveys are necessary for the Class 4 and 5 

formations but not for Class 2 formations. 

 Based on information gained by surveys, the BLM may adjust PFYC assignments appropriately. 

Actual survey and monitoring intensities, as well as the extent of discoveries, should be included 

in any assessment, mitigation, or permit report so the BLM may reevaluate PFYC assignments. 

 A geologic unit may receive a higher or lower classification in specific areas where the 

occurrence of fossils is known to be higher or lower than in other areas where the unit is 

exposed. 

 Some areas are difficult to evaluate, such as talus, colluvium, tailings, fill, borrow, and other 

mapped features. A PFYC assignment should be made for each area using available information, 

or the area should be assigned to Class U. 

 The BLM-wide PFYC assignments are maintained and periodically updated by the BLM 

paleontology team and may be obtained by contacting the BLM state or regional paleontologist 

assigned to an area.

G.2 COASTAL PLAIN GEOLOGIC UNITS’ PFYC DESCRIPTIONS

The PFYC model for Alaska is in development as of November 2018; the excerpts below are 

preliminary PFYC rankings and descriptions for selected units in the program area.2 Final rankings, 

descriptions, and associated citations will be incorporated when the PFYC model is complete.

 

1Deep sinkholes formed by the collapse of limestone cavities and having a pool at the bottom fed by groundwater.

2B. Breithaupt, BLM Regional Paleontologist, email to Anna Kohl, HDR environmental scientist, on July 30, 2018, 

regarding preliminary PFYC rankings and unit descriptions for the program area. 
G. Potential Fossil Yield Classification System

G-6 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

G.2.1 Unconsolidated and poorly consolidated surficial deposits 

PFYC: 2-3

Most Quaternary, Pleistocene, and uppermost Tertiary deposits have not been given formation names 

and are frequently mapped based on lithologic character and estimated age. Care should be taken with 

these deposits with regard to fossil resources, as it is very hard to predict which deposits might be 

fossiliferous. Many of these types of deposits contain significant flora and fauna, although the distribution 

of fossils is often spotty. These deposits should not be underestimated for their fossil potential. Recent 

Holocene and disturbed deposits are ranked very low potential.

G.2.2 Sagavanirktok Formation (Tertiary)

PFYC: 3-4

This formation contains floral fossils (Gryc et al. 1951). Fossil flora were collected from the Sagwon 

Member of this formation (Metasequuoia occidentalis, Trapa microphylla, and Cinnamononum ficoides; Spicer 

et al. 1994). There were no fossils from the Franklin Bluffs Member and it is not likely to produce any; 

the Nuwok Member contains mollusc fossils and prolific microfauna (foraminifers and ostracodes; 

Detterman et al. 1975). Mull et al. (2003) added the White Hills Member in addition to the Sagwon, 

Franklin Bluffs, and Nuwok Members. Mollusc fossils were found in what used to unofficially be called 

the Nuwok Formation (MacNeil 1957).

G.2.3 Jago River Formation (Upper Cretaceous)

PFYC: 3

This formation contains palynomorphs and plant fossils (Buckingham 1987; Molenaar et al. 1987). The 

Bathtub Graywacke is included in this formation, which does not contain any invertebrate fossils but has 

some plant fossils; however, the only identifiable material was an equisetum and a few fragments of the 

marine algae Tyttodiscus (Detterman et al. 1975).

G.2.4 Canning Formation (Cretaceous-Tertiary)

PFYC: 2-3

Palynomorphs were used to decide age (Bird and Molenaar 1987). 

G.2.5 Seabee Formation (Upper Cretaceous)

PFYC: 4

Marine fossils found are Scaphites delicatulus, Borissjakoceras (ammonites), and Inoceramus (Gryc et al. 

1951). Pelecypod and ammonite megafauna and microfauna were found in the lower part of the 

formation, Foraminifera and palynomorphs in upper part (Mull et al. 2003). Pelecypods, ammonites, fish 

scales, and vertebrae (Lindsey 1986) were also found. The Arctos database listed a therapod or small 

bird trace fossil (footprint).

G.2.6 Hue Shale (Lower Cretaceous)

PFYC: 3

This includes a bed that is rich in Inoceramus bivalve prisms and fish remains; more Inoceramus prisms 

are found higher in the formation, along with palynomorphs (Molenaar et al. 1987).
G. Potential Fossil Yield Classification System

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program G-7

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

G.2.7 Kemik Sandstone (Lower Cretaceous)

PFYC: 2-3

The was previously a member of the Kongakut Formation. Molenaar (1988) mentions some marine 

mollusc fossils that were collected below this formation but not that they are from this formation 

particularly. Trace fossils were Skolithos, Dioplocraterion, Arenicolites, and Ophiomorpha (Reifenstuhl 

1995). Arctos database lists: belemnite guards.

G.2.8 Wahoo Limestone (Lisburne Group) (Carboniferous)

PFYC: 3

Lower part of the unit has a brachiopod-bryozoan assemblage and corals; the upper part contains 

brachiopods (Brosgé et al. 1962). It contains some rugose and tabulate corals, but they are not very 

abundant (Armstrong and Mamet 1977). Colonial corals Corwenia jagoensis and Lithostrotionella wahooensis

were found (Armstrong 1972).

G.2.9 Alapah Limestone (Lisburne Group) (Carboniferous)

PFYC: 3

Lithostrotionoid corals, broken shells, and fish teeth were found (Bowsher and Dutro 1957), along with 

molluscs, brachiopods, corals, and gastropods (Dutro 1987) and ammonites, plants, Nautiloids (Lindsey 

1986).

G.2.10 Ivishak Formation (Sadlerochit Group) (Triassic)

PFYC: 3

This formation contains ammonoids (Keller et al. 1961). It includes the Kavik Member, Ledge Sandstone 

Member, Fire Creek Siltstone Member (Detterman et al. 1975). The Kavik Member contains ammonites, 

pelecypods, and a few microfossils; the Ledge Sandstone Member has sparse brachiopods and 

ammonites, most of which are fragmentary; and the Fire Creek Siltstone Member contains sparse 

Euflemingites ammonites and Lingula brachiopods (Detterman et al. 1975).

G.2.11 Echooka Formation (Sadlerochit Group) (Permian)

PFYC: 3

Keller et al. (1961) say this formation is fossiliferous, but they do not say what kinds of fossils. They 

were raised to the formation level and divided into two members by Detterman et al. (1975). The upper 

part of the Joe Creek Member is abundantly fossiliferous with brachiopods, and the lower part has more 

sparse fossils; the upper part of the Joe Creek Member also contains abundant bryozoans and corals and 

some trilobites and pelecypods (Detterman et al. 1975).

G.2.12 Kongakut Formation (Lower Cretaceous)

PFYC: 2-3

There are buchia shells, some poorly preserved pelecypods, and some microfossils that indicate a 

similarity to Barremian rocks of the Richardson Mountains in the Yukon Territory (Detterman et al. 

1975).
G. Potential Fossil Yield Classification System

G-8 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

G.2.13 Kingak Shale (Jurassic)

PFYC: 3

Crinoids, bivalves, cephalopods, and ammonites are found in this shale (Leffingwell 1919).

Also included are marine molluscs (bivalves, ammonites, cephalopods, and ammonites) and crinoids 

(Payne et al. 1951). Early Jurassic fossils in northeast Alaska are sparse but include pelecypods; crinoids 

are also present in the formation, as well as ammonites and microfossils associated with pelecypods and 

ammonites (Detterman et al. 1975). There are ammonites from the early Jurassic, but they are not

abundant or well preserved (Lindsey 1986). Arctos database: guards from Belemnoidea.
Appendix H

Water Resources

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program H-i 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

APPENDIX H. WATER RESOURCES.......................................................................................... H-1

H.1 References ...................................................................................................................................H-20

TABLES Page 

H-1 Average Monthly Air Temperatures at Barter Island, Toolik Lake, and Kuparuk ...................... H-1

H-2 Average Annual Monthly Precipitation at Toolik Lake and Kuparuk ............................................. H-3

H-3 Average Annual Monthly Snowfall at Kuparuk .................................................................................... H-5

H-4 Summary of Drainage Basins and Streams in the Coastal Plain ....................................................... H-6

H-5 Surface Water Discharge .......................................................................................................................... H-7

H-6 Summary of Data for Lakes in Regions of the Program Area ........................................................H-19
This page intentionally left blank.
Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program H-1

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix H. Water Resources

Table H-1

Average Monthly Air Temperatures at Barter Island, Toolik Lake, and Kuparuk

Barter Island Station: Avg. Monthly 

Temp. (°F)

Toolik Lake Station: Avg. 

Monthly Temp. (°F)

Month 2015 2017 2018

Jan no data no data no data

Feb no data no data 9.2

Mar no data no data 8.1

Apr no data no data 9.7

May no data no data 29.1

Jun no data no data 41.6

Jul no data no data no data

Aug no data no data no data

Sep no data 32.7 no data

Oct 5.2 17 no data

Nov no data 8.9 no data

Dec no data 10.3 no data

Adapted from Global Summary of the Month Station Details by the National Centers for Environmental 

Information: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/findstation
H. Water Resources

H-2 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table H-1 (continued)

Average Monthly Air Temperatures at Barter Island, Kuparuk, and Toolik Lake

Kuparuk Station: Avg. Monthly Air Temp. (°F)

Month

Years

200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017

Jan -14.4 -11.8 -20.6 -12 -14 -11 -16 -18 -21 -18 -19 -14 23.8 22.5 7.4 0.9 8.6 10.7

Feb -16.7 -5.7 -22.6 -17 -29 -17 -6.6 -14 -19 -17 -13 -9.5 1 2.3 -10 -16 -8.2 3.9

Mar -15.5 -19.7 -4.8 -14 -20 -9.3 -19 -21 -21 -22 -13 -8.9 -18 -10 -13 -4.5 -6 -9.3

Apr -1.8 0.8 3.3 7.1 -1 1.1 -4.5 7.6 9.2 3.6 11 -2.5 -18 -14 -6.3 -5.4 -12 0.8

May 15.3 12.4 27.9 23.8 23.8 23.3 26.2 18.5 27.1 26.7 21.7 23.1 -25 -8.2 -9.8 -7.4 -9.3 -2.2

Jun 43.9 39.2 39.3 37.7 44.7 37.5 46.6 39.6 44.6 39 38.3 -26 -11 4.2 7.6 10.5 4.5 3.6

Jul 46 47.1 45.2 48.5 49.4 40.4 47.6 46.8 49.7 47.5 49.2 -14 -2.9 29.2 31 30.1 25.8 21.2

Aug 41.8 41.5 43.4 40.6 48.1 44.8 40.2 45.8 41.3 45.3 47.4 -29 20.6 38.5 48.1 43.6 38.8 34.5

Sep 32.8 35.1 38.9 33.1 33.8 34.9 39.7 38 34 34.8 37.5 2.2 44.1 45.3 44.4 49.2 52.2 no data

Oct 14.5 8.6 20.2 23.9 18.8 19.2 24.9 19.2 16.9 25 22.2 22 49.3 42.4 41.1 45.4 45.1 no data

Nov -2.3 -2.4 7.1 -0.3 -1.4 -13 -1 10.7 0.9 -3.2 12.1 41.8 45.8 34.2 30.3 35.3 36.8 no data

Dec -7.2 -11.8 -3.8 -9.8 -12 -5.9 -4.3 -4.5 -3.1 -3.4 -17 51.4 31.9 22.1 20.3 24.9 21.3 no data

Adapted from Global Summary of the Month Station Details by the National Centers for Environmental Information: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/findstation
H. Water Resources

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program H-3

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table H-2

Average Annual Monthly Precipitation at Toolik Lake and Kuparuk

Toolik Lake Station: Avg. Monthly Precipitation 

(inches)

Month

Years

2017 2018

Jan no data 0.12

Feb no data 0.44

Mar no data 0.2

Apr no data 0.06

May no data 0.9

Jun no data 1.45

Jul no data no data

Aug no data no data

Sep 0.69 no data

Oct 0.81 no data

Nov 0.62 no data

Dec 0.12 no data

Adapted from Normals Annual/Seasonal Station Details by the National 

Centers for Environmental Information: 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/findstation
H. Water Resources

H-4 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table H-2 (continued)

Average Annual Monthly Precipitation at Toolik Lake and Kuparuk

Kuparuk Station: Avg. Annual Monthly Precipitation (inches)

Month

Years

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Jan 0.09 0.01 0.21 0.09 0.01 0.2 0.19 0.45 0.04 0 0.21 0.22 1.02 0.29 0.5 0.27 0.81 0.83

Feb 0.12 0 0.15 0.13 0.3 0.09 0.11 0.02 0.19 0.17 0.11 0.26 0.36 0.41 0.76 0.05 0.13 0.74

Mar 0.06 0 0.12 0.02 0.3 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.08 0 0.21 0.03 0.15 0.04 0.16 0.21 0.39 0.23

Apr 0.07 0.01 0.14 0.18 0.04 0.05 0.31 0.14 0.09 0.2 0.12 0.07 0.02 0.12 0.3 0.08 0.52 0.37

May 0 0.03 0 0.19 0 0.14 0.04 0.29 0.56 0.04 0.08 0.51 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.2 0.09 0.11

Jun 0.16 0.35 1.05 0.01 0.4 0.01 0.78 0.22 0.43 0 0.05 0.17 0.2 0.09 0.31 0.1 0.11 0.12

Jul 1.12 0.26 1.1 2.22 1.02 1.06 1.67 0.22 1.07 0.45 1.22 0.07 0.91 0.76 0.09 0.11 0.18 0.25

Aug 0.38 1.35 1.93 0.67 0.61 0.5 1.07 0.11 0.62 2.13 0.4 0.1 0.43 0.49 0.14 1.1 0.01 0.3

Sep 0.14 0.25 1.67 0.4 0.97 0.62 0.12 0.01 0.2 0.67 0 0.12 0.31 1.09 0.28 0.81 0.67 no data

Oct 0.13 0.28 0.46 0.87 0.5 0.21 0.35 0.15 0.52 0.33 0.34 0.09 1.77 0.44 2.58 1.63 2.16 no data

Nov 0.03 0.17 0.04 0.11 0.16 0.5 0.23 0.4 0.29 0.11 0.56 0.03 0.89 0.5 0.33 1.63 1.02 no data

Dec 0.05 0.08 0.44 0.14 0.28 0.25 0.27 0.09 0.19 0.15 0.17 0.1 1.02 1.42 0.22 0.28 0.87 no data

Adapted from Normals Annual/Seasonal Station Details by the National Centers for Environmental Information: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/findstation
H. Water Resources 

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program H-5 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table H-3 

Average Annual Monthly Snowfall at Kuparuk 

Kuparuk Station: Avg Annual Monthly Snowfall (inches)

Month

Years

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Jan 4.1 0.6 4 2.4 0.2 3.5 4.3 5.3 1 0.4 7.4 0.6 7.1 5.2 5.1 4.5 17.2 11.2

Feb 5.5 1 1.4 4.8 2.7 2 2.6 0.5 3.4 5.4 3 1.9 3.5 5.2 11.7 1.7 2.5 5.2

Mar 3.3 0.9 1 2.1 5.1 1 0.8 1.2 2.6 0 4.8 0.8 1.7 1 4.1 3.9 1.8 5.2

Apr 4 1.2 1.8 4 1.5 1.3 5.5 3.9 7.2 2.7 2.6 1.9 0.9 2 3.3 1.1 6.3 6.3

May 2 7.4 0 6.5 0 3.7 0.8 10.3 0.8 1.6 0.3 1.3 1 1.5 3.4 5 3.3 1.5

Jun 0 0 1.8 0 0 0.2 0.3 0 0 0 0.3 2.2 4 4.1 10.2 1.3 2.9 0.9

Jul 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 8.9 4.4 0.2 0 0.8 4.3

Aug 1.7 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 4.7 1.4 1 2.5 0 0

Sep 1.5 1.9 3.4 2.8 4.4 0.3 0 0 0.5 3.5 0 3 0 0 0 0 no data

Oct 5.5 7.5 15.3 7.9 8 4.7 6.5 5.1 17.3 6.9 9.3 1.6 0 0 0 0 0 no data

Nov 0.7 7.1 2.7 3.3 2 10.2 4.8 15.1 7.5 4.4 13.5 0 0 0.6 3.1 0.2 0 no data

Dec 1.1 4.2 9.3 5.4 2.7 5.3 5.5 3.7 4.3 4.2 4.4 0 6 7 2.8 1.1 3 no data

Adapted from Normals Annual/Seasonal Station Details by the National Centers for Environmental Information: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/findstation
H. Water Resources

H-6 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table H-4

Summary of Drainage Basins and Streams in the Coastal Plain

Drainage Basin Waterbodies 

(notable streams) Headwater Origin Receiving Water Drainage Area (square miles)

Length 

(miles)

Aichilik River None Romanzof Mountains Beaufort Lagoon - 75

Akutoktak 

(Akootoaktuk) River

None Romanzof Mountains Okpilak River 97 11.8

Angun River None Tundra Drainage Angun Lagoon, 

Beufort Sea

745 30

Canning River Marsh Fork Franlin Mountains Camden Bay 1930 125

Hulahula River None Romanzof Mountains Camden Bay 685 90

Itkilyariak Creek, West 

Fork

Itkilyariak Creek, Salderochit 

River

Sadlerochit Mountains Camden Bay 27 14.8

Jago River None McCall Glacier on Mt. 

Isto, Romanzof 

Mountains

Jago Lagoon, Beaufort 

Sea

798 90

Marsh Fork-Canning 

River

Canning River Philip Smith Mountains Canning River - 50

Niguanak River None Tundra drainage Oruktalik Lagoon 136 14.1

Okpilak Akutoktak River Okpilak Glacier, Brooks 

Range

Camden Bay - 70

Sadlerochit River Peters River Franklin Mountains, 

Brooks Range

Camden Bay 520 0.2

Sadlerochit Spring Creek Itkilyariak Creek, Salderochit 

River

Eastern Sadlerochit 

Mountains

Camden Bay 0.5 -

Sikrelurak River None Tundra drainage West Fork Sikrelurak 

River

75 18.5

Tamayariak River Upper Main Stem, Lower West 

Fork, Middle Fork, and Upper 

West Fork of Tamayariak River, 

Canning River

Sadlerochit Mountains Beaufort Sea 350 19.3

Adapted from Water Resource Inventory and Assessment by the US Dept. of the Interior (1987-1992, Table 2), https://www.fws.gov/alaska/water/arctic.htm, and 

https://alaska.guide/Rivers

Recreated from National Hydrography Dataset: flowlines GIS data. by the US Geological Survey and https://alaska.guide/Rivers
H. Water Resources

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program H-7 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table H-5 

Surface Water Discharge

Akutoktak River

Recording 

Period

Average Daily Value (cubic ft/sec) Period Measurement Summary

Jun Jul Aug (cubic ft/sec)

IPF Date

(ac-ft) (CFSM) (in)

MeanMaxMinMeanMaxMinMeanMaxMinMean Seven-Day Low FlowInstantaneous Peak Flow (IPF)Total RunoffAverage RunoffTotal Runoff

May 19-Sep 

26 1988 280 1000 20 10 20 5.9 33 111 5.5 89 6.03 119 e 8/23/1988 23046 0.91 4.45

Jul 6- Aug 20 

1989 295 1020 10 129 719 2.4 - 608 66 233 3.57 1703 8/20/1989 29096 2.4 5.62

May 18-Sep 

19 1990 27 134 6.9 3 8 1.0 3 11 0.80 38 0.93 215 6/20/1990 9454 0.39 1.83

May 17-Sep 

24 1991 255 1230 31 45 314 3.1 36 100 11 111 3.77 768 6/14/1991 28717 1.14 5.55

May 28 – Sep 

21 1992 180 630 11 10 29 4.3 105 943 7.5 104 5.57 1818 8/27/1992 24202 1.07 4.67

Adapted from Water Resource Inventory and Assessment Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (1987-1992): Appendix A by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
H. Water Resources

H-8 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table H-5 (continued)

Surface Water Discharge

Note: e = estimate

Adapted from Water Resource Inventory and Assessment Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (1987-1992): Appendix A by the US Fish and Wildlife Service

Itkilyariak Creek, West Fork

Recording 

Period

Average Daily Value (cubic ft/sec) Period Measurement Summary

Jun Jul Aug (cubic ft/sec)

IPF Date

(ac-ft) (CFSM) (in)

Mean MaxMinMeanMaxMinMeanMaxMinMean Seven-Day Low FlowInstantaneous Peak Flow (IPF)Total RunoffAverage RunoffTotal Runoff

1988 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

May 27 – Sep 

22 1989 42 90 4.9 49 320 0.0 101 554 25.0 59 1.88 1419 8/20/1989 13909 2.19 9.69

May 13 – Sep 

19 1990 30 89 4.9 7.6 49 0.0 5.0 21 1.2 54 0.53 160 6/19/1990 13921 2.01 9.70

May 18 – Sep 

24 1991 202 1120 37 11 37 6.0 25 173 4.1 85 2.89 276 6/14/1991 19624 3.14 13.68

May 29 – Sep 

21 1992 78 710 7.7 - 24 15 80 679 3.7 91 - 1255 8/27/1992 14740 3.37 10.27
H. Water Resources

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program H-9 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table H-5 (continued)

Surface Water Discharge

Niguanak River (in cubic ft/sec unless noted otherwise)

Recording 

Period

Average Daily Value (cubic ft/sec) Period Measurement Summary

Jun Jul Aug (cubic ft/sec)

IPF Date

(ac-ft) (CFSM) (in)

MeanMaxMinMeanMaxMinMeanMaxMinMeanSeven-Day Low FlowInstantaneous Peak Flow (IPF)Total RunoffAverage RunoffTotal Runoff

1988 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Jun 9 – Sep 

22 1989 518 1360 53 76 311 18 193 1148 50 259 39.50 2071 8/21/1989 60670 1.90 8.35

May 11 – 

Sep 19 1990 65 138 26 - 21 0.7 - 1 0.0 111 0.00 - - 29170 0.82 4.02

May 17 – 

Sep 24 1991 716 2000 215 123 515 41 22 52 9.3 282 4.11 1319 6/14/1991 73199 2.07 10.08

May 28- Jul 

7 1992 321 1109 90 - 203 92 - - - - - - - - - - 

Adapted from Water Resource Inventory and Assessment Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (1987-1992): Appendix A by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
H. Water Resources

H-10 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table H-5 (continued)

Surface Water Discharge

Sadlerochit River

Recording 

Period

Average Daily Value (cubic ft/sec) Period Summary Report

Jun Jul Aug (cubic ft/sec)

IPF Date

(ac-ft) (CFSM) (in)

MeanMaxMinMeanMaxMinMeanMaxMinMean Seven-Day Low FlowInstantaneous Peak Flow (IPF)Total RunoffAverage RunoffTotal Runoff

Jul 21 – Sep 

27 1988 - - - - 846 342 - 1937 695 - 92.91 2194 8/22/1988 - - - 

Jun 19 – Sep 

23 1989 - 3315 923 1672 4124 649 159 4385 572 1414 313.63 5733 8/4/1989 271966 2.72 9.80

Jun 11 – Sep 

3 1990 1333 2678 177 943 1429 633 432 662 271 833 333.05 4857 6/18/1990 140419 1.60 5.06

Jun 4 – Sep 

24 1991 1793 3715 365 1317 9190 399 692 1732 380 1035 122.67 21000 7/21/1991 203142 1.99 7.32

Jun 2 to Sep 

21 1992 1563 2614 123 1670 5656 625 1034 4216 362 1240 88.97 9506 7/26/1992 280395 2.38 10.11

Adapted from Water Resource Inventory and Assessment Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (1987-1992): Appendix A by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
H. Water Resources

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program H-11

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table H-5 (continued)

Surface Water Discharge

Sadlerochit Spring Creek

Recording 

Period

Average Daily Value (cubic ft/sec) Period Summary Report

Jun Jul Aug (cubic ft/sec)

IPF Date

(ac-ft) (CFSM) (in)

MeanMaxMinMeanMaxMinMeanMaxMinMean Seven-Day Low FlowInstantaneous Peak Flow (IPF)Total RunoffAverage RunoffTotal Runoff

Jul 22 – Sep 

30 1988 38 40 33 39 40 37 41 44 37 36 28 55 8/16/1988

8/19/1988 25795 - 967

Oct 1 1988 

– Sep 30 

1989

37 42 32 43 52 38 58 81 46 41 28 108 8/20/1989 29334 - 1100

Oct 1 1989 

– Sep 30 

1990

39 40 36 37 40 36 36 36 35 37 28 41 8/18/1990

8/19/1990 26825 - 1006

Oct 1 1990 

– Sep 30 

1991

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Oct 1 1991 

– Sep 30 

1992

38 40 36 42 45 40 45 51 45 36 28 61 8/27/1992 26075 - 978

Adapted from Water Resource Inventory and Assessment Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (1987-1992): Appendix A by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
H. Water Resources

H-12 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table H-5 (continued)

Surface Water Discharge

Sikrelurak River

Recording 

Period

Average Daily Values (cubic ft/sec) Period Summary Report

Jun Jul Aug (cubic ft/sec)

IPF Date

(ac-ft) (CFSM) (in)

MeanMaxMinMeanMaxMinMeanMaxMinMean Seven-Day Low FlowInstantaneous Peak Flow (IPF)Total RunoffAverage RunoffTotal Runoff

Jun 8 – Sep 

22 1988 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Jun 8 – Sep 

22 1989 336 1220 16 19 72 1.7 62 235 13 126 4.38 282 8/20/1989 28518 1.69 7.16

May 18 – Sep 

19 1990 22 47 11 2.2 9.2 1.7 0.3 1.5 0.0 42 0.00 117 9/7/1990 10386 0.56 2.61

May 17 – Sep 

24 1991 310 1480 44 33 118 13 11 28 4.6 108 3.14 1787 6/4/1991 28004 1.44 7.03

May 28 – Sep 

14 1992 767 930 15 6 26 1.3 1.4 2.0 1.3 99 1.35 1057 6/10/1992 19654 1.33 4.93

Adapted from Water Resource Inventory and Assessment Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (1987-1992): Appendix A by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
H. Water Resources

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program H-13

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table H-5 (continued)

Surface Water Discharge

Tamayariak River

Recording 

Period

Average Daily Values(cubic ft/sec) Period Summary Table

Jun Jul Aug (cubic ft/sec)

IPF Date

(ac-ft) (CFSM) (in)

MeanMaxMinMeanMaxMinMeanMaxMinMean Seven-Day Low FlowInstantaneous Peak Flow (IPF)Total Runoff Average RunoffTotal Runoff

May 26 – Sep 

26 1988 563 1400 160 70 140 18 312 1039 120 279 21.07 1996 8/12/1988 68526 2.05 9.44

Jun 1 – Sep 

22 1989 696 2140 114 242 823 53 338 778 138 383 93.54 997 7/17/1989 86571 2.81 11.93

May 11 to 

Sep 19 1990 197 794 88 56 146 30 116 1100 21 247 23.57 4099 9/6/1990 64748 1.82 8.92

May 17 – Sep 

24 1991 681 2000 139 288 1400 66 279 2442 72 381 62.13 3244 8/22/1991 98928 2.80 13.63

May 27 – Aug 

26 1992 385 1032 109 65 154 32 1777 68 25 217 27.69 2856 8/27/1992 39564 1.59 5.45

Jun 1 – Sep 

20 2008 173 347 60 87 457 27 238 1340 27 a - - - - - - 

Oct 1 2008- 

Sep 30 2009 595 1550 117 68 239 20 172 533 32 94 0.00 2250 6/5/2009 67840 0.63 8.54

Oct 1 2009- 

Sep 30 2010 330 704 116 119 310 48 220 1000 39 70 0.00 1570 8/7/2010 50360 0.47 6.34

Oct 1 2010 – 

Sep 30 2011 311 615 76 71 203 40 57 180 30 88 0.00 3230 5/26/2011 63280 0.587 7.96

Oct 1 2011 – 

Sep 30 2012 286 775 76 82 249 38 181 465 74 72 0.00 1190 5/31/2012 52070 0.48 6.55 

Note: a denotes statistics not provided by USGS due to partial water year.

