OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (OCS) SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE (SC)

April 22-24, 2003

Anchorage, Alaska

April 22, 2003

**A. [Director's Presentation]{.underline}**

Mr. Robert LaBelle, who had recently been appointed the Associate
Director for Offshore Minerals Management, gave the Director's
presentation. As advisor to the Director, MMS, the Committee appreciates
the opportunity to have a dialogue with the Associate Director on
ongoing and future issues, policies, and activities of the Bureau. This
exchange not only keeps the Committee apprised of MMS direction but also
offers an opportunity for the Committee to provide direct advice and
guidance on matters as they relate to the Environmental Studies Program.

Below is Mr. LaBelle's presentation to the SC:

***Introduction***

Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to be with you once again,
although this time I'm here as the new Deputy Associate Director for
Offshore Minerals Management. Unfortunately, neither our Director,
Johnnie Burton, nor our Associate Director, Tom Readinger, can be with
us this week. Since I know many of you, and many of you know me, you
know I share Johnnie and Tom's enthusiasm and respect for the important
work you do and welcome both the returning and new members of the
Committee. As for my own position, when I was promoted to Tom
Readinger's Deputy, I left the position of Chief of MMS's Environmental
Division. This position has been filled by Dick Wildermann who is with
us today.

Dick's previous position was the Chief, Branch of Environmental
Assessment, where he managed compliance with all environmental laws for
the Offshore Program. Dick has over 30 years experience with the Federal
Government, starting as a naval aviator and later as an Environmental
Specialist with the U.S. Coast Guard in New York City.  In 1978, he
joined the Bureau of Land Management and was later named Chief of the
Environmental Assessment Section in the Atlantic Region, where he
managed EIS preparation and oversight for environmental issues.  Dick
went on to become a charter member of MMS when he was reassigned to the
Agency in 1985.  Shortly after that, he was promoted and reassigned to
Headquarters as Chief, Branch of Environmental Evaluation. He has
received numerous Special Service and Performance Awards and holds a
Bachelor's degree from Fairfield University and a Master's degree from
Yale University's School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

We also have some new members with us today as well as an old friend who
has just relinquished his gavel. I want to personally thank Will
Schroeder for his years of service, particularly his Chairing of this
Committee and his involvement with many of its Subcommittees---most
recently the Committee's Mercury Subcommittee. Will, along with

Drs. Livingston Marshall and Denise Stephenson-Hawk and one of the
Committee's past members, Dr. Eric Crecelius, were invaluable in their
review and evaluation of information pertaining to concerns over mercury
in the waters and sediments of the Gulf of Mexico. The guidance they
have provided on what actions the MMS should take in the context of oil
and gas activities in the Gulf has been extremely important, not only to
MMS and the Department, but also to an Interagency Working Group on
Mercury established by the White House.

Regarding our new members, I would like to welcome:

> • Dr. Richard Hildreth of the Ocean and Coastal Law Center, University
> of Oregon
>
> • Dr. P. Michael Kosro of the College of Oceanic & Atmospheric
> Sciences, Oregon State University
>
> • Dr. Mary Scranton of the Marine Sciences Research Center, State
> University of New York
>
> • Dr. Joseph Smith, Offshore Division, Exxon/Mobil Upstream Research;
> and
>
> • Dr. John H. Trefry, Division of Marine and Environmental Systems,
> Florida Institute of Technology

I hope you will find the time you spend working with us as valuable to
you as we find working with you. In this regards, I understand that Jim
Kendall's presentation later today will be very different from those of
past years. He will not only walk you through the Environmental Studies
Process, but also report to you on a "Recent Assessment Exercise" taking
place at the highest levels of Government. This being said I do want to
state in one simple sentence why your committee exists:

> The role of the OCS Scientific Committee---simply stated---is to
> advise the MMS Director on the feasibility, appropriateness, and
> scientific value of the Environmental Studies Program.

Now, why are we in Alaska? Over the past decade, as with all government
agencies, our resources continue to be cut back. As such, resources for
travel have become more and more difficult to come by. However, it's
been over a decade (1991) since we've conducted one of your meetings in
Alaska, and during that time, a lot of has occurred. Later today you'll
hear from John Goll, Regional Director of our Alaska OCS Region, on the
activities and challenges they face.

To mention one more new face & change. . . . Many of you are familiar
with Julie Reynolds. Julie has been helping out for a couple of years
now but has recently earned/been given even more responsibility for MMS.
As such, this may be her last meeting with your Committee.  However, one
of her long time colleagues, Ms. Carolyn Beamer, has agreed to take up
the cause. Carolyn will be working with Phyllis Clark to ensure that
logistics, agenda planning, etc., are continued without missing a beat.
Welcome aboard Carolyn! One additional note, Phyllis has been involved
with this Committee for well over a decade and may very well hold the
record for attending these meetings. 

Now, before you get started with working with our Headquarters and
Regional Studies Teams on studies planning for 2004 and beyond, I'd like
to set the stage by saying a few words about MMS and the OCS Program in
general, which may help remind us as to why we're all here and how we
fit in.

