Cumulative Impact MethodologyCumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska’s North Slope, is the foundation for the many evaluations that followed. The NRC

Nanushuk Project

Cumulative Impact Methodology

Submitted by:

Prepared by:

June 2015

Nanushuk Project


THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK

Nanushuk Project


Document No. A1-000-GE-RV-4H-0010, Rev 00 i

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction and Overview ............................................................................................... 1

2.0 Cumulative Impact Issues and Concerns ........................................................................ 2

3.0 Scope of Cumulative Impacts Evaluation ........................................................................ 4

3.1 Geographic Scope .................................................................................................... 4

3.2 Cumulative Impact Timeframe .................................................................................. 7

4.0 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ......................................... 7

4.1 Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, and Production ........................................... 8

4.2 Transportation .........................................................................................................12

4.3 Research .................................................................................................................12

4.4 Military .....................................................................................................................13

4.5 Community Development .........................................................................................13

5.0 References ....................................................................................................................... 14

TABLES

Table 1. Past Actions, Present Actions and RFFA’s in the Project Vicinity ................................11

FIGURES

Figure 1. Study Area .................................................................................................................. 5

Nanushuk Project


Document No. A1-000-GE-RV-4H-0010, Rev 00 ii

Abbreviations

ADOG Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CRD Colville River Delta

DEW Distant Early Warning

EED Environmental Evaluation Document

EIS environmental impact statement

GMT1 Greater Mooses Tooth One

GMT2 Greater Mooses Tooth Two

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NPR-A National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska

NRC National Research Council

Project Nanushuk Project

RFFA reasonably foreseeable future actions

TAPS Trans-Alaska Pipeline System

Nanushuk Project


Document No. A1-000-GE-RV-4H-0010, Rev 00 Page 1 of 15

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

This report summarizes the methodology used to determine cumulative impacts for Repsol’s Nanushuk Project (Project). The document summarizes effects of past and ongoing human activities and concurrent natural changes on important resources in the project area. This methodology was used as the basis for analyzing how the Project might be expected to contribute to cumulative impacts. The results of the cumulative impact analysis are provided within Chapter 3 of Repsol’s Environmental Evaluation Document (EED) for the Project.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance on considering cumulative effects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; CEQ 1997) states that the purpose of a cumulative impact analysis “is to ensure that federal decisions consider the full range of consequences” and provides the following principles:

• Cumulative effects are caused by the aggregate of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFFAs).

• Cumulative effects are the total effect, including both direct and indirect effects on a given resource, ecosystem, and human community of all actions taken, no matter who (federal, nonfederal, or private) has taken the actions.

• Cumulative effects need to be analyzed in terms of the specific resource, ecosystem, and human community being affected.

• Analysis of cumulative effects on a global scale is not practical. Analysis is focused on those actions that are meaningful to the specific Project.

• Cumulative effects on a given resource, ecosystem, and human community are rarely aligned with political or administrative boundaries.

• Cumulative effects may result from the accumulation of similar effects or the synergistic interaction of different effects.

• Cumulative effects may last for many years beyond the life of the action that caused the effects.

• Each affected resource, ecosystem, and human community must be analyzed in terms of its capacity to accommodate additional effect, based on its own time and space parameters.

The cumulative impact analysis completed for the Project identifies project impacts that, acting with past, present, and RFFAs, may result in beneficial or adverse impacts. The analysis of cumulative impacts within the EED is consistent with the CEQ definition (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1508.7): “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 nonfederal) or person undertakes such actions.” Cumulative impacts and RFFAs are further defined below.

Cumulative Impacts – Additive or interactive effects that would result from the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and RFFAs, regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7). Interactive effects may be countervailing (net cumulative effect would be less than the sum of the individual effects), or synergistic (net cumulative effect would be greater than the sum of the individual effects). Quantitative data may not be available for future actions that would be expected to interact cumulatively with the proposed action. Qualitative assessments are used when quantitative data are not available.

Nanushuk Project



Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions – RFFAs are potential future actions that are sufficiently developed so that the impacts of the actions can be defined and considered in the evaluation of potential impacts. The predicted impacts of the RFFAs are combined with the predicted direct and indirect effects of a proposed action to evaluate potential cumulative effects on a given resource. RFFAs are developed with information primarily from permit applications and other publically available documents, including plans, reports, announcements, and from consultation with government and industry sources. Potential actions that are more speculative or that have not been formulated to this level are not considered reasonably foreseeable, but may be addressed in a more general way to provide a broad overview of development in the region.