Adapted from Water Resource Inventory and Assessment Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (1987-1992): Appendix A by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and USGS Water Data Reports 

2008-2012 Station 15960000 Tamayariak R near Kaktovik AK.
H. Water Resources

H-14 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table H-5 (continued)

Surface Water Discharge

Tamayariak River, Lower West Fork

Recording 

Period

Average Daily Values (cubic ft/sec) Period Summary Report

Jun Jul Aug (cubic ft/sec)

IPF Date

(ac-ft) (CFSM) (in)

MeanMaxMinMeanMaxMinMeanMaxMinMean Seven-Day Low FlowInstantaneous Peak Flow (IPF)Total RunoffAverage RunoffTotal Runoff

May 28 – 

Sep 26 1988 403 1380 50 20 40 11 114 392 9.4 155 10.17 496 9/5/1988 38123 1.58 7.28

Jun 1 – Sep 

20 1989 525 1880 10 115 345 43 153 477 44 221 25.14 647 8/21/1989 49204 2.26 9.40

May 18 – 

Sep 19 1990 43 110 20 11 20 6.1 3.8 6.1 2.2 133 2.41 2455 9/6/1990 32981 1.36 6.30

May 17 – 

Sep 24 1991 493 2050 135 129 960 24 50 241 19 206 21.50 1750 7/23/1991 53649 2.10 10.25

Oct 1991 – 

Sep 1992 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Adapted from Water Resource Inventory and Assessment Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (1987-1992): Appendix A by the US Fish and Wildlife Service 
H. Water Resources

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program H-15

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table H-5 (continued)

Surface Water Discharge

Tamayariak River, Middle Fork

Recording 

Period

Average Daily Values (cubic ft/sec) Period Summary Report

Jun Jul Aug (cubic ft/sec)

IPF Date

(ac-ft) (CFSM) (in)

MeanMaxMinMeanMaxMinMeanMaxMinMean Seven-Day Low FlowInstantaneous Peak Flow (IPF)Total RunoffAverage RunoffTotal Runoff

May 26 – 

Sep 26 1988 384 1300 50 8.6 40 2.2 100 351 1.4 139 2.02 618 9/5/1988 34185 2.27 10.46

Jun 5 – Sep 

20 1989 454 1780 26 70 255 14 127 282 43 193 18.87 303 8/21/1989 42889 3.15 13.12

May 11 – 

Sep 19 1990 39 151 12 3.5 11 0.82 0.78 4.7 0.41 69 0.46 637 9/6/1990 18165 1.13 5.56

May 17 – 

Sep 24 1991 373 1580 38 90 800 14 34 225 6.9 144 6.11 1867 6/4/1991 37507 2.35 11.47

May 28 – 

Sep 15 1992 90 470 12 3.7 17 0.80 65 1026 0.60 73 0.71 1455 8/27/1992 16024 1.19 4.90

Adapted from Water Resource Inventory and Assessment Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (1987-1992): Appendix A by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
H. Water Resources

H-16 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table H-5 (continued)

Surface Water Discharge

Tamayariak River, Upper West Fork

Recording 

Period

Average Daily Values (cubic ft/sec) Period Summary Report

Jun Jul Aug (cubic ft/sec)

IPF Date

(ac-ft) (CFSM) (in)

MeanMaxMinMeanMaxMinMeanMaxMinMean Seven-Day Low FlowInstantaneous Peak Flow (IPF)Total RunoffAverage RunoffTotal Runoff

May 26 – 

Sep 26 439 1490 60 9.4 50 0.8 85 271 1.1 144 0.92 404 8/13/1988 35536 2.94 13.54

Jun 1 – Sep 

20 1989 418 2050 24 55 220 3.4 126 530 37 175 10.89 1478 8/20/1989 38785 3.55 14.78

May 18 – 

Sep 19 1990 26 130 6.0 1.9 6.2 0.00 17 323 0.00 79 0.00 1328 9/6/1990 19597 1.61 7.47

May 17 – 

Sep 24 1991 350 1820 82 99 681 9.1 38 202 6.3 145 2.70 1219 8/22/1991 37794 2.96 14.40

May 28 – 

Aug 25 

1992

154 890 6.6 11 40 4.0 0.73 4.0 0.00 89 0.00 996 6/10/1992 16042 1.81 6.11

Adapted from Water Resource Inventory and Assessment Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (1987-1992): Appendix A by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
H. Water Resources

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program H-17

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table H-5 (continued)

Surface Water Discharge

Canning River 

Recording 

Period

Average Daily Values (cubic ft/sec) Period Summary Report

Jun Jul Aug (cubic ft/sec)

IPF Date

(ac-ft) (CFSM) (in)

MeanMaxMinMeanMaxMinMeanMaxMinMean Seven-Day Low FlowInstantaneous Peak Flow (IPF)Total RunoffAverage RunoffTotal Runoff

Jun 23 – Sep 

30 2008 - - - 4779 13200 1990 4317 12800 1180 a - - - - - - 

Oct 1 2008 – 

Sep 31 2009 11260 28900 4550 4435 11200 2240 2505 5040 1370 1961 0.00 32700 6/10/2009 1420000 1.02 13.79

Oct 1 2009 – 

Sep 31 2010 4555 9000 1760 4906 15300 2190 6315 16900 2520 1629 20 19200 7/31/2010 1180000 0.84 11.46

Oct 1 2010 – 

Sep 31 2011 3749 10300 1300 3811 11900 1970 2588 6610 1310 1502 20 a a 1088000 0.78 10.57

Oct 1 2011 – 

Sep 31 2012 5161 10200 2410 4713 10900 2400 4094 9390 1830 1541 2 13000 7/26/2012 1118000 0.80 10.87

Note: a denotes statistics not calculated by USGS.

Adapted from USGS Water Report 2008 – 2012 15955000 Canning River Above Staines River Near Deadhorse AK
H. Water Resources

H-18 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table H-5 (continued)

Surface Water Discharge

Hulahula River 

Recording 

Period

Average Daily Values (cubic ft/sec) Period Summary Report

Jun Jul Aug (cubic ft/sec)

IPF Date

(ac-ft) (CFSM) (in)

MeanMaxMinMeanMaxMinMeanMaxMinMean Seven-Day Low FlowInstantaneous Peak Flow (IPF)Total RunoffAverage RunoffTotal Runoff

Oct 1 2010 – 

Sep 31 2011 1157 4960 257 1869 5720 765 945 3690 362 489 0.00 12800 5/24/2011 354200 0.71 9.70

Oct 1 2011 – 

Sep 31 2012 1783 3930 523 2329 4940 1420 1234 2650 545 535 0.00 6640 7/25/2012 388300 0.78 10.63

Oct 1 2012 – 

Sep 31 2013 3198 9500 429 2766 6780 1290 1933 4840 576 745 0.00 12700 6/17/2013 539300 1.09 14.77

Oct 1 2013 – 

Sep 31 2014 2366 4090 1390 2399 4630 847 1176 2760 784 563 0.00 6240 7/04/2014 a 0.82 11.2

Oct 1 2014 – 

Sep 31 2015 1259 2510 324 1571 3310 690 1466 3170 732 492 0.00 4830 b 5/26/2015 a 0.72 9.76

Oct 1 2015 – 

Sep 31 2016 2580 8750 293 2299 8890 666 1584 2800 731 653 0.00 13500 7/08/2016 a 0.95 13.0

Oct 1 2016 – 

Sep 31 2017 1392 2440 722 2089 4950 1440 2150 3140 1380 579 0.00 6870 7/24/2017 a 0.85 11.5

Note: a denotes statistics not calculated by USGS. b denotes discharge due to snowmelt, ice-jam, or debris breakup

Adapted from USGS Water Report 2011 – 2017 15980000 Hulahula River Near Kaktovik, AK
H. Water Resources

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program H-19

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table H-6

Summary of Data for Lakes in Regions of the Program Area

Ice Depth 0 ft Ice 4 ft Ice

(Jan 4)

7 ft Ice

(Apr 16)

Region No. 

Lakes

Volume 

(acre-ft)

Percent of 

Total (%)

Volume 

(acre-ft)

Percent of 

Total (%)

Volume 

(acre-ft)

Percent of 

Total (%)

Canning 43 35,541 64.2 12,378 69.7 2,669 79.3

Katakturuk 2 339 0.6 93 0.5 6 0.2

Sadlerochit 34 9,959 18.0 2,504 14.1 186 5.5

Jago 40 9,543 17.2 2,783 15.7 505 15.0

Totals 119 55,382 100.0 17,758 100.0 3,366 100.0

Recreated from Distribution and quantification of water within the lakes of the 1002 Area, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska: Table 

1. (USFWS 2015)
H. Water Resources

H-20 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

H.1 REFERENCES

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2015. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Revised Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 1. 

Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/home/arctic-ccp/.
Appendix I

Solid and Hazardous Waste

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program I-i 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

APPENDIX I. SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE......................................................................... I-1

I.1 References ....................................................................................................................................... I-4

TABLES Page 

I-1 Facilities Registered with the EPA and ADEC in the Vicinity of the Coastal Plain ....................... I-1

I-2 Solid Waste Facilities in the Vicinity of the Coastal Plain ................................................................... I-2

I-3 ADEC Identified Contaminated Sites in the Vicinity of the Coastal Plain ...................................... I-2

I-4 ADEC 1995–2018 Database Spill Records for Areas near Kaktovik, Alaska ................................. I-3
This page intentionally left blank.
Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program I-1

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix I. Solid and Hazardous Waste

Table I-1

Facilities Registered with the EPA and ADEC in the Vicinity of the Coastal Plain

EPA or ADEC 

Registry ID Facility Name Description Location

110067059523 Bill Sands Camp Mobile camp; various sites Beaufort Lagoon

110064792112 USFWS Arctic Refuge: Griffin 

Point DEW Line Staging Site

Griffin Point

110003039104 Kaktovik Department of 

Municipal Services

Conditional exempt small 

quantity generator

Kaktovik

110030898544 Kaktovik Wastewater 

Treatment Facility

Wastewater treatment facility Kaktovik

110006878129 US Air Force LRRS - Barter 

Island

Various facilities DEW Line and 

LRRS 

Kaktovik

110006877610 USFWS Nuvagapak DEW Line 

Site

Nuvagapak Point

AKG573038 Kaktovik Sewage Lagoon File not available Kaktovik

POA-2001-1081-M11 Beaufort Sea Exxon Point 

Thomson Project

Placement of fill in wetlands and 

streams

Kaktovik

AKG572024 Kaktovik Wastewater 

Treatment Facility

Authorization to discharge 

effluent into a mixing zone in 

Kaktovik Lagoon

Kaktovik

2016DB0001-0023 Point Thomson Central Pad Injection of nonhazardous 

wastes in a Class I Underground 

Injection Control Well

Kaktovik

POA-2001-1082-M1 Beaufort Sea Exxon Point 

Thomson Project

File not available Kaktovik

POA-2011-1092 Beaufort Sea NSB Material Site Placement of fill in 105.04 acres 

of wetland

Kaktovik

POA-2011-957 Beaufort Sea NSB Airport Placement of fill in 31.36 acres 

of wetland

Kaktovik

POA-2004-8 Kaktovik Lagoon Kaktovik 

Subdivision

Placement of fill in 7.6 acres of 

wetland

Kaktovik

Sources: EPA 2018; ADEC GIS 2018
I. Solid and Hazardous Waste

I-2 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table I-2

Solid Waste Facilities in the Vicinity of the Coastal Plain

Facility Name Classification Location Status

Kaktovik Landfill Class III landfill1 Kaktovik Closed

Kaktovik Community Tank Farm Tank farm Kaktovik Active

Kaktovik Barter Island LRRS Hanger Military Kaktovik Active

Kaktovik Barter Island LRRS Refueling Area Polluted soil Kaktovik Active

Kaktovik 1.9 SE Landfill Class III landfill Kaktovik Active

Barter Island LRRS-C&D GP Inert monofill Kaktovik Retired

Barter Island LRRS Biosolids Land Application Land application site Kaktovik Retired

Barter Island (Kaktovik) LRRS (BAR-Main DEWline) Class III camp landfill Kaktovik Retired

Source: ADEC 2018a

Table I-3

ADEC Identified Contaminated Sites in the Vicinity of the Coastal Plain

ADEC 

Hazard ID Site Name Status

737 Brownlow Point/DERP Cleanup complete

739 South Barter Island barrel dump Cleanup complete

752 Barter Island DEW—POL catchment Cleanup complete

753 Barter Island DEW—old dump site (LF019) Cleanup complete

754 Barter Island Dew—heated storage (SS013) Cleanup complete, institutional 

controls

755 Barter Island Dew—garage (SS014) Cleanup complete, institutional 

controls

756 Barter Island DEW—weather station Cleanup complete

757 Barter Island DEW—POL tanks Cleanup complete, institutional 

controls

759 Barter Island DEW—JP-4 spill (SS021) Cleanup complete

760 Barter Island DEW—old landfill (LF001) Cleanup complete

761 Barter Island DEW—runway Dump Cleanup complete

801 Barter Island DEW—contamination ditch (SD008) Cleanup complete

802 Barter Island DEW—White Alice (SS016) Cleanup complete

1431 Waldo arms fuel Cleanup complete

1679 Collinson Point DEW Line—Sitewide Informational

1681 Griffin Point/DERP Cleanup complete

1921 Kaktovik Kaveolook School Cleanup complete

2306 NSB Kaktovik power plant tank farm Active

2307 NSB Kaktovik tank farm terminal Active

2327 NSB Kaktovik KIC pad Active

3085 Barter Island—staging area Cleanup complete

3825 Jago River drum site Cleanup complete

4036 Barter Island DEW—air terminal (SS011) Cleanup complete, institutional 

controls

 

1Rural landfills often not connected by road to a larger landfill or are more than 50 miles by road from a larger 

landfill. The landfill serves fewer than 1,500 people.
I. Solid and Hazardous Waste

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program I-3

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ADEC 

Hazard ID Site Name Status

4037 Barter Island DEW—fuel tanks (ST018) Cleanup complete, institutional 

controls

4038 Barter Island DEW—dump area NW (LF009) Cleanup complete

4222 Barter Island LRRS refueling area (CG002) Cleanup complete

4229 Barter Island LRRS hangar (SS022) Active

25328 Collinson Point DEW Line POL pipeline corridor Active

25329 Collinson Point DEW Line AST pad and AST pond Active

25330 Collinson Point DEW Line Quonset hut #3 Active

25331 Collinson Point DEW Line shop building area Active

25332 Collinson Point DEW Line composite building area Active

25333 Nuvagapak Point DEW Line AST pad area Active

25335 Nuvagapak Point DEW Line dump site D Active

25336 Nuvagapak Point DEW Line debris pile A (Grid Area) Active

25337 Nuvagapak Point DEW Line Kogotpak River dump site E Active

26827 NSB Kaktovik transformer Active

Source: ADEC 2018b, 2018c

Table I-4

ADEC 1995–2018 Database Spill Records for Areas near Kaktovik, Alaska

Year Number of Spill 

Records

Annual Cumulative Spill 

Volume (Gallons) Substance Spilled

1996 1 150 Diesel

1999 3 545 Diesel and engine lube oil

2004 4 621 Used oil and diesel

2005 2 56 pounds Other

2006 1 100 Diesel

2008 5 2,120 Gasoline and diesel

2009 1 75 Ethylene glycol (antifreeze)

2010 2 2,456 Diesel

2011 1 25 Engine lube oil

2014 3 355 Glycol and propylene glycol

2015 1 5,250 Diesel

2016 4 201 Ethylene glycol, process water, 

diesel, and other

2017 6 4,415 Diesel, ethylene glycol, and 

unknown

Source: ADEC 2018c
I. Solid and Hazardous Waste

I-4 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

I.1 REFERENCES

ADEC (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation). 2018a. Solid Waste Information 

Management System. Internet website: http://dec.alaska.gov/Applications/EH/SWIMS/Search.aspx. 

_____. 2018b. Division of Spill Prevention and Response Contaminated Sites. Internet website: 

http://dec.alaska.gov/spar/csp.aspx. Last updated November 2017.

_____. 2018c. Alaska DEC Drinking Water Protection Areas. Internet website: https://www.arcgis.com/

home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=13ed2116e4094f9994775af9a62a1e85. Last updated May 

2018.

ADEC GIS. 2018. Contaminated sites, Alaska Department of Conservation. Internet website: 

https://dec.alaska.gov/spar/csp.aspx. 

EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2018d. EnviroMapper. Internet website: 

https://geopub.epa.gov/myem/efmap/index.html?ve=10&pText=.
Appendix J

Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and 

Terrestrial Mammals

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program J-i 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page 

APPENDIX J. VEGETATION AND WETLANDS, BIRDS, AND TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS................ J-1

J.1 Vegetation and Wetlands ............................................................................................................. J-1

J.2 Birds ................................................................................................................................................ J-13

J.3 Terrestrial Mammals ................................................................................................................... J-25

J.4 References ..................................................................................................................................... J-31

TABLES Page 

J-1 Vegetation and Land Cover Types in the Program Area .................................................................... J-1

J-2 Rare Vascular Plant Taxa with Documented Occurrences in the Program Area ........................ J-3

J-3 Acreages of Coarse Scale Vegetation Types within Alternative B Stratified by Land-use 

Category and Hydrocarbon Potential ...................................................................................................... J-4

J-4 Acreages of Coarse Scale Wetland Types within Alternative B Stratified by Land-use 

Category and Hydrocarbon Potential ...................................................................................................... J-6

J-5 Acreages of Coarse Scale Vegetation Types within Alternative C Stratified by Land-use 

Category and Hydrocarbon Potential ...................................................................................................... J-7

J-6 Acreages of Coarse Scale Wetland Types within Alternative C Stratified by Land-use 

Category and Hydrocarbon Potential ...................................................................................................... J-9

J-7 Acreages of Coarse Scale Vegetation Types within Alternatives D1 and D2 Stratified by 

Land-use Category and Hydrocarbon Potential .................................................................................. J-10

J-8 Acreages of Coarse Scale Wetland Types within Alternatives D1 and D2 Stratified by 

Land-use Category and Hydrocarbon Potential .................................................................................. J-12

J-9 Status, Abundance, and Conservation Listings of Bird Species Occurring on the Arctic 

Refuge Coastal Plain ................................................................................................................................... J-13

J-10 Conservation Listings of Additional Bird Species Occurring along Vessel Transit Route 

between Dutch Harbor and the Program Area .................................................................................. J-22

J-11 Terrestrial Mammal Species Known or Suspected to Occur in the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge (adapted from Appendix F in USFWS 2015)..........................................................J-25

J-12 Acres within Different Levels of Use (percent of years caribou present) by Parturient 

Porcupine Caribou during Calving, by Different Lease Restriction Categories, 

Alternatives, and Areas of Expected Oil Potential ............................................................................. J-26

J-13 Acres within Different Levels of Use (percent of years caribou present) by Porcupine 

Caribou during Post-calving, by Different Lease Restriction Categories, Alternatives, 

and Areas of Expected Oil Potential ...................................................................................................... J-27

J-14 Estimated Percentage of Central Arctic Caribou Herd Seasonal Range (based on a 

utilization distribution from a kernel density estimate) by Different Lease Restriction 

Categories, Alternatives, and Areas of Expected Oil Potential ....................................................... J-29

J-15 Porcupine Caribou Calving and Post-Calving in the Program Area ............................................... J-30
Table of Contents

J-ii Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This page intentionally left blank.
Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program J-1

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, 

and Terrestrial Mammals

J.1 VEGETATION AND WETLANDS

The vegetation mapping chosen to quantify the coverage of each vegetation type in the program area 

(Map 3-10, Vegetation, in Appendix A) was prepared by the Alaska Center for Conservation Science 

(ACCS) (ACCS 2016; Boggs et al. 2016). This mapping was developed for the entire North Slope by 

applying a common hierarchical classification to various data sources (Boggs et al. 2016). The primary 

data source used for the program area was a moderate resolution (30-meter pixel) raster vegetation 

mosaic map compiled by multiple contributors including the North Slope Science Initiative, United States 

(US) Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service 

(NPS) Alaska Center for Conservation Science (ACCS), Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Spatial Solutions Inc., and 

Michigan Tech Research Institute (Ducks Unlimited 2013). The intent of the 2013 mapping effort was to 

update existing vegetation maps to more recent Landsat Thematic Mapper imagery where available. 

There are a variety of other land cover maps available that cover the program area and provide 

information at various scales. These maps typically are based on a range of Landsat imagery products, 

but the ACCS map provides the best combination of land cover mapping review and a vegetation 

classification suitable for use in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The advantage of using the 

ACCS (2016) map is that (1) the vegetation classes are easily recognizable and relate well to the classes 

described in the commonly used Alaska Vegetation Classification (Viereck et al. 1992), and (2) the 

mosaic source data were vetted by a committee and represent the best available vegetation data layers 

for the program area (Boggs et al. 2016). 

Common species found within the vegetation or land cover types listed in Table J-1 are listed below.

Table J-1

Vegetation and Land Cover Types in the Program Area1

Vegetation or Land Cover Type Area (acres) % of Coastal Plain

Bareground 10,244 1

Dwarf Shrub 7,818 1

Dwarf Shrub-Lichen 2 <1

Fire Scar214 <1

Freshwater or Saltwater 134,892 9

Herbaceous (Marsh) 5,965 <1

Herbaceous (Mesic) 477,603 31

Herbaceous (Wet) 252,053 16

Herbaceous (Wet-Marsh) (Tidal) 2,764 <1

Low Shrub 242,312 15

Sparse Vegetation 29,328 2

Tall Shrub (Open-Closed) 14 <1

Tussock Tundra (Low shrub or Herbaceous) 400,327 26

Total area 1,563,336* 100.0

1From broad-scale land cover mapping for northern, western, and interior Alaska prepared by Boggs et al. (2016)

2The areas for the pixels mapped as fire scars were reviewed on satellite imagery and appear to be incorrectly classified

Source: Boggs et al. (2016)

*Acres summed to +/- 200 acres
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals

J-2 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Dwarf Shrub

The individual shrub species characterizing both dry and moist sites are similar, dominated primarily by 

Dryas spp., Arctostaphylos rubra, Salix reticulata, S. rotundifolia, and Cassiope tetragona. Dry sites support 

herbaceous species, including Saxifraga hirculus, Polygonum bistorta, Petasites frigida, Polemonium boreale, 

Equisetum arvense, Carex spp., Festuca spp., Hierochloe spp., Epilobium latifolium, and Geum glaciale. Lichens, 

such as Cetraria spp., are also common on dry sites. Moist sites are also dominated by Dryas spp. but also 

support wetland sedges (Carex bigelowii, C. aquatilis, and Eriophorum vaginatum), horsetails (Equisetum 

arvense), and mosses (e.g., Tomenthypnum nitens) (USFWS 2015).

Low and Tall Shrub

The low and tall shrubs are primarily deciduous, dominated by willows (Salix spp.). Common species are 

S. alaxensis (typically the dominant overtopping tall shrub species), and an assortment of low willows 

such as S. lanata, S. richardsonii, S. glauca, S. brachycarpa, and S. hastata. The understory often includes a 

variety of dwarf shrub and herbaceous vascular plants, including Arctostaphylos rubra, Salix reticulata, 

Shepherdia canadensis, Dryas integrifolia, D. dummondii, Equisetum arvense, E. variegatum, E. scirpoides, Carex

spp., Juncus castaneus, Petasites frigida, and Hedysarum spp. (USFWS 2015).

Low shrub communities usually have an open canopy of mixed deciduous species, such as Salix pulchra, 

Betula nana, and Vaccinium uliginosum. These communities occupy low-lying basins or toeslopes and are 

often associated with moist sedge tussock tundra. Common associate species in low shrub stands are 

Eriophorum vaginatum, Ledum decumbens, Vaccinium vitis-idaea, Cassiope tetragona, and Empetrum nigrum

(USFWS 2015).

Moist Herbaceous Meadow

These moist herbaceous communities are dominated by wetland sedges, such s Eriophorum angustifolium

and Carex aquatilis. Often co-dominant with the sedges are dwarf shrubs, such as Salix pulchra, S. 

reticulata, and Dryas integrifolia. The tussock tundra type ranges from herb dominated to low-shrub 

dominated. In the program area, herb-dominated tussock tundra is more common on the broad, lowlying Coastal Plain, and the low-shrub dominated type is more common inland in the Brooks Range 

foothills. Tussock tundra is dominated by the tussock forming sedge Eriophorum vaginatum. The codominant shrubs include the typical assemblage of deciduous and evergreen, ericaceous species (Salix 

reticulata, S. pulchra, Betula nana, Dryas integrifolia, Vaccinium uliginosum, V. vitis-idaea, and Ledum 

decumbens) (USFWS 2015). 

Wet Herbaceous Meadow

The most common freshwater species is the grass Arctophila fulva in deeper water, with Carex aquatilis

and Eriophorum angustifolium occupying shallower lake fringe zones. Salt tolerant marsh species in the 

tidal areas include Puccinellia phryganodes, Carex subspathacea, and Dupontia fisheri (USFWS 2015). Trace 

amounts of forbs and dwarf shrubs may be present, such as Pedicularis spp., Valeriana capitata, Polygonum

spp., and Salix fuscescens (USFWS 2015).
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program J-3

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table J-2

Rare Vascular Plant Taxa with Documented Occurrences in the

Program Area

Taxa State Rank Global Rank Federal Listings

Cardamine microphylla S2 G3G4 BLM Watch

Carex atherodes S3S4 G5 -

Chrysosplenium rosendahlii S1S2 G4G5Q -

Draba subcapitata S1S2 G4 BLM Watch

Festuca viviparoidea ssp. viviparoidea SU G4G5 -

Papaver gorodkovii S2S3 G3 BLM Sensitive

Puccinellia andersonii S1S2 G3G5 -

Puccinellia vahliana S3 G4 BLM Watch

Saxifraga rivularis ssp. arctolitoralis S2 G5T2T3 -

Smelowskia media S2S3 GNR BLM Watch

Symphyotrichum pygmaeum S2 G2G4 BLM Sensitive

Erigeron murii S2S3 G2G3 BLM Sensitive

Erigeron porsildii S3S4 G3G4 BLM Watch

Trisetum sibiricum ssp. litorale S3 G5T4Q BLM Sensitive

Source: Alaska Center for Conservation Science Rare Plant Data Portal (ACCS 2018)
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals

J-4 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table J-3

Acreages of Coarse Scale Vegetation Types within Alternative B Stratified by

Land-use Category and Hydrocarbon Potential

Vegetation Type within 

Land-use Categories

High 

Hydrocarbon 

Potential

% High HCP 

within Landuse Category

Medium 

Hydrocarbon 

Potential

% Medium HCP 

within Land-use 

Category

Low 

Hydrocarbon 

Potential

% Low HCP 

within Land-use 

Category

No surface occupancy 142,210.7 100.0 120,858.4 100.0 96,318.7 100.0

Bareground 767.1 0.5 4,260.5 3.5 3,206.3 3.3

Dwarf Shrub 1,905.0 1.3 600.2 0.5 301.1 0.3

Dwarf Shrub-Lichen 1.2 <0.1 - - - -

Fire Scar13.6 <0.1 - - 1.8 <0.1

Freshwater or Saltwater 52,534.5 36.9 40,583.9 33.6 9,089.4 9.4

Herbaceous (Marsh) 2,904.6 2.0 10.9 <0.1 4.7 <0.1

Herbaceous (Mesic) 23,274.1 16.4 32,648.0 27.0 25,360.5 26.3

Herbaceous (Wet) 31,796.9 22.4 17,303.8 14.3 14,730.9 15.3

Herbaceous (Wet-Marsh) (Tidal) 730.8 0.5 92.7 <0.1 224.2 0.2

Low Shrub 3,435.9 2.4 11,031.9 9.1 21,341.5 22.2

Sparse Vegetation 21,699.6 15.3 1,838.8 1.5 202.8 0.2

Tall Shrub (Open-Closed) 2.9 <0.1 - - - -

Tussock Tundra 3,154.5 2.2 12,487.7 10.3 21,855.5 22.7

Standard terms and conditions

only 285,663.3 100.0 287,338.8 100.0 45,561.3 100.0

Bareground 74.8 <0.1 346.7 0.1 29.1 0.0

Dwarf Shrub 2,540.6 0.9 745.5 0.3 192.6 0.4

Dwarf Shrub-Lichen 0.3 <0.1 - - - -

Fire Scar17.3 <0.1 1.1 <0.1 - -

Freshwater or Saltwater 8,483.7 3.0 7,651.6 2.7 128.7 0.3

Herbaceous (Marsh) 2,985.9 1.0 56.5 0.0 - -

Herbaceous (Mesic) 114,090.7 39.9 93,459.1 32.5 11,087.1 24.3

Herbaceous (Wet) 38,531.3 13.5 34,569.9 12.0 1,992.0 4.4

Herbaceous (Wet-Marsh) (Tidal) 696.7 0.2 418.0 0.1 - -
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program J-5

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Vegetation Type within 

Land-use Categories

High 

Hydrocarbon 

Potential

% High HCP 

within Landuse Category

Medium 

Hydrocarbon 

Potential

% Medium HCP 

within Land-use 

Category

Low 

Hydrocarbon 

Potential

% Low HCP 

within Land-use 

Category

Low Shrub 16,351.5 5.7 44,533.7 15.5 8,746.9 19.2

Sparse Vegetation 5,104.2 1.8 364.9 0.1 75.1 0.2

Tall Shrub (Open-Closed) - - 0.2 <0.1 - -

Tussock Tundra 96,796.3 33.9 105,191.6 36.6 23,309.8 51.2

Timing Limitations - - 250,141.0 100.0 335,287.9 100.0

Bareground - - 497.3 0.2 1,062.1 0.3

Dwarf Shrub - - 332.1 0.1 1,201.3 0.4

Dwarf Shrub-Lichen - - - - - -

Fire Scar1- - - - - -

Freshwater or Saltwater - - 11,429.3 4.6 4,991.3 1.5

Herbaceous (Marsh) - - 0.4 <0.1 1.6 <0.1

Herbaceous (Mesic) - - 106,242.4 42.5 71,441.4 21.3

Herbaceous (Wet) - - 64,468.7 25.8 48,659.5 14.5

Herbaceous (Wet-Marsh) (Tidal) - - 442.1 0.2 159.3 0.0

Low Shrub - - 29,337.1 11.7 107,533.6 32.1

Sparse Vegetation - - - - 42.2 0.0

Tall Shrub (Open-Closed) - - - - 10.4 <0.1

Tussock Tundra - - 37,391.6 14.9 100,185.2 29.9

Grand Total 427,874.0 - 658,338.2 - 477,167.9 -

Note: Tables were generated by intersecting multiple GIS datasets using acreages calculated in GIS and rounded to the nearest 0.1 of an acre; totals may not match the rounded 

Alternative summary acreage tables.