***The OCSLA is 50 years old***

A little over 54 years ago, the first well out of sight of land was
drilled by Kerr-McGee. This well was instrumental in the passage of the
OCS Lands Act in 1953 -- The OCSLA is 50 years old this year! The MMS is
the largest land manager in the United States -- albeit submerged lands.
Just as the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service have
responsibility for millions of acres of cultural, natural, and mineral
resources onshore so does the Minerals Management Service, offshore---in
the amount of 1.76 billion acres.

***Offshore Production***

Today, production from the 40 million OCS acres under lease account for
about 30 percent of domestic crude oil production and 25 percent of
domestic natural gas production. We manage these offshore lands from the
initial assessment of the resources available to the end of a field's
production life, when a company plugs and abandons its wells and cleans
up the surrounding environment.

The MMS has done this job for 20 years and in that time, for its
offshore responsibility alone, has collected over \$80 billion in
revenue generated by over 66 lease sales, 8.6 billion barrels of oil,
and 90 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

We project that by 2006 the OCS could easily account for about 40
percent of U.S. oil production. At the same time, we expect the OCS to
continue to account for about 25 percent of domestic natural gas
production. In the Gulf of Mexico, deepwater production now accounts for
about 60 percent of the Gulf's oil production and 23 percent of the
natural gas production. Deepwater development projects continue at a
fast pace. In 2002, twelve new deepwater discoveries were made (3 of
these were in 8,000 feet or greater water depths), and 14 new deepwater
projects began production. These joined the 51 that were already in
production for a total of 65. And of these 65 projects, 41 are subsea
completions with a tieback to a surface facility. We expect a
significant rise in the number of deepwater projects that will start
production in the year 2003 -- perhaps as many as 19.  This rise in
production, using the MMS low-case estimate for 2006, would increase oil
production from the OCS by 75 percent since 1995. If we approach the
high-case estimate, we would be looking at an increase of about 118
percent in a 10-year span. This is a truly remarkable American success
story.

The rise in production from the Gulf of Mexico and the importance of the
OCS in the national energy picture is no accident. Two of the major
factors are great geology and the application of ingenious technologies.
One a gift of nature and the other brought to the table by the industry.
However there is a third component that MMS is directly responsible for
-- a flexible regulatory regime that seeks to use, where possible,
economic incentives to stimulate development.

***Royalty Incentive Program***

We offer a royalty incentive program for deepwater leases, and have
expanded the incentives to promote development of natural gas from deep
horizons in shallow waters. We are also considering how to extend the
deep shelf gas royalty relief provisions to leases purchased before
2002. We also offer lease extensions for certain exploration activities
that focus on targets that occur beneath subsurface salt sheets. The
deep shelf gas and subsalt provisions are specifically targeted at
bringing more natural gas production online in the near future (2004 to
2007) to help meet the expanding demand for natural gas.

We are also developing economic incentives for exploration in offshore
waters of Alaska, and, programwide, we want to make sure our process for
permitting new wells is the most efficient and effective possible. That
being said, it is critical that we have a well managed program of
regular lease sales in the areas where exploration is allowed.

***Deepwater & Deep Drilling***

Developing a deepwater production and regulatory strategy in the Gulf of
Mexico is only one issue that we must evaluate. We must also start
paying attention to potential future ultra-deep drilling which may
require different lease terms. What I want to illustrate is that while
our deepwater story is by and large a successful one---and grabs the
lion's share of the headlines---there are other issues we face that are
a little more intractable and require considerable time, effort, and
consultation to resolve.

For example, on March 26 we published a Proposed Rule to allow owners of
existing leases to take advantage of a royalty relief incentive for
drilling deep gas prospects in the shelf waters of the Gulf of Mexico. A
form of this relief was already available for leases purchased after
2001.

Few other initiatives can address near and mid-term shortfalls in
natural gas supplies due to long lead times needed to explore and
develop resources. Deep-shelf gas can be brought on line quickly because
of an extensive existing infrastructure in shallow water (pipelines,
platforms, producing facilities). Drilling can commence immediately,
with new production in 2004-2009. New leases (on about 1200 tracts?) can
tap only a fraction of the deep-shelf resource potential that underlies
mostly existing leases issued earlier.

The Proposed Rule extends incentives to older leases to tap the majority
of the resource potential. This could result in an additional 100 to 200
billion cubic feet of natural gas production per year, thus helping to
moderate prices with a consumer savings estimated at \$280 million per
year (for 18 years).

Finally, interest has been expressed for areas 30,000 feet or deeper.
MMS will begin considering whether other measures are warranted for such
extreme conditions.

***Our Other Research Program***

Regarding our other research efforts, the Technology Assessment &
Research Program issued a call for white papers assessing the
performance and damage experienced by Gulf of Mexico facilities during
Hurricane Lili. As a result of this call, we will be funding a number of
major engineering research efforts, and because of a need for better
physical oceanographic information, our Environmental Studies Program is
funding the development of a comprehensive, definitive, and reliable
database of wind, sea state, and currents associated with Hurricane Lili
in the northern Gulf of Mexico.

We intend to use the information we gather to develop a MMS damage
assessment report and to ensure that current MMS/industry guidelines are
adequate for future hurricanes. This is one example of how we meld the
research objectives of our different programs to ensure that OCS
operations continue to be safe and also protect the environment.