2.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ISSUES AND CONCERNS

Cumulative impact considerations related to development on the North Slope are identified in documents that define and evaluate regional issues and that evaluate both the potential for impacts to occur and the potential magnitude of cumulative impacts. A number of studies and decision documents have addressed cumulative impacts on the North Slope of Alaska and the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. One earlier study by the National Research Council (NRC 2003), Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska’s North Slope, is the foundation for the many evaluations that followed. The NRC concluded, in part that:

• The growth of industrial activity has created a complex of developed fields, roads, pipelines, and power lines, with incremental growth being added with each new development. Effects of these structures are present not only at the structures’ footprint, but also at distances varying by the affected resource. These effects will accumulate with expanded activity. The committee assumed that regulatory oversight will continue, and noted that this oversight could be critical in reducing or limiting accumulation of these effects.

• Changes to the global and regional climates have been particularly pronounced on the North Slope. The committee stated that continued warming trends will alter the presence and seasonality of sea ice, affect populations and distribution of marine and terrestrial plants and animals, and affect permafrost. These changes will, in turn, affect existing oil field infrastructure and may affect the applicability or usefulness of current technologies and their environmental impacts.

• Off-road travel over tundra areas for seismic exploration has adversely affected vegetation, caused erosion, and degraded visual experiences over a large area. Technologic improvements have been made to reduce these impacts, but increased exploration will likely lead to an increase in the overall area of damaged tundra.

• Road infrastructure on the North Slope causes effects resulting from dust, flooding, thermokarst, and snow accumulation. They also can alter animal habitat and behavior while increasing access. Effects of roads accumulate and interact with pipelines and tundra travel routes. Future development will likely bring additional roads, which could increase contact between North Slope communities and those outside the area.

• Animals have been affected by industrial activities on the North Slope, but the magnitude and extent are not clearly or comprehensively understood. Expanded loss of preferred habitats resulting from increased exploration and development infrastructure are likely to

Nanushuk Project



adversely affect animals. Animal behavior and distribution will continue to be affected by additional development of North Slope facilities.

• Effects of a large oil spill in the marine environment, particularly when sea ice is present, would likely accumulate due to lack of cleanup methods or success in such an environment. Effects of contaminant spills on vegetation have not accumulated because of the small size of the spills and successful cleanup and rehabilitation efforts.

• Lack of clear guidance regarding the extent and timing of restoration has limited restoration of disturbed sites. This will continue if current technical and natural constraints imposed by the harsh environment of the North Slope are not changed, and it is likely that unrestored sites could accumulate as new structures are added in the region.

• Adaptation by residents to changes in the oil and gas exploration and development conditions will occur.

• Industrial activities on the North Slope have changed the landscape in aesthetic, cultural, and spiritual ways. Opportunities for solitude have been reduced and wildland (wilderness) scenic values have changed. These consequences will persist as long as the landscape remains altered and will accumulate further with additional development.

• Offshore exploration and development have caused perceived risk concerns for the Iñupiat culture. The perception of risk itself is widespread, intense, and constitutes a cumulative effect.

Information in the NRC report has been augmented by data and analysis in more recent reports and environmental impact statements (EISs), including the Point Thomson EIS (USACE 2012a), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Draft EIS (NOAA 2011) and Supplemental Draft EIS (NOAA 2013) for activities in the Arctic Ocean, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Integrated Activities Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for Management of the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska (NPR-A; BLM 2012), and supplemental EIS for the Alpine Satellite Development Plan for the Proposed Greater Mooses Tooth One (GMT1) Development Project (BLM 2014). These more recent documents address activities that followed the NRC 2003 report and also identify advances that have been made in mitigation and restoration. They also present more current evaluations of RFFAs, air quality, climate change, socioeconomic changes, and other resources and issues of concern.

Cumulative impact considerations more specific to the project vicinity are based on the regional analyses of earlier reports, but focus on actions with the greatest potential to impact resources and people in and near the project area. Resources of particular concern and potential for direct and indirect impacts to those resources are evaluated in the EED and its supporting technical reports prepared for the Project. These documents provide a more locally focused basis for evaluation of potential cumulative impacts. Repsol has held numerous meetings and outreach efforts to receive comments and input on the Project. These comments and other information generously provided by residents of Nuiqsut and other stakeholders are of particular importance to the cumulative impacts analysis. Future North Slope developments that would have more potential to affect or be affected by the Project also are identified in this report.