1The areas for the pixels mapped as fire scars were reviewed on satellite imagery and appear to be incorrectly classified.

Source: BLM GIS 2018
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals

J-6 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table J-4

Acreages of Coarse Scale Wetland Types within Alternative B Stratified by Land-use Category and Hydrocarbon Potential

Wetland Types within 

Land-use Categories

High 

Hydrocarbon 

Potential

% High HCP 

within Landuse Categories

Medium 

Hydrocarbon 

Potential

% Medium HCP 

within Land-use 

Categories

Low 

Hydrocarbon 

Potential

% Low HCP 

within Land-use 

Categories

No surface occupancy 140,898.0 100.0 113,438.0 100.0 90,784.6 100.0

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater 33,657.4 23.9 30,470.0 26.9 4,369.9 4.8

Estuarine and Marine Wetland 5,447.7 3.9 2,495.0 2.2 96.0 0.1

Freshwater Emergent Wetland 59,785.9 42.4 54,993.8 48.5 71,438.0 78.7

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 11,808.1 8.4 14,421.6 12.7 8,520.8 9.4

Freshwater Pond 1,584.2 1.1 344.7 0.3 90.5 0.1

Lake 2,496.9 1.8 471.2 0.4 159.1 0.2

Riverine 26,117.8 18.5 10,241.7 9.0 6,110.3 6.7

Standard terms and conditions only 284,623.8 100.0 283,320.2 100.0 44,789.9 100.0

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater 2,191.7 0.8 451.3 0.2 79.5 0.2

Estuarine and Marine Wetland 640.8 0.2 461.5 0.2 47.8 0.1

Freshwater Emergent Wetland 243,898.8 85.7 258,122.4 91.1 41,686.8 93.1

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 27,681.3 9.7 19,507.3 6.9 2,568.7 5.7

Freshwater Pond 1,113.9 0.4 1,082.7 0.4 3.2 <0.1

Lake 4,749.3 1.7 2,122.7 0.7 - -

Riverine 4,348.0 1.5 1,572.3 0.6 403.9 0.9

Timing limitations - - 228,832.8 100.0 322,155.6 100.0

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater - - 34.5 0.0 49.7 0.0

Estuarine and Marine Wetland - - 205.8 0.1 269.4 0.1

Freshwater Emergent Wetland - - 218,098.1 95.3 310,311.9 96.3

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland - - 5,341.9 2.3 8,149.3 2.5

Freshwater Pond - - 1,160.4 0.5 353.0 0.1

Lake - - 1,933.6 0.8 391.4 0.1

Riverine - - 2,058.5 0.9 2,630.9 0.8

Grand Total 425,521.8 - 625,591.0 - 457,730.1 -

Note: Tables were generated by intersecting multiple GIS datasets using acreages calculated in GIS and rounded to the nearest 0.1 of an acre; totals may not match the rounded 

Alternative summary acreage tables.

Source: BLM GIS 2018
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program J-7

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table J-5

Acreages of Coarse Scale Vegetation Types within Alternative C Stratified by

Land-use Category and Hydrocarbon Potential

Vegetation Types within 

Land-use Categories

High 

Hydrocarbon 

Potential

% High HCP 

within Landuse 

Categories

Medium 

Hydrocarbon 

Potential

% Medium 

HCP within 

Land-use 

Categories

Low 

Hydrocarbon 

Potential

% Low HCP 

within Landuse 

Categories

No surface occupancy 194,039.0 100.0 328,157.4 100.0 410,176.1 100.0

Bareground 819.7 0.4 4,739.5 1.4 4,015.6 1.0

Dwarf Shrub 2,835.4 1.5 892.5 0.3 804.3 0.2

Dwarf Shrub-Lichen 1.5 <0.1 - - - -

Fire Scar16.0 <0.1 - - 1.8 <0.1

Freshwater or Saltwater 57,102.5 29.4 51,493.7 15.7 14,059.4 3.4

Herbaceous (Marsh) 4,399.4 2.3 14.9 <0.1 6.2 <0.1

Herbaceous (Mesic) 40,522.0 20.9 117,961.9 35.9 89,521.7 21.8

Herbaceous (Wet) 47,693.6 24.6 72,791.2 22.2 60,500.1 14.7

Herbaceous (Wet-Marsh) (Tidal) 1,296.2 0.7 945.4 0.3 383.5 0.1

Low Shrub 6,997.8 3.6 34,153.6 10.4 124,900.7 30.5

Sparse Vegetation 23,321.9 12.0 1,838.8 0.6 205.9 0.1

Tall Shrub (Open-Closed) 2.9 <0.1 - - - -

Tussock Tundra 9,040.1 4.7 43,325.9 13.2 115,776.9 28.2

Standard terms and conditions only 184,455.8 100.0 129,410.3 100.0 73.9 100.0

Bareground 22.2 0.0 212.3 0.2 - -

Dwarf Shrub 1,293.9 0.7 379.0 0.3 - -

Fire Scar14.9 0.0 1.1 <0.1 - -

Freshwater or Saltwater 3,892.5 2.1 5,389.4 4.2 73.9 100.0

Herbaceous (Marsh) 1,468.5 0.8 43.6 0.0 - -

Herbaceous (Mesic) 69,030.7 37.4 48,304.2 37.3 - -

Herbaceous (Wet) 20,239.0 11.0 24,778.3 19.1 - -

Herbaceous (Wet-Marsh) (Tidal) 131.4 0.1 7.4 <0.1 - -

Low Shrub 9,280.2 5.0 12,639.5 9.8 - -
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals

J-8 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Vegetation Types within 

Land-use Categories

High 

Hydrocarbon 

Potential

% High HCP 

within Landuse 

Categories

Medium 

Hydrocarbon 

Potential

% Medium 

HCP within 

Land-use 

Categories

Low 

Hydrocarbon 

Potential

% Low HCP 

within Landuse 

Categories

Sparse Vegetation 3,350.6 1.8 233.4 0.2 - -

Tall Shrub (Open-Closed) - - 0.2 <0.1 - -

Tussock Tundra 75,741.9 41.1 37,421.9 28.9 - -

Timing limitations 49,379.3 100.0 200,770.7 100.0 66,918.0 100.0

Bareground - - 152.7 0.1 282.0 0.4

Dwarf Shrub 316.2 0.6 406.3 0.2 890.8 1.3

Fire Scar1- - - - - -

Freshwater or Saltwater 23.1 0.0 2,781.7 1.4 76.0 0.1

Herbaceous (Marsh) 22.7 0.0 9.3 0.0 - -

Herbaceous (Mesic) 27,812.2 56.3 66,083.4 32.9 18,367.4 27.4

Herbaceous (Wet) 2,395.6 4.9 18,773.0 9.4 4,882.4 7.3

Herbaceous (Wet-Marsh) (Tidal) - - 0.0 0.0 - -

Low Shrub 3,509.3 7.1 38,109.6 19.0 12,721.4 19.0

Sparse Vegetation 131.3 0.3 131.5 0.1 114.1 0.2

Tall Shrub (Open-Closed) - - - - 10.4 0.0

Tussock Tundra (Low shrub or Herbaceous) 15,168.8 30.7 74,323.2 37.0 29,573.6 44.2

Grand Total 427,874.1 - 658,338.4 - 477,168.0 -

Note: Tables were generated by intersecting multiple GIS datasets using acreages calculated in GIS and rounded to the nearest 0.1 of an acre; totals may not match the rounded 

Alternative summary acreage tables.

1The areas for the pixels mapped as fire scars were reviewed on satellite imagery and appear to be incorrectly classified.

Source: BLM GIS 2018
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program J-9

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table J-6

Acreages of Coarse Scale Wetland Types within Alternative C Stratified by

Land-use Category and Hydrocarbon Potential

Wetland Types within Land-use 

Categories

High 

Hydrocarbon 

Potential

% High HCP 

within Landuse 

Categories

Medium 

Hydrocarbon 

Potential

% Medium 

HCP within 

Land-use 

Categories

Low 

Hydrocarbon 

Potential

% Low HCP 

within Landuse 

Categories

No surface occupancy 192,624.7 100.0 316,645.2 100.0 394,890.5 100.0

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater 35,135.7 18.2 30,936.7 9.8 4,455.6 1.1

Estuarine and Marine Wetland 6,072.5 3.2 3,138.6 1.0 382.7 0.1

Freshwater Emergent Wetland 97,005.8 50.4 250,725.2 79.2 365,820.1 92.6

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 20,416.9 10.6 16,273.7 5.1 14,980.6 3.8

Freshwater Pond 2,138.7 1.1 1,235.7 0.4 435.3 0.1

Lake 4,472.6 2.3 2,356.8 0.7 550.5 0.1

Riverine 27,382.5 14.2 11,978.5 3.8 8,265.7 2.1

Standard terms and conditions only 183,802.4 100.0 128,801.6 100.0 73.9 100.0

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater 713.4 0.4 19.1 0.0 43.5 58.9

Estuarine and Marine Wetland 16.0 0.0 23.6 0.0 30.4 41.1

Freshwater Emergent Wetland 158,748.1 86.4 119,545.2 92.8 - -

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 18,103.1 9.8 5,629.3 4.4 - -

Freshwater Pond 552.4 0.3 972.4 0.8 - -

Lake 2,773.6 1.5 1,768.7 1.4 - -

Riverine 2,895.8 1.6 843.3 0.7 - -

Timing limitations 49,094.8 100.0 180,144.2 100.0 62,765.7 100.0

Freshwater Emergent Wetland 47,930.8 97.6 160,944.0 89.3 57,616.7 91.8

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 2969.5 6.0 17,367.9 9.6 4,258.2 6.8

Freshwater Pond 7.0 0.0 379.7 0.2 11.4 0.0

Lake - - 401.9 0.2 - -

Riverine 187.5 0.4 1,050.7 0.6 879.4 1.4

Grand Total 425,521.9 - 625,591.0 - 457,730.1 -

Note: Tables were generated by intersecting multiple GIS datasets using acreages calculated in GIS and rounded to the nearest 0.1 of an acre; totals may not match the rounded 

Alternative summary acreage tables

Source: BLM GIS 2018
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals

J-10 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table J-7

Acreages of Coarse Scale Vegetation Types within Alternatives D1 and D2 Stratified by

Land-use Category and Hydrocarbon Potential

Wetland Types within Land-use 

Categories

High 

Hydrocarbon 

Potential

% High HCP 

within Landuse 

Categories

Medium 

Hydrocarbon 

Potential

% Medium 

HCP within 

Land-use 

Categories

Low 

Hydrocarbon 

Potential

% Low HCP 

within Landuse 

Categories

Controlled surface use 32,403.9 100.0 80,469.3 100.0 10,993.2 100.0

Dwarf Shrub 239.9 0.7 281.2 0.3 28.9 0.3

Freshwater or Saltwater 14.2 <0.1 157.5 0.2 - -

Herbaceous (Marsh) 5.7 <0.1 0.7 0.0 - -

Herbaceous (Mesic) 19,623.7 60.6 22,920.0 28.5 1,678.8 15.3

Herbaceous (Wet) 848.2 2.6 2,010.6 2.5 289.5 2.6

Low Shrub 1,292.6 4.0 16,465.7 20.5 2,516.5 22.9

Sparse Vegetation 113.3 0.3 126.8 0.2 - -

Tussock Tundra 10,266.4 31.7 38,506.8 47.9 6,479.5 58.9

No surface occupancy 256,255.1 100.0 384,431.4 100.0 67,866.0 100.0

Bareground 825.8 0.3 3,848.8 1.0 639.9 0.9

Dwarf Shrub 3,423.2 1.3 1,028.4 0.3 908.1 1.3

Dwarf Shrub-Lichen 1.5 0.0 - - - -

Fire Scar19.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.8 0.0

Freshwater or Saltwater 60,637.6 23.7 48,544.0 12.6 4,973.3 7.3

Herbaceous (Marsh) 5,282.8 2.1 53.0 0.0 0.1 0.0

Herbaceous (Mesic) 63,077.8 24.6 129,642.0 33.7 19,199.7 28.3

Herbaceous (Wet) 57,709.5 22.5 69,869.7 18.2 6,021.2 8.9

Herbaceous (Wet-Marsh) (Tidal) 1,427.6 0.6 945.4 0.2 27.5 0.0

Low Shrub 12,459.1 4.9 46,355.2 12.1 11,220.7 16.5

Sparse Vegetation 24,962.4 9.7 1,961.7 0.5 314.5 0.5

Tall Shrub (Open-Closed) 2.9 0.0 - - 7.1 0.0

Tussock Tundra (Low shrub or Herbaceous) 26,435.3 10.3 82,183.1 21.4 24,552.2 36.2
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program J-11

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Wetland Types within Land-use 

Categories

High 

Hydrocarbon 

Potential

% High HCP 

within Landuse 

Categories

Medium 

Hydrocarbon 

Potential

% Medium 

HCP within 

Land-use 

Categories

Low 

Hydrocarbon 

Potential

% Low HCP 

within Landuse 

Categories

Standard terms and conditions only (for 

D1) or timing limitations (for D2) 131,885.2 100.0 72,783.9 100.0 0.4 100.0

Bareground 9.3 0.0 2.8 0.0 <0.1 <0.1

Dwarf Shrub 669.7 0.5 168.6 0.2 <0.1 <0.1

Fire Scar11.3 0.0 0.9 0.0 - -

Freshwater or Saltwater 223.6 0.2 3,868.0 5.3 0.1 25.0

Herbaceous (Marsh) 339.7 0.3 14.2 0.0 - -

Herbaceous (Mesic) 50,845.2 38.6 30,217.6 41.5 <0.1 <0.1

Herbaceous (Wet) 10,172.4 7.7 15,741.8 21.6 <0.1 <0.1

Herbaceous (Wet-Marsh) (Tidal) - - 7.3 0.0 - -

Low Shrub 5,771.8 4.4 6,498.1 8.9 0.1 25.0

Sparse Vegetation 974.0 0.7 115.1 0.2 - -

Tall Shrub (Open-Closed) - - 0.2 0.0 - -

Tussock Tundra 62,878.3 47.7 16,149.2 22.2 0.2 50.0

Grand Total 420,544.2 - 537.684.6 - 78,859.6 -

Note: Tables were generated by intersecting multiple GIS datasets using acreages calculated in GIS and rounded to the nearest 0.1 of an acre; totals may not match the rounded 

Alternative summary acreage tables.

1The areas for the pixels mapped as fire scars were reviewed on satellite imagery and appear to be incorrectly classified.

Source: BLM GIS 2018
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals

J-12 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table J-8

Acreages of Coarse Scale Wetland Types within Alternatives D1 and D2 Stratified by

Land-use Category and Hydrocarbon Potential

Wetland Types within Land-use 

Categories

High 

Hydrocarbon 

Potential

% High HCP 

within Landuse 

Categories

Medium 

Hydrocarbon 

Potential

% Medium 

HCP within 

Land-use 

Categories

Low 

Hydrocarbon 

Potential

% Low HCP 

within Land-use 

Categories

Controlled surface use 32,403.9 100.0 79,240.6 100.0 10,952.0 100.0

Freshwater Emergent Wetland 31,743.8 98.0 70,979.1 89.6 10,616.4 96.9

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 548.6 1.7 7,943.7 10.0 264.3 2.4

Freshwater Pond 4.6 <0.1 30.3 <0.1 2.5 <0.1

Lake - - 65.8 0.1 - -

Riverine 106.9 0.3 221.6 0.3 68.9 0.6

No surface occupancy 254,537.4 100.0 353,908.6 100.0 62,250.2 100.0

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater 35,831.3 14.1 30,955.3 8.8 4,234.1 6.8

Estuarine and Marine Wetland 6,080.8 2.4 3,160.4 0.9 118.2 0.2

Freshwater Emergent Wetland 148,099.1 58.2 281,822.7 79.6 51,841.1 83.3

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 26,242.5 10.3 25,191.8 7.1 4,733.6 7.6

Freshwater Pond 2,556.2 1.0 1,270.6 0.4 40.1 0.1

Lake 7,150.8 2.8 1,986.4 0.6 - -

Riverine 28,576.7 11.2 9,521.2 2.7 1,283.2 2.1

Standard terms and conditions only (for 

D1) or timing limitations (for D2) 131,259.5 100.0 72,548.3 100.0 0.4 100.0

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater 17.8 <0.1 0.4 <0.1 - -

Estuarine and Marine Wetland 7.7 <0.1 1.8 <0.1 - -

Freshwater Emergent Wetland 118,031.7 89.9 68,570.3 94.5 0.3 75.0

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 11,836.5 9.0 1,770.5 2.4 <0.1 <0.1

Freshwater Pond 122.5 0.1 770.9 1.1 - -

Lake 95.3 0.1 1,206.8 1.8 - -

Riverine 1,148.0 0.9 227.6 0.3 0.1 25.0

Grand Total 418,200.8 - 505,697.5 - 73,202.6 -

Note: Tables were generated by intersecting multiple GIS datasets using acreages calculated in GIS and rounded to the nearest 0.1 of an acre; totals may not match the rounded 

Alternative summary acreage tables.

Source: BLM GIS 2018
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals 

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program J-13

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

J.2 BIRDS

Table J-9 

Status, Abundance, and Conservation Listings of Bird Species Occurring on the 

Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain 

Conservation Listings 

Species Group/ 

Common Name Scientific Name Status and Abundancea

ESAb

USFWS BCCc

BLMdADFGe

USSCPPf

PI

Fg

AUDh

IUCNi

Waterbirds 

Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons Breeder: uncommon 

Migrant: common (spring, fall) 

Snow Goose Anser caerulescens Visitor: rare (summer) 

Migrant: common (spring), abundant (fall) 

Ross's Goose Anser rossii Migrant: casual (spring), possible (fall) 

Brant Branta bernicla Breeder: uncommon 

Migrant: common (coast) 

Y 

Cackling Goose Branta hutchinsii Breeder: common 

Migrant: common (spring, fall) 

Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator Breeder and Visitor: casual S 

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus Breeder: common 

Northern Shoveler Spatula clypeata Possible Breeder: uncommon 

Visitor: uncommon 

Gadwall Mareca strepera Visitor: casual 

Eurasian Wigeon Mareca penelope Visitor: casual 

American Wigeon Mareca americana Migrant: uncommon 

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Breeder: rare (inland), uncommon (rest of 

coastal plain) 

Northern Pintail Anas acuta Breeder and Migrant: common 

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca Breeder: uncommon (inland), rare (coast) 

Migrant: rare (coast) 

Y 

Canvasback Aythya valisineria Visitor: casual 

Greater Scaup Aythya marila Breeder: rare (inland) 

Visitor: uncommon (coast) 

Migrant: uncommon (coast) 

R 
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals 

J-14 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table J-9 

Status, Abundance, and Conservation Listings of Bird Species Occurring on the 

Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain 

Conservation Listings 

Species Group/ 

Common Name Scientific Name Status and Abundancea

ESAb

USFWS BCCc

BLMdADFGe

USSCPPf

PIFg

AUDh

IUCNi

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Breeder: rare (inland) 

Visitor: rare (inland) 

Steller's Eider Polysticta stelleri Visitor: rare (coast) T A R VU

Spectacled Eider Somateria fischeri Breeder: rare (coast) 

Visitor: uncommon (coast) 

T A R 

King Eider Somateria spectabilis Breeder: fairly common (coast) 

Migrant: uncommon (coast) 

Y 

Common Eider Somateria mollissima Breeder: common (barrier islands) 

Migrant: common (coast) 

NT

Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus Breeder: rare (inland) 

Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata Possible Breeder: uncommon (inland) 

Migrant: uncommon (coast) 

White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca Possible Breeder: rare (inland) 

Migrant: common (coast) 

Black Scoter Melanitta americana Migrant: uncommon (coast) A R NT

Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis Breeder: common 

Migrant: abundant (coast) in fall 

VU

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula Visitor: rare 

Smew Mergellus albellus Visitor: accidental 

Common Merganser Mergus merganser Visitor: casual (inland) 

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator Breeder: fairly common (inland), rare 

(coast) 

Migrant: fairly common (coast) 

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus Possible Breeder: uncommon (inland) 

Visitor: casual 

VU

Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena Visitor: casual R 

Sandhill Crane Antigone canadensis Breeder: rare 

Summer Resident: uncommon 
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals 

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program J-15

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table J-9 

Status, Abundance, and Conservation Listings of Bird Species Occurring on the 

Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain 

Conservation Listings 

Species Group/ 

Common Name Scientific Name Status and Abundancea

ESAb

USFWS BCCc

BLMdADFGe

USSCPPf

PIFg

AUDh

IUCNi

Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata Breeder: fairly common (coast) 

Migrant: fairly common (coast) 

C S A 

Pacific Loon Gavia pacifica Breeder: common 

Migrant: common (coast) 

Common Loon Gavia immer Visitor: rare (coast) 

Yellow-billed Loon Gavia adamsii Migrant: uncommon (coast), rare (inland) C S A R NT

Shorebirds 

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola Breeder: rare 

Migrant: rare (coast) to fairly common 

(coast in fall) 

MC

American Golden-Plover Pluvialis dominica Breeder: common W A HC R 

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus Breeder: uncommon (barrier islands) and 

fairly common (inland) 

Visitor: rare 

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Visitor: casual MC

Eurasian Dotterel Charadrius morinellus Visitor: casual 

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Breeder: fairly common (inland) A 

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Breeder: rare (inland) 

Visitor: uncommon (coast) 

C S A HC Y 

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa Visitor: accidental 

Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica Visitor: casual Cj S A HC Y 

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica Possible Breeder: uncommon C S A GC R NT

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres Breeder: fairly common (coast), uncommon 

(inland) 

MC

Red Knot Calidris canutus Migrant: rare C S A GC R NT

Ruff Calidris pugnaC Visitor: casual 

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminata Migrant: casual (coast) R 

Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus Breeder: uncommon 

Migrant: uncommon (fall) 
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals 

J-16 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table J-9 

Status, Abundance, and Conservation Listings of Bird Species Occurring on the 

Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain 

Conservation Listings 

Species Group/ 

Common Name Scientific Name Status and Abundancea

ESAb

USFWS BCCc

BLMdADFGe

USSCPPf

PIFg

AUDh

IUCNi

Red-necked Stint Calidris ruficollis Visitor: casual (coast) NT

Sanderling Calidris alba Breeder: rare 

Migrant: rare (coast in spring), uncommon 

(coast in fall) 

A MC

Dunlin Calidris alpina Breeder: uncommon (coast) 

Migrant: uncommon (coast in fall) 

C S A HCk R 

Baird's Sandpiper Calidris bairdii Breeder: uncommon 

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla Visitor: rare 

White-rumped Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis Breeder: rare 

Migrant: rare (spring), uncommon (fall) 

Buff-breasted Sandpiper Calidris subruficollis Breeder: uncommon 

Migrant: uncommon 

C S A HC R NT

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos Breeder: abundant 

Migrant: abundant (coast in fall) 

A HC R 

Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla Breeder: abundant (coast), common (inland) 

Migrant: common (coast in fall) 

A HC NT

Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri Possible Breeder: rare, Migrant: uncommon 

on coast 

A MC Y 

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus Breeder: uncommon, Visitor: fairly common 

(summer), Migrant: common on coast 

MC

Wilson's Snipe Gallinago delicata Possible Breeder and Visitor: rare 

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius Breeder: uncommon (inland) 

Wandering Tattler Tringa incana Breeder: uncommon (inland) Y 

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Visitor: casual Cl A HC R 

Wilson's Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor Visitor: accidental 

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus Breeder: common 

Migrant: common to abundant (coast) 

MC
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals 

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program J-17

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table J-9 

Status, Abundance, and Conservation Listings of Bird Species Occurring on the 

Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain 

Conservation Listings 

Species Group/ 

Common Name Scientific Name Status and Abundancea

ESAb

USFWS BCCc

BLMdADFGe

USSCPPf

PIFg

AUDh

IUCNi

Red Phalarope Phalaropus fulicarius Breeder: fairly common (coast east to Jago 

delta), uncommon (rest of coastal plain) 

Migrant: uncommon (coast in fall) 

W MC

Larids 

Pomarine Jaeger Stercorarius pomarinus Breeder: occasionally common (coast) 

Visitor: common (summer) 

Migrant: common (spring) 

Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus Breeder: uncommon 

Summer Resident: common 

Long-tailed Jaeger Stercorarius longicaudus Breeder: fairly common (inland), rare 

(coast) 

Summer Resident: common 

Black-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla Visitor: rare (coast mostly offshore) R VU

Ivory Gull Pagophila eburnea Migrant: rare R NT

Sabine's Gull Xema sabini Breeder: uncommon (coast) 

Migrant: uncommon (coast) 

Bonaparte's Gull Chroicocephalus philadelphia Visitor: casual 

Ross's Gull Rhodostethia rosea Migrant: rare (coast) 

Mew Gull Larus canus Breeder and Visitor: rare 

Herring Gull Larus argentatus Visitor and Migrant: rare 

Thayer's Gull Larus thayeri Visitor: rare 

Slaty-backed Gull Larus schistisagus Visitor: casual (coast) 

Glaucous-winged Gull Larus glaucescens Visitor: casual (coast) 

Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus Breeder: common (coast), uncommon 

(inland) 

Summer Resident: adundant (coast) 

Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia Visitor: accidental 

Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea Breeder: uncommon (coast), rare (inland) 

Summer Resident: common 

C 
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals 

J-18 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table J-9 

Status, Abundance, and Conservation Listings of Bird Species Occurring on the 

Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain 

Conservation Listings 

Species Group/ 

Common Name Scientific Name Status and Abundancea

ESAb

USFWS BCCc

BLMdADFGe

USSCPPf

PIFg

AUDh

IUCNi

Raptors and Owls 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus Visitor: accidental 

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Visitor: casual 

Northern Harrier Circus hudsonius Possible Breeder: uncommon (inland) 

Summer Resident: uncommon 

A 

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus Visitor: casual 

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Visitor: casual (inland) 

Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus Breeder: uncommon (inland) 

Visitor: rare (coast) 

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Breeder: rare (inland) 

Visitor: fairly common 

W A 

Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus Breeder: common (in high microtine rodent 

years) to rare 

A C VU

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Breeder: common (in high microtine rodent 

years) to uncommon 

W A 

American Kestrel Fao sparverius Visitor: casual A 

Merlin Fao columbarius Possible Breeder and Visitor: rare 

Gyrfaon Fao rusticolus Permanent Resident and Breeder: 

uncommon (inland) 

Visitor: rare on coast 

A 

Peregrine Faon Fao peregrinus Breeder: rare 

Visitor: uncommon 

Landbirds 

Willow Ptarmigan Lagopus lagopus Permanent Resident and Breeder: 

uncommon (coast), common to abundant 

(inland) 

Rock Ptarmigan Lagopus muta Permanent Resident and Breeder: common 

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Visitor: casual 

Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus Visitor: accidental A C R 
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals 

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program J-19

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table J-9 

Status, Abundance, and Conservation Listings of Bird Species Occurring on the 

Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain 

Conservation Listings 

Species Group/ 

Common Name Scientific Name Status and Abundancea

ESAb

USFWS BCCc

BLMdADFGe

USSCPPf

PIFg

AUDh

IUCNi

Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle ayon Visitor: casual A 

Hammond's Flycatcher Empidonax hammondii Visitor: accidental 

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe Visitor: accidental 

Say's Phoebe Sayornis saya Visitor: rare 

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Visitor: accidental 

Northern Shrike Lanius borealis Possible Breeder and Visitor: rare (inland) 

Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis Visitor: casual 

Common Raven Corvus corax Permanent Resident: uncommon 

Possible Breeder: rare 

Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris Breeder: rare (inland) 

Visitor: rare (rest of coastal plain) 

A 

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Visitor: casual A 

Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina Visitor: casual R 

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia Visitor: casual A R 

Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Possible Breeder and Visitor: rare 

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Visitor: casual A 

American Dipper Cinclus mexicanus Permanent Resident and Breeder: 

uncommon (inland) 

Bluethroat Luscinia svecica Breeder: rare (inland) 

Northern Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe Visitor: rare 

Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus Visitor: rare W 

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus Visitor: accidental 

American Robin Turdus migratorius Breeder: uncommon (inland) 

Visitor: rare (coast) 

Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius Visitor: casual A 

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Visitor: accidental 

Eastern Yellow Wagtail Motacilla tschutschensis Breeder: fairly common 

American Pipit Anthus rubescens Breeder: rare 

Migrant: uncommon (fall) 

A 
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals 

J-20 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table J-9 

Status, Abundance, and Conservation Listings of Bird Species Occurring on the 

Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain 

Conservation Listings 

Species Group/ 

Common Name Scientific Name Status and Abundancea

ESAb

USFWS BCCc

BLMdADFGe

USSCPPf

PIFg

AUDh

IUCNi

Common Redpoll Acanthis flammea Breeder: common A 

Hoary Redpoll Acanthis hornemanni Breeder: common 

Pine Siskin Spinus pinus Visitor: casual A 

Lapland Longspur Caarius lapponicus Breeder: abundant 

Smith's Longspur Caarius pictus Visitor: rare C S A 

Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis Breeder: common (coast) A 