That is our mandate---set by Congress---and delegated from the Secretary
of the Interior. The main tenets of the OCSLA clearly state that the
Federal OCS is a vital national resource. Public lands should be made
available for [expeditious]{.underline} and orderly development, subject
to environmental safeguards, consistent with the competitive aspects of
our economic system, and based on [national]{.underline} needs

While all these tenets seem straightforward, the last one can be a
little tricky. Indeed, there are numerous other laws that, because of
the activity they regulate or resources they protect, have to be taken
into account when considering offshore activity.

***NOAA & the Marine Mammal Protection Act***

For example, the Marine Mammal Protection Act is one of those. Because
the responsibilities of the MMPA are under the purview of NOAA, the
Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, we must coordinate our permitting of offshore activity
with them.

The most recent instance of this working relationship in action concerns
how seismic activities may adversely affect marine life, particularly
sperm whales, which are an endangered species now known to inhabit Gulf
waters. In December 2002, MMS petitioned NOAA Fisheries for a rulemaking
(potential for harm) under the MMPA regarding seismic surveys in the
Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Fisheries published a Notice of the petition in the
March 3, 2003, *Federal Register*; the comment period ended April 16,
2003.

In the Federal Registers Notice, NOAA Fisheries indicates that *". . . .
in the interim period before this rulemaking is complete, MMS will
enforce the mitigation measures outlined in this section to ensure the
protections required by the ESA and MMPA."* The resulting mitigation and
monitoring requirements will most likely resemble requirements
established in the past for seismic surveys off California and Alaska,
the United Kingdom, and other countries.

***Homeland Security***

Another issue of primary importance in these troubling times is the
security of our offshore infrastructure. The importance of domestic
production has increased in view of the potential for a disruption in
oil and gas imports. MMS has adopted a proactive approach towards
homeland security by identifying key assets and sharing responsibility
with other Federal Agencies, such as the Coast Guard, State and local
governments, as well as private industry. We are improving communication
and security awareness and identifying vulnerabilities while we develop
measures to improve the protection of offshore personnel and facilities.
We have developed the OMM Threat Security Guidelines which form the
foundation for a comprehensive offshore security system. These
guidelines establish specific protective measures for each standardized
threat condition level of the Homeland Security Advisory System. MMS is
working with the Naval Facilities Engineering Service and the Sandia
National Laboratories to develop a threat assessment and management
methodology. This methodology will help MMS prioritize critical OCS
infrastructure in our OCS Regions. We are also working closely with the
Coast Guard to develop security regulations for offshore fixed and
floating facilities. And our most recent success has been to
successfully work with API, the Coast Guard, and others to draft and
publish security guidelines specifically tailored for offshore oil and
gas production operations. These guidelines are now available for
industry to use.

These are just a few of the many issues that we must negotiate on a
daily basis, but when we deal with a program that is as important to the
Nation's energy and economic security, it is essential that we go the
extra mile to ensure its continued operation.

As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the passage of the OCS Lands Act
later this year, it is important that we also recognize the exemplary
record of the offshore industry in operating safely. The offshore
industry, year after year, is one of the safest industrial activities in
the United States. This year's Safety in Seas Award was presented by the
National Ocean Industries Association to ChevronTexaco and Oceaneering
for being leaders in the field of safe operations in a demanding working
environment. We at MMS are proud to have been able to be part of the
selection process.

***Environmental Studies Program***

This afternoon we will be hearing about environmental study planning in
the regions. Tomorrow you will review the regional study plans for next
year and the environmental questions we are trying to answer to help us
manage OCS mineral development in as safe and environmentally sound a
manner as we possibly can. We look forward to your able assistance on
some of the key challenges we face as we attempt to formulate research
plans on many present and upcoming complex issues. I'd like to thank
this committee for helping us achieve our goals in the past and look
forward to working with you in the future.

**B. [Alaska OCS Regional Overview]{.underline}**

Mr. John Goll Alaska Regional Director, provided an overview of ongoing
and planned activity in Alaska. 

He explained that the Department has put very high importance on Alaska
to help provide access to federal lands for future energy. These themes
have resonated from many different sources -- from industry in past
meetings, local reporters, and even from both gubernatorial candidates
in the recent election.

Mr. Goll listed the Region's goals and challenges and explained each in
detail.

***Goals***

• More access to prospective lands is needed. Onshore BLM has been
offering areas in the NPRA on a regular basis; MMS has a more ambitious
program offshore. The State of Alaska is also looking to increase access
to State lands.

• Getting better clarity and certainty in the permitting arena.

• Fiscal policy. The State is fighting a large budget deficit and trying
to get its budget balanced; MMS is looking to economic incentives to
help facilitate offshore activity.

***Major Challenges***

• Oil Spills & Cleanup

• Bowhead Whale Subsistence

• Subsistence, in general

• Activity Avoidance

• Sociological Effects

• Impact Assistance

• Tribal Consultations

• Environmental Justice

• Lack of seismic vessels

• Lack of drilling vessels

• NRC North Slope Cumulative Effects Report

Mr. Goll added that in addition to holding its traditional Information
Transfer Meetings in Anchorage, the Region also make efforts to take its
researchers out to the communities. In March, an Information Update
Meeting was held in Barrow.