Nanushuk Project



3.0 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS EVALUATION

Cumulative impacts associated with North Slope oil and gas projects can be viewed as having two frames of reference: potential impacts expected to be discernible (and potentially important) in and near the Project during and following the productive life and restoration phase of the Project, and potential impacts with broader implications that could reach beyond the project area and/or beyond the economic life of the Project. These two frames of reference have geographic and time components, as described below.

3.1 Geographic Scope

The cumulative impacts assessment identifies three geographic scales: project area, project vicinity, and regional area. The geographic scope varies by topic based on the potential extent of cumulative impacts. For instance impacts to soils tend to be localized near the project footprint while impacts to air quality or migratory wildlife may occur at a regional scale. The geographic scales are defined as follows:

The Project Area is defined as the gravel footprint and area immediately surrounding Project features (this distance varies by topic but is generally 300 feet or less from the edge of the project footprint), including gravel roads and pads, pipelines, ice roads, tundra travel routes, areas of water withdrawal, and other features.

The Project Vicinity is a somewhat larger area that encompasses the Project, Nuiqsut, and other areas adjacent to the project area where RFFAs and cumulative effects may be of particular concern to stakeholders and may have the greatest effect on decision-making. It includes watersheds associated with the lower Colville River north of and including Nuiqsut, as well as existing; permitted; and planned oil field development in and adjacent to the northeastern NPR-A, within and adjacent to the western boundary of the Kuparuk River Unit (Kuparuk), and in and south of the Nikaitchuq Unit. Figure 1 shows the project vicinity as it is defined for the cumulative impact analysis study area.

The Regional Area is defined as the area of Alaska north of the Brooks Range divide. This generally coincides with the North Slope Borough. The regional area also includes the coastal waters of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas adjacent to the North Slope Borough. Cumulative impacts analysis in this report is driven by the resources and the issues, rather than by rigid geographic boundaries. Cumulative impacts beyond the defined regional geographic boundaries are considered when necessary to fully examine the potential impacts. Potential impacts related to the Project are closely similar to the types of impacts that have resulted from past and present oil and gas projects on the North Slope and are similar to those that are likely to develop in the reasonably foreseeable future.

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!!

! ! !! !

! !!

!! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!(

DS 3S

DS 2M

KuparukCPF-2

NikaitchuqOperationPad

KuparukCPF-3

CD3

CD2

CD4

AlpineCD1/CPF

OoogurukDS

OperationsCenter

Pad

Tie-in Pad

Nanushuk Pad

DS3

DS2Fish Creek

Miluveach River

Kalub

ik Cr

eek

Kachemach River

Ublutuoch River

Kalubik C reek

East Channel of the ColvilleRiverElaktove ach Ch anne

lKu

pigruak Channel

Beaufort Sea

Nuna Drill Site 1

ProposedNuna Drill Site 2

Oliktok Point

M i l n eP o i n tU n i t

K u p a r u kR i v e rU n i t

S o u t h e r n M i l u v e a c hU n i t

To f k a tU n i t

Q u g r u kU n i t O o o g u r u k

U n i t

C o l v i l l eR i v e r U n i t

N i k a i t c h u qU n i t

Pl ac erUn i t

Nuiqsut

!( CommunitiesExisting Facilities

! Existing PipelineExisting Roads

Proposed Nuna RoadProposed Nuna FacilityOil and Gas UnitBoundaries

Infield PipelinesNanushuk PipelineGravel Access RoadGravel Infield Road

Nanushuk Pad*Drill Site 2 and Drill Site 3Operations Center PadTie-in Pad at CPF2 Notes:

CRS: Alaska State Plane, NAD83, Zone 4

0 3 61.5Kilometers

0 2 41Miles

REPSOL E&P USA INC.