Northern Waterthrush Parkesia noveboracensis Visitor: casual 

Orange-crowned Warbler Oreothlypis celata Visitor: casual A R 

Yellow Warbler Setophaga petechia Breeder: rare (inland) 

Visitor: rare (coast) 

A 

Yellow-rumped Warbler Setophaga coronata Visitor: casual 

Wilson's Warbler Cardellina pusilla Visitor: rare A 

American Tree Sparrow Spizelloides arborea Breeder: common (inland): Visitor: rare 

(coast) 

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Visitor: casual A 

Clay-colored Sparrow Spizella pallida Visitor: accidental 

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Breeder: common A 

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Breeder: rare (inland) 

Visitor: rare (coast) 

A 

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Visitor: casual 

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Breeder: uncommon (inland) 

Visitor: rare (coast) 

A 

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Visitor: rare 

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Visitor: casual A 

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Visitor: casual A VU

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Visitor: casual 
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals 

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program J-21

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table J-9 

Status, Abundance, and Conservation Listings of Bird Species Occurring on the 

Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain 

Conservation Listings 

Species Group/ 

Common Name Scientific Name Status and Abundancea

ESAb

USFWS BCCc

BLMdADFGe

USSCP

Pf

PIFg

AUDh

IUCNi

Seabirds 

Thick-billed Murre Uria lomvia Migrant: rare (coast) 

Black Guillemot Cepphus grylle Breeder: rare (coast) 

Summer Resident: uncommon (coast) 

Least Auklet Aethia pusilla Visitor: casual (coast) 

Horned Puffin Fratercula corniculata Visitor: rare (coast) R 

Tufted Puffin Fratercula cirrhata Visitor: casual (coast) R 

Northern Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis Visitor: rare (offshore) 

Short-tailed Shearwater Ardenna tenuirostris Visitor: rare (coast mostly offshore) 

aStatus and abundance from the bird occurrence information for the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain presented in USFWS (2015b). 

bEndangered Species Act listings for Alaska (USFWS and NMFS 2014). 

cC = Bird of Conservation Concern from USFWS (USFWS 2008). dS = Sensitive Species; W = Watchlist Species; from BLM (BLM 2018 [in prep.]). 

eA = At-risk Species from ADFG (2015). 

f

GC = Greatest concern; HC = High concern; MC = Moderate concern from Senner et al. (2016). 

gC = Birds of Continental Concern from Rosenberg et al. (2016). 

hR = Red-list species; Y = Yellow-list species from Warnock (2017a and 2017b).

i

EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; NT = Near Threatened from IUCN (2018). 

j

Listed as a species of conservation concern for Bird Conservation Regions 2 and 5 only.

kListed at the regional not national level. 

l

Listed as a species of conservation concern for Bird Conservation Regions 4 and 5 only.
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals 

J-22 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table J-10

Conservation Listings of Additional Bird Species Occurring along Vessel Transit Route between 

Dutch Harbor and the Program Area 

Conservation Listings 

Species Group/ 

Common Name Scientific Name ESAa USFWS BCCb BLMc ADFGd AUDe IUCNf

Waterbirds 

Emperor Goose Anser canagicus S A Y NT

Snow Goose Anser caerulescens 

Brant Branta bernicla Y 

Cackling Goose (Aleutian, 

Taverner's, Minima) 

Branta hutchinsii Y 

Steller's Eider Polysticta stelleri T A R VU

Spectacled Eider Somateria fischeri T A R 

King Eider Somateria spectabilis Y 

Common Eider Somateria mollissima NT

Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus 

Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata 

White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca 

Black Scoter Melanitta americana R NT

Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis VU

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula 

Barrow's Goldeneye Bucephala islandica 

Common Merganser Mergus merganser 

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator 

Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata C S A 

Arctic Loon Gavia arctica 

Pacific Loon Gavia pacifica 

Common Loon Gavia immer 

Yellow-billed Loon Gavia adamsii C S A R NT

Shorebirds 

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus W 

Red Phalarope Phalaropus fulicarius 
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals 

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program J-23

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table J-10

Conservation Listings of Additional Bird Species Occurring along Vessel Transit Route between 

Dutch Harbor and the Program Area 

Conservation Listings 

Species Group/ 

Common Name Scientific Name ESAa

 USFWS BCCb BLMc ADFGd AUDe IUCNf

Larids 

Pomarine Jaeger Stercorarius pomarinus 

Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus 

Long-tailed Jaeger Stercorarius longicaudus 

Black-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla R VU

Red-legged Kittiwake Rissa brevirostris C A R VU

Sabine's Gull Xema sabini 

Bonaparte's Gull Chroicocephalus philadelphia 

Mew Gull Larus canus 

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis 

Herring Gull Larus argentatus A 

Iceland Gull Larus glaucoides 

Slaty-backed Gull Larus schistisagus 

Glaucous-winged Gull Larus glaucescens 

Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus 

Aleutian Tern Onychoprion aleuticus C A R VU

Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia C 

Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea C 

Seabirds 

Dovekie Alle alle 

Common Murre Uria aalge 

Thick-billed Murre Uria lomvia 

Black Guillemot Cepphus grylle 

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus C S A R EN

Kittlitz's Murrelet Brachyramphus brevirostris C S A R NT

Ancient Murrelet Synthliboramphus antiquus A 

Cassin's Auklet Ptychoramphus aleuticus A NT

Parakeet Auklet Aethia psittacula 
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals 

J-24 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table J-10

Conservation Listings of Additional Bird Species Occurring along Vessel Transit Route between 

Dutch Harbor and the Program Area 

Conservation Listings 

Species Group/ 

Common Name Scientific Name ESAa

 USFWS BCCb BLMc ADFGd AUDe IUCNf

Least Auklet Aethia pusilla 

Whiskered Auklet Aethia pygmaea C Y 

Crested Auklet Aethia cristatella 

Rhinoceros Auklet Cerorhinca monocerata 

Horned Puffin Fratercula corniculata R 

Tufted Puffin Fratercula cirrhata R 

Laysan Albatross Phoebastria immutabilis C A NT

Black-footed Albatross Phoebastria nigripes C A NT

Short-tailed Albatross Phoebastria albatrus E A R VU

Northern Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis 

Short-tailed Shearwater Ardenna tenuirostris 

Sooty Shearwater Ardenna grisea NT

Fork-tailed Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma furcata 

Leach's Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa VU

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Y 

Red-faced Cormorant Phalacrocorax urile C A R 

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus C A 

aEndangered Species Act listings for Alaska (USFWS and NMFS 2014). 

bC = Bird of Conservation Concern from USFWS (2008). 

cS = Sensitive species; W = Watchlist Species; from BLM (2018 [in prep.]). 

dA = At-risk species from ADFG (2015). 

eR = Red-list species; Y = Yellow-list species from Warnock (2017a and 2017b).

f

EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; NT = Near Threatened from IUCN (2018).
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program J-25

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

J.3 TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS

Table J-11

Terrestrial Mammal Species Known or Suspected to Occur in the

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (adapted from Appendix F in USFWS 2015)

English Namea Scientific Namea Present in Program Area

Cinereus shrew Sorex cinereus No

Pygmy shrew Sorex hoyi No

Dusky shrew Sorex monticolus No

Tundra shrew Sorex tundrensis Yes

Barren ground shrew Sorex ugyunak Yes

Holarctic least shrew Sorex minutissimus Yes

Collared lemming Dicrostonyx groenlandicus Yes

Brown lemming Lemmus trimucronatus Yes

Long-tailed vole Microtus longicaudus No

Singing vole Microtus miurus Yes

Root (tundra) vole Microtus oeconomus Yes

Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus No

Taiga vole Microtus xanthognathus No

Northern red-backed vole Myodes rutilus No

Common muskrat Ondatra zibethicus No

Northern bog lemming Synaptomys borealis No

Alaska marmot Marmota broweri No

Arctic ground squirrel Urocitellus parryii Yes

Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus No

North American porcupine Erethizon dorsatum No

American beaver Castor canadensis No; range is expanding northward

Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus Rare; range is expanding northward

Wolverine Gulo gulo Yes

North American river otter Lontra canadensis Rare

American marten Martes americana No

Ermine Mustela erminea Yes

Least weasel Mustela nivalis Yes

American mink Neovison vison No

Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Rare

Wolf Canis lupus Yes

Coyote Canis latrans Rare

Arctic fox Vulpes lagopus Yes

Red Fox Vulpes vulpes Yes

American black bear Ursus americanus No

Brown (grizzly) bear Ursus arctos Yes

Moose Alces americanus Yes

Caribou Rangifer tarandus Yes

Dall's sheep Ovis dalli No; nearby in mountains to south

Muskox Ovibos moschatus Yes

aSources: MacDonald and Cook (2009), with taxonomic and nomenclatural updates from Bradley et al. (2014).
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals

J-26 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table J-12

Acres within Different Levels of Use (percent of years caribou present) by Parturient 

Porcupine Caribou during Calving, by Different Lease Restriction Categories, Alternatives, 

and Areas of Expected Oil Potential

PCH Calving Table

Alternative Lease Type Percent of 

Years Present

Oil Potential

High Medium Low Total

B No Sale/No Surface 

Occupancy

< 20% 105,300 14,900 900 121,100

20 - 30% 3,700 14,600 3,100 21,400

30 - 40% 0 11,100 500 11,600

> 40% 0 51,700 83,800 135,500

Timing Limitations < 20% 0 100 0 100

20 - 30% 0 300 500 800

30 - 40% 0 8,400 8,900 17,300

> 40% 0 241,200 323,700 564,900

Standard Terms and 

Conditions Only

< 20% 263,800 69,000 1,900 334,700

20 - 30% 19,300 76,400 31,000 126,700

30 - 40% 0 114,900 10,400 125,300

> 40% 0 26,100 1,800 27,900

C No Sale/No Surface 

Occupancy

< 20% 148,200 15,100 900 164,200

20 - 30% 10,800 21,500 3,600 35,900

30 - 40% 0 25,500 1,200 26,700

> 40% 0 236,700 394,500 631,200

Timing Limitations < 20% 43,000 34,000 1,900 78,900

20 - 30% 6,400 50,600 31,000 88,000

30 - 40% 0 47,500 18,600 66,100

> 40% 0 68,600 14,800 83,400

Standard Terms and 

Conditions Only

< 20% 177,900 34,800 0 212,700

20 - 30% 5,800 19,100 0 24,900

30 - 40% 0 61,400 0 61,400

> 40% 0 13,700 0 13,700

D1 No Sale/No Surface 

Occupancy

< 20% 205,200 44,200 2,800 252,200

20 - 30% 22,600 57,100 27,600 107,300

30 - 40% 0 68,400 16,800 85,200

> 40% 0 305,600 408,400 714,000

Controlled Surface Use < 20% 32,400 26,500 0 58,900

20 - 30% 0 21,600 7,100 28,700

30 - 40% 0 27,900 3,000 30,900

> 40% 0 4,500 900 5,400

Standard Terms and 

Conditions Only

< 20% 131,500 13,400 0 144,900

20 - 30% 400 12,500 0 12,900

30 - 40% 0 38,000 0 38,000

> 40% 0 8,900 0 8,900

D2 No Sale/No Surface 

Occupancy

< 20% 205,200 44,200 2,800 252,200

20 - 30% 22,600 57,100 27,600 107,300

30 - 40% 0 68,400 16,800 85,200

> 40% 0 305,600 408,400 714,000

Controlled Surface Use < 20% 32,400 26,500 0 58,900

20 - 30% 0 21,600 7,100 28,700

30 - 40% 0 27,900 3,000 30,900

> 40% 0 4,500 900 5,400
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program J-27

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

PCH Calving Table

Alternative Lease Type Percent of 

Years Present

Oil Potential

High Medium Low Total

D2 

(continued)

Timing Limitations < 20% 131,500 13,400 0 144,900

20 - 30% 400 12,500 0 12,900

30 - 40% 0 38,000 0 38,000

> 40% 0 8,900 0 8,900

Source: BLM GIS 2018

Table J-13

Acres within Different Levels of Use (percent of years caribou present) by Porcupine 

Caribou during Post-calving, by Different Lease Restriction Categories, Alternatives, and 

Areas of Expected Oil Potential

PCH Post-calving Table

Acres (x1000) Percent of 

Years 

Present

Oil Potential

Alternative Lease Type High Medium Low Total

B No Sale/No Surface 

Occupancy

< 20% 83,400 4,900 700 89,000

20 - 30% 11,700 19,000 400 31,100

30 - 40% 11,700 38,500 5,700 55,900

> 40% 2,200 30,000 81,500 113,700

Timing Limitations < 20% 111,900 53,800 0 165,700

20 - 30% 77,300 84,700 1,800 163,800

30 - 40% 69,800 106,300 35,400 211,500

> 40% 24,100 41,600 7,900 73,600

Standard Terms and 

Conditions Only

< 20% 0 29,000 4,800 33,800

20 - 30% 0 61,100 14,100 75,200

30 - 40% 0 86,800 16,100 102,900

> 40% 0 73,200 298,100 371,300

C No Sale/No Surface 

Occupancy

< 20% 103,500 35,800 5,500 144,800

20 - 30% 26,400 56,200 14,500 97,100

30 - 40% 27,000 122,700 16,100 165,800

> 40% 2,200 84,100 364,100 450,400

Timing Limitations < 20% 91,900 43,400 0 135,300

20 - 30% 62,700 72,100 0 134,800

30 - 40% 29,200 13,400 0 42,600

> 40% 0 100 0 100

Standard Terms and 

Conditions Only

< 20% 0 8,400 0 8,400

20 - 30% 0 36,400 1,800 38,200

30 - 40% 25,300 95,400 41,100 161,800

> 40% 24,100 60,500 23,400 108,000

D1 No Sale/No Surface 

Occupancy

< 20% 124,500 69,400 5,500 199,400

20 - 30% 46,300 114,000 16,400 176,700

30 - 40% 52,300 179,900 48,900 281,100

> 40% 4,800 112,000 384,700 501,500

Controlled Surface 

Use

< 20% 70,900 18,200 0 89,100

20 - 30% 42,800 48,000 0 90,800

30 - 40% 18,200 6,600 0 24,800

> 40% 0 0 0 0
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals

J-28 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

PCH Post-calving Table

Acres (x1000) Percent of 

Years 

Present

Oil Potential

Alternative Lease Type High Medium Low Total

D1

(continued)

Standard Terms and 

Conditions Only

< 20% 0 0 0 0

20 - 30% 0 2,700 0 2,700

30 - 40% 10,900 45,100 8,300 64,300

> 40% 21,500 32,600 2,700 56,800

D2 No Sale/No Surface 

Occupancy

< 20% 124,500 69,400 5,500 199,400

20 - 30% 46,300 114,000 16,400 176,700

30 - 40% 52,300 179,900 48,900 281,100

> 40% 4,800 112,000 384,700 501,500

Controlled Surface 

Use

< 20% 0 0 0 0

20 - 30% 0 2,700 0 2,700

30 - 40% 10,900 45,100 8,300 64,300

> 40% 21,500 32,600 2,700 56,800

Timing Limitations < 20% 70,900 18,200 0 89,100

20 - 30% 42,800 48,000 0 90,800

30 - 40% 18,200 6,600 0 24,800

> 40% 0 0 0 0

Source: BLM GIS 2018
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program J-29

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table J-14

Estimated Percentage of Central Arctic Caribou Herd Seasonal Range (based on a 

utilization distribution from a kernel density estimate) by Different Lease Restriction 

Categories, Alternatives, and Areas of Expected Oil Potential

CAH Percentage Kernel Density Table

Percent of CAH Season Oil Potential

Alternative Lease Type High Medium Low Total

B No Sale/No Surface 

Occupancy

Postcalving 0.220 0.045 0.005 0.270

Mosquito 1.396 0.198 0.058 1.652

Oestrid Fly 0.323 0.197 0.154 0.675

Late Summer 0.115 0.066 0.092 0.273

Timing Limitations Postcalving 0.000 0.037 0.009 0.046

Mosquito 0.000 0.267 0.203 0.470

Oestrid Fly 0.000 0.321 0.463 0.784

Late Summer 0.000 0.083 0.268 0.351

Standard Terms and 

Conditions Only

Postcalving 0.891 0.158 0.029 1.078

Mosquito 3.547 0.818 0.090 4.454

Oestrid Fly 0.836 0.576 0.094 1.506

Late Summer 0.426 0.263 0.071 0.761

C No Sale/No Surface 

Occupancy

Postcalving 0.334 0.071 0.009 0.414

Mosquito 1.892 0.413 0.233 2.538

Oestrid Fly 0.487 0.442 0.557 1.486

Late Summer 0.170 0.127 0.329 0.626

Timing Limitations Postcalving 0.054 0.121 0.034 0.209

Mosquito 0.617 0.627 0.118 1.363

Oestrid Fly 0.190 0.505 0.154 0.850

Late Summer 0.054 0.210 0.103 0.368

Standard Terms and 

Conditions Only

Postcalving 0.722 0.048 0.000 0.771

Mosquito 2.434 0.242 0.000 2.676

Oestrid Fly 0.482 0.147 0.000 0.629

Late Summer 0.316 0.075 0.000 0.391

D1 No Sale/No Surface 

Occupancy

Postcalving 0.469 0.135 0.033 0.637

Mosquito 2.668 0.844 0.328 3.840

Oestrid Fly 0.708 0.794 0.684 2.185

Late Summer 0.258 0.270 0.414 0.942

Controlled Surface 

Use

Postcalving 0.043 0.077 0.010 0.130

Mosquito 0.469 0.322 0.023 0.814

Oestrid Fly 0.123 0.220 0.027 0.370

Late Summer 0.037 0.114 0.018 0.169

Standard Terms and 

Conditions Only

Postcalving 0.599 0.029 0.000 0.628

Mosquito 1.807 0.117 0.000 1.923

Oestrid Fly 0.329 0.080 0.000 0.409

Late Summer 0.246 0.028 0.000 0.274

D2 No Sale/No Surface 

Occupancy

Postcalving 0.469 0.135 0.033 0.637

Mosquito 2.668 0.844 0.328 3.840

Oestrid Fly 0.708 0.794 0.684 2.185

Late Summer 0.258 0.270 0.414 0.942

Controlled Surface 

Use

Postcalving 0.043 0.077 0.010 0.130

Mosquito 0.469 0.322 0.023 0.814

Oestrid Fly 0.123 0.220 0.027 0.370

Late Summer 0.037 0.114 0.018 0.169
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals

J-30 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

CAH Percentage Kernel Density Table

Percent of CAH Season Oil Potential

Alternative Lease Type High Medium Low Total

D2 

(continued)

Timing Limitations Postcalving 0.599 0.029 0.000 0.628

Mosquito 1.807 0.117 0.000 1.923

Oestrid Fly 0.329 0.080 0.000 0.409

Late Summer 0.246 0.028 0.000 0.274

Source: BLM GIS 2018

Table J-15

Porcupine Caribou Calving and Post-Calving in the Program Area

Percent of Years that Calving Caribou are Present Area (acres) % of Coastal Plain

< 20 % 455,900 30.7

20-30 % 148,900 10.0

30-40 % 154,100 10.4

> 40 % 728,200 49.0

Percent of Years that Post-Calving Caribou are Present Area (acres) % of Coastal Plain

< 20 % 288,400 19.4

20-30 % 270,000 18.2

30-40 % 370,300 24.9

> 40 % 558,500 37.6

Source: BLM GIS 2018
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program J-31

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

J.4 REFERENCES

ACCS (Alaska Center for Conservation Science). 2016. Vegetation map for northern, western, and 

interior Alaska. Alaska Center for Conversation Science, University Alaska Anchorage. Internet 

website: http://accs.uaa.alaska.edu/vegetation-ecology/vegetation-map-northern-westernand%20interior-alaska/

_____. 2018. Rare Plant Data Portal. Alaska Center for Conservation Science, University of Alaska 

Anchorage, Anchorage, AK. Internet website: http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/apps/rareplants/

ADFG (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 2015. Alaska Wildlife Action Plan. Juneau, Alaska.

Boggs, K., L. Flagstad, T. Boucher, T. Kuo, D. Fehringer, S. Guyer, and M. Aisu. 2016. Vegetation map and 

classification: Northern, Western and Interior Alaska – Second Edition. Alaska Center for 

Conservation Science, University of Alaska Anchorage.

Bradley, R. D., L. K. Ammerman, R. J. Baker, L. C. Bradley, J. A. Cook, R. C. Dowler, C. Jones, D. J. Schmidly, F. 

B. Stangl, Jr., R. A. Van Den Bussche, and B. Würsig. 2014. Revised Checklist of North American 

Mammals North of Mexico, 2014. Museum of Texas Tech University, Occasional Papers, No. 327. 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2018 (in prep). Alaska Special Status Plant and Animal Species List—

2018. Anchorage, Alaska.

BLM (Bureau of Land Management) GIS (Geographic Information System). 2018. GIS data used in the 

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program EIS alternatives, affected environment, and impact 

analysis. Alaska Bureau of Land Management.

Ducks Unlimited, Inc. 2013. North Slope Science Initiative Landcover Mapping Summary Report.

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2018. IUCN Red List of threatened species. 

Version 2018-1. Internet website: http://www.iucnredlist.org/. 

MacDonald, S. O., and J. A. Cook. 2009. Recent Mammals of Alaska. University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks.

Rosenberg, K.V., J.A. Kennedy, R. Dettmers, R.P. Ford, D. Reynolds, C.J. Beardmore, P.J. Blancher, R.E. Bogart, 

G.S. Butcher, A. Camfield, D.W. Demarest, W.E. Easton, B. Keller, A. Mini, A.O. Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, 

T.D. Rich, J.M. Ruth, H. Stabins, J. Stanton, and T. Will. 2016. Partners in Flight Landbird 

Conservation Plan: 2016 Revision for Canada and Continental United States. Partners in Flight 

Science Committee.

Senner, S. E., B. A. Andres and H. R. Gates (Eds.). 2016. Pacific Americas shorebird conservation strategy. 

National Audubon Society, New York, New York, USA. Available at: http://www.shorebirdplan.org.

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. Arlington, Virginia: US 

Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management.
J. Vegetation and Wetlands, Birds, and Terrestrial Mammals

J-32 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

_____. 2015a. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan. US Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 1. Internet website: 

https://www.fws.gov/home/arctic-ccp/.

USFWS and NMFS (US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service). 2014. Endangered, 

Threatened, Proposed, Candidate, and Delisted Species in Alaska (Updated May 13, 2014). 

Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/endangered/pdf/consultation_guide/

4_species_list.pdf.

Viereck, L. A., C. T. Dyrness, A. R. Batten, and K. J. Wenzlick. 1992. The Alaska vegetation classification. US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Serv., Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-286.

Warnock, N. 2017a. Audubon Alaska Watchlist: 2017 Red List of declining bird populations. Audubon 

Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska.

Warnock, N. 2017b. The Audubon Alaska Watchlist 2017: Yellow List—vulnerable species. Audubon Alaska. 

Anchorage, Alaska.
Appendix K

Fish and Aquatic Species

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program K-i 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

APPENDIX K. FISH AND AQUATIC SPECIES.............................................................................. K-1

K.1 Freshwater Fish ............................................................................................................................ K-1

K.2 Anadromous Fish ......................................................................................................................... K-1

K.3 Coastal Marine Fish ..................................................................................................................... K-3

K.4 References ..................................................................................................................................... K-6

TABLES Page 

K-1 Life History Attributes for Fish Species that May Use the Program Area .................................... K-4
This page intentionally left blank.
Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program K-1

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix K. Fish and Aquatic Species

K.1 FRESHWATER FISH

Many of the resident freshwater fish discussed below have at least some ability to tolerate brief periods 

of saline waters (USFWS 2015). Additional freshwater species not listed here, such as slimy sculpin, lake 

trout, and arctic char, have been reported in other parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (Arctic 

Refuge), and may be present (but not yet confirmed) in waters of the program area (BLM 2012). Table 

K-1 summarizes habitat use and life history information for common species in the program area.

Round whitefish is a relatively small, benthic invertebrate feeding whitefish found in clearwater rivers 

and lakes in northern latitudes of North America and northeast Asia. The vast majority of round 

whitefish are resident freshwater fish, but some may tolerate brief periods in brackish waters. In the 

program area, these fish are found only in the Canning River. They are relatively less migratory in 

behavior than other whitefish. They are a minor component of subsistence catch due to low density.

Arctic grayling live in lakes and streams throughout northern North America and Asia and are found 

abundantly throughout the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain. They exhibit very limited salinity tolerance. 

Adults feed on aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates and are capable of extensive annual movements 

between overwintering sites and summer feeding habitats. Though they constitute a minor subsistence 

component, recreational fishing for arctic grayling is likely common for residents of Kaktovik. 

Burbot is large freshwater cod that inhabits deep areas of rivers and lakes throughout the circumpolar 

north (Evenson 1990; USFWS 2015). In the program area, burbot are found in waters along the Canning 

River (Smith and Glesne 1983; USFWS 2015). Burbot feed on insect larvae and other invertebrates as 

juveniles but move to a fish diet around age 4. 

Ninespine stickleback are found throughout northern waters of North America. In the Arctic Refuge 

it is found in lakes, rivers and streams and is tolerant of saline waters up to 20 parts per thousand (ppt). 

This small, relatively short-lived species is present in large numbers throughout its range. Ninespine 

stickleback feed on small crustaceans and insects. They themselves are a major prey item for many 

larger species of fish as well as birds. Ninespine stickleback overwinter in freshwater habitats in the 

program area. 

K.2 ANADROMOUS FISH

There are at least nine species of anadromous fish in the program area. Most use this area and adjacent 

coastal waters seasonally for foraging or migration to other habitats. Pacific salmon are at the northern 

portion of their range in the project area, though their numbers appear to be increasing with warming 

trends in the region. Whitefish are common in the program area and are extremely important to 

subsistence communities. Dolly Varden are the only sport/subsistence fish that overwinters in the 

program area and its numbers are therefore limited by available in spawning and overwintering habitat. 

For brevity, some of the following species are discussed within the context of family groups with similar 

life histories. 
K. Fish and Aquatic Species

K-2 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pacific salmon (Onchorhynchus spp.) are represented by three primary species that have been 

reported in coastal waters adjacent to the program area; pink salmon, chum salmon, and Chinook 

salmon. Chinook salmon have not been reported in streams in the area, but several reports of chum 

salmon have been noted in the Canning River (Smith and Glesne 1983; USFWS 2015). Pink salmon are 

found in the Staines and Canning River complex. Pink salmon feed on plankton, larval fishes, fish eggs,

and aquatic invertebrates. Juveniles of chum and Chinook salmon consume copepods and amphipods 

before switching to a diet of fish as sub-adults and adults whereupon they reach large sizes (Bradford et 

al. 2009; Horne-Brine et al. 2009; Salo 1991). All spawn in freshwater streams where the young emerge 

from gravel and disperse to the sea; almost immediately for chum and pink salmon and after a period of 

a year or more for Chinook salmon (Salo 1991; USFWS 2015). Depending on the species, each salmon 

spends between 1 and 5 years at sea before returning to freshwater to spawn and die. 

Whitefish (Coregonus spp.) are important subsistence fishes and, in addition to the mostly freshwater 

round whitefish, are represented by four anadromous species found either in Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain 

streams or in the adjacent coastal waters: humpback whitefish, least cisco, broad whitefish, and arctic 

cisco. Each species displays a different degree of freshwater and saline water reliance during their life. All 

are relatively long-lived (up to 20 years and older). Because waters of the program area do not support 

overwintering or spawning habitat sufficient for these species, they are found only in the adjacent coastal 

waters as they migrate or forage. Humpback whitefish are medium sized, benthic invertebrate-feeding 

fish that are found in rivers lakes and estuaries in Asia and North America. In the Arctic Refuge Coastal 

Plain, they are only rarely documented in adjacent nearshore waters as they forage during summer 

months. Though they are rarely targeted for subsistence, they are a common bycatch species. Least 

cisco are a relatively small, nearshore and pelagic-feeding whitefish that is found in Arctic and sub-Arctic 

environments of Asia and North America. They are common in estuaries, rivers and lakes in northern 

Alaska, but are only found in coastal waters in or adjacent to the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain during 

summer months as they forage before returning to deeper overwintering and spawning waters to the 

west or east (Seigle 2003; USFWS 2015). Least cisco may undertake extensive spawning, overwintering, 

and foraging migrations annually. As with humpback whitefish, they are caught mostly incidentally during 

subsistence activities and are commonly a source of dog food. Broad whitefish are a relatively large, 

primarily benthic-feeding fish that is very important in subsistence activities in northern Alaska, including 

in coastal waters adjacent to the program area. The species may exhibit freshwater resident or 

anadromous behavior, but those found near the program area during summer are overwintering and 

spawning elsewhere. Arctic cisco are a relatively small, pelagic-feeding species found in nearly all arctic 

waters. In Alaska, the evidence suggests that arctic cisco originate and later spawn in waters of the 

Mackenzie River drainage (Zimmerman et al. 2013; USFWS 2015). Arctic cisco are found foraging in 

Beaufort Sea coastal waters and overwintering in brackish waters of large rivers such as the Colville 

River to the west and Mackenzie River to the east. This is a fully anadromous species not known to 

reside in freshwaters. They are a prized subsistence species known for high fat content and good taste 

(Moulton et al. 2010).

Rainbow Smelt is a small schooling fish that spawns in freshwater but can be found extensively in 

nearshore brackish and marine waters throughout the Arctic Coastal Plain (ACP). They feed on a varied 

diet of crustacea, plankton, and various other aquatic invertebrates, as well as fish eggs and small fish. 