**C. [OCS Policy Committee Report]{.underline}**

Mr. Larry Schmidt presented the key discussion items from the OCS Policy
Committee's October 2002 meeting. Officers of the OCS Scientific
Committee and the OCS Policy Committee routinely attend each other's
meetings and give brief presentations on the various OCS issues with
which they are involved.

**D. [Report from the OCS SC Mercury Subcommittee]{.underline}**

Dr. William Schroeder reported that the Subcommittee had met and
reviewed existing information to provide recommendations on the
relevance and need for research regarding issues raised by the media
suggesting that offshore oil and gas discharges and platforms in the
Gulf of Mexico lead to mercury contamination in seafood.  The
Subcommittee report (November 2002) addresses the following questions,
findings, assessments, and recommendations:

•        *Are high concentrations of total mercury observed in sediment
at or adjacent to OCS oil and gas drilling sites associated with the
drilling mud weighting agent barite?*

> **Findings:** Results presented in both Neff (2002) and Trefry et al.
> (2002) indicate that barite
>
> (BaSO4) is the most likely source of any excess total mercury found in
> sediment at OCS oil
>
> and gas drilling sites. Specifically, Trefry et al. (2002) report
> concentrations of total Hg in
>
> sediment from far field reference sites ranged from 11-92 ng/g
> relative to values of 48-558
>
> ng/g for near field sediment collected within 100 m of drilling sites.
> They observed strong
>
> linear relationships ('r' values of 0.89-0.97) between concentrations
> of Barium (as barite) and
>
> total mercury in sediments from near field stations where total
> mercury levels exceeded
>
> background levels by a factor of 3-10. Barium levels in near field
> sediment ranged from 20-
>
> 28%, relative to far field concentrations of \~0.05-0.15%. The strong
> linear relationships
>
> between total mercury and Barium, coupled with the high levels of
> Barium (as barite) in
>
> these sediments, supported barite as the common source for both
> metals.
>
> **\* Assessment:** These findings sufficiently address this issue.
>
> **\* Recommendations:** No additional research is recommended at this
> time.
>
> **NOTE:** The range of total mercury concentrations measured in the
> sediments at the six
>
> drilling sites examined by Trefry et al. (2002) fit well within the
> range of total mercury
>
> concentrations in sediments from other drilling sites throughout the
> OCS Gulf of Mexico
>
> \[see Neff (2002), Table 10, p. 23; Trefry et al. (2002) Figure 3, p.
> 13\]. This provides
>
> support for taking the position that conditions observed at these six
> sites can be
>
> reasonably viewed as representative of conditions elsewhere in the OCS
> Gulf of Mexico
>
> where drilling activities have been conducted.

•        *Are concentrations of methylmercury in sediments at or
adjacent to OCS oil and gas drilling sites statistically higher than in
sediments unaffected by drilling activities?*

> **\* Findings:** Trefry et al. (2002) provide the first data on the
> distribution of methylmercury in sediments of the OCS Gulf of Mexico.
> They report that concentrations of methylmercury in surficial (0-2 cm)
> sediment do not vary significantly between near field (collected
> within 100 m of drilling sites) and far field (reference sites)
> stations at any of the six sites studied. In addition, there was no
> significant difference between methylmercury concentrations at near
> field and far field stations in subsurface (2-20 cm) samples at five
> of the six study sites. The average concentration of methylmercury
> from all near field samples (0.45 ± 0.41 ng/g) was virtually equal to
> the average reported for all far field samples (0.44 ± 0.27 ng/g). The
> greater variability observed in near field samples (range \<0.03-2.7
> ng/g) compared to far field (range 0.11-1.05 ng/g) was accounted for
> by the uneven distribution of discharged mud at drilling sites. The
> authors conclude (p. 43): *"Overall, the statistical results from this
> study . . . . . suggest that elevated levels of methylmercury in
> sediments around drilling platforms are not a widespread phenomenon".*
>
> **\* Assessment:** Unless some bias in the locations of, or conditions
> at, the sampling sites can be identified the subcommittee believes
> these findings sufficiently address this issue at this time.
>
> **\* Recommendations**: No additional research is recommended at this
> time.
>
> **NOTE:** If the concentration of methylmercury in sediment is not
> significantly different
>
> between near field and far field sites and the total area of all near
> field sites is on the order 1% or less of the total OCS area in the
> Gulf of Mexico, then even with some large uncertainty in the
> difference in concentration or production rate of methylmercury at
> near
>
> field sites, the contribution of methylmercury from these sites would
> be extremely small.