Study AreaFigure 1

By: HDR Inc. Date: 6/15/2015

Nanushuk Project

*Nanushuk Pad includes Drill Site 1 and the Central Processing Facility

Nanushuk Project



THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK

Nanushuk Project



3.2 Cumulative Impact Timeframe

CEQ guidelines for cumulative impacts analysis under NEPA indicate that the timeframe for cumulative impacts should be the same as the period over which the primary impacts of the proposed project occur. Longevity of individual oil and gas fields can be divided into development, production, and closure periods, which may overlap. The duration of each phase depends upon a number of factors including the geology of the field, technology, economics, and many other factors. The Alpine Satellite Development Project EIS (BLM 2004 ) estimated that petroleum development and initial production typically required about 6 years, that production would continue depending upon the economically recoverable reserves (as much as 30 years), and that abandonment and rehabilitation of the petroleum field could require 10 additional years. Development that brought different parts of the field into production sequentially could extend timelines. Production at the Project is anticipated to begin in Year 4, and the engineering life of the Project is 30 years. Altogether, project longevity and attendant potential for cumulative impacts could be expected to span a maximum of about 50 years. This is a reasonable temporal extent for the Project to contribute to cumulative impacts of the North Slope regional area. Impacts to some resources in the project area, particularly those associated with the community of Nuiqsut, could continue after completion of development, production, and rehabilitation (i.e., extending beyond the 50-year period).

Resource extraction in the North Slope region will likely extend beyond 50 years and can be expected to develop in locations and to employ methods that cannot be predicted at this time. There is not enough information to meaningfully address the impacts of those actions. An additional consideration is the intensity of contributions of a proposed action to cumulative impacts over time. The potential for adverse impacts from the Project would diminish as production declines and as restoration is completed at the project site. Environmental effects of the Project would largely cease at the end of the development and operation phase and countervailing effects of restoration would begin at that time.

4.0 PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS

Past actions, present actions, and RFFAs are evaluated within the context of the geographic scope and timeframe identified above.

Past actions that may contribute to cumulative impacts in the project vicinity and regional area are so recent that most, if not all, continue into the present. They include oil field development; infrastructure that was developed to support oil-related actions; transportation; community infrastructure development; scientific data collection; and human activities such as recreation, personal use and subsistence hunting and fishing, tourism, and other recreational and traditional activities.

Present actions include petroleum exploration, development, and production operations; ancillary activities associated with petroleum exploration and development; community development activities that may have come online recently or are currently underway; and continued human activities.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions include oil and gas discoveries or other projects that are clearly identified and expected to initiate exploration or development-related activities (site surveys, permitting, appraisal drilling, or construction). Future actions not associated with oil and

Nanushuk Project



gas production include community infrastructure development, gravel mining, scientific data collection, and continued human activities.

In the sections that follow, past actions, present actions, and RFFAs are divided into and discussed collectively under the following general headings:

• Oil and gas exploration, development, and production

• Transportation

• Research

• Military

• Community development

4.1 Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, and Production

Regional: Total North Slope oil production to date has been approximately 17 billion barrels, according to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas (ADOG 2013). The same source presented assessments from other sources estimating that undiscovered technically recoverable conventional oil resources on North Slope lands and state waters total approximately 16 billion barrels. Undiscovered, technically recoverable conventional oil resources on the outer continental shelf in the adjacent Arctic Ocean were estimated to be about 50 percent greater (approximately 24 billion barrels). ADOG notes that not all of that oil would be economically recoverable. BLM (2012) estimated North Slope and adjacent outer continental shelf oil and gas production from 2012 to 2100 would be approximately 11 billion barrels of oil and 81 trillion cubic feet of gas.

Early oil and gas exploration in the region began in the mid 1940’s by the U.S. Navy within the Naval Petroleum Reserve, 4 (now the NPR-A). Three oil fields and six gas fields were explored as part of these early activities within the region. Early oil development and production focused on discoveries near the major oil resources near and surrounding Prudhoe Bay. Discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay in 1968 was followed by discoveries at Kuparuk, West Sak, and Milne Point in 1969 (NRC 2003). Development east and west of those core areas followed as economics improved, drilling techniques advanced, and transportation and other infrastructure was developed. Development at the Colville River Unit (Alpine) in 2004 expanded oil production to its westernmost limit at that time and indicated industry’s willingness to develop smaller and more challenging petroleum fields.