They are relatively short-lived (6 years) but can be highly migratory. It is unknown how common these 

fish are in the program area but they are known to have spawning populations in the Colville, Sag, Kuk, 

and Mackenzie Rivers (Craig 1984).
K. Fish and Aquatic Species

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program K-3

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Dolly Varden is a coldwater species found in the higher latitude waters of North America, as well as 

Russia, Japan, and Korea. They are found widely within the northern portion of the Arctic Refuge and in 

several rivers of the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain and adjacent coastal waters and can display resident and 

anadromous forms. In the Program Area, spawning populations are documented in the Canning, 

Hulahula (Brown et al. 2014; USFWS 2015), and Aichilik (USFWS 2015). Isolated resident populations 

are found in springs and lakes in the Canning (McCart and Craig 1973; USFWS 2015), Sadlerochit 

(USFWS 2015), and Jago (USFWS 2015) River drainages. Resident species are typically smaller and live 

shorter lives while anadromous forms are larger and longer-lived (Underwood et al. 1996; USFWS 

2015). Anadromous forms typically migrate to brackish, nearshore waters of the Arctic Refuge Coastal 

Plain at ages 2–5 from their overwintering habitats in deep pools and spring-fed areas of the Arctic 

Refuge Coastal Plain rivers (Underwood et al. 1996; Fechhelm et al. 1997; USFWS 2015). They are a 

highly migratory species who feed on mysid shrimp and amphipods, exhibiting little piscivory. They are 

the primary species targeted in subsistence fisheries by Kaktovik residents on the Hulahula River and in 

coastal areas during summer.

K.3 COASTAL MARINE FISH

Although adult and juvenile stages of several species of marine fishes may use coastal and lagoon waters 

adjacent to the Program Area, this section focuses on the four most commonly observed species. 

Additional species likely to occur in marine waters are described in the National Petroleum ReserveAlaska Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 2012).

Arctic cod are distributed throughout the entirety of the northern polar basin and may be the most 

abundant and widely distributed fish in the Beaufort Sea. They are common and often abundant in 

nearshore coastal waters adjacent to the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain. They inhabit cold, saline waters, 

but are tolerant of fluxes in temperature, salinity, and are found nearshore, offshore and even lower 

reaches of large rivers. They are typically a small to medium sized species. They are common in 

nearshore coastal waters in summer and fall before moving into full-scale marine waters during winter. 

Arctic cod prey on amphidpods, copepods, and mysid shrimp and are themselves common prey for 

marine mammals, birds and fish (Craig et al. 1984; Frost and Lowry 1984; USFWS 2015). They are

incidentally harvested during subsistence activities along the Beaufort Sea coast, including near Kaktovik.

Saffron cod are found throughout the North Pacific and in the Arctic Ocean. They are common and 

widely distributed in the Beaufort Sea and along the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain. They are found from 

coastal lagoons to offshore marine waters and some lower reaches of large rivers. They range from 

medium to large in size and feed on mysid shrimp, amphipods, and decapods, with some piscivory upon 

reaching larger sizes (Ellis 1962; USFWS 2015). 

Fourhorn sculpin are found throughout the circumpolar north including the Beaufort Sea coastline, 

and waters adjacent to the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain where they are typically very abundant. They 

feed on mysids, amphipods, isopods, and small fish. 

Arctic flounder are found in coastal marine waters of much of the Artic and sub-Arctic of North 

America and Siberia. They are commonly found in nearshore waters of the Beaufort Sea, including the 

waters adjacent to the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain. They are a relatively medium sized species, which 

remain near to shorelines and lagoons but are sometimes found in lower river reaches (Bendock 1979; 

USFWS 2015). They feed on amphipods, mollusks, crustaceans, and small fish.
K. Fish and Aquatic Species

K-4 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table K-1

Life History Attributes for Fish Species that May Use the Program Area

Species Lifespan 

(years)

Age at 

Maturity 

(years)

Spawning 

Behavior

Spawning 

in 

Program 

Area?

Habitat Use in Program 

Area

Feeding Behavior in 

Program Area

Subsistence 

Use in 

Arctic 

Coastal 

Plain

Arctic Cisco ~20 7‒8 Semi-annual; 

Fall

No Summer months migration and 

foraging in freshwater and 

coastal marine waters

Pelagic invertebrates Extensive

Arctic Cod 6‒7 2‒3 Annual to 

semi-annual; 

Fall

Likely Common in coastal marine 

waters for spawning and rearing

Amphipods, copepods, 

mysid shrimp

Limited

Arctic Flounder 9‒12 4‒5 Annual to 

semi-annual

Likely Common during summer 

months in marine waters; lower 

river deltas

Amphipods, mollusks, 

crustacea, and small 

fish

Limited

Arctic Grayling up to 18 4‒8 Annual to 

semi-annual; 

Spring

Unknown Summer months in some 

freshwater streams; limited use 

of marine waters

Aquatic and terrestrial 

invertebrates

Limited

Broad Whitefish >20 5‒8 Annual to 

semi-annual: 

Fall

No Summer months migration and 

foraging in freshwater and 

coastal marine waters

Benthic invertebrates Extensive

Burbot >20 6‒7 Semi-annual; 

Winter

No Summer months in Canning 

River

Insect larve and other 

invertebrates as 

juveniles; fish diet as 

adults

Extensive

Chinook Salmon ~4‒5 1‒5 Once; 

Summer/Fall

No Rare in coastal marine waters 

for migration and foraging

Copepods/amphipods 

(early) fish (later)

Limited

Chum Salmon ~4‒5 2‒6 Once; 

Summer/Fall

No Migration and foraging in 

Canning and Staines rivers; 

coastal marine waters

Copepods/amphipods 

(early) fish (later)

Limited

Dolly Varden Resident = 7 

Anadromous 

= 10

Resident = 

2–4 

Anadromous 

= 4–8

Semi-annual; 

Fall

Yes Common during summer and 

winter months in freshwater 

streams and springs; coastal 

marine waters; spawning and 

overwintering in freshwater 

springs

Resident = Dipteran 

larvae and 

macroinvertebrates 

Anadromous = 

Mysids,amphipods, and 

fish

Extensive
K. Fish and Aquatic Species

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program K-5

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Species Lifespan 

(years)

Age at 

Maturity 

(years)

Spawning 

Behavior

Spawning 

in 

Program 

Area?

Habitat Use in Program 

Area

Feeding Behavior in 

Program Area

Subsistence 

Use in 

Arctic 

Coastal 

Plain

Fourhorn Sculpin up to 14 3‒9 Annual to 

semi-annual

Likely Common in summer and fall in 

coastal marine waters; lower 

river deltas

Mysid shrimp, 

amphipods, isopods, 

fish

Limited

Humpback 

Whitefish

>20 5‒11 Annual to 

semi-annual: 

Fall

No Summer months migration and 

foraging in freshwater and 

coastal marine waters

Benthic invertebrates Extensive

Least Cisco >25 3‒7 Annual to 

semi-annual; 

Fall

Likely Summer months migration and 

foraging in freshwater and 

coastal marine waters

Pelagic invertebrates 

and small fish

Limited

Ninespine 

Stickleback 

up to 5 1‒2 Annual; 

Summer 

Yes Common during summer and 

winter months in marine 

waters; freshwater. Spawning, 

rearing, overwintering 

aquatic and terrestrial 

insects, and crustacea

None

Pink Salmon 2 2 Once: 

Summer/Fall

No Migration and foraging in 

Canning and Staines rivers; 

coastal marine waters

Plankton, larval fishes, 

fish eggs, aquatic 

invertebrates

Limited

Round Whitefish >20 3‒8 Annual to 

semi-annual

No Summer months migration and 

foraging in Canning River and 

some marine waters

Benthic invertebrates Limited

Rainbow Smelt ~6 2‒6 Once; 

Summer/Fall

Unknown Found in coastal marine waters; 

lower river deltas in 

summmer/fall

Copepods, fish eggs, 

algae as juveniles; 

decapods, mysid 

shrimp, copepod, 

ampipod, small fish and 

other invertebrates as 

adults

Limited

Saffron Cod 10‒12 2‒3 Annual to 

semi-annual: 

Fall

Likely Common in coastal marine 

waters for spawning and rearing

Amphipods, copepods, 

decapods, mysid 

shrimp, some fish

Limited
K. Fish and Aquatic Species

K-6 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

K.4 REFERENCES

Bendock, T. N. 1979. Beaufort Sea estuarine fishery study. Final report. In Environmental assessment of 

the Alaskan continental shelf. No. 4, 670–729. Bureau of Land Management, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration.

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2012. National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska: final Integrated Activity 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. Vol. 1. Prepared in cooperation with: North Slope 

Borough, U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Anchorage, AK: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Bradford, M. J., A. V. Vinster, and P. A. Milligan. 2009. Freshwater life history, habitat, and the 

production of Chinook salmon from the upper Yukon Basin. In Pacific salmon: ecology and 

management of western Alaska’s populations, edited by C.C. Krueger and C.E. Zimmerman, 19–

38. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society Symposium 70.

Brown, R. J., M. B. Loewen, and T. L. Tanner. 2014. Overwintering locations, migrations, and fidelity of 

radio-tagged Dolly Varden in the Hulahula River, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 2007–09. 

Arctic 67:149–158.

Craig, P. C., W. B. Griffiths, S. R. Johnson, and D. M. Schell. 1984. Trophic dynamics in an Arctic lagoon. 

In The Alaskan Beaufort Sea: ecosystems and envrionments, edited by P.W. Barnes, D.M. Schell 

and E. Reimnitz, 347–380. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Dunton, K.H., T. Weingartner, and E.C. Carmack. 2006. The nearshore western Beaufort Sea 

ecosystem: Circulation and importance of terrestrial carbon in arctic coastal food webs. 

Progress in Oceanography. 71:362–378.

Ellis, D. V. (1962). Observations on the distribution and ecology of some Arctic fish. Arctic, 15(3), 179-

189.

Evenson, M. J. 1990. Movement, abundance, and length composition of burbot in rivers of interior Alaska 

during 1989. 90-3, Fishery Data Series Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Fechhelm, R. G., J. D. Bryan, W. B. Griffiths, and L. R. Martin. 1997. Summer growth patterns of 

northern Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) smolts from the Prudhoe Bay region of Alaska. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:1103–1110.

Frost, K. J., and L.F. Lowry. 1984. Trophic relationships of vertebrate consumers in the Alaskan Beaufort 

Sea. In The Alaskan Beaufort Sea: ecosystems and envrionments, edited by D.M. Schell P.W. 

Barnes, and E. Reimnitz, 381–401. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Horne-Brine, M. M., J. Bales, and L. DuBois. 2009. Salmon age and sex composition and mean lengths for 

the Yukon River Area, 2007. 09-26, Fishery Data Series. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game.
K. Fish and Aquatic Species

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program K-7

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

McCart, P. J., and P. C. Craig. 1973. Life history of two isolated population of Arctic char (Salvelinus 

alpinus) in spring-fed tributaries of the Canning River, Alaska. Journal of the Fisheries Research 

Board of Canada 30:1215–1220.

Moulton, L. a. L., B. Seavey, and J. Pausanna. 2010. History of an under-ice subsistence fishery for arctic 

cisco and least cisco in the Colville River, Alaska. Arctic 63 (4):381–390.

Salo, O. 1991. Life history of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). In Pacific Salmon Life Histories, edited 

by C. Groot and L.Margolis, 231–310. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Seigle, J. C. 2003. Determination of marine migratory behavior and its relationship to selected physical 

traits for least cisco (Coregonus sardinella) of the Western Arctic Coastal Plain, Alaska. M.S. 

Thesis, Oregon State University.

Smith, M. W., and R. S. Glesne. 1983. Aquatic studies on the North Slope of the Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge, 1981 and 1982. 83-01, Fisheries Progress Report. Fairbanks, AK: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

Underwood, T. J., M. J. Millard, and L. A. Thorpe. 1996. Relative abundance, length frequency, age, and 

maturity of Dolly Varden in near-shore waters of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125:719–728.

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2015. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Revised Comprehensive 

Plan: Final Environmental Impact Statement, Wilderness Review, Wild and Scenic River Review. 

Vol. 1. Fairbanks and Anchorage, AK: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Alaska Regional 

Office.

Zimmerman, C. E., A. M. Ramey, S. M. Turner, F. J. Mueter, S. M. Murphy, and J. L. Nielsen. 2013. 

Genetics, recruitment, and migration patterns of Arctic cisco (Coregonus autumnalis) in the 

Colville River, Alaska, and Mackenzie River, Canada. Polar Biology 36 (11):1543-1555. doi: 

10.1007/s00300-013-1372-y.
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix L

Cultural Resources

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program L-i 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

APPENDIX L. CULTURAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................... L-1

L.1 References ...................................................................................................................................... L-5

TABLES Page 

L-1 Documented AHRS Sites in Program Area ........................................................................................... L-1

L-2 Documented TLUI Sites in Program Area............................................................................................. L-4
This page intentionally left blank.
Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program L-1

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix L. Cultural Resources

Table L-1

Documented AHRS Sites in Program Area

AHRS # Site Name Period Resource Description

BRL-00005 Uqsruqtalik Historic Camp, hunting, sod houses, cabins, ice cellars

BRL-00007 Naalagiagvik Prehistoric, 

Historic, 

Protohistoric

Settlement, sod houses, burials

BRL-00009 - Historic Burials

BRL-00012 - Historic Residential, cabin, log, sod house

BRL-00017 Uqsruqtalik Historic Burials

BRL-00018 Kapiluuraq Historic Camp, fishing, sod house

BRL-00020 - Historic Residential, sod house

BRL-00022 Puukak Historic Camp, sod houses, cemetery

BRL-00023 (Doe) BAR-M (AHRS) 

Barter Island

Historic Defense, DEW Line

BRL-00044 Gravel structures, Barter 

Island Airfield

Historic Defense, DEW Line, transportation

BRL-00051 Barter Island seawall Historic Military, seawall, defense, DEW Line

BRL-00052 Browers Camp Historic, Modern Camp, tent floors, drying racks, windbreaks

XDP-00001 Angun Historic Sod house ruins, foundations

XDP-00021 - Historic -

XDP-00022 - Historic -

XDP-00024 Atchalik Historic Sod house ruins, sod quarry, cache pots

XDP-00026 - Historic Burials

XDP-00027 - Historic Sod house ruins, sod quarry

XDP-00028 - Historic Burials, box coffins

XDP-00029 - Historic -

XDP-00030 - Historic -

XDP-00031 - Prehistoric Lithic scatter

XDP-00032 - Prehistoric -

XDP-00033 - Historic -

XDP-00034 - Historic -

XDP-00035 - Prehistoric -

XDP-00045 Beaufort Lagoon (AHRS) 

Demarcation Point

Historic Defense, DEW Line

XDP-00046 Nuvagapak Jacobson and 

Wentworth’s TLUI Site 32

- -

XDP-00048 Nuvagapak reburial Historic Reburied human remains

XFI-00003 Anderson Point Prehistoric Settlement, bone and wood artifacts

XFI-00009 Brownlow Point, 

Agliguagruk

Historic House ruins, burials

XFI-00011 Sanniqsaaluk Historic Cabin, ice cellar, camp

XFI-00013 - Historic Ice cellar

XFI-00014 - Historic Lookout tower

XFI-00015 - Historic Single dwelling, sod house

XFI-00016 - Historic Settlement, sod houses, sod quarry

XFI-00017 Kanigniivik Historic Burials
L. Cultural Resources

L-2 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

AHRS # Site Name Period Resource Description

XFI-00018 - Historic Single dwelling, sod house, artifacts

XFI-00019 - Historic Single dwelling, sod house

XFI-00020 - Historic Single dwelling, sod house

XFI-00030 Flaxman Island-Brownlow 

Point Historic District 

- -

XFI-00033 Brownlow cemetery Historic Cemetery

XFI-00034 Brownlow southern grave Historic Isolated grave

XFI-00035 - Prehistoric Artifact scatter

XMM-00001 Camden Bay Prehistoric House pit, midden, organic artifacts

XMM-00004 - Historic Sod houses, cellar

XMM-00005 - Historic Sod house ruin

XMM-00006 - Historic Sod house ruin, ice cellar, tent frame 

remains

XMM-00007 - Prehistoric Tent ring

XMM-00008 - Prehistoric -

XMM-00009 - Prehistoric Tent ring, scattered stones of other features

XMM-00010 - Prehistoric -

XMM-00011 - Prehistoric -

XMM-00012 - Prehistoric Tent ring, hearth(?)

XMM-00013 - Prehistoric -

XMM-00014 - Prehistoric -

XMM-00015 - Prehistoric -

XMM-00016 - Prehistoric -

XMM-00017 - Prehistoric -

XMM-00018 - Historic Sod house ruins, log cabin, historic debris

XMM-00019 - Historic Sod house, quarry

XMM-00020 - Prehistoric -

XMM-00021 - Historic -

XMM-00022 - Prehistoric -

XMM-00023 - Prehistoric -

XMM-00024 - Prehistoric -

XMM-00025 - Prehistoric -

XMM-00026 - Prehistoric -

XMM-00027 - Prehistoric -

XMM-00028 - Prehistoric Tent ring, scattered stones of other features

XMM-00029 - Historic -

XMM-00030 - Prehistoric -

XMM-00031 - Historic -

XMM-00032 - Historic -

XMM-00033 - Historic -

XMM-00034 - Prehistoric -

XMM-00035 - Prehistoric, 

Historic

-

XMM-00037 - Prehistoric -

XMM-00038 - Prehistoric Tent rings

XMM-00039 - Historic -

XMM-00040 - Historic -

XMM-00041 - Historic Fish camp, tent rings(?)

XMM-00042 - Historic Settlement, winter, reindeer herding

XMM-00043 - Historic Settlement, winter, reindeer herding

XMM-00044 - Historic -
L. Cultural Resources

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program L-3

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

AHRS # Site Name Period Resource Description

XMM-00045 - Historic Cemetery

XMM-00046 - Historic -

XMM-00114 (Doe) Camden Bay 

(AHRS) POW-D

Historic Building, structure, defense, DEW Line

XMM-00117 Sivugag - -

Source: ADNR OHA 2018

Notes: - = no information provided in AHRS database. Information provided in this table is verbatim from the AHRS database.
L. Cultural Resources

L-4 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table L-2

Documented TLUI Sites in Program Area

TLUI # Site Name Resource Description

TLUIXMM032 Nuvugaq House and ice cellar ruins

TLUIXMM005 Iqalugliuraq House ruins and fishing area

TLUIXMM036 Aanalaaq House ruins and graves

TLUIXMM033 Sallibutchich Reindeer herding area

TLUIXMM027 Sivugaq Landmark and resting place along trail

TLUIXMM028 1st Fish Hole Fishing area

TLUIXMM039 Katakturuk Viewing area

TLUIXMM032 Nuvugaq Ruins and trapping and duck hunting area

TLUIXFI027 Aglibuabruk Cemetery Cemetery

TLUIBRL012 Uqsruqtalik House ruins and graves 

TLUIBRL(44) Kapijbuurak House and ice cellar ruins

TLUIBRL011 Puukak House ruins

TLUIXDP010 Iglubruatchiat House ruin

TLUIXDP009 Imaibeauraq House ruins, ice cellar ruins, and graves

TLUIXDP008 Anfun House ruin and oil seep

TLUIXDP007 Atchalik House ruins and fishing area

TLUIXFI009 Tigutaam Inaa House ruins, fishing area, and place of 

important events

TLUIXFI010 Kayutak House ruins

TLUIXFI011 Kafifiivik House ruins and graves 

TLUIXFI012 Aanalaaq House ruins and graves 

TLUIXFI013 Sanniqsaaluk House ruins and graves 

TLUIXFI015 Sallibutchit House ruins, fishing area, and hunting and 

camping area

TLUIXFI017 Kunagrak House ruin

None Given Grave 2015 Grave

None Given 2 graves Grave

None Given Disturbed grave associated with 

Iglugruatchiaq

Grave

None Given Kapijbuurak (2) House ruin

None Given Atchalik House ruin

None Given Atchalik House ruin

None Given Grave Grave

None Given Uqsruqtalik Graves Grave

None Given Nuvugapak House ruins

None Given Aanaalaaq None given

None Given Aanalaaq House ruins and graves 

Source: IHLC 2018
L. Cultural Resources

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program L-5

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

L.1 REFERENCES

ADNR OHA (Alaska Department of Natural Resources Office of History and Archaeology). 2018. 

Alaska Heritage Resources Survey. Anchorage, Alaska.

IHLC (Iñupiat History, Language, and Cultural Division). 2018. Traditional Land Use Inventory Sites. 

Utqiaġvik, Alaska.
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix M 

Subsistence Uses and Resources 

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program M-i 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

APPENDIX M. SUBSISTENCE USES AND RESOURCES............................................................... M-1

M.1 Kaktovik ......................................................................................................................................... M-1

M.1.1 Harvest Data .................................................................................................................. M-1

M.1.2 Seasonal Round ............................................................................................................. M-9

M.1.3 Travel Method ............................................................................................................ M-10

M.1.4 Resource Importance ............................................................................................... M-10

M.2 Nuiqsut ........................................................................................................................................ M-12

M.2.1 Harvest Data ............................................................................................................... M-12

M.2.2 Seasonal Round .......................................................................................................... M-17

M.2.3 Travel Method ............................................................................................................ M-18

M.2.4 Resource Importance ............................................................................................... M-18

M.3 Arctic Village .............................................................................................................................. M-20

M.3.1 Harvest Data ............................................................................................................... M-20

M.3.2 Seasonal Round .......................................................................................................... M-22

M.3.3 Resource Importance ............................................................................................... M-22

M.4 Venetie ........................................................................................................................................ M-23

M.4.1 Harvest Data ............................................................................................................... M-23

M.4.2 Seasonal Round .......................................................................................................... M-25

M.4.3 Resource Importance ............................................................................................... M-26

M.5 Caribou Study Communities .................................................................................................. M-27

M.6 References .................................................................................................................................. M-33

TABLES Page 

M-1 Kaktovik Subsistence Harvest Estimates by Resource Category, All Resources Study 

Years .............................................................................................................................................................. M-1

M-2 Kaktovik Subsistence Harvest Estimates by Resource Category, Non-Comprehensive 

Study Years .................................................................................................................................................. M-5

M-3 Kaktovik Subsistence Harvest Estimates by Selected Species, All Study Years ........................... M-5

M-4 Kaktovik Annual Cycle of Subsistence Activities ................................................................................ M-9

M-5 Kaktovik Travel Method to Subsistence Use Areas ........................................................................ M-10

M-6 Material and Cultural Importance of Subsistence Resources, Kaktovik ..................................... M-10

M-7 Nuiqsut Subsistence Harvest Estimates by Resource Category, All Resources Study 

Years ........................................................................................................................................................... M-12

M-8 Nuiqsut Subsistence Harvest Estimates by Selected Species, All Study Years ......................... M-14

M-9 Nuiqsut Annual Cycle of Subsistence Activities ............................................................................... M-17

M-10 Nuiqsut Travel Method to Subsistence Use Areas ......................................................................... M-18

M-11 Material and Cultural Importance of Subsistence Resources, Nuiqsut ...................................... M-18

M-12 Arctic Village Subsistence Harvest Estimates by Resource Category, NonComprehensive Study Years ................................................................................................................. M-20

M-13 Arctic Village Subsistence Harvest Estimates by Selected Species, All Study Years ................ M-20

M-14 Arctic Village Annual Cycle of Subsistence Activities ..................................................................... M-22
Table of Contents 

M-ii Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

M-15 Venetie Subsistence Harvest Estimates by Resource Category, All Resources Study 

Years ........................................................................................................................................................... M-23

M-16 Venetie Subsistence Harvest Estimates by Resource Category, Non-Comprehensive 

Study Years ............................................................................................................................................... M-23

M-17 Venetie Subsistence Harvest Estimates by Selected Species, All Study Years .......................... M-24

M-18 Venetie Annual Cycle of Subsistence Activities ............................................................................... M-25

M-19 Material and Cultural Importance of Subsistence Resources, Venetie ....................................... M-26

M-20 Caribou Harvest Data for All Available Study Years, Caribou Study Communities ............... M-27

M-21 Total Annual Harvest Summary of Porcupine Caribou as Reported at Annual Harvest 

Meetings of the Porcupine Caribou Management Board, 2010/11 through 2015/16 ............. M-32
Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program M-1 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix M. Subsistence Uses and Resources

M.1 KAKTOVIK

M.1.1 Harvest Data 

Table M-1 

Kaktovik Subsistence Harvest Estimates by Resource Category, All Resources Study Years 

Study 

Year Resource 

Percent of Households Estimated Harvest 

Use Try to Harvest Harvest Give Receive NumberPercent of Total Harvest 

1

Total Pounds

2

Average HH Pounds Per Capita Pounds 

1985 All Resources 100 93 91 83 100 - 61,663 1,163 328 100.0 

Salmon 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 

Non-Salmon Fish 100 86 81 45 93 6,866 11,403 215 61 18.5 

Large Land Mammals 100 79 71 71 100 288 35,331 667 188 57.3 

Small Land Mammals 60 52 52 31 24 427 160 3 1 0.3 

Marine Mammals 88 69 57 41 86 174 10,762 203 57 17.5 

Migratory Birds 83 76 71 48 57 964 3,388 64 18 5.5 

Upland Game Birds 86 74 69 45 43 867 607 11 3 1.0 

Vegetation 24 17 2 5 21 - 13 <1 <1 <0.1 

1986 All Resources 100 89 87 83 100 - 84,060 1,501 433 100.0 

Non-Salmon Fish 96 75 72 66 87 4,416 6,951 124 36 8.3 

Large Land Mammals 98 68 62 57 98 198 24,908 445 128 29.6 

Small Land Mammals 47 45 40 19 30 183 39 1 <1 <0.1 

Marine Mammals 96 64 60 64 96 - 49,723 888 256 59.2 

Migratory Birds - - - - - 273 1,673 30 9 2.0 

Upland Game Birds 87 62 62 47 55 1,012 708 13 4 0.8 

Eggs 2 2 2 0 2 4 1 <1 <1 <0.1 

Vegetation 49 21 21 11 40 - 58 1 <1 0.1 

1992a All Resources 96 89 89 83 92 - 170,939 2,713 886 100.0 

Salmon 26 9 9 11 19 50 105 2 1 0.1 

Non-Salmon Fish 94 83 81 70 68 18,415 22,847 363 118 13.4 

Large Land Mammals 96 70 57 62 83 212 28,705 456 149 16.8 

Small Land Mammals 47 43 38 21 19 213 162 3 1 0.1 

Marine Mammals 89 64 40 70 87 - 115,645 1,836 599 67.7 

Migratory Birds 83 62 51 47 70 970 2,702 43 14 1.6 

Upland Game Birds 85 60 57 47 49 769 539 9 3 0.3 

Eggs 23 15 13 15 15 56 8 <1 <1 <0.1 

Vegetation 77 72 70 23 40 - 227 4 1 0.1 
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources 

M-2 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Study 

Year Resource 

Percent of Households Estimated Harvest 

Use Try to Harvest Harvest Give Receive NumberPercent of Total Harvest 

1

Total Pounds

2

Average HH Pounds Per Capita Pounds 

1992b3 All Resources - - - - - - 180,970 - - 100.0 

Salmon - - - - - 20 123 - - 0.1 

Non-Salmon Fish - 66 - - - 19,641 32,941 - - 18.2 

Large Land Mammals - - - - - 195 24,763 - - 13.7 

Small Land Mammals - - - - - 51 13 - - <0.1 

Marine Mammals - - - - - 77 120,287 - - 66.5 

Migratory Birds - 64 - - - 773 2,362 - - 1.3 

Upland Game Birds - - - - - 400 257 - - 0.1 

Eggs - - - - - 32 5 - - <0.1 

Vegetation - 50 - - - 56 219 - - 0.1 

1994-

95

All Resources - - - - - - 126,893 - - 100.0 

Salmon - - - - - 1 6 - - <0.1 

Non-Salmon Fish - - - - - 4,425 7,934 - - 6.3 

Large Land Mammals - - - - - 119 17,007 - - 13.4 

Small Land Mammals - - - - - 59 18 - - <0.1 

Marine Mammals - - - - - 46 100,725 - - 79.4 

Migratory Birds - - - - - 411 1,102 - - 0.9 

Upland Game Birds - - - - - 119 119 - - 0.1 

2002-

03

All Resources - - - - - - 104,777 - - 100.0 

Non-Salmon Fish - - - - - 2,363 4,784 - - 4.6 

Large Land Mammals - - - - - 130 17,104 - - 16.3 

Small Land Mammals - - - - - 56 20 - - <0.1 

Marine Mammals - - - - - 30 80,877 - - 77.2 

Migratory Birds - - - - - 536 1,585 - - 1.5 

Upland Game Birds - - - - - 370 370 - - 0.4 

Eggs - - - - - 30 5 - - <0.1 

Marine Invertebrates - - - - - 3 6 - - <0.1 

Vegetation - - - - - 9 27 - - <0.1 

2007 All Resources - - - - - 6,277 78,243 954 - 100.0 

Salmon - - - - - 5 14 <1 - <0.1 

Non- Salmon Fish - - - - - 5,086 7,592 93 - 9.7 

Large Land Mammals - - - - - 181 21,168 258 - 27.1 

Small Land Mammals - - - - - 31 14 <1 - <0.1 

Marine Mammals - - - - - 17 47,316 577 - 60.5 

Migratory Birds - - - - - 537 1,814 22 - 2.3 

Upland Game Birds - - - - - 199 139 2 - 0.2 

Bird Eggs - - - - - 43 13 <1 - <0.1 

Marine Invertebrates - - - - - - - - - - 

Vegetation - - - - - 179 173 2 - 0.2 
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources 