•        *Can increases in sediment concentrations of methylmercury at
or adjacent to OCS oil and gas drilling sites be directly attributed to
mercury introduced with barite? *

> **\* Findings:** Trefry et al. (2002) developed relatively sound case
> that mercury introduced
>
> with barite at OCS oil and gas drilling sites is not being converted
> to methylmercury. At one site their data show that near field samples
> with high levels of total mercury (i.e., 200-500 ng/g) can have
> methylmercury levels that are similar or lower than methylmercury
> levels found in samples at far field (background) stations. At another
> site, the near field sample with the highest concentration of total
> mercury (558 ng/g) contained only 0.23 ng/g of methylmercury, less
> than half the mean of the far field levels of methylmercury. However,
> the report acknowledges that ambiguities were also observed. Results
> from one site indicated enhanced concentrations of methylmercury at a
> few stations; however, the higher values were equivalent to \~3% or
> less of natural concentrations of total mercury. Therefore, these
> anomalously high levels of methylmercury could have either a natural
> or an anthropogenic source of mercury.
>
> **NOTE:** In September the Department of Interior \[DOI-MMS (2002)\]
> announced their intent to fund a study to investigate barite
> solubility and the associated release of trace components to the
> marine environment. The objectives of this study are to: (1) determine
> the solubility of barite under the environmental conditions found at
> the sea floor; (2) determine the amount of trace metals that are
> released, in particular mercury and cadmium; (3) determine the rate at
> which the barite dissolves; (4) determine the trace metal species
> within the barite structure; and (5) evaluate the effects of acidic
> environments on the solubility of barite and subsequent release of
> trace metals. The results from this study will provide direct answers
> for this issue.
>
> **\* Assessment:** Unless some bias in the locations of, or conditions
> at, the sampling sites
>
> can be identified the subcommittee believes these findings, together
> with the anticipated
>
> findings from the pending study, will sufficiently address this issue.
>
> **\* Recommendations:** No additional research is recommended at this
> time.

•        *Do discharges at OCS oil and gas drilling sites create
environmental conditions that enhance the conversion of mercury to
methylmercury?*

> **Findings:** Trefry et al. (2002) found that in most cases, changes
> in near field sediment
>
> redox conditions, associated with the presence of drilling mud and
> cuttings, did not result in higher concentrations of methylmercury. In
> fact they observe that relative to ambient sediments, much lower
> levels of methylmercury are found in near field sediment adjacent to
> drilling sites where the in situ conditions are anoxic, highly
> reducing and enriched with
>
> dissolved hydrogen sulfide. In a few instances, when the near field
> sediments were less
>
> sulfidic, higher levels of methylmercury were measured compared to
> levels in far field
>
> sediment.
>
> **\* Assessment:** Unless some bias in the locations of, or conditions
> at, the sampling sites can be identified the subcommittee believes
> these findings, along with potential findings from the pending study
> (see Issue 3 above), will sufficiently address this issue.
>
> **\* Recommendations:** No additional research is recommended at this
> time.

•        *Does the accumulation of organic matter (organic enrichment)
beneath or adjacent to oil/gas platforms create environmental conditions
that enhance the conversion of mercury to methylmercury?*

> **\* Findings:** None specifically addressing this issue.
>
> **NOTE:** Organic enrichment of surficial sediments on the OCS is not
> limited to sites beneath or adjacent to oil/gas platforms but rather
> can potentially occur wherever conditions permit enhanced biological
> production; for example, natural hard bottom features, artificial
> fishing reef structures or regions influenced by persistent upwelling
> or river input.
>
> **\* Assessment:** The Interagency Working Group on Methylmercury
> (IWGMHg) is the appropriate forum for addressing this complex issue
> since no single agency has responsibility for all the sub issues
> associated with it.
>
> **\* Recommendations:** The MMS should continue to actively
> participate in the IWGMHg.

•        *Does the development of a persistent (10^1^ to 10^2^ days)
bottom layer of anoxic or extremely hypoxic bottom water result in
conditions that promote methylation?*

> \* **Findings:** None. However, we have been informed that the IWGMHg
> will be considering this issue.
>
> **\* Assessment:** The IWGMHg is the appropriate forum for addressing
> this complex issue since no single agency has responsibility for all
> the sub issues associated with it.
>
> **\* Recommendations:** The MMS should continue to actively
> participate in the IWGMHg.

**FINAL NOTE:** Although the subcommittee has strived to conduct a
comprehensive and thorough review and evaluation of those aspects of
mercury in the marine environment

associated with OCS oil and gas activities we acknowledge that
additional 'issues of concern' could potentially be identified. In the
event that other issues are brought forth the subcommittee is prepared
to reconvene and address them.

**E. [MMS Coastal Marine Institute (CMI) Initiative
Overview]{.underline}**

Dr. James Kendall explained that the MMS Coastal Marine Institute (CMI)
initiative was proposed in 1991 as an MMS-State partnership to
strengthen relationships with coastal states where OCS oil and gas
activities take place and to improve the information flow to the
affected States and to the public. It accomplishes this by using State
institutions to conduct research on issues of concern to both the State
and MMS. This research is focused on environmental and socioeconomic
aspects of OCS oil and gas and marine mineral development activities.
Through the CMI\'s, increasing numbers of students and faculty are
engaging in OCS related research, developing new skills, and developing
new information and approaches to solving management issues.

In recognition of the mutual need for critical scientific information
for resource management decisions, the CMI program leverages MMS funds
with State funds (one-to-one matching is required) so that more research
can be done than if MMS funded all the work itself. The first
cooperative agreement under the CMI program was signed in 1992 with the
State of Louisiana and Louisiana State University. A second cooperative
agreement was signed with the State of Alaska and the University of
Alaska in 1993. A third agreement was signed with the University of
California at Santa Barbara in 1994.  Approximately 18% of the
Environmental Studies Program budget is allocated to research conducted
through the CMI\'s.