Exploration and development is currently continuing south and west of Kuparuk, with new development at the Sharks Tooth satellite pad in the southeastern corner of Kuparuk; Mustang development southwest of Kuparuk in the Southern Miluveach Unit; and CD5 west of the Colville River Delta (CRD), an extension of the Alpine Satellite Development Project in the Colville River Unit. CD5 represents the western-most oilfield development on the North Slope. GMT1, a satellite of Alpine, and proposed Greater Mooses Tooth Two (GMT2) would push oilfield development even farther west. Those development activities are within the vicinity of the Project (see Figure 1).

Winter exploration continues west of Alpine and into the GMT and Bear Tooth units in the NPR-A. Further oil field development west into the NPR-A is currently predicted to be greatly diminished compared to predictions of a decade ago. More recent data indicate that 15 to 20 miles west of Alpine, hydrocarbons transition abruptly from oil to gas, and oil reservoir quality is

Nanushuk Project



greatly reduced. USGS (2010) estimated that 604 million barrels of conventional, undiscovered oil and 18 trillion cubic feet of conventional, undiscovered non-associated gas are beneath the NPR-A and adjacent state waters. The estimated volume of oil is less than 10 percent of the 2002 USGS estimate. Winter exploration in the northeastern NPR-A and elsewhere in the North Slope region that has been defined with specific proposed actions is an RFFA.

To the east, oil and gas development can be expected to approach the western boundaries of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge at Point Thomson, as identified in the 2012 Point Thomson Project EIS (USACE 2012a). As infrastructure is constructed to support that development, other oil and gas accumulations that were initially bypassed may become more economically attractive. Development there is possible, but these potential projects are not far enough along to be characterized as reasonably foreseeable.

Exploration is underway in the marine waters and along the coastline of the Beaufort Sea. Development in Beaufort Sea coastal waters is reasonably predictable, as are pipelines and other supporting infrastructure. However, there is insufficient information about specific proposed actions to treat that development as an RFFA.

Petroleum exploration and production may occur in the Chukchi Sea in the next two decades, along with a pipeline carrying sales oil east across the NPR-A to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM 2012) estimated that Chukchi Sea oil production would require 1,000 miles of offshore pipeline and 500 miles of onshore pipeline to transport processed oil to TAPS. A preferred pipeline route has not been identified, but routing would be influenced by special areas designated in the BLM NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 2012), which could tend to limit transition of under-sea pipelines to on-shore pumping and other facilities. The on-shore pipeline could reasonably be expected to be routed south of the Teshekpuk Lake special area, which would tend to align it south of the CRD. A road could be constructed parallel to the pipeline, but again, that decision has not been made. The pipeline and other infrastructure could lead to additional oil development in the NPR-A. As BLM (2012) stated:

The large-scale infrastructure built for Chukchi Outer Continental Shelf development could make it economic to develop small, remote oil and gas fields along the transportation corridor that would otherwise be sub-economic.

While Chukchi Sea exploration and development is possible, it is not at all clear whether it will happen and under what circumstances. Accordingly, pipeline routing and other on-shore infrastructure is not reasonably foreseeable and cannot be forecast with enough clarity to allow impacts to be analyzed and included as an RFFA within this assessment.

A similar, but shorter pipeline and road corridor between the Dalton Highway and Umiat was proposed. If pursued, the road would open access to oil and other resources near Umiat and along the route. If built, the road would be well south of the CRD and would have less potential to cumulatively affect activities and resources in the vicinity of the Project. The Corps recently announced that it has suspended work on the project. Accordingly, the road is not viewed as an RFFA for this evaluation.

The NRC (2003) estimated that North Slope oil infrastructure disturbed 17,127 acres of land and inland waters between 1968 and 2001. BLM (2012) used available data and consensus to estimate that 55,895 acres would be disturbed in its region of analysis by the year 2100. The BLM (2012) region of analysis included the NPR-A, lands east of the NPR-A to the Colville

Nanushuk Project



River, and near-shore marine and estuarine waters. BLM attributed approximately 90 percent of that past and predicted future disturbance to oil and gas related activities.

Project Vicinity: Past actions in the project vicinity include the initial Alpine and Alpine Satellite Development Projects footprint. Oil exploration activities and development associated with Alpine include two well pads (CD 1 and CD2) in the initial development that began producing in 2000 (BLM 2012), and two satellite developments (CD3 and CD4). A central processing facility, airstrip, camp, and other infrastructure are on the CD1 pad. A single sales oil pipeline under the Colville River transports sales oil from Alpine to Kuparuk, where it is incorporated with other sales oil and transported to TAPS.

In 2005, USACE approval for Oooguruk Development Project included the construction of an offshore island comprised of gravel, the placement of erosion protection around the island, the addition of a sheet-piled dock to the island, excavation of two test trenches for the flowline bundle, and short term erosion protection (USACE 2005). In 2006, USACE permitted placement of gravel fill, seafloor sediments, and overburden for development of the Nikaitchuq Development Project (USACE 2006). Nikaitchuq includes an onshore pad at Oliktok Point, an artificial gravel island near Spy Island, a sub-seafloor pipeline bundle, and other associated infrastructure.

Present actions include the CD5 Development and associated gravel fill as part of the Alpine Satellite Development Project. Construction of CD5 will add a pipeline over the Nigliq channel of the Colville River, the drill site, an access road, pipelines, three bridges, and other infrastructure. The project is permitted by USACE (POA-2005-1576). In 2012, USACE approval for placement of clean fill for construction of the Mustang Development Project included a gravel production pad, processing facilities, wells, pipelines, and access roads (USACE 2012a). In 2013, USACE permitted the placement of gravel for the Nuna Project including fill for the construction of roads, elevated pipelines, two drill sites, and a pipeline tie-in pad with access road (USACE 2013a).

ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc.’s (CPAI) expansions in Kuparuk include the placement of additional fill on the Kuparuk Industrial Center and Kuparuk Construction Services pads. These expansions accommodate shops, offices, camps, and equipment storage and staging (Cardno ENTRIX 2013).

Proposed development of GMT1 west and south of Alpine includes a gravel footprint for pipelines, roads, drill pads, and associated facilities (BLM 2014). BLM (2014) estimated that development of GMT2 would require similar facilities and gravel footprint depending upon alternative selection. The supplemental EIS has been completed for GMT1 (BLM 2014), and both the BLM and USACE issued Records of Decision in early 2015 (BLM 2015; USACE 2015). BLM considers both GMT1 and GMT2 to be RFFAs.

Additionally, gravel used for past actions, present actions and RFFA originates from gravel mines in or near the project vicinity. Extraction from and expansion of these gravel mines are also part of the cumulative impacts. For example in 2012, the USACE posted notice of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation’s proposed plans to rehabilitate and expand gravel mines approximately 4.5 miles east northeast of Nuiqsut. The proposed project included gravel mining and gravel pit reclamation consisting of 150 previously permitted acres and 430 new acres underlain with sand and gravel deposits (USACE 2012c).

Table 1 indicates several past actions, present actions, and RFFAs associated with oil and gas activities in the project vicinity.

Nanushuk Project



Table 1. Past Actions, Present Actions and RFFA’s in the Project Vicinity

Unit Project Footprint (Acres)

a

Past Action Present Action

RFFA

Colville River/Alpine Participating Areas

Alpine 228b X X

Colville River

CD5 Development

61c X

Greater Mooses Tooth

Greater Mooses Tooth One (GMT1)

73d X

Greater Mooses Tooth

Greater Mooses Tooth Two (GMT2)

87 to 93b X

Oooguruk Oooguruk Development

91e X X

Oooguruk/ Kuparuk River

Nuna Development

101f X X

Nikaitchuq Nikaitchuq Development Project

183g X X

Kuparuk River

Kuparuk Industrial Center Pad Expansion

48h X

Kuparuk River

Kuparuk Construction Services Pad Expansion

10h X

Southern Miluveach

Mustang Development

99i X

a. Footprint areas represent acres of fill in waters of the U.S. Upland areas are not shown, but are a small percentage of lands in the coastal plains of the North Slope. Acre values are primarily from permits and public notices as indicated. Subsequent maintenance and permit modifications may have altered these figures.

b. BLM 2014

c. POA-2005-1576 (USACE 2011)

d. POA-2013-461 (USACE 2015)

e. POA-2005-1295 (USACE 2005)

f. POA-2005-1295-M6 (USACE 2013a)

g. POA-2005-1243 (USACE 2006)

h. Cardno ENTRIX 2013

i. POA-2012-236 (USACE 2012b)

Nanushuk Project



There is potential for continuing exploration and potential future development within the project vicinity on leases owned by Repsol or other oil and gas development companies. None of these exploration activities have evolved into development plans such that impacts can be reasonably evaluated. For that reason, potential future development within the project vicinity beyond those already discussed is not identified as an RFFA. Ongoing exploration activities by Repsol and others in the CRD are evaluated as RFFAs.

4.2 Transportation

Regional: Transportation infrastructure may be expanded to follow some of the major pipeline routes and to reach natural gas fields closer to the Brooks Range. Communities may be expected to continue to develop roads and airfields to meet the needs of residents, and will continue to use off-road vehicles for transportation in and between communities. Community expansion in the region, including transportation improvements that would accompany expansion, is addressed in Section 4.5.

Project Vicinity: The Nuiqsut Spur Road was permitted in 2013 (USACE 2013b). The 5.8-mile, 24-foot-wide gravel road will connect the community with the Alpine road network, improve road access to the community landfill, and improve access to subsistence resources. The road and a 10-acre pad will place 478,000 cubic yards of gravel fill in 51 acres. This is present action.

The Colville River Access Road would extend an existing gravel road to facilitate subsistence-related activities along the Colville River. The road would extend the existing road 3.8 miles to the west bank of the Colville River approximately 5.5 miles upstream from Nuiqsut. The road would place an estimated 135,000 cubic yards of fill and would impact about 21 acres. The Native Village of Nuiqsut has submitted a Section 404 permit application for this action (USACE 2014). This is an RFFA.

Additional roads are likely to be constructed as Nuiqsut continues to grow, but community needs that would drive road construction, routing, and construction designs cannot be predicted with any certainty. Future transportation infrastructure to support Nuiqsut is not reasonably foreseeable.

4.3 Research

Regional: Research conducted by federal, state, and local agencies, as well as universities and other academic programs, is conducted in this region. This research typically consists of one-time or recurring studies focused on specific species, habitats, hydrology, and other aspects of the natural environment. This research may be summarized and published in academic and scientific journals. These documents typically provide information about funding sources, theses, research methodologies, general findings, and conclusions. This research is not strictly associated with resource extraction.

Research associated with resource extraction may include studies conducting aerial observations of birds and terrestrial and marine mammals and oceanographic studies in the Beaufort Sea. These studies are associated with baseline data collection, fulfilling permit requirements and land use requirements, and habitat and species monitoring programs.

Research activities are additive and cumulative to impacts of transportation and other ground activities associated with oil and gas, recreation, and subsistence activities. Research activities have been of particular concern in the marine environment. Research activities will continue, but

Nanushuk Project



those actions, and particularly on-land research activities, are not sufficiently defined in extent or in their potential for impact to be considered as RFFAs.

Project Vicinity: Research in the project vicinity is of a similar nature to those discussed at the regional level and would be expected to continue as support to regional management and environmental assessment databases. Research activities also may be conducted to verify project development impacts and to support mitigation actions. Those research activities would be additive and cumulative to other activities and development, but are not sufficiently defined in extent or in their potential for impact to be considered as RFFAs.

4.4 Military

Regional: BLM (2012) estimated that Distant Early Warning (DEW) line, the advanced radar and communication sites that replaced and expanded DEW line functions, and related military developments in the North Slope region have impacted more than 13,000 acres. Much smaller areas were developed and used by the Naval Arctic Research Laboratory and the U.S. Coast Guard for research, navigation aids, and communication. The military also conducted training exercises, notably at Umiat, but also periodically at other locations in the region. One continuing effect of earlier military defense and oil exploration is the release of petroleum, debris, and contaminants into the Colville River at Umiat.

No plans for renewed military activity or infrastructure in the region have been expressed, although expanded international shipping across the Arctic Ocean could lead to supporting shore-based facilities. Potential for this is too uncertain to be evaluated as an RFFA. Military winter training may be conducted during future exercises in the region, but would be brief and would be unlikely to cause more than minor, temporary impacts to ground cover or other resources, provided that BMPs for vehicle operation and polar habitat avoidance were observed.

Military training, testing, and national defense activities can be expected to continue in waters of the Arctic Ocean, including waters that also may be affected oil exploration and production. Those marine activities and their effects cannot be predicted with available information and generally would not tend to impact the same resources as the Project.

Cleanup and restoration of DEW line and other formerly used military sites, including early exploratory wells, has been conducted for almost three decades on the North Slope and is likely to continue in the foreseeable future. The net effect would be positive as contaminants and hazardous materials are removed, usable facilities are transferred to others in the region, and land is restored. Quantitative information is not available to predict timing or extent of those future actions and their effects. No regional military actions are RFFAs.

Project Vicinity: DEW line sites at the mouth of the Kogru River northwest of the CRD, and at Oliktok Point, northeast of the CRD, have been closed for decades. Site structures, debris, and potentially hazardous materials have largely been removed or contained. No RFFAs related to military objectives or potential activities have been identified in the project vicinity.

4.5 Community Development

Regional: BLM (2012), in consultation with the North Slope Borough, estimated that communities in the region had occupied approximately 1,800 acres by 2008. They estimated that, assuming community infrastructure and footprint growth at roughly the same pace as

Nanushuk Project



population (with most growth between 2020 and 2050), the combined communities’ footprint would double to approximately 3,600 acres by the mid twenty-first century (BLM 2012).

Project Vicinity: Nuiqsut encompasses approximately 5,760 acres, with 341 acres developed for infrastructure (BLM 2012). Permit applications and other information regarding RFFAs at Nuiqsut are primarily related to transportation and are addressed in Section 4.2. BLM (2012) uses the general assumption that populations in North Slope communities might be expected to double during about the same period as the life of the Project. BLM (2012) suggested that Nuiqsut might be expected to double its land development for infrastructure to approximately 680 acres during that period. This future development is not sufficiently defined to be an RFFA.

5.0 REFERENCES

ADOG (Alaska Division of Oil and Gas). 2013. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas, Annual Report 2013.

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2004. Alpine Satellite Development Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement Volumes 1, 2, and 3. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Anchorage, Alaska.

———. 2012. National Petroleum Reserve − Alaska. Final Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, in cooperation with the North Slope Borough, U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Anchorage, Alaska.

———. 2014. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Alpine Satellite Development Plan for the Greater Mooses Tooth One Development Project. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Anchorage, Alaska.

———. 2015. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Alpine Satellite Development Plan for the Greater Mooses Tooth One Development Project – Record of Decision. Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska.

Cardno ENTRIX. 2013. Final Environmental Evaluation Document for Kuparuk Industrial Center and Kuparuk Construction Services Pad Expansion Projects. Prepared for ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. December 16, 2013.

CEQ 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, D.C.: Council on Environmental Quality.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2013. Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Services, and Office of Protected Resources.

NRC (National Research Council). 2003. Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska's North Slope. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Repsol. 2015. Nanushuk Project, North Slope, Alaska, Project Description. Document No: A1-000-GE-RV-4H-0004 Rev PD.

Nanushuk Project



USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2005. Public Notice of Application for Permit POA-2005-1295 Harrison Bay, Beaufort Sea. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey).

———. 2006. Department of the Army Permit POA-2005-1243, Nikaitchuq Development Project. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, Alaska District, Alaska Regulatory Division CEPOA-RD, JBER, AK. February 16, 2006.

———. 2010. Updated Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA) October. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3102/pdf/FS10-3102.pdf (accessed January 2015).

———. 2011. Department of the Army Permit POA-2005-1576, CD5. December 19, 2011. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. Anchorage, Alaska.

———. 2012a. Point Thomson Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. Anchorage, Alaska.

———.2012b. Public Notice Application for Permit POA-2012-236, Miluveach River. Mustang Development Project. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. Anchorage, Alaska.

———.2012c. Public Notice Application for Permit POA-1996-869-M4, Colville River/Nuiqsut. ASRC Gravel Mine. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. Anchorage, Alaska.

———.2013a. Department of the Army Permit POA-2005-12-95-M6 Beaufort Sea, Nuna Development Project, Pioneer Natural Resources, Inc., Nuna Development Project. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, Alaska Regulatory Division CEPOA-RD, JBER, AK. February 26, 2013.

———.2013b. Department of the Army Permit POA-2013-68, Nuiqsut Spur Road. Permit Evaluation and Decision Document. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, Alaska Regulatory Division CEPOA-RD, JBER, AK. May 20, 2013.

———. 2014. Revision, POA-2013-404, Colville River, Colville River Access Road. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District Alaska Regulatory Division CEPOA-RD, JBER, AK. July 10, 2014.

———. 2015. Record of Decision, POA-2013-461, Colville River. Greater Mooses Tooth One.

Documents

Cumulative Impact MethodologyCumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska’s North Slope, is the foundation for the many evaluations that followed. The NRC