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program M-3 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Study 

Year Resource 

Percent of Households Estimated Harvest 

Use Try to Harvest Harvest Give Receive NumberPercent of Total Harvest 

1

Total Pounds

2

Average HH Pounds Per Capita Pounds 

2008 All Resources - - - - - 6,735 101,398 1,237 - 100.0 

Salmon - - - - - 11 34 <1 - <0.1 

Non- Salmon Fish - - - - - 5,364 12,000 146 - 11.8 

Large Land Mammals - - - - - 230 26,123 319 - 25.8 

Small Land Mammals - - - - - 47 2 <1 - <0.1 

Marine Mammals - - - - - 23 60,731 741 - 59.9 

Migratory Birds - - - - - 698 2,274 28 - 2.2 

Upland Game Birds - - - - - 155 155 2 - 0.2 

Bird Eggs - - - - - 170 44 1 - <0.1 

Marine Invertebrates - - - - - - - - - - 

Vegetation - - - - - 36 36 <1 - <0.1 

2009 All Resources - - - - - 4,796 126,628 1,472 - 100.0 

Salmon - - - - - 4 14 <1 - <0.1 

Non- Salmon Fish - - - - - 3,737 7,919 92 - 6.3 

Large Land Mammals - - - - - 202 23,050 268 - 18.2 

Small Land Mammals - - - - - 54 8 <1 - 0.0 

Marine Mammals - - - - - 22 93,638 1,089 - 73.9 

Migratory Birds - - - - - 397 1,632 19 - 1.3 

Upland Game Birds - - - - - 287 287 3 - 0.2 

Bird Eggs - - - - - 0 0 0 - 0.0 

Marine Invertebrates - - - - - - - - - - 

Vegetation - - - - - 93 82 1 - 0.1 

2010 All Resources - - - - - 1,870 79,231 990 - 100.0 

Salmon - - - - - 4 16 <1 - <0.1 

Non- Salmon Fish - - - - - 1,195 762 10 - 1.0 

Large Land Mammals - - - - - 143 16,105 201 - 20.3 

Small Land Mammals - - - - - 19 3 <1 - <0.1 

Marine Mammals - - - - - 12 61,474 768 - 77.6 

Migratory Birds - - - - - 151 596 7 - 0.8 

Upland Game Birds - - - - - 266 266 3 - 0.3 

Bird Eggs - - - - - 0 0 0 - 0.0 

Marine Invertebrates - - - - - - - - - - 

Vegetation - - - - - 81 9 <1 - <0.1 

2010-

11

All Resources 100 96 94 84 100 13,138 202,958 2,388 707 100.0 

Salmon 19 7 6 9 14 59 288 3 1 0.1 

Non- Salmon Fish 96 83 76 69 84 10,799 27,198 320 95 13.4 

Large Land Mammals 94 56 47 51 93 511 68,458 805 239 33.7 

Small Land Mammals 29 23 17 13 16 150 302 4 1 0.1 

Marine Mammals 99 91 89 69 97 59 103,108 1,213 359 50.8 

Migratory Birds 73 51 40 40 67 788 2,547 30 9 1.3 

Upland Game Birds 60 43 37 29 40 710 710 8 3 0.4 

Bird Eggs 1 1 1 1 0 7 5 0 0 0.0 

Marine Invertebrates 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 

Vegetation 46 29 19 21 41 55 342 4 1 0.2 
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources 

M-4 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Study 

Year Resource 

Percent of Households Estimated Harvest 

Use Try to Harvest Harvest Give Receive NumberPercent of Total Harvest 

1

Total Pounds

2

Average HH Pounds Per Capita Pounds 

20114 All Resources - - - - - 8,216 98,841 1,236 - 100.0 

Salmon - - - - - 1 6 <1 - <0.1 

Non- Salmon Fish - - - - - 7,390 16,837 210 - 17.0 

Large Land Mammals - - - - - 191 21,920 274 - 22.2 

Small Land Mammals - - - - - 6 3 <1 - <0.1 

Marine Mammals - - - - - 14 58,944 737 - 59.6 

Migratory Birds - - - - - 239 884 11 - 0.9 

Upland Game Birds - - - - - 127 127 2 - 0.1 

Bird Eggs - - - - - 65 18 <1 - <0.1 

Marine Invertebrates - - - - - - - - - - 

Vegetation - - - - - 183 102 1 - 0.1 

2012 All Resources - - - - - 5,806 133,258 1,666 - 100.0 

Salmon - - - - - 7 32 <1 - <0.1 

Non- Salmon Fish - - - - - 4,948 9,556 119 - 7.2 

Large Land Mammals - - - - - 169 20,099 251 - 15.1 

Small Land Mammals - - - - - 39 2 <1 - <0.1 

Marine Mammals - - - - - 9 102,278 1,278 - 76.8 

Migratory Birds - - - - - 434 1,089 14 - 0.8 

Upland Game Birds - - - - - 0 0 0 - 0.0 

Bird Eggs - - - - - 0 0 0 - 0.0 

Marine Invertebrates - - - - - - - - - - 

Vegetation - - - - - 202 202 3 - 0.2 

Sources: 1985, 1986 (ADFG 2018); 1992a (Pedersen 1995a); 1992b (Fuller and George 1999); 1994-95 (Brower, Olemaun, and 

Hepa 2000); 2002-03 (Bacon, Hepa, Brower, Pederson, Olemaun, George, and Corrigan 2009); 2007-2012 (Harcharek, 

Kayotuk, George, and Pederson 2018); 2010-11 (Kofinas, BurnSilver, Magdanz, Stotts, and Okada 2016). 

Notes: Sources: 2000-01, 2001-02 Pedersen and Linn 2005 

1Estimated numbers represent individuals in all cases except vegetation, where they represent gallons. 

2Estimated pounds include only edible pounds and therefore do not include estimates for resources, such as furbearers, that are 

not typically eaten by community residents. 

3Due to a low response rate during the NSB 1992b survey, these data should be viewed with caution. Household participation 

for the 1992b study year is based on Table A5 in Fuller and George (1999); participation in migratory bird harvests includes 

waterfowl and eggs; participation in vegetation harvests includes only berries; participation in non-salmon fish harvests is for fish 

in general. 

4The survey in 2011 consisted of only an 8-month survey, covering May through December 2011; therefore, estimates from 

2011 may not be directly comparable with other years that covered an entire year. The estimated harvest numbers for the 

1994-95 and 2002-03 data were derived by summing individual species in each resource category. Also, for those study years, 

total pounds were derived from conversion rates found at ADFG (2018) and total usable pounds for bowhead whales were 

calculated based on the method presented in (SRB&A and ISER 1993). These estimates do not account for whale girth and 

should be considered approximate; more exact methods for estimating total whale weights are available in George, Philo, 

Suydam, Carroll, and Albert, n.d. 

(Stephen R. Braund & Associates, 2018) 
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources 

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program M-5 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table M-2 

Kaktovik Subsistence Harvest Estimates by Resource Category, Non-Comprehensive 

Study Years 

Study 

Year Resource 

Percent of Households Estimated Harvest 

Use Try to Harvest Harvest Give Receive Number Total Pounds Average HH Pounds Per Capita Pounds 

2000-01 Non-Salmon Fish 61 43 38 36 52 3,137 5,970 35 11

2001-02 Non-Salmon Fish 76 55 47 33 47 5,036 9,748 55 19

(Stephen R. Braund & Associates 2018) 

Table M-3 

Kaktovik Subsistence Harvest Estimates by Selected Species, All Study Years 

Study 

Year Resource1

Percent of Households Estimated Harvest 

Use Try to Harvest Harvest Give Receive NumberPercent of Total Harvest 

2

Total Pounds

3

Average HH Pounds Per Capita Pounds 

1981-82 Caribou - - - - - 43 - - - - 

1982-83 Caribou - - - - - 160 - - - - 

1983-84 Caribou - - - - - 107 - - - - 

1985-86 Caribou - - - - - 235 - - - - 

1985 Caribou 95 76 69 67 86 235 27,941 527 149 45.3 

Arctic Char 100 86 81 41 69 3,075 8,611 162 46 14.0 

Ringed Seal 69 50 45 26 45 151 6,360 120 34 10.3 

Dall Sheep 79 29 21 21 74 47 4,622 87 25 7.5 

Bearded Seal 62 43 33 29 57 21 3,776 71 20 6.1 

Geese 71 62 57 38 43 647 2,913 55 15 4.7 

Cisco 79 60 55 29 62 3,546 2,482 47 13 4.0 

Moose 45 7 7 5 38 4 1,893 36 10 3.1 

Muskox 43 5 2 2 43 1 748 14 4 1.2 

Polar Bear 24 5 2 2 21 1 626 12 3 1.0 

Ptarmigan 86 74 69 45 43 867 607 11 3 1.0 

1986 Bowhead Whale 96 62 43 51 94 - 43,704 780 225 52.0 

Caribou 98 66 60 53 94 178 21,188 378 109 25.2 

Arctic Char 94 70 70 62 77 1,768 4,951 88 25 5.9 

Bearded Seal 75 34 26 23 64 17 2,936 52 15 3.5 

Ringed Seal 72 40 38 28 60 44 1,851 33 10 2.2 

Dall Sheep 75 15 9 9 68 17 1,710 31 9 2.0 

Cisco 85 53 53 45 79 2,402 1,682 30 9 2.0 

Muskox 68 4 4 4 66 2 1,413 25 7 1.7 

Geese 83 55 51 36 70 371 1,410 25 7 1.7 

Polar Bear 15 6 4 4 13 2 1,182 21 6 1.4 

1986-87 Caribou - - - - - 201 - - - - 

1987-88 Caribou - - 55 - - 185 22,229 383 104 - 
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources 

M-6 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Study 

Year Resource1

Percent of Households Estimated Harvest 

Use Try to Harvest Harvest Give Receive NumberPercent of Total Harvest 

2

Total Pounds

3

Average HH Pounds Per Capita Pounds 

19904 Caribou - - 48 - - 113 13,453 224 67 - 

1991 Caribou - - 50 - - 181 22,113 369 94 - 

1992a Bowhead Whale 87 53 6 62 85 - 108,160 1,717 560 63.3 

Caribou 96 70 55 53 75 158 19,136 304 99 11.2 

Arctic Char 92 81 79 66 45 5,523 15,463 245 80 9.0 

Bering Cisco8 77 62 62 57 45 8,103 5,672 90 29 3.3 

Dall Sheep 70 36 28 32 64 44 4,379 70 23 2.6 

Bearded Seal 75 47 28 32 60 24 4,246 67 22 2.5 

Muskox 53 21 9 17 51 5 3,179 50 16 1.9 

Geese 79 60 47 40 62 601 2,135 34 11 1.2 

Moose 36 11 6 9 32 4 2,011 32 10 1.2 

Ringed Seal 47 30 26 28 36 42 1,689 27 9 1.0 

1992b5 Bowhead Whale - 59 - - - 3 108,463 - - 59.9 

Arctic Char - - - - - 7,937 22,224 - - 12.3 

Caribou - 66 - - - 136 15,926 - - 8.8 

Arctic Cisco - - - - - - 7,143 - - 3.9 

Dall Sheep - - - - - 53 5,249 - - 2.9 

Walrus - 23 - - - 5 3,737 - - 2.1 

Musk Ox - - - - - 6 3,588 - - 2.0 

Bearded Seal - 62 - - - 17 2,998 - - 1.7 

Beluga - - - - - 2 2,761 - - 1.5 

Grayling - - - - - 3,299 2,639 - - 1.5 

Geese - - - - - 563 2,034 - - 1.1 

1994-95 Bowhead Whale - - - - - 3 88,688 - - 69.9 

Caribou - - - - - 78 10,608 - - 8.4 

Bearded Seal - - - - - 21 8,820 - - 7.0 

Dolly Varden - - - - - 1,875 6,188 - - 4.9 

Dall Sheep - - - - - 30 3,120 - - 2.5 

Muskox - - - - - 9 2,655 - - 2.1 

Arctic Cisco - - - - - 2,358 1,651 - - 1.3 

2000-01 Dolly Varden - - 35 - - 1,739 4,869 27 9 - 

Arctic Cisco - - 91 - - 1,361 953 32 9 - 

Lake Trout - - 4 - - 37 148 2 1 - 

2001-02 Dolly Varden - - 44 - - 2,649 7,418 41 14 - 

Arctic Cisco - - 38 - - 2,187 1,531 19 7 - 

Lake Trout - - 6 - - 200 800 10 3 - 

2002-03 Bowhead Whale - - - - - 3 75,515 - - 72.1 

Caribou - - - - - 112 15,232 - - 14.5 

Arctic Char - - - - - 1,162 3,834 - - 3.7 

Bearded Seal - - - - - 8 3,360 - - 3.2 

Dall Sheep - - - - - 18 1,872 - - 1.8 

Ringed Seal - - - - - 17 1,258 - - 1.2 
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources 

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program M-7 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Study 

Year Resource1

Percent of Households Estimated Harvest 

Use Try to Harvest Harvest Give Receive NumberPercent of Total Harvest 

2

Total Pounds

3

Average HH Pounds Per Capita Pounds 

2007 Bowhead Whale - - - - - 3 40,833 498 - 52.2 

Caribou - - - - - 181 21,168 258 - 27.1 

Beluga Whale - - - - - 6 5,934 72 - 7.6 

Dolly Varden - - - - - 1,658 4,643 57 - 5.9 

Arctic Cisco - - - - - 3,198 2,239 27 - 2.9 

2008 Bowhead Whale - - - - - 3 57,482 701 - 56.7 

Caribou - - - - - 185 21,586 263 - 21.3 

Dolly Varden - - - - - 3,921 10,980 134 - 10.8 

Dall Sheep - - - - - 45 4,425 54 - 4.4 

Polar Bear - - - - - 3 1,662 20 - 1.6 

Bearded Seal - - - - - 6 1,117 14 - 1.1 

2009 Bowhead Whale - - - - - 3 88,488 1029 - 69.9 

Caribou - - - - - 170 19,872 231 - 15.7 

Dolly Varden - - - - - 2,449 6,857 80 - 5.4 

Bearded Seal - - - - - 15 2,915 34 - 2.3 

Dall Sheep - - - - - 29 2,886 34 - 2.3 

Beluga Whale - - - - - 2 1,450 17 - 1.1 

White-Fronted 

Geese 

 - - - - - 274 1,234 14 - 1.0 

2010 Bowhead Whale - - - - - 3 53,167 665 - 67.1 

Caribou - - - - - 115 13,458 168 - 17.0 

Beluga Whale - - - - - 8 8,075 101 - 10.2 

Dall Sheep - - - - - 16 1,612 20 - 2.0 

Black Bear6- - - - - 12 1,035 13 - 1.3 

2010-11 Bowhead 97 90 89 60 94 3 78,662 925 274 38.8 

Caribou 94 53 46 51 93 429 58,305 686 203 28.7 

Dolly Varden 94 79 76 64 77 6,333 20,898 246 73 10.3 

Beluga 76 30 26 30 74 15 10,318 121 36 5.1 

Bearded Seal 57 28 17 24 54 24 10,165 120 35 5.0 

Dall Sheep 76 14 14 0 73 78 8,089 95 28 4.0 

Broad Whitefish 43 26 20 20 29 1,148 3,729 44 13 1.8 

Geese 70 49 40 37 60 701 2,272 27 8 1.1 

Moose 16 9 4 4 13 4 1,960 23 7 1.0 

2011 7 Bowhead Whale - - - - - 3 57,661 721 - 58.3

Caribou - - - - - 170 19,909 249 - 20.1

Dolly Varden - - - - - 5,440 15,232 190 - 15.4

Dall Sheep - - - - - 20 2,011 25 - 2.0

Bering Cisco8- - - - - 1,093 1,093 14 - 1.1

Bearded Seal - - - - - 5 1,016 13 - 1.0

2012 Bowhead Whale - - - - - 3 100,968 1,262 - 75.8

Caribou - - - - - 155 18,145 227 - 13.6

Dolly Varden - - - - - 2,861 8,010 100 - 6.0

2015 Caribou - 52 - - - 303 35,451 - - - 

Sources: 1981-82, 1982-83 (Pedersen and Coffing 1984); 1983-84 (Coffing and Pedersen 1985); 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88 

(Pedersen 1990); 1985, 1986, 1990, 1991, (ADFG 2018); 1992a (Pedersen 1995a); 1992b (Fuller and George 1999); 1994-95 

(Brower et al. 2000); and 2000-01, 2001-02 (Pedersen and Linn 2005); 2002-03 (Bacon et al. 2009); 2007-2012 (Harcharek et al. 

2018); 2010-11 (Kofinas et al. 2016); 2015 (SRB&A 2017a). 
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources

M-8 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Notes:

1Except in the case of ducks and geese, which are lumped into more general species categories, this table shows individual 

species, unless they are not available for a given study year. 

2Estimated numbers represent individuals in all cases except vegetation, where they represent gallons.

3Estimated pounds include only edible pounds and therefore do not include estimates for resources, such as furbearers, that are 

not typically eaten by community residents. 

4Per capita pounds may be underestimated.

5Data should be viewed with caution due to a low response rate. Household participation for the 1992b study year was based 

on Table A5 in Fuller and George (1999). Bearded seal participation rates include all species of seal.

6Probably misreported and should be brown bear (Akłaq).

7The survey in 2011 consisted of only an 8-month survey, covering May through December 2011; therefore, estimates from 

2011 may not be directly comparable with other years that covered an entire year. For All Resources study years (1985, 1986, 

1992a, 1992b, 1994-95, 2002-03), species are listed in descending order by percent of total harvest and are limited to species 

accounting for at least 1.0 percent of the total harvest; for single-resource study years, species are listed in descending order by 

total estimated pounds (or total number harvested, in the case of salmon study years) and limited to the five top species. Years 

lacking "% of total harvest" data were not comprehensive (i.e., all resources) study years). 

8Reports of Bering cisco harvests in 1992 and 2011 may be incorrect, as Bering cisco are rare in the Kaktovik area. The data 

are likely referencing Arctic cisco. The estimated harvest numbers for the 1994-95 and 2002-03 data were derived by summing 

individual species in each resource category. Also, for those study years, total pounds were derived from conversion rates 

found at (ADFG 2018) and total (usable) pounds for bowhead whales were calculated based on the method presented in 

SRB&A and ISER (1993). These estimates do not account for whale girth and should be considered approximate; more exact 

methods for estimating total whale weights are available in George et al., n.d. 

(Stephen R. Braund & Associates 2018)
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources 

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program M-9 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

M.1.2 Seasonal Round 

Table M-4 

Kaktovik Annual Cycle of Subsistence Activities 

Resources Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Freshwater Non-Salmon 

Marine Non-Salmon 

Salmon 

Caribou 

Moose 

Bear 

Sheep 

Muskox 

Furbearers 

Small Land Mammals 

Marine Mammals 

Upland Birds 

Waterfowl 

Eggs 

Marine Invertebrates 

Plants and Berries 

Total Number of Resources Categories by Month 8 7 10 11 10 8 11 16 12 11 11 8 

Sources: 2002-03 (Bacon et al. 2009); 1994-95 (Brower et al. 2000); 2004 (EDAW Inc., Consulting, Research, Callaway, Associates, and Economics 2008); 1992 (Fuller and 

George 1999); (Kofinas et al. 2016); pre-1989 (Pedersen, Haynes, and Wolfe 1991); 2000-01 (Pedersen and Linn 2005); 1996-2006 (SRB&A 2010); 2007-2012 (Harcharek et al. 

2018) 

 Subsistence activity 
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources

M-10 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

M.1.3 Travel Method

Table M-5

Kaktovik Travel Method to Subsistence Use Areas

Resources Boat Snowmachine Foot Car/Truck ATV

Arctic Cisco 5 1 3 2 4

Burbot 5 4 4 0 0

Arctic Char/Dolly Varden 

and Broad Whitefish 5 4 2 1 3

Broad Whitefish 5 3 2 2 4

Caribou 5 4 3 0 2

Moose 5 0 0 0 0

Wolf and Wolverine 4 5 0 0 0

Bowhead Whale 5 0 0 0 0

Seals 5 4 0 0 0

Walrus 5 0 0 0 0

Geese 4 5 3 0 3

Eider 4 5 3 0 2

Total Number of 

Resources Targeted 12 9 7 3 6

Sources: 1996-2006 (SRB&A 2010) 

Note: For each resource, darker shades indicate greater use of that travel method and lighter shades indicate 

lesser use of a travel method. The shades have been given a value of 0 – 5, 0 being the lightest and 5 the darkest.

M.1.4 Resource Importance

Table M-6

Material and Cultural Importance of Subsistence Resources, Kaktovik

Resource 

Level Resource1

Cultural Importance Material Importance

Percent of Households Percent of Total 

Try to Harvest Receive Harvest

Major 

Resources2

Bearded Seal 38 59 2.6

Bering Cisco362 45 2.2

Bowhead Whale662 89 56.6

Caribou 66 93 21.6

Dall Sheep 24 70 2.9

Dolly Varden and Arctic Char 79 67 7.4

Ptarmigan 60 47 0.4

Wood 64 21 -

Moderate 

Resources4

Arctic Cisco 17 16 1.2

Arctic Fox 14 1 -

Arctic Grayling 11 13 0.2

Belukha/Beluga 12 38 2.6

Blueberry 20 22 <.1

Broad Whitefish 8 25 0.3

Canada Geese 48 46 0.3
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources 

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program M-11

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Resource 

Level 1 Resource

Cultural Importance Material Importance

Percent of Households

Try to Harvest Receive

Percent of Total 

Harvest

Moderate 4 Resources

(continued)

Common Eider 19 15 0.1

Cranberry 21 33 0.1

King Eider 13 10 <.1

Lake Trout 13 24 0.3

Least Cisco 9 13 0.1

Long-Tailed Duck (Oldsquaw) 22 17 <.1

Moose 8 37 1.3

Muskox 8 40 1.5

Polar Bear 4 12 0.8

Ringed Seal 38 36 1.5

Saffron Cod 16 1 <.1

Salmonberry/Cloudberry 21 33 0.1

Snow Geese 17 9 <.1

Squirrel 28 16 0.1

Walrus 8 31 0.6

Whitefronted Geese 30 26 0.5

Wolf 11 2 -

Wolverine 13 2 -

Minor 5 ResourcesBird Eggs 6 6 <.1

Brown Bear 3 6 0.2

Halibut 1 9 0.2

Humpback Whitefish - 5 <.1

Red Fox 9 1 -

Spotted Seal 9 5 0.2

Sources: 1981-82, 1982-83 (Pedersen and Coffing 1984); 1983-84 (Coffing and Pedersen 1985); 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88 

(Pedersen 1990); 1985, 1986, 1990, 1991, (ADFG 2018); 1992a (Pedersen 1995a); 1992b (Fuller and George 1999); 1994-95 

(Brower et al. 2000); and 2000-01, 2001-02 (Pedersen and Linn 2005); 2002-03 (Bacon et al. 2009); 2007-2012 (Harcharek et al. 

2018); 2010-11 (Kofinas et al. 2016); 2015 (SRB&A 2017a) 

Notes: 

1Resources that contributed an average of less than 1 percent of harvest, less than 5 percent attempting harvests, and less than 

5 percent receiving harvests are categorized as minor and are not shown. 

2Major resources contribute > 9 percent total harvest, have ≥ 50 percent of households attempting harvest, or have ≥ 50 

percent of households receiving a resource. 

3Reports of Bering cisco harvests in 1992 and 2011 may be incorrect, as Bering cisco are rare in the Kaktovik area. The data 

are likely referencing Arctic cisco. 

4Moderate resources contribute 2 to 9 percent of total harvest, have 11 to 49 percent of households attempting harvest, or 

have 11 to 49 percent of households receiving a resource. 

5Minor resources contribute < 2 percent of total harvest, have ≤ 10 percent of households attempting harvest, or have ≤ 10 

percent of households receiving a resource. 

6Averages include unsuccessful bowhead whale harvest years. 
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources 

M-12 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

M.2 NUIQSUT

M.2.1 Harvest Data 

Table M-7 

Nuiqsut Subsistence Harvest Estimates by Resource Category, All Resources Study Years 

Study 

Year Resource 

Percent of Households Estimated Harvest 

Use Try to Harvest Harvest Give Receive Number* Total Pounds** Average HH Pounds Per Capita Pounds 

Percent of Total Harvest 

1985 All Resources 100 98 98 95 100 - 160,035 2,106 399 100.0 

Salmon 60 43 40 23 23 441 1,366 18 3 0.9 

Non-Salmon Fish 100 93 93 83 75 67,712 69,243 911 173 43.3 

Large Land Mammals 98 90 90 80 70 536 67,621 890 169 42.3 

Small Land Mammals 65 63 58 23 13 688 245 3 1 0.2 

Marine Mammals 100 48 23 30 100 59 13,355 176 33 8.3 

Migratory Birds 90 90 85 60 55 1,733 6,626 87 17 4.1 

Upland Game Birds 88 88 88 58 13 1,957 1,370 18 3 0.9 

Bird Eggs 25 25 23 8 10 262 40 1 <1 <0.1 

Vegetation 38 50 18 10 20 - 169 2 <1 0.1 

1992*** All Resources - - - - - - 150,195 - - 100.0 

Salmon - - - - - 6 65 - - 0.0 

Non-Salmon Fish - 74 - - - 36,701 51,890 - - 34.5 

Large Land Mammals - - - - - 299 41,386 - - 27.6 

Small Land Mammals - - - - - 46 1 - - 0.0 

Marine Mammals - - - - - 49 52,865 - - 35.2 

Migratory Birds - - - - - 1,105 3,655 - - 2.4 

Upland Game Birds - - - - - 378 265 - - 0.2 

Eggs - - - - - 25 4 - - <0.1 

Vegetation - 32 - - - - 66 - - <0.1 

1993 All Resources 100 94 90 92 98 - 267,818 2,943 742 100.0 

Salmon 71 45 36 39 47 272 1,009 11 3 0.4 

Non-Salmon Fish 97 79 79 87 90 71,626 89,481 983 248 33.4 

Large Land Mammals 98 76 74 82 92 691 87,306 959 242 32.6 

Small Land Mammals 53 45 42 27 18 599 84 1 <1 <0.1 

Marine Mammals 97 58 37 79 97 113 85,216 936 236 31.8 

Migratory Birds 87 74 73 63 65 2,238 3,540 39 10 1.3 

Upland Game Birds 60 45 45 42 26 973 681 7 2 0.3 

Eggs 40 21 19 15 23 346 104 1 <1 <0.1 

Vegetation 79 71 71 27 40 - 396 4 1 0.1 
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources 

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program M-13

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Study 

Year Resource 

Percent of Households Estimated Harvest 

Use Try to Harvest Harvest Give Receive Number* Total Pounds** Average HH Pounds Per Capita Pounds 

Percent of Total Harvest 

1994-

95**** 

All Resources - - - - - - 83,228 - - 100.0 

Salmon - - - - - 10 31 - - <0.1 

Non-Salmon Fish - - - - - 15,190 46,569 - - 56.0 

Large Land Mammals - - - - - 263 32,686 - - 39.3 

Small Land Mammals - - - - - 42 0 - - 0.0 

Marine Mammals - - - - - 25 1,504 - - 1.8 

Migratory Birds - - - - - 569 2,289 - - 2.8 

Upland Game Birds - - - - - 58 58 - - 0.1 

Vegetation - - - - - 14 91 - - 0.1 

1995-96 All Resources - - - - - - 183,576 - - 100.0 

Salmon - - - - - 42 131 - - 0.1 

Non-Salmon Fish - - - - - 10,612 16,822 - - 9.2 

Large Land Mammals - - - - - 364 43,554 - - 23.7 

Small Land Mammals - - - - - 27 0 - - 0.0 

Marine Mammals - - - - - 178 120,811 - - 65.8 

Migratory Birds - - - - - 683 2,166 - - 1.2 

Upland Birds - - - - - 19 13 - - <0.1 

Vegetation - - - - - 12 78 - - <0.1 

2000-01 All Resources - - - - - - 183,246 - - 100.0 

Salmon - - - - - 10 75 - - <0.1 

Non-Salmon Fish - - - - - 26,545 27,933 - - 15.2 

Large Land Mammals - - - - - 504 62,171 - - 33.9 

Small Land Mammals - - - - - 108 2 - - <0.1 

Marine Mammals - - - - - 31 87,929 - - 48.0 

Migratory Birds - - - - - 1,192 5,108 - - 2.8 

Upland Birds - - - - - 23 16 - - <0.1 

Vegetation - - - - - 2 13 - - <0.1 

2014 All Resources 100 95 90 91 97 - 371,992 3,444 896 100.0 

Salmon 64 41 40 31 35 - 3,889 36 9 1.0 

Non-Salmon Fish 93 78 71 72 71 - 85,106 788 205 22.9 

Large Land Mammals 91 66 64 67 72 - 108,359 1,003 261 29.1 

Small Land Mammals 17 16 10 2 7 - 0 0 0 0.0 

Marine Mammals 95 55 40 71 95 - 169,367 1,568 408 45.5 

Migratory Birds 79 71 66 52 38 - 4,742 44 11 1.3 

Upland Birds 16 12 12 9 5 - 78 1 <1 <0.1 

Vegetation 67 55 53 21 38 - 414 4 1 0.1 

Sources: 1985 (ADFG 2018); 1992 (Fuller and George 1999); 1993 (Pedersen 1995b); 1994-95 (Brower and Hepa 1998); 1995-

96, 2000-01 (Bacon et al. 2009); 2014 (Brown, Braem, Mikow, Trainor, Slayton, Runfola, Ikuta, Kostick, McDevitt, Park, and 

Simon 2016). 