**F. [The Alaska Coastal Marine Institute, *Research and
Education*]{.underline}**

Dr. Vera Alexander stated that the University of Alaska CMI was formed
in 1993 as a partnership between the MMS and the University of Alaska
Fairbanks to provide support for research addressing environmental needs
in connection with offshore oil and gas development. A Technical
Steering Committee oversees the program and designs the framework
issues, which form the basis of a request for proposals. This Committee
includes members from the MMS, the University, and the State of Alaska.
The University has also invited the Alaska Science and Technology
Foundation to sit in on the meetings. Pre-proposals are reviewed and
those sent back for development into full proposals receive external
technical review and then are ranked by the Technical Steering
Committee. A wide range of projects have received support, including
physical oceanography and circulation in the Beaufort Sea and Cook
Inlet, modeling, biological studies and economic and social studies.
Since the CMI is a University-based entity, students are involved in
many of the projects, and several theses have been based on work
conducted through the CMI. A brief glimpse of some of the projects was
provided in Dr. Alexander's this presentation.

**G. [Overview of the MMS Environmental Studies Program]{.underline}**

MMS Headquarters and Regional Studies presentations outlined the overall
research needs and priorities of the National and Regional Studies
Programs. Presentations addressed current issues; information/knowledge
gaps; the most pressing research needs; how the various disciplines fit
together in the overall picture; and future Studies efforts, in terms of
expenditures and prioritization.

**H. [Regional Priorities and Environmental Information
Needs]{.underline}**

**MMS Sand & Gravel Environmental Studies**

> Mr. Barry Drucker reported that the MMS Leasing Division's Sand and
> Gravel Unit recently prepared a document entitled, "*Sand and Gravel
> Environmental Studies within the Minerals Management Service, A
> Framework for Decisionmaking*." The document provides background for
> the MMS management and staff on the role of sand and gravel
> environmental studies in decisionmaking for OCS marine mineral
> development and supports the Bureau's studies planning process,
> explaining to its constituencies how MMS uses sand and gravel-related
> science in its decisionmaking. This comprehensive document discusses
> in detail how the negotiated lease process is conducted and outlines
> environmental study areas to be pursued within the near-term and
> outlying years. Sand and gravel studies proposed for Fiscal Years 2004
> and 2005 are supported by the discussion, summary, and conclusions
> within the plan.

**Alaska OCS Region**

> Dr. Cleve Cowles said that current information needs include the
> following topics: surface circulation radar mapping; improvements in
> the fault tree approach to oil spill occurrence estimators for the
> Beaufort and Chukchi seas; bird hazing/deterrent techniques; passive
> acoustic monitoring of whales in Lower Cook Inlet; survey of Stellar's
> eiders wintering in Lower Cook Inlet; movements and habitat use of
> harbor seals in Cook Inlet; review and monitoring ambient artificial
> light intensity in the OCS and the potential for effects on resident
> fauna; and communicating agency goals and processes with Alaskan
> coastal communities. These study needs are focused on the Beaufort Sea
> and Cook Inlet, while sales in the current 5-Year leasing programs
> include those two Alaska Planning Areas as well as the Chukchi
> Sea/Hope Basin, Norton Basin. The study needs in Fiscal Years
> 2004-2005 are diverse compared to Fiscal Year 2003, with post-sale
> emphases.

**Pacific OCS Region**

> Dr. Fred Piltz reported that the Pacific OCS Region continues to
> produce oil and gas from 43 active leases but some of the fields are
> beginning to be depleted. The ESP in the Region continues to conduct a
> long-term intertidal biology monitoring program at areas adjacent to
> active oil and gas facilities in fulfillment of our mission
> responsibilities. The Region has begun to address the future
> decommissioning of oil and gas facilities by completing, implementing,
> and planning environmental research related to the information needed
> for decommissioning these very large multi-well facilities located in
> deep water. The Region has proposed a new Decommissioning Studies
> Initiative focusing on partnering with other funding entities to
> address decommissioning information needs. In addition, the ESP in the
> Pacific Region is in the last years of a major physical oceanography
> program for the Santa Barbara Channel and Santa Maria Basin that has
> advanced our understanding of the oceanography in this area. The CMI
> with the University of California Santa Barbara continues with active
> research planned through 2005.

**Gulf of Mexico OCS Region**

> Dr. Pat Roscigno explained that the ESP provides information needed to
> predict, assess, and manage impacts from offshore oil, gas, and
> mineral exploration, development, and production activities on human,
> marine, and coastal environments. Current information needs include
> several diverse subjects: Platform Removal; Hydrates; Deepwater
> Corals; Chemosynthetic Communities; and Endangered Species. There is
> concern about dismantling of the world's largest artificial reef
> system because of accelerating lease abandonment activities. With
> hydrates being a potential energy source, greater understanding is
> needed about its relationship with seafloor stability and with
> chemosynthetic communities. Accelerated OCS activities in deepwater
> has resulted in the need to understand the sensitivity of deepwater
> corals to these activities and to understand the role of
> chemosynthetic communities in the deepest parts of the Gulf. Because
> the deepwater is home to the endangered sperm whale, impacts of OCS
> activities on this species must also be considered and mitigated.
> Studies, ongoing and proposed, that address the Agency's informational
> needs, were discussed.

April 25, 2003

The Scientific Committee met with each region in Discipline Breakout
Groups. These Groups focused on Physical Oceanography, Biology/Ecology,
and Socioeconomics regarding future environmental research work and
whether proposed regional studies addressed MMS programs informational
needs for decision making.

April 26, 2003

**I. [Alaska Information Transfer Meeting (ITM)
Highlights]{.underline}**

> **Alaska ITM Overview**
>
> The Alaska OCS Region held its 9^th^ Information Transfer Meeting in
> Anchorage in March 10-12, 2003. Principal investigators gave 38 talks
> on ongoing or recently completed environmental studies. These studies
> included the spectrum of disciplines: physical oceanography, fate and
> effects, biology, protected species, social science and economics. One
> of the talks was by Dr. Vera Alexander, Director of the University of
> Alaska Coastal Marine Institute who gave an overview of five CMI
> studies. Six of the talks were on the introduction and five major
> components of the Arctic Nearshore Impact Monitoring in Development
> Area (ANIMIDA) study. Nine principal investigators from the ITM gave a
> talk on their study at an Information Update Meeting held in Barrow on
> March 14, 2003. In addition, one of the agenda items in Barrow was on
> Arctic Cisco. MMS is starting two studies on this fish species of
> concern to stakeholders on the North Slope.
>
> **The Minerals Management Service Arctic Nearshore Impact Monitoring
> in the Development Area (ANIMIDA) Program: Introduction to a
> Multi-Year Monitoring Program in the Nearshore Beaufort Sea**

Mr. John Brown, Senior Program Manager in the Environmental Forensics
division with Battelle Coastal Resources and Environmental Management
Offshore, explained that offshore oil and gas development and production
activities have been initiated at Northstar Island and are proposed for
the coming years at a modified Liberty prospect site in the nearshore
Beaufort Sea. There is concern about the long‑term effects of these
developments, as well as long‑term effects of any development associated
with future offshore lease sales and exploration activities. Historical
chemical and physical data have been collected in the region over
several decades. Nevertheless, the sensitivity of the region adjacent to
Northstar and Liberty, and the highly variable and complex environmental
conditions, make further monitoring necessary. In response to
interagency reviews of related environmental impact statements (EISs)
and development and production plans, the U.S. Department of Interior,
MMS, initiated the ANIMIDA Program as a long‑term study for monitoring
potential impacts of the Northstar and Liberty developments. ANIMIDA
Phase I was started in June 1999 and included hydrocarbon and metals
chemistry measurements in sediment and tissue samples, as well as
acoustic measurements adjacent to the Northstar and Liberty sites. Phase
II of the ANIMIDA Program was initiated in July 2000 and incorporates
seven tasks including hydrocarbon and metal chemistry studies, suspended
sediment studies, an assessment of subsistence whaling at Cross Island,
biota contaminant assessment, and a study of the \"boulder patch\" area.
An overview of the ANIMIDA Program status to date was presented.

> **A Description of Potential Impacts of OCS Activities on Bowhead
> Whale Hunting Activities in the Beaufort Sea**
>
> Dr. John C. Russell, EDAW, Inc., stated that subsistence hunting for
> marine mammals and especially bowhead whales has a long history as an
> organizing element of Iñupiat social, cultural, religious, and
> economic life. Archaeological evidence shows that Iñupiat dwellings
> were sometimes made with whale ribs and other skeletal parts. Whales
> were prominent in religious beliefs, practices, and symbols and
> sharing of whale products among kinsmen and other Iñupiat defined and
> reinforced social bonds. Muktuk, whale meat, and other whale products
> also provided an essential source of protein and fat that Iñupiat
> believed essential for their diet and health.
>
> When European and American whalers entered the Arctic, they employed
> Natives as whalers and exposed them to new whaling technologies.
> Post‑contact, whaling has remained essential to modern Iñupiat values
> and lifestyles: the Barrow High School mascot is the \"Whalers;\"
> employers allow time off for whaling crew members to hunt; Nalukataq
> and related whaling ceremonies are important cultural events; and
> muktuk and other whale products have cultural, economic, and
> health‑values for community members.
>
> Oil development activities in the late 1960's and early 1970\'s
> resulted in new change agents affecting Iñupiat communities: new
> sociopolitical institutions emerged; settlement and residence patterns
> began to change; transportation technologies such as snow machines
> became more available as did wage employment with the newly formed
> North Slope Borough. Modernization of Iñupiat communities accelerated
> with exposure to these and other change agents. OCS oil activities
> were perceived to present unique threats and consequences, including
> ones specific to whaling. Iñupiats expressed concern that OCS oil
> development activities could deflect whale migration farther
> off‑shore, contribute to whale skittishness, and otherwise adversely
> affect whale behavior. These types of concerns are perceived to have
> negative influences on whale hunting and any threats to whale hunting
> also affect other aspects of community and personal life connected to
> whaling.
>
> Using multiple data sources, this project examines Iñupiat assessments
> of the influences of development on participation in traditional
> activities, especially whale hunting and its related sociocultural
> components. A focus is to identify Iñupiat assessments of OCS
> activities as a particular type of development threat or opportunity
> and the perceived affects of OCS activities on whale hunting and
> related traditional activities. In addition to observational
> (ethnographic) and secondary source data, three surveys are being
> administered (whaling captains, randomly selected households, and high
> school juniors and seniors) to examine variation in these assessment
> among and within three North Slope communities (Barrow, Kaktovik, and
> Nuiqsut) and one \"control\" community in western Alaska. The data
> should assist communities to identify and plan for sociocultural
> problems related to ongoing development in the Arctic.
>
> **Measurements of Temperature, Salinity and Circulation in Cook Inlet,
> Alaska**
>
> Dr. Steve Okkonen, Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska
> Fairbanks, explained that temperature and salinity measurements
> acquired in central and lower Cook Inlet during spring and fall 2002
> show that the hydrographic structure of tide rip fronts varies
> spatially and seasonally. Increased river discharge during summer and
> fall strengthens non‑tidal, density‑driven currents associated with
> the tide rip fronts. The hydrographic structure of the tide rip fronts
> also varies over the semidiurnal tidal cycle. These results illustrate
> the need to incorporate density effects in numerical oil spill
> trajectory models for Cook Inlet.
>
> **Beaufort Sea Nearshore Under-Ice Currents & Summary of Workshop on
> Physical Oceanography in the Beaufort Sea**
>
> Dr. Tom Weingartner, University of Alaska, reported that MMS sponsored
> a 2.5-day workshop on the physical oceanography of the Alaskan
> Beaufort Sea held in Fairbanks, Alaska, in February 2003. The workshop
> reviewed knowledge of the physical oceanography of the Beaufort shelf
> and recommended studies to support MMS mission with respect to
> industrial development on this shelf. There are fundamental unknowns
> in the understanding of the ocean and ice circulation, ocean density
> field, and of the forcing mechanisms influencing the sea ice and
> oceanography. The study recommendations consist of a mix of field
> (observational) and idealized model studies to improve understanding
> of poorly understood physical processes and boundary conditions and to
> provide data sets necessary for the proper evaluation of regional
> pollutant transport models. Critical issues requiring study are the:

1.  wind and surface stress fields established by mesoscale variations
    in the regional meteorology and sea ice distribution and deformation
    fields,

2.  effects of freshwater discharge and freezing (convective) processes
    on the shelf circulation,

3.  controls exerted on the circulation and water property fields by the
    lateral ocean boundaries of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea: the Chukchi
    shelf (western boundary), the Canadian Beaufort shelf (eastern
    boundary), and the shelfbreak and continental slope (offshore
    boundary), and

4.  shelf/slope bathymetry.

> These topics affect the time and space scales of the ice and ocean
> circulation, which have not been well-resolved in the Beaufort Sea.
> Consequently, the recommended studies are also designed to delineate
> the major scales of variability.
>
> **Bowhead Whale Feeding in the Eastern Alaskan Beaufort Sea: Update of
> Scientific and Traditional Knowledge**
>
> Dr. W. John Richardson, Executive Vice President of LGL Ltd., stated
> that the *overall objective* of this study, as specified by MMS, was
> as follows: "Based both on traditional know­ledge and scientific
> studies (existing and new), assess the importance of the eastern part
> of the Alaskan Beau­fort Sea \[EAB\] as a feeding area for bowhead
> whales, including its importance both to individual whales and to the
> bowhead population." For many years it has been known that bowheads
> feed in the EAB near Kaktovik, AK, in late summer and fall. A 1985--86
> MMS study concluded that the EAB provided only a small (but variable)
> part of the annual food requirements of the bowheads. Local residents
> and whalers thought that the 1985--86 study underestimated the
> importance of the EAB to feeding bowheads. A follow-up study was
> conducted, mainly in 1998--2000. This included close collaboration
> with Native groups, specific efforts to incorp­orate local and
> traditional knowledge (LTK) into the planning and interpretation of
> the results, and integra­tion of previous data and knowledge with three
> additional seasons of biological field studies. There was extensive
> consultation with Kaktovik hunters, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling
> Commission (AEWC), North Slope Borough Dept of Wildlife Management
> (NSB-DWM), and a Scientific Review Board (SRB) including both
> independent scientists and stakeholder representatives.
>
> Project participants included the following: *LGL Ltd.* (zooplankton
> and bowhead studies; energetic calculations, integration), *Applied
> Sociocultural Research* (local coordination and assembly of LTK),
> *Alaska Dept of Fish & Game* (stomach contents of harvested bowheads),
> *Univ. Alaska Fair­banks* (stable isotopes in bowheads and prey),
> *Dalhousie Univ.* (pilot study of fatty acids in bowheads and prey),
> and *WEST Inc.* (sensitivity analyses), in consultation with the
> Kaktovik hunters, AEWC, NSB, and SRB.
>
> *Local and traditional knowledge (LTK)* was assembled during meetings
> and individual discussions with local hunters and residents, including
> interactions during fieldwork involving Kaktovik residents. LTK and
> whaling records are summarized in the final report; transcripts of
> individual discussions are also included. LTK relevant to various
> technical chapters of the report is brought into each of those
> chapters.
>
> *Field studies of food availability* were done