This is long, so if you want to see exactly what the report says instead
of
looking at we say about it, the report is also available directly from the
National Research Council as follows:
Press Release:
www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309087376
Summary (4 pages)
books.nap.edu/html/north_slope/reportbrief.pdf
Full Report (viewable on screen and searchable but you cannot print or
download it):
www.nap.edu/books/0309087376/html/
Briefing as Real Player:
video.nationalacademies.org/ramgen/news/030403.rm
The report documents significant environmental and cultural effects that
have accumulated as the result of three decades of oil development on
Alaska
's North Slope. Industrial activity has transformed what once was part of
the largest intact wilderness area in the United States into a complex of
oilfields and their interconnecting roads and pipelines that stretches
over
1,000 square miles. Many important effects on animals and vegetation
extend
well beyond the actual "footprint" of development. New technologies have
reduced some effects, but despite this, the committee concluded that
expansion into new areas is certain to exacerbate existing effects and
generate new ones (21).
While no economic assessment of the environmental costs of oil development
on the North Slope has been done (232), the report estimates that the
costs
of removing facilities and restoring habitat will run in the billions of
dollars (155). No money has been set aside for this purpose by either the
oil companies or the government. Because natural recovery in the arctic
is
slow, effects caused by unrestored facilities are likely to persist for
centuries (16).
Animals
Bowhead whale migrations have been displaced by the intense noise of
seismic
exploration offshore. Spilled oil poses a great potential threat to
bowhead
whales due to their specific morphological characteristics. (164).
The reproductive success of some bird species in the oilfields has been
reduced to the point where some oil-field populations are likely
maintained
only by immigration from more productive "source" habitats elsewhere
(200).
An important consequence of this phenomenon is that loss of such "source"
habitats can threaten the viability of a population even though most of
the
habitat occupied by the species in region remains relatively intact. The
location of important source habitat for birds or other species is not
well
characterized for the North Slope. Thus, the spread of industrial
development into new areas could result in unexpected species declines,
even
though total habitat loss might be modest (158, 253).
Some denning polar bears have been disturbed by industrial activities.
Though limited development offshore has taken place to date, full scale
industrial development offshore would displace polar bears and ringed
seals
from their habitats, increase mortality, and decrease their reproductive
success. Predicted climate change is likely to have serious effects on
polar
bears and ringed seals that will accumulate with those related to oil
development (169).
Caribou
Although industrial development has not resulted in a long-term decline in
the Central Arctic Herd (the herd most affected by current oil
development),
the Committee concluded that by itself is not a sufficient measure of
whether adverse effects have occurred (185). Female caribou exposed to
oilfield activity and infrastructure produced fewer calves, and following
years when insect harassment was high, that effect increased, which may
have depressed herd size. The spread of industrial activity into other
areas
that caribou use for calving and relief from insects, especially to the
east
where the coastal plain is narrower than elsewhere, would likely result in
reductions in reproductive success. (15, 254).
The Porcupine herd, which calves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
has
the lowest growth capacity of the four arctic herds and the least capacity
to resist natural and human-caused stress (187). Higher insect activity
associated with climate warming could counteract any benefits of reduced
surface development by increasing the frequency with which caribou
encounter
infrastructure (187).
Development "Footprint"
Development has directly affected 17,000 acres spread across an area
roughly
the size of the land area of Rhode Island. Of this, 9,000 acres are
covered
by gravel, excluding TAPS, the Haul Road and facilities in NPRA (64,65,
70).
The environmental effects of oil development are not limited to the
"footprint" (actual area covered by a structure), but occur at distances
that vary depending on the environmental component affected, from a few
miles (animals), to much farther (visual effects and seismic effects on
whales) (8 and 15).
Climate change and new technologies
Climate change will continue to affect the usefulness of many oilfield
technologies and how they affect the environment (8). For example, the
length of the winter season when seismic and other off road tundra travel
is
permitted, and ice roads and pads are constructed, has been steadily
decreasing since the 1970's (137 and 138). The coastline of the North
Slope
is presently eroding at a rate of 8 feet per year, the fastest rate of
coastline erosion in the United States, and this will accelerate with
climate change (95).
Wilderness
Oil development has compromised wilderness values over 1,000 square miles
of
the North Slope. The potential for further loss is at least as great as
what
has already occurred as development expands into new areas (239). Roads,
pads, pipelines, seismic vehicle tracks, transmission lines, air, ground
and
vessel traffic, drilling activities, and other industrial activities and
infrastructure have eroded wilderness values over an area that is far
larger
than the area of direct effects (227).`Most analyses of wilderness effects
conducted by the government are cursory, out of date, or both, and none
has
used new techniques for measuring wilderness values, or attempted to
coordinate wilderness assessment or planning among different jurisdictions
(229).
Economic costs of Environmental Effects
There have been no economic valuation studies of the effects of oil
development on the physical, biological, or human environment on the North
Slope (232). As a result, the full cost of oil development on Alaska's
North
Slope has not been assessed, quantified, or incorporated into decisions
that
affect use of public land (233). Incorporation of environmental costs into
an overall economic assessment of development would alter projections of
economically recoverable oil and gas on public land on the North Slope.
For
example, the U.S. Geological Survey periodically estimates the amount of
recoverable oil in various areas of federally owned land on the North
Slope.
In doing so, the USGS generally projects the amount of oil that is
"economically recoverable" from these lands given a particular price of
oil
and given a set of costs associated with development and transportation.
By
not fully accounting for environmental costs in its projections, the USGS
underestimates the cost of development, which in turn inflates the amount
of
oil considered economically recoverable at a given market price (234).
Spills
Hundreds of spills occur each year in the oilfields, but to date they have
not been large enough or frequent enough for their effects to have
accumulated. Offshore, the industry has not demonstrated the ability to
clean up more than a small fraction of oil spilled in marine waters,
especially when broken ice is present (15).
Air pollution
Not enough information is available to provide a quantitative baseline of
spatial and temporal trends in air quality over long periods across the
North Slope, and little research has been done to quantify effects. More
than 70,000 tons of NOx, are emitted each year by industrial facilities on
the North Slope, along with thousands of tons of sulfur dioxide, carbon
monoxide, volatile organic hydrocarbons, and millions of tons of carbon
dioxide (66). Even though air quality meets national ambient air quality
standards, it is not clear that those standards are sufficient to protect
arctic vegetation (141).
Lack of restoration
Only about 100 acres (1%) of the habitat affected by gravel fill on the
North Slope have been restored (15). The Committee concluded that unless
major changes occur, it is unlikely that most disturbed habitat on the
North
Slope will ever be restored (16). Because natural recovery in the arctic
is
slow, effects of unrestored structures are likely to persist for
centuries,
and will accumulate as new structures are added (16).
Decision-making
Decisions about development on the North Slope have generally been made
one
case at a time, in the absence of a comprehensive plan and regulatory
strategy that identifies the scope, intensity, direction, and consequences
of industrial activities judged appropriate and desirable (17).
Similarly,
the minimal rehabilitation of disturbed habitat has occurred without an
overall plan to identify land-use goals, objectives to achieve them,
performance criteria, or monitoring requirements. Little consideration has
been given to how future trajectories of development would be viewed by
different groups, including North Slope residents (241). In addition, as
indicated above, the full cost of oil development on Alaska's North Slope
has not been assessed, quantified, or incorporated into decisions that
affect use of public land.
Winter off-road seismic exploration and ice roads
The Committee estimates that more than 32,000 miles of seismic trails,
receiver trails, and camp-move trails were created between 1990 and 2001,
an
annual average of 2,900 miles each year (154). If current trends continue,
some 30,000-line miles will be surveyed on the North Slope over the next
decade. These trails produce a serious accumulating visual effect and can
damage vegetation and cause erosion. Data do not exist to determine the
period that the damage will persist, but some effects are known to have
lasted for several decades.(252). Seismic exploration is expanding
westward
into the western arctic and the foothills, where the hilly topography
increases the likelihood that vehicles will damage vegetation (252). The
use
of ice roads and pads has increased and will continue to do so, but little
information is available on how long effects persist.
Regulatory issues
The report did not evaluate the adequacy of existing regulations. However
in
the course of the review, a number of issues arose. Examples include the
following.
Protecting the tundra from winter off road travel
DNR permits tundra travel for seismic camps where there is an average of
6"
of snow and 12" of frozen soil, which the committee concluded are not
based
on scientific evidence (154). The only published study of seismic
disturbance in relation to snow cover suggests that disturbance occurs at
snow depths of 10"-28" of snow. In addition, the use of AVERAGE snowpack
and
frost thickness by regulatory agencies does not take into account
differences in snow cover across different land forms or across the slope.
Restoration
Fewer than 1% of Corps permits contain restoration requirements, and those
don't generally include specific standards, requirements for long term
monitoring, or performance criteria (147). Only 6 of the 1,179 permits
issued by the Corps require the re-use of gravel. The Corps does not have
an estimate of the area affected by permits it has issued.
Groundwater
Existing data on groundwater suggests that sub-permafrost groundwater may
meet the regulatory definition of a drinking water source more commonly
than
thought. No testing of groundwater is required prior to waste injection
(115-116).
Water withdrawals
Water withdrawals from fish-bearing lakes for purposes such as building
ice
roads and pads are limited to 15% of the estimated minimum winter water
volume. The committee cited the lack of data to support this criterion,
which it terms arbitrary (206). For fishless lakes, there were no
restrictions on removal of water as of late 2002; all unfrozen water from
such lakes can be drained. The effects of such complete withdrawals have
not been evaluated (247).