Notes: 

*Estimated numbers represent individuals in all cases except vegetation, where they represent gallons. 

**Estimated pounds include only edible pounds and therefore do not include estimates for resources, such as furbearers, that 

are not typically eaten by community residents. 

***The estimated pounds of moose harvested in 1992 is likely too high (Fuller and George 1999). 
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources 

M-14 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

****The 1994-95 study year underrepresents the harvest of Arctic cisco and humpback whitefish (Brower and Hepa 1998). 

Nuiqsut did not successfully harvest a bowhead whale in 1994-95. 

The estimated harvest numbers for the 1994-95, 1995-96 and 2000-01 data were derived by summing individual species in each 

resource category. Also for those study years, total pounds were derived from conversion rates found at ADFG (2018), and 

total usable pounds for bowhead whales were calculated based on the method presented in SRB&A and ISER (1993). These 

estimates do not account for whale girth and should be considered approximate; more exact methods for estimating total 

whale weights are available in George et al., n.d. 

(Stephen R. Braund & Associates 2018) 

Table M-8 

Nuiqsut Subsistence Harvest Estimates by Selected Species, All Study Years 

Study 

Year Resource* 

Percent of Households Estimated Harvest 

Percent of Total HarvestUse Try to Harvest Harvest Give Receive Number** Total Pounds*** Average HH Pounds Per Capita Pounds 

1985 Caribou 98 90 90 80 60 513 60,021 790 150 37.5 

Cisco 98 75 73 65 60 46,478 29,354 386 73 18.3 

Broad Whitefish 95 80 78 70 40 7,900 26,861 353 67 16.8 

Bowhead Whale 100 23 5 8 100 0 7,458 98 19 4.7 

Moose 40 40 18 20 25 13 6,650 88 17 4.2 

White-Fronted 

Geese 

90 90 85 55 48 1,340 6,028 79 15 3.8 

Arctic Grayling 78 65 63 48 35 4,055 3,650 48 9 2.3 

Humpback Whitefish 48 45 38 33 13 4,345 3,476 46 9 2.2 

Arctic Char 75 63 60 33 35 1,060 2,969 39 7 1.9 

Burbot 75 60 60 43 33 669 2,675 35 7 1.7 

Bearded Seal 48 25 15 15 35 15 2,675 35 7 1.7 

Ringed Seal 53 25 18 23 40 40 1,676 22 4 1.0 

1992 Bowhead Whale - - - - - 2 48,715 - - 32.4 

Caribou - 81 - - - 278 32,551 - - 21.7 

Arctic Cisco - - - - - 22,391 22,391 - - 14.9 

Broad Whitefish - - - - - 6,248 15,621 - - 10.4 

Moose**** - - - - - 18 8,835 - - 5.9 

Humpback Whitefish - - - - - 1,802 4,504 - - 3.0 

Arctic Char - - - - - 1,544 4,324 - - 2.9 

Bearded Seal - - - - - 16 2,760 - - 1.8 

Arctic Grayling - - - - - 3,114 2,491 - - 1.7 

Canada Geese - - - - - 319 1,437 - - 1.0 

1993 Caribou 98 74 74 79 79 672 82,169 903 228 30.7 

Bowhead Whale 97 37 5 76 97 3 76,906 845 213 28.7 

Broad Whitefish 90 66 66 65 66 12,193 41,455 456 115 15.5 

Arctic Cisco 89 69 68 81 60 45,237 31,666 348 88 11.8 

Ringed Seal 65 42 31 40 55 98 7,277 80 20 2.7 

Burbot 79 63 57 53 55 1,416 5,949 65 16 2.2 

Moose 69 47 10 29 63 9 4,403 48 12 1.6 

Arctic Grayling 79 69 65 44 27 4,515 4,063 45 11 1.5 

Least Cisco 63 52 47 36 27 6,553 3,277 36 9 1.2 
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources 

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program M-15

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Study 

Year Resource* 

Percent of Households Estimated Harvest 

Percent of Total HarvestUse Try to Harvest Harvest Give Receive Number** Total Pounds*** Average HH Pounds Per Capita Pounds 

1994-

95***** 

Broad Whitefish - - - - - 3,237 37,417 - - 45.0 

Caribou - - - - - 258 30,186 - - 36.3 

Arctic Cisco - - - - - 9,842 6,889 - - 8.3 

Moose - - - - - 5 2,500 - - 3.0 

Geese Unidentified - - - - - 474 2,133 - - 2.6 

Ringed Seal - - - - - 24 1,008 - - 1.2 

1995-96 Bowhead Whale - - - - - 4 110,715 - - 60.3 

Caribou - - - - - 362 42,354 - - 23.1 

Broad Whitefish - - - - - 2,863 9,735 - - 5.3 

Ringed Seal - - - - - 155 6,527 - - 3.6 

Arctic Cisco - - - - - 5,030 3,521 - - 1.9 

Bearded Seal - - - - - 17 2,974 - - 1.6 

Least Cisco - - - - - 1,804 1,804 - - 1.0 

1999-00 Caribou - - - - - 413 - - 112 - 

2000-01 Bowhead Whale - - - - - 4 86220 - - 47.1 

Caribou - - - - - 496 57,985 - - 31.6 

Arctic Cisco - - - - - 18,222 12,755 - - 7.0 

Broad Whitefish - - - - - 2,968 10,092 - - 5.5 

White-fronted Geese - - - - - 787 3,543 - - 1.9 

Moose - - - - - 6 3,000 - - 1.6 

2002-03 Caribou 95 47 45 49 80 397 - - 118 - 

2003-04 Caribou 97 74 70 81 81 564 - - 157 - 

2004-05 Caribou 99 62 61 81 96 546 - - 147 - 

2005-06 Caribou 100 60 59 97 96 363 - - 102 - 

2006-07 Caribou 97 77 74 66 69 475 - - 143 - 

2010 Caribou 94 86 76 - - 562 65,754 707 - - 

2011 Caribou 92 70 56 49 58 437 51,129 544 134 - 

2012 Caribou 99 68 62 65 79 501 58,617 598 147 - 

2013 Caribou 95 79 63 62 75 586 68,534 692 166 - 

2014 Bowhead 93 29 21 57 91 5 148,087 1,371 357 39.8 

Caribou 90 66 64 67 59 774 105,193 974 253 28.3 

Broad Whitefish 72 60 59 52 40 11,439 36,605 339 88 9.8 

Arctic Cisco 83 52 48 59 53 46,277 32,394 300 78 8.7 

Bearded Seal 67 38 22 40 62 13,846 13,846 128 33 3.7 

Least Cisco 33 28 28 19 7 13,332 9,333 86 22 2.5 

Ringed Seal 52 40 35 38 33 108 6,156 57 15 1.7 

2015 Caribou 96 84 78 74 72 628 73,527 728 180 - 

Sources: 1985 (ADFG 2018); 1992 (Fuller and George 1999); 1993 (Pedersen 1995b); 1994-95 (Brower and Hepa 1998); 1995-

96, 2000-01 (Bacon et al. 2009); 1999-00, 2002-2007 (Braem et al. 2011); 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 (SRB&A 2012, 2013, 2014, 

2015); 2014 (Brown et al. 2016); 2015 (SRB&A 2017b) 

Notes: 

*This table shows individual species unless they are not available for a given study year. 

**Estimated numbers represent individuals in all cases except vegetation, where they represent gallons. 

***Estimated pounds include only edible pounds and therefore do not include estimates for resources, such as furbearers, that 

are not typically eaten by community residents. 

 The estimated pounds of moose harvested in 1992 is likely too high (Fuller and George 1999). 
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources

M-16 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

** ***The 1994-95 study year underrepresents the harvest of Arctic cisco and humpback whitefish (Brower and Hepa 1998); 

Nuiqsut did not successfully harvest a bowhead whale in 1994-95.

For All Resources study years (1985, 1992, 1993, 1994-95, 1995-96, 2000-01), species are listed in descending order by percent 

of total harvest and are limited to species accounting for at least 1.0 percent of the total harvest; for single-resource study 

years, species are listed in descending order by total estimated pounds (or total number harvested, in the case of salmon study 

years) and are limited to the five top species. Years lacking percent of total harvest data were not comprehensive study years 

for all resources. 

The estimated harvest numbers for the 1992, 1994-95, 1995-96 and 2000-01 data were derived by summing individual species 

in each resource category. Also, for those study years, total pounds were derived from conversion rates found at ADFG 

(2018). Total usable pounds for bowhead whales were calculated based on the method presented in SRB&A and ISER (1993). 

These estimates do not account for whale girth and should be considered approximate; more exact methods for estimating 

total whale weights are available in George et al., n.d. For the 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2010-11 

study years, total pounds were derived from conversion rates from Braem, Kaleak, Koster, Leavitt, Neakok, Patkotak, 

Pedersen, and Simon 2011. 

(Stephen R. Braund & Associates 2018)
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources 

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program M-17

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

M.2.2 Seasonal Round 

Table M-9 

Nuiqsut Annual Cycle of Subsistence Activities 

Resources Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Freshwater Non-Salmon 

Marine Non-Salmon 

Salmon 

Caribou 

Moose 

Bear 

Muskox 

Furbearers 

Small Land Mammals 

Marine Mammals 

Upland Birds 

Waterfowl 

Eggs 

Plants and Berries 

Total Number of 

Resource Categories by 

Month 

6 5 6 7 9 10 10 12 11 10 8 8 

Sources: 1995-96, 2000-01 (Bacon et al. 2009); 2002-2007 (Braem et al. 2011); 1994-95 (Brower and Hepa 1998); Pre-1979 (Brown 1979); 2014 (Brown et al. 2016); 2004 

(EDAW Inc. et al. 2008); 1992 (Fuller and George 1999); 2001-2012 (Galginaitis 2014); 1988 (Hoffman, Libbey, and Spearman 1988); 1979 (Libbey, Spearman, and Hoffman 

1979); 1995-2006 (SRB&A 2010); 2008-2015 (SRB&A 2017b) 

 Limited activity and/or harvests Moderate activity and/or harvests High activity and/or harvests 
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources

M-18 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

M.2.3 Travel Method

Table M-10

Nuiqsut Travel Method to Subsistence Use Areas

Resources Boat Snowmachine Foot Car/Truck ATV Plane

Arctic Cisco and Burbot 3 5 2 4 0 0

Arctic Char and Dolly 

Varden and Broad 

Whitefish

5 4 3 0 0 0

Caribou 5 4 0 2 4 0

Moose 5 0 4 0 0 0

Wolf and Wolverine 4 5 0 0 0 4

Bowhead Whale 5 0 0 0 0 0

Seals 5 4 0 0 0 0

Geese 4 5 3 1 2 0

Eider 5 4 0 0 0 0

Total Number of 

Resources Targeted 9 7 4 3 2 1

Sources: 1995-2006 (SRB&A 2010), 2008-2015 (SRB&A 2017b).

Notes: For each resource, darker shades indicate greater use of that travel method; lighter shades indicate lesser use of a travel 

method. The shades have been given a value of 0 – 5, 0 being the lightest and 5 the darkest. Caribou based on SRB&A 2017; all 

others based on SRB&A 2010a.

M.2.4 Resource Importance

Table M-11

Material and Cultural Importance of Subsistence Resources, Nuiqsut

Resource 

Level Resource

Cultural Importance Material Importance

Percent of Households Percent of Total 

Harvest Trying to 

Harvest Receiving

Major 

Resources2

Arctic Cisco 61 57 8.8

Arctic Grayling 50 24 1.0

Bearded Seal 32 50 1.6

Bowhead Whale530 96 30.4

Broad Whitefish 69 49 15.5

Burbot 51 35 1.0

Caribou 73 75 29.9

Cloudberry 55 29 0.0

White Fronted Geese 62 36 1.4

Wood 50 3.2 0.0

Moderate 

Resources3

Arctic Char 38 22 0.9

Arctic Fox 14 1 0.0

Beluga 2 24 0.0

Bird Eggs 16 12 0.0

Blueberries 29 16 0.0

Brant 17 9 0.1

Brown Bear 14 18 0.2

Canada Geese 42 24 0.4

Chum Salmon 23 11 0.6
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources 

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program M-19

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Resource 

Level Resource

Cultural Importance Material Importance

Percent of Households

Trying to Receiving Harvest

Percent of Total 

Harvest

Moderate 3 Resources

(continued)

Ground Squirrel 45 8 0.1

Humpback Whitefish 26 9 1.0

King Eider 24 19 0.0

Least Cisco 40 17 1.1

Long-Tailed Duck 8 13 0.0

Moose 40 41 2.5

Pink Salmon 28 17 0.4

Polar Bear 7 29 0.2

Ptarmigan 48 15 0.2

Rainbow Smelt 13 22 0.1

Red Fox 22 2 0.0

Ringed Seal 36 43 1.6

Snow Geese 19 7 0.0

Spotted Seal 13 5 0.1

Walrus 7 43 0.2

Wolf 18 6 0.0

Wolverine 22 5 0.0

Minor 4 ResourcesArctic Cod 7 7 0.0

Chinook Salmon 2 9 0.0

Coho Salmon 3 5 0.0

Common Eider Duck 7 3 0.1

Cranberries 9 5 0.0

Crowberries 7 2 0.0

Dall Sheep - 9 0.0

Dolly Varden 10 3 0.4

Lake Trout 3 8 0.0

Muskox - 8 0.3

Northern Pike 7 7 0.0

Northern Pintail 5 1.6 0.0

Round Whitefish 5 1 0.1

Saffron Cod 7 - 0.0

Sheefish - 6 0.0

Sockeye Salmon 3 6 0.0

Sourdock 5 7 0.0

Weasel 5 - 0.0

Sources: 1985 (ADFG 2018); 1992 (Fuller and George 1999); 1993 (Pedersen 1995b); 1994-95 (Brower and Hepa 1998); 1995-

96, 2000-01 (Bacon et al. 2009); 1999-00, 2002-2007 (Braem et al. 2011); 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 (SRB&A 2012, 2013, 2014, 

2015); 2014 (Brown et al. 2016); 2015 (SRB&A 2017)

Notes: 

1Resources that contributed an average of less than 1 percent of harvest, less than 5 percent attempting harvests, and less than 

5 percent receiving harvests are categorized as minor and are not be shown. 

2Major resources contribute > 9 percent total harvest, have ≥ 50 percent of households attempting harvest, or have ≥ 50 

percent of households receiving resource. 

3Moderate resources contribute 2 to 9 percent of total harvest, have 11 to 49 percent of households attempting harvest, or 

have 11 to 49 percent of households receiving resource. 

4Minor resources contribute < 2 percent of total harvest, have ≤ 10 percent of households attempting harvest, or have ≤ 10 

percent of households receiving resource. 

5Averages include unsuccessful bowhead whale harvest years. 
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources 

M-20 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

M.3 ARCTIC VILLAGE

M.3.1 Harvest Data 

Table M-12

Arctic Village Subsistence Harvest Estimates by Resource Category, Non-Comprehensive 

Study Years 

Study Year Resource 

Percent of Households Estimated Harvest 

Use Try to Harvest Harvest Give Receive Number Total Pounds Average HH Pounds Per Capita Pounds 

2000 Migratory Birds 87 46 52 37 39 437 820 16 6 

2001 Non-Salmon Fish 63 - 63 24 28 4,754 9,923 102 34

2002 Non-Salmon Fish 80 - 42 21 42 7,676 18,416 181 67

Sources: 2000 (Andersen and Jennings 2001); 2001-02, 2002-03 (Adams, Tanner, and Nelson 2005) 

(Stephen R. Braund & Associates, 2018) 

Table M-13

Arctic Village Subsistence Harvest Estimates by Selected Species, All Study Years 

Study Year Resource* 

Percent of Households Estimated Harvest Use Try to Harvest Harvest Give Receive Number** Total Pounds*** Average HH Pounds 

Per Capita Pounds Percent of Total Harvest 

2000 Scoter - - - - - 187 370 7 3 - 

Scaup - - - - - 71 118 2 1 - 

Long-tailed Duck (Oldsquaw) - - - - - 67 100 2 1 - 

Mallard - - - - - 49 95 2 1 - 

White-fronted Geese - - - - - 10 43 1 <1 - 

2001 Broad Whitefish 12 - 12 8 5 990 3,958 39 14 - 

Humpback Whitefish 17 - 17 10 7 1,685 3,538 38 12 - 

Grayling 47 - 47 13 20 1,257 1,257 13 4 - 

Northern Pike 18 - 18 7 5 187 562 6 2 - 

Lake Trout 9 - 9 2 0 212 212 4 1 - 

2002 Humpback Whitefish 28 10 4 20 3,987 8,373 84 30 - 

Broad Whitefish 40 16 10 26 1,673 6,691 65 24 - 

Northern Pike 20 18 11 2 598 1,793 18 7 - 

Grayling 32 29 8 5 857 857 9 3 - 

Unknown Whitefish 2 1 0 1 188 328 3 1 - 

Sources: 2000 (Andersen and Jennings 2001); 2001-02, 2002-03 (Adams et al. 2005) 

Notes: For single-resource study years, species are listed in descending order by total estimated pounds and limited to the five 

top species. Years lacking percent of total harvest data were not comprehensive study years for all resources. 
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program M-21

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Notes: 

*This table shows individual species unless they are not available for a given study year.

**Estimated numbers represent individuals in all cases except vegetation, where they represent gallons.

***Estimated pounds include only edible pounds and therefore do not include estimates for resources, such as furbearers, that 

are not typically eaten by community residents.

(Stephen R. Braund & Associates, 2018)
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources 

M-22 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

M.3.2 Seasonal Round 

Table M-14

Arctic Village Annual Cycle of Subsistence Activities 

Resources Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Fish 

Caribou 

Moose 

Sheep 

Furbearers 

Small Land Mammals 

Waterfowl 

Vegetation (Wood) 

Total Number of 

Resource Categories by 

Month 

5 5 6 3 4 3 3 6 6 5 7 6 

Sources: 1970-82 (Caulfield 1983); 2000 (Andersen and Jennings 2001) 

 Low to medium levels of activity; High levels of activity 

M.3.3 Resource Importance 

Data to calculate resources of importance for Arctic Village are not available. This is because there have 

been no comprehensive household harvest surveys conducted for that community; however, based on 

existing literature and statements from community members during scoping and elsewhere, the 

assumption is that caribou is a resource of primary subsistence, economic, cultural, and spiritual 

importance for the community of Arctic Village. 
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources 

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program M-23

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

M.4 VENETIE

M.4.1 Harvest Data 

Table M-15

Venetie Subsistence Harvest Estimates by Resource Category, All Resources Study Years 

Study 

Year Resource 

Percent of Households Estimated Harvest 

Use Try to Harvest Harvest Give Receive Number* Total Pounds** Average HH Pounds Per Capita Pounds Percent of Total Harvest 

2009 All Resources 99 86 81 - - 13,344 74,602 794 274 100.0 

Salmon 76 37 26 - - 2,742 20,775 221 76 27.8 

Non-Salmon Fish 81 67 63 - - 6,348 6,745 72 25 9.0 

Large Land Mammals 94 63 33 - - 159 36,977 393 136 49.6 

Small Land Mammals 56 44 43 - - 1,632 3,126 33 12 4.2 

Marine Mammals 18 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0.0 

Migratory Birds 79 57 55 - - 2,134 5,501 59 20 7.4 

Upland Game Birds 20 31 16 - - 119 119 1 0 0.2 

Vegetation 67 46 43 - - 210 1,360 15 5 1.8 

Source: 2009 (Kofinas et al. 2016) 

(Stephen R. Braund & Associates, 2018) 

Table M-16

Venetie Subsistence Harvest Estimates by Resource Category, Non-Comprehensive Study 

Years 

Study 

Year Resource 

Percent of Households Estimated Harvest 

Use Try to Harvest Harvest Give Receive Number Total Pounds Average HH Pounds Per Capita Pounds 

2000 Migratory Birds - - 68 - - 2,077 3,306 94 25

Source: 2000 (Andersen and Jennings 2001) 

(Stephen R. Braund & Associates, 2018) 
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources 

M-24 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table M-17

Venetie Subsistence Harvest Estimates by Selected Species, All Study Years 

Study 

Year Resource* 

Percent of Households Estimated Harvest Use Try to Harvest Ha

Percent of Total Harvest 

rvest 

Give Receive Number** Total Pounds*** Average HH Pounds Per Capita Pounds 

2000 Unknown Scoter - - - - - 1,354 1,354 39 10 - 

White-fronted Geese - - - - - 150 638 18 5 - 

Canada Geese - - - - - 153 609 17 5 - 

Long-tailed Duck (Oldsquaw) - - - - - 217 326 9 2 - 

Mallard - - - - - 65 122 3 1 - 

2008-09 Moose 95 51 32 68 92 22 12,060 - 80 - 

Caribou 98 18 18 65 92 16 2,135 - 14 - 

Black Bear 14 11 6 3 6 5 532 - 4 - 

Brown Bear 5 8 2 0 2 1 150 - 1 - 

Lynx 3 3 3 2 0 1 - - - - 

2009 Moose 93 61 30 60 87 40 21,476 229 79 28.8 

Caribou 86 23 14 49 85 105 14,230 151 52 19.1 

Chum Salmon 42 27 20 12 30 2,066 12,395 132 46 16.6 

Chinook Salmon 69 27 16 26 62 675 8,374 89 31 11.2 

Arctic Grayling 80 66 62 44 49 5,492 4,943 53 18 6.6 

Geese 68 45 37 36 56 969 3,142 33 12 4.2 

Whitefishes 41 13 8 12 40 853 1,791 19 7 2.4 

Beaver 26 15 14 14 15 65 1,298 14 5 1.7 

Snowshoe Hare 43 36 35 21 16 574 1,148 12 4 1.5 

Black Bear 19 17 8 6 12 10 886 9 3 1.2 

2009-10 Moose 53 41 13 36 50 24 16,548 - 86 - 

Caribou 39 13 5 25 39 6 556 - 3 - 

Black Bear 8 5 5 2 5 4 417 - 2 - 

Brown Bear 3 2 2 2 2 1 196 - 1 - 

Lynx 3 3 3 2 2 86 - - - - 

2010-11 Moose - 35 9 11 14 5 2,916 - 16 - 

Caribou - 30 15 16 10 44 6,615 - 37 - 

Lynx - 0 0 0 9 0 - - - - 

Marten - 0 0 0 4 0 - - - - 

Sources: 2000 (ADFG 2018); 2008-09, 2009-10 (Van Lanen, Stevens, Brown, Maracle, and Koster 2012); 2009 (Kofinas et al. 

2016); 2010-11 (Stevens and Maracle n.d.) 

Notes: 

*This table shows individual species unless they are not available for a given study year. 

**Estimated numbers represent individuals in all cases except vegetation, where they represent gallons. 

***Estimated pounds include only edible pounds and therefore do not include estimates for resources, such as furbearers, that 

are not typically eaten by community residents. 

For all resources study years (2009), species are listed in descending order by percent of total harvest and are limited to 

species accounting for at least 1.0 percent of the total harvest; for single resource study years, species are listed in descending 

order by total estimated pounds and are limited to the five top species. Years lacking percent of total harvest data were not 

comprehensive study years for all resources. 

(Stephen R. Braund & Associates, 2018) 
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources 

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program M-25

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

M.4.2 Seasonal Round 

Table M-18

Venetie Annual Cycle of Subsistence Activities 

Resources Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Fish 

Caribou 

Moose 

Bear 

Furbearers 

Small Land Mammals 

Waterfowl 

Berries 

Wood 

Total Number of 

Resource Categories by 

Month 

4 4 5 6 5 5 5 7 7 2 4 4 

Sources: 2000 (Andersen and Jennings 2001); 1970-82 (Caulfield 1983); Kofinas et al. 2016; 2008-09, 2009-10 (Van Lanen et al. 

2012); 2010-11 (Stevens and Maracle, n.d.) 

 Low to medium levels of activity; High levels of activity 
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources 

M-26 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

M.4.3 Resource Importance 

Table M-19

Material and Cultural Importance of Subsistence Resources, Venetie 

Resource 

Level Resource 

Cultural Importance Material Importance

Percent of Households Percent of Total 

Harvest Trying to 

Harvest Receive

Major 

Resources

Arctic Grayling 66 49 6.6

Caribou 21 56 19.1

Chinook Salmon 27 62 11.2

Chum Salmon 27 30 16.6

Moose 47 61 28.8

Moderate 

Resources

Bearded Seal 0 15 -

Beaver 15 15 1.7

Black Bear 11 8 1.2

Blueberry 41 49 0.9

Bowhead 0 15 -

Low Bush Cranberry 35 30 0.8

Muskrat 11 10 0.5

Other Birds 31 8 0.2

Parka Squirrel (Ground) 10 12 0.2

Ptarmigan 27 8 0.1

Snowshoe Hare 18 8 1.5

Whitefishes 13 40 2.4

Minor 

Resources

Beluga 0 6 -

Brown Bear 6 1 0.5

Grouse 7 2 -

Sources: 2000 (ADFG 2018); 2008-09, 2009-10 (Van Lanen et al. 2012); 2009 (Kofinas et al. 2016); 2010-11 (Stevens and 

Maracle n.d.)

Notes: 

1Resources that contributed an average of less than 1 percent of harvest, less than 5 percent attempting harvests, and less than 

5 percent receiving harvests are categorized as minor and are not be shown. 

2Major resources contribute > 9 percent total harvest, have ≥ 50 percent of households attempting harvest, or have ≥ 50 

percent of households receiving resource. 

3Moderate resources contribute 2 to 9 percent of total harvest, have 11 to 49 percent of households attempting harvest, or 

have 11 to 49 percent of households receiving resource. 

4Minor resources contribute < 2 percent of total harvest, have ≤ 10 percent of households attempting harvest, or have ≤ 10 

percent of households receiving resource. 
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program M-27

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

M.5 CARIBOU STUDY COMMUNITIES

Table M-20

Caribou Harvest Data for All Available Study Years, Caribou Study Communities

Community Study 

Year

Percent of Households (HH) Estimated Harvest Percent 

of Total 

Harvest Using

Trying 

to 

Harvest

Harvesting Giving Receiving Total 

Number

Total 

Pounds

Average 

HH Lbs

Per 

Capita 

Lbs

Alatna 1997-98 73 46 36 36 46 21 2,730 248 109 -

1998-99 100 90 60 50 60 11 1,430 143 53 -

1999-00 100 57 0 0 100 0 - 0 0 -

2001-02 27 0 0 0 27 0 - 0 0 -

2002-03 100 67 67 50 83 34 4,420 368 123 -

2011 100 83 67 67 100 28 3,705 412 118 39.3

Average 83 57 38 34 69 16 2,048 195 67 39.3

Allakaket 1997-98 42 15 6 10 39 11 1,375 25 8 -

1998-99 100 55 26 20 86 43 5,623 92 29 -

1999-00 93 34 12 15 86 13 1,719 29 10 -

2001-02 21 7 7 3 15 9 1,170 19 7 -

2002-03 96 68 44 32 68 106 13,728 312 53 -

2011 76 48 33 48 62 95 12,350 217 84 -

Average 72 38 21 21 59 46 5,994 116 32 -

Arctic Village No Comparable Caribou Harvest Data 

Anaktuvuk Pass 1990-91 - - 55 - - 592 69,964 985 223 -

1991-92 - - 51 - - 545 66,712 940 245 -

1992 - 74 - - - 600 70,222 889 260 82.6

1993-94 - - 43 - - 574 67,713 846 219 -

1994-95 - - - - - 322 43,792 - - 83.2

1996-97 - - - - - 210 28,587 - - 90.0

1998-99 - - - - - 500 68,000 - - 89.5

1999-00 - - - - - 329 44,744 - - 75.2

2006-07 92 61 53 47 63 696 81,490 1,000 299 -

2011 95 63 53 52 73 616 77,706 914 251 79.2

2002-03 - - - - - 436 59,310 - - 91.5

2001-02 - - - - - 271 36,910 - - 75.6

2000-01 - - - - - 732 99,579 - - 89.1

Average 94 66 51 50 68 494 62,671 929 250 84.0
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources 

M-28 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Community Study 

Year

Percent of Households (HH) Estimated Harvest Percent 

of Total 

Harvest Using

Trying 

to 

Harvest

Harvesting Giving Receiving Total 

Number

Total 

Pounds

Average 

HH Lbs

Per 

Capita 

Lbs

Atqasuk 1996-97 - - - - - 398 - - - -

2003 93 66 61 66 66 - - - - -

2004 100 79 79 69 74 - - - - -

2005 96 70 59 74 63 - - - - -

2006 95 67 60 76 57 - - - - -

Average 96 70 65 71 65 398 - - - -

Beaver 1985 - 3 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0.0

2010-11 - - - - - 5 650 - - -

2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0

Average 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0

Bettles 1981-82 - - 15 - 5 14 1,788 72 28 10.6

1983 - - 10 - - 5 644 25 8 4.4

1984 - - 6 - - 3 451 12 5 4.4

1997-98 14 29 0 14 14 0 - 0 0 -

1998-99 60 40 40 60 20 25 3,276 364 107 -

1999-00 67 44 44 33 33 21 2,773 173 52 -

2002-03 58 8 0 12 58 0 - 0 0 -

2011 63 25 25 25 50 6 780 98 65 37.1

Average 52 29 18 29 30 9 1,214 93 33 14.1

Birch Creek 2008-09 25 0 0 25 25 0 - 0 0 -

2009-10 40 7 0 33 40 0 - 0 0 -

2010-11 - 0 0 0 8 0 - 0 0 -

Average 33 2 0 19 24 0 - 0 0 0.0

Chalkyitsik 2008-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0

2009-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0

2010-11 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0

Average 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0

Circle 2008-09 85 23 3 5 83 1 130 - 1.3 -

2009-10 7 7 7 0 7 4 400 - 5.9 -

2010-11 - 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 -

Average 46 10 3 2 30 2 177 - 2.4 -

Coldfoot 2011 75 50 25 50 50 2 325 65 33 85.3

Eagle 2004 61 61 14 15 52 19 1,957 28.8 15.2 15.7
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources 

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program M-29

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Community Study 

Year

Percent of Households (HH) Estimated Harvest Percent 

of Total 

Harvest Using

Trying 

to 

Harvest

Harvesting Giving Receiving Total 

Number

Total 

Pounds

Average 

HH Lbs

Per 

Capita 

Lbs

Evansville 1981-82 - - 15 - 5 14 1,788 72 28 10.6

1983 - - 10 - - 5 644 25 8 4.4

1984 - - 6 - - 3 451 12 5 4.4

1997 50 14 7 21 50 3 334 19 8 -

1998 67 25 17 8 58 4 455 33 16 -

1999 67 25 17 17 50 2 282 22 10 -

2002-03 58 8 0 12 58 0 - 0 0 -

2011 77 25 77 - - - - 0.0

Average 64 18 10 17 50 4 565 26 11 4.9

Fort Yukon 1986-87 73 13 9 10 64 156 15,587 74 25 2.5

2008-09 12 2 1 13 3 3 355 - 1 -

2009-10 20 10 9 8 18 35 3,518 - 8 -

Average 35 8 6 10 28 65 6,487 74 11 2.5

Kaktovik 1981-82 - - - - - 43 - - - -

1982-83 - - - - - 160 - - - -

1983-84 - - - - - 107 - - - -

1985-86 - - - - - 235 - - - -

1985 95 76 69 67 86 235 27,941 527 149 45.3

1986 98 66 60 53 94 178 21,188 378 109 25.2

1986-87 - - - - - 201 - - - -

1987-88 - - 55 - - 185 22,229 383 104 -

1990 - - 48 - - 113 13,453 224 67 -

1991 - - 50 - - 181 22,113 369 94 -

1992a 96 70 55 53 75 158 19,136 304 99 11.2

1992b - 66 - - - 136 15,926 - - 8.8

1994-95 - - - - - 78 10,608 - - 8.4

2002-03 - - - - - 112 15,232 - - 14.5

2010-11 94 53 46 51 93 429 58,305 686 203 28.7

Average 96 66 55 56 87 170 22,613 410 118 20.3
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources 

M-30 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Community Study 

Year

Percent of Households (HH) Estimated Harvest Percent 

of Total 

Harvest Using

Trying 

to 

Harvest

Harvesting Giving Receiving Total 

Number

Total 

Pounds

Average 

HH Lbs

Per 

Capita 

Lbs

Nuiqsut 1985 98 90 90 80 60 513 60,021 790 150 37.5

1992 - 81 - - - 278 32,551 - - 21.7

1993 98 74 74 79 79 672 82,169 903 228 30.7

1994-95 - - - - - 258 30,186 - - 36.3

1995-96 - - - - - 362 42,354 - - 23.1

1999-00 - - - - - 413 - - 112 -

2000-01 - - - - - 496 57,985 - - 31.6

2002-03 95 79 63 62 75 586 68,534 692 166 -

2003-04 99 68 62 65 79 501 58,617 598 147 -

2004-05 92 70 56 49 58 437 51,129 544 134 -

2005-06 94 86 76 - - 562 65,754 707 - -

2006-07 97 77 74 66 69 475 - - 143 -

2010 100 60 59 97 96 363 - - 102 -

2011 99 62 61 81 96 546 - - 147 -

2012 97 74 70 81 81 564 - - 157 -

2013 95 47 45 49 80 397 - - 118 -

2014 90 66 64 67 59 774 105,193 974 253 28.3

2015 96 84 78 74 72 628 73,527 728 180 -

Average 96 73 67 71 75 490 60,668 742 157 29.9

Point Lay 1987 94 72 72 63 73 157 18,418 428 153 17.2

2012 93 64 60 71 76 356 48,380 705 186 31.3

Average 94 68 66 67 75 256 33,399 567 169 24.2

Stevens Village 2009-10 5 0 0 5 5 0 - - 0 -

2008-09 - 0 0 0 10 0 - - 0 -

Average 5 0 0 3 8 0 - - 0 -
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources 

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program M-31

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Community Study 

Year

Percent of Households (HH) Estimated Harvest Percent 

of Total 

Harvest Using

Trying 

to 

Harvest

Harvesting Giving Receiving Total 

Number

Total 

Pounds

Average 

HH Lbs

Per 

Capita 

Lbs

Utqiaġvik 1987 - - 26 - - 1,595 186,669 199 62 30.1

1988 - - 27 - - 1,533 179,314 191 59 29.2

1989 - - 39 - - 1,656 193,744 207 64 22.2

1992 - 46 - - - 1,993 233,206 - - 17.1

1995-96 - - - - - 2,155 293,094 - - 24.5

1996-97 - - - - - 1,158 157,420 - - 13.3

2000 - - - - - 3,359 456,851 - - 29.3

2001 - - - - - 1,820 247,520 - - 22.9

2002-03 92 61 55 80 78 5,641 659,997 - 123 -

2003 - - - - - 2,092 284,444 - - 22.8

2003-04 87 52 45 73 69 3,548 415,116 - 82 -

2004-05 85 51 48 62 64 4,338 507,546 - 94 -

2005-06 90 50 47 81 78 4,535 530,595 - 103 -

2006-07 92 65 59 65 70 5,380 629,460 - 111 -

2014 70 38 33 38 52 4,323 587,897 371 111 30.6

Average 86 52 42 67 68 3008 370,858 242 90 24.2

Venetie 2008-09 98 18 18 65 92 16 2,135 - 14 -

2009 86 23 14 49 85 105 14,230 151 52 19.1

2009-10 39 13 5 25 39 6 556 - 3 -

2010-11 - 30 15 16 10 44 6,615 - 37 -

Average 74 21 13 39 56 43 5,884 151 26 19.1

Wainwright 1988 - - 57 - - 505 59,085 476.49 117 23.0

1989 - - 66 - - 711 83,187 699.05 177.75 23.7

2009 97 64 61 62 84 1,231 167,356 1,073 284 41.7

Average 97 64 61 62 84 816 103,209 749 193 29.5

Wiseman 1991 - - - - - 10 1,260 - - 28.2

2011 80 80 60 60 20 4 520 104 40 13.6

Average 80 80 60 60 20 7 890 104 40 20.9

Source: ADFG 2018 
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources

M-32 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table M-21

Total Annual Harvest Summary of Porcupine Caribou as Reported at Annual Harvest Meetings of the Porcupine Caribou 

Management Board, 2010/11 through 2015/16

Canadian User Group

PCH Harvest

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 6 Year 

Total

Inuvialuit (NWT)1121 294 176 368 123 345 1,427

NWT Gwich'in21,197 939 615 1,936 451 2,558 7,696

Vuntut Gwichin3265 511 403 473 114 148 1,914

Tr'ondek Hwech'in41 3 1 2 0 12 19

Nacho Nayak Dun50 0 0 3 0 5 8

Yukon licensed638 13 8 81 3 232 375

NWT licensed798 90 80 57 58 67 450

Total (all user groups) 1,720 1,850 1,283 2,920 749 3,367 11,889

Sources: Porcupine Caribou Management Board 2018

Notes: The data provided above is a summary of data collected by each user group and submitted to the Porcupine Caribou Management Board annually. The 

methods of data collection and reporting vary by user group and reflect a combination of reported and estimated harvests.

1Including Inuvialuit in and around Aklavik, Inuvik, and Tuktoyaktuk. Estimated harvest.

2Including Gwich’in in and around Aklavik, Inuvik, Fort McPherson, and Tsiigehtchic. Minimum count harvest.

3Including First Nation Members in and around Old Crow. Minimum count harvest.

4Including First Nation Members in and around Dawson City. Minimum count harvest.

5Including First Nation Members in and around Mayo. Minimum count harvest.

6Including licensed hunters in the Yukon Territory. Mandatory kill reporting, total count.

7Including licensed hunters in the Northwest Territory. Maximum number of caribou harvested based on license sales.
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program M-33

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

M.6 REFERENCES

Adams, F. Jeffrey, Theresa Lynn Tanner, and Mark A. Nelson. 2005. Harvest and Biological 

Characteristics of the Subsistence Fishery in Arctic Village, Alaska, 2001-2003. Alaska Fisheries 

Data Series. no 2005-18. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office. 

Fairbanks, Alaska. Internet website: http://www.r7.fws.gov/fisheries/fieldoffice/fairbanks/pdf

/ds_2005-18.pdf.

ADFG (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 2018. Community Subsistence Information System: Csis. 

Harvest by Community. Juneau, Alaska. Internet website: 

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sb/CSIS/index.cfm?ADFG=harvInfo.harvestCommSelComm.

Andersen, David B., and Gretchen Jennings. 2001. The 2000 Harvest of Migratory Birds in Ten Upper 

Yukon River Communities, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of 

Subsistence. Fairbanks, Alaska. Internet website: 

http://www.subsistence.adfg.state.ak.us/TechPap/Tp268.pdf.

Bacon, J., T. Hepa, H. Brower, Jr., M. Pederson, T. Olemaun, J. George, and B. Corrigan. 2009. Estimates 

of Subsistence Harvest for Villages on the North Slope of Alaska, 1994-2003. North Slope 

Borough, Department of Wildlife Management. Barrow, Alaska. Internet website: http://www

.north-slope.org/assets/images/uploads/MASTER%20SHDP%2094-03%20REPORT%20FINAL%20

and%20%20Errata%20info%20(Sept%202012).pdf.

Braem, Nicole M., Tina Kaleak, David Koster, Price Leavitt, Patsy Neakok, James Patkotak, Sverre 

Pedersen, and Jim Simon. 2011. Monitoring of Annual Caribou Harvests in the National 

Petroleum Reserve in Alaska: Atqasuk, Barrow, and Nuiqsut, 2003-2007. Technical Paper No. 

361. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Fairbanks. Internet website: 

http://library.state.ak.us/asp/edocs/2011/06/ocn739704678.pdf.

Brower, Harry K., and Taqulik Hepa. 1998. North Slope Borough Subsistence Harvest Documentation 

Project: Data for Nuiqsut, Alaska for the Period July 1, 1994, to June 30, 1995. Rev. ed. North 

Slope Borough, Deparment of Wildlife Management. Barrow, Alaska. Internet website: 

http://www.north-slope.org/assets/images/uploads/Subsistence%20Harvest%20Doc%20

Report_Nuiqsut_94-95.pdf.

Brower, Harry K., Thomas P. Olemaun, and Taqulik Hepa. 2000. North Slope Borough Subsistence 

Harvest Documentation Project: Data for Kaktovik, Alaska for the Period December 1, 1994, to 

November 30, 1995. Department of Wildlife Management, North Slope Borough. Barrow, 

Alaska.

Brown, Caroline L., Nicole M. Braem, Elizabeth H. Mikow, Alida Trainor, Lisa J. Slayton, David M. 

Runfola, Hiroko Ikuta, et al. 2016. Harvests and Uses of Wild Resources in 4 Interior Alaska 

Communities and 3 Arctic Alaska Communities, 2014. Technical Paper No. 426. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Fairbanks, Alaska. Internet website: 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP426.pdf.
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources

M-34 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Brown, William E. 1979. Nuiqsut Paisanich: Nuiqsut Heritage, a Cultural Plan. Prepared for the Village of 

Nuiqsut and the North Slope Borough Planning Commission on History and Culture. Arctic 

Environmental Information and Data Center. Anchorage, Alaska.

Caulfield, Richard A. 1983. Subsistence Land Use in Upper Yukon-Porcupine Communities, Alaska = 

Dinjii Nats'aa Nan Kak Adagwaandaii. Technical Paper No. 16. Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game, Division of Subsistence. Fairbanks, Alaska. Internet website: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/

techpap/tp016.pdf.

Coffing, Michael, and Sverre Pedersen. 1985. Caribou Hunting: Land Use Dimensions, Harvest Level and 

Selected Aspects of the Hunt During Regulatory Year 1983-84 in Kaktovik, Alaska. Technical 

paper No. 120. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Fairbanks, Alaska. 

Internet websites: http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/A/17347115.pdf and http://www.subsistence

.adfg.state.ak.us/TechPap/tp120.pdf. 

EDAW Inc., Adams/Russel Consulting, Applied Sociocultural Research, Donald G. Callaway, 

Circumpolar Research Associates, and Northern Economics. 2008. Quantitative Description of 

Potential Impacts of Ocs Activities on Bowhead Whale Hunting Activities in the Beaufort Sea. 

MMS OCS STUDY # 2007-062. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region. Anchorage, Alaska. Internet website: https://www.boem

.gov/BOEM-Newsroom/Library/Publications/2007/2007_062.aspx.

Fuller, Alan S., and John C. George. 1999. Evaluation of Subsistence Harvest Data from the North Slope 

Borough 1993 Census for Eight North Slope Villages for the Calendar Year 1992. North Slope 

Borough, Department of Wildlife Management. Barrow, Alaska. Internet website: http://www

.north-slope.org/assets/images/uploads/Master%20Report%20(Fuller-George%2099).pdf.

Galginaitis, Michael. 2014. Monitoring Cross Island Whaling Activities, Beaufort Sea, Alaska, 2008-2012 

Final Report, Incorporating Animida and Canimida (2001-2007). OCS Study BOEM 2013-218. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Alaska Outer 

Continental Shelf Region. Anchorage, Alaska. Internet website: http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1

/BOEM/CrossIsland/FinalReport2008-12/index.html.

George, J., M. Philo, R. Suydam, G. Carroll, and T. Albert. n.d. Chapter 3: "Body mass of bowhead 

whales (Balaena Mysticetus) of the Bering Chukchi Beaufort seals." Formatted for Journal Arctic.

Harcharek, Qaiyaan, Carla Sims Kayotuk, J. Craig George, and M. Pederson. 2018. Qaaktuġvik, 

“Kaktovik” Subsistence Harvest Report (2007-2012). Technical Report. North Slope Borough, 

Subsistence Harvest Documentation Project. Department of Wildlife Management. Barrow, 

Alaska.

Hoffman, David, David Libbey, and Grant R. Spearman. 1988. Nuiqsut, Land Use Values through Time in 

the Nuiqsut Area. Rev. ed. North Slope Borough; Anthropology and Historic Preservation 

Section of the Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Barrow, Alaska; 

Fairbanks, Alaska.
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program M-35

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Kofinas, G., S. B. BurnSilver, J. Magdanz, R. Stotts, and M. Okada. 2016. Subsistence Sharing Networks 

and Cooperation: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie, Alaska. BOEM Report 2015-023 DOI; 

AFES Report MP 2015-02. School of Natural Resources and Extension, University of Alaska 

Fairbanks.

Libbey, David, Grant R. Spearman, and David Hoffman. 1979. "Nuiqsut Synopsis." In Native Livelihood and 

Dependence, pp. 151-161. Anchorage: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Petroleum 

Reserve in Alaska.

Pedersen, S. 1995a. "Kaktovik." In An Investigation of the Sociocultural Consequences of Outer Continental 

Shelf Development in Alaska. Alaska Peninsula and Arctic, edited by James A. Fall and Charles J. 

Utermohle. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region.

_____. 1995b. "Nuiqsut." In An Investigation of the Sociocultural Consequences of Outer Continental Shelf 

Development in Alaska. Alaska Peninsula and Arctic, edited by James A. Fall and Charles J. 

Utermohle. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region.

Pedersen, Sverre. 1990. Caribou Hunting: Land Use Dimensions of Harvest Level, and Selected Aspects 

of the Hunt During Regulatory Year 1987-88 in Kaktovik, Alaska. Technical Paper 172. Division 

of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage.

Pedersen, Sverre, and M. Coffing. 1984. Caribou Hunting: Land Use Dimensions and Recent Harvest 

Patterns in Kaktovik, Northeast Alaska. Technical Paper No. 92. Division of Subsistence, Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage.

Pedersen, Sverre, Terry L. Haynes, and R. J. Wolfe. 1991. Historic and Current Use of Musk Ox by 

North Slope Residents, with Specific Reference to Kaktovik, Alaska. Technical Paper No. 206. 

Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage.

Pedersen, Sverre, and Alfred Linn. 2005. Kaktovik 2000-2002 Subsistence Fishery Harvest Assessment. 

Study No. 01-101. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Subsistence Management, Fisheries 

Resource Monitoring Program. Anchorage, Alaska.

Porcupine Caribou Management Board. 2010. Harvest Management Plan for the Porcupine Caribou 

Herd in Canada. First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun, Gwich'in Tribal Council, Tr'ondek Hwech'in, 

Vuntut Gwitchin Government, Government of the Northwest Territories, Government of 

Yukon, and Government of Canada. March 2010. Available At: 

Http://Www.Pcmb.Ca/Pdf/General/Plan/Harvest%20management%20plan%202010.Pdf.

_____. 2018. Total Annual Harvest Summary of Porcupine Caribou as Reported at Annual Harvest 

Meetings of the Porcupine Caribou Management Board, Six Years.
M. Subsistence Uses and Resources

M-36 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

SRB&A, (Braund, Stephen R. & Associates). 2010. Subsistence Mapping of Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and 

Barrow. MMS OCS Study No. 2009-003. U.S. Department of the Interior Minerals Management 

Service, Alaska OCS Region, Environmental Studies Program. Anchorage, Alaska. Internet 

website: http://www.boem.gov/BOEM-Newsroom/Library/Publications/2009/2009_003.aspx.

_____. 2012. Nuiqsut Caribou Subsistence Monitoring Project: Results of Year Three Hunter 

Interviews and Household Harvest Surveys. Prepared for ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. Anchorage, 

Alaska.

_____. 2013. Nuiqsut Caribou Subsistence Monitoring Project: Results of Year 4 Hunter Interviews and 

Household Harvest Surveys. Prepared for ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. Anchorage, Alaska.

_____. 2014. Nuiqsut Caribou Subsistence Monitoring Project: Results of Year 5 Hunter Interviews and 

Household Harvest Surveys. Prepared for ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. Anchorage, Alaska.

_____. 2015. Nuiqsut Caribou Subsistence Monitoring Project: Results of Year 6 Hunter Interviews and 

Household Harvest Surveys. Prepared for ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. Anchorage, Alaska.

_____. 2017a. Household Caribou Harvest Survey: Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, Barrow, 

Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik. Results. Submitted to North Slope Borough, Department of Wildlife 

Management, Barrow, Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska.

_____. 2017b. Nuiqsut Caribou Subsistence Monitoring Project: Results of Year 8 Hunter Interviews 

and Household Harvest Surveys. Prepared for ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. Anchorage, Alaska.

SRB&A (Braund, Stephen R. & Associates) and (Institute of Social and Economic Research) ISER. 1993. 

North Slope Subsistence Study: Barrow, 1987, 1988, and 1989. Prepared by S. R. Braund, K. 

Brewster, L. Moorehead, T. P. Holmes, J. A. Kruse, S. Stoker, M. Glen, E. Witten, D. C. 

Burnham, and W. E. Simeone. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Alaska OCS Region Social and Economic Studies. Technical Report No. 149 (PB93-198661), 

OCS Study MMS 91-0086, Contract No. 14-12-0001-30284. Anchorage, Alaska. Internet 

website: http://www.north-slope.org/assets/images/uploads/Braund_North_Slope_

Subsistence_Study_Barrow_1987,_1988,_1989_MMS_91-0086.pdf.

Stevens, Carrie, and Bryan Karonhiakta'tie Maracle. n.d. Subsistence Harvest of Land Mammals, Yukon 

Flats, Alaska: March 2010-February 2011. Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments.

Van Lanen, James M., Carrie Stevens, C. Brown, Bryan Karonhiakta'tie Maracle, and D. Koster. 2012. 

Subsistence and Mammal Harvests and Uses, Yukon Flats, Alaska: 2008-2010 Harvest Report 

and Ethnographic Update. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. 

Anchorage.
Appendix N

Environmental Justice

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program N-i 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

APPENDIX N. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ................................................................................ N-1

N.1 References ..................................................................................................................................... N-3

TABLES Page 

N-1 Low-Income Populations of Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Arctic Village, and Venetie, Compared 

with the North Slope Borough (NSB) and the State of Alaska: 2016 ........................................... N-1

N-2 Minority Populations of Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Arctic Village, and Venetie, Compared with 

the NSB and the State of Alaska: 2010 ................................................................................................. N-2
This page intentionally left blank.
Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program N-1

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix N. Environmental Justice

Table N-1

Low-Income Populations of Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Arctic Village, and Venetie, Compared 

with the North Slope Borough (NSB) and the State of Alaska: 2016

Demographic/Income 

Characteristic Kaktovik Nuiqsut Arctic Village Venetie NSB State of Alaska

Total population* 262 446 192 181 9,606 747,894

Persons employed 62 130 37 39 5,393 353,954

Unemployment rate (percent) 18.4 19.8 35.1 29.1 10.0 7.8

Per capita income $21,925 $24,312 $15,253 $12,695 $49,982 $34,191

Median household income $53,750 $84,464 $25,000 $27,813 $72,027 $74,444

Median family income $66,250 $74,750 $28,750 $24,583 $77,330 $87,365

Percent low-income** 3.8 6.4 46.7 53.2 11.2 10.1

Source: US Census Bureau. 2016. “ACS 2012-2016 5-Year, DP03” unless otherwise noted.

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_14_5YR_DP03&prodType=table

*Total population figures shown for the individual communities are 2017 Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and 

Economic Development Certified Population figures (https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/dcra/dcraexternal/community/); NSB 

and Alaska population census estimates for 2016. 

** Defined as those persons living below the poverty threshold.
N. Environmental Justice

N-2 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table N-2

Minority Populations of Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Arctic Village, and Venetie, Compared with the NSB and the State of Alaska: 2010

Demographic 

Characteristic

Kaktovik Nuiqsut Arctic Village Venetie NSB State of Alaska

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Race White 24 10.0 40 10.0 7 4.6 3 1.8 3,059 32.4 455,320 64.1

Black 0 0.0 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 91 1.0 21,949 3.1

American 

Indian/Alaska

Native

212 88.7 350 87.1 135 88.8 152 91.6 5,046 53.5 102,556 14.4

Asian 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 414 4.4 37,459 5.3

Pacific Islander 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 103 1.1 7,219 1.0

Other 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 0.1 1,111 0.2

Two or more 

races

3 1.3 11 2.7 10 6.6 10 6.0 461 4.9 45,368 6.4

Ethnicity Hispanic or 

Latino

0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 1.8 249 2.6 39,249 5.5

Non-Hispanic 

or Latino

239 100.0 402 100.0 152 100.0 163 98.2 9,181 97.4 670,982 94.5

Minority

status

Total minority 

population

215 90.0 362 90.0 145 95.4 163 98.2 6,371 67.6 254,911 35.9

Total nonminority 

population

24 10.0 40 10.0 7 4.6 3 1.8 3,059 32.4 455,320 64.1

Total Population 239 100.0 402 100.0 152 100.0 166 100.0 9,430 100.0 710,231 100.0

Source: United States Census Bureau 2010

American Fact Finder.https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_PL_P2&prodType=table; 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public 

Law 94-171) Summary File: Hispanic or Latino, and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race.
N. Environmental Justice

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program N-3

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

N.1 REFERENCES

US Census Bureau. 2010. American Fact Finder. Internet website: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/

tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_PL_P2&prodType=table.

_____. 2016. American Community Survey 2012-2016 5-Year, DP03. Internet website: 

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_14_5YR_

DP03&prodType=table.
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix O

Economy

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program O-i 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

APPENDIX O. ECONOMY ......................................................................................................... O-1

O.1 References .................................................................................................................................... O-3

TABLES Page 

O-1 Populations of the Potentially Affected Communities and Areas, 2010 to 2017 ....................... O-1

O-2 Employment and Total Wages in Potentially Affected Communities ........................................... O-1

O-3 Kaktovik Resident Employment by Industry and Worker Characteristics, 2016 ...................... O-2

O-4 City of Kaktovik Fiscal Year 2018 Budget ........................................................................................... O-2
This page intentionally left blank.
Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program O-1

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix O. Economy

Table O-1

Populations of the Potentially Affected Communities and Areas, 2010 to 2017

Area 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Percent 

Change

Communities

Anaktuvuk Pass 324 323 343 358 325 357 355 355 10

Atqasuk 233 243 234 248 230 243 221 224 -4

Utqiaġvik 4,212 4,314 4,434 4,504 4,481 4,548 4,468 4,474 6

Kaktovik 239 247 244 262 251 243 244 234 -2

Nuiqsut 402 426 427 452 446 450 470 482 20

Point Hope 674 668 667 683 654 680 672 677 0

Point Lay 189 183 196 215 190 211 213 232 23

Wainwright 556 570 564 541 554 554 557 570 3

Venetie 166 186 180 197 187 189 192 181 9

Arctic Village 152 167 177 175 194 180 180 192 26

North Slope 

Borough

9,430 9,575 9,710 9,864 9,732 9,887 9,801 9,849 4

Alaska 710,231 722,388 731,042 735,776 736,906 737,467 739,709 737,080 4

Source: (Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development [ADOWLD] 2018a

Table O-2

Employment and Total Wages in Potentially Affected Communities

Area Residents Employed Employment Sector Total 

# % Private Local State Wages

Kaktovik 125 71 41 84 0 $4,958,179

Anaktuvuk Pass 150 68 35 115 0 $4,075,079

Atqasuk 112 76 19 93 0 $3,535,983

Nuiqsut 193 75 73 120 0 $5,919,157

Point Hope 301 67 117 183 1 $8,023,956

Point Lay 106 77 15 91 0 $3,479,948

Wainwright 219 63 72 147 0 $6,659,365

Utqiagvik 2,044 71 875 1,155 14 $111,007,143

Arctic Village 87 78 14 70 3 $1,302,019

Venetie 103 57 23 80 0 $1,643,639

Source: ADOLWD 2018b
O. Economy

O-2 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table O-3

Kaktovik Resident Employment by Industry and Worker Characteristics, 2016

Industry Number of 

Workers

Percent 

of Total 

Employed

Female Male

Age 45 

and 

Over

Age 50 

and 

Over

Natural Resources and Mining 1 0.8 0 1 0 0

Construction 15 12.0 0 15 5 4

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 3 2.4 0 3 1 1

Financial Activities 13 10.4 5 8 7 5

Professional and Business Services 3 2.4 1 2 3 1

Leisure and Hospitality 4 3.2 4 0 2 2

Local Government 84 67.2 47 37 34 26

Other 2 1.6 0 2 0 0

Source: ADOLWD 2018c

Table O-4

City of Kaktovik Fiscal Year 2018 Budget

Source of Revenues Amount

Locally Generated Revenues $1,117,380 

Tax Revenues $48,000 

Service Charges $22,210 

Enterprise Revenues $840,759 

Rentals $45,000 

Leases $126,411 

Sales $27,000 

Other Local Revenues $8,000 

State of Alaska Revenues $69,066 

Other Outside Revenues $277,457 

Total Operating Revenues $1,463,904 

Uses of Funds (Expenditures) Amount

Administration and Finance $302,777 

Council $13,111 

Pull Tabs $644,517 

Bingo $162,028 

Recreation $34,014 

ASRC Summer Youth Program $10,000 

Others $297,457 

Total Operating Expenditures $1,463,903 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development [ADCCED] 2018
O. Economy

Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program O-3

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

O.1 REFERENCES

ADCCED (Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Division of 

Community and Regional Affairs). 2018. Financial Documents Delivery System. City of Kaktovik 

Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Document. Internet website: https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/dcra/

DCRARepoExt/RepoPubs/FinDocs/KaktovikFY2018Budget.pdf. 

ADOLWD (Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis 

Division). 2018a. Population estimates, Cities and Census Designated Places, 2010 to 2017. 

Internet website: http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/pop/index.cfm.

_____. 2018b. Alaska Labor and Regional Information (ALARI), employment and total wages 

information. Internet website: http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/alari/. 

_____. 2018c. Alaska Labor and Regional Information (ALARI), Kaktovik resident employment by 

sector and worker characteristics. Internet website: http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/alari/

details.cfm?yr=2016&dst=04&r=4&b=19&p=147. 
This page intentionally left blank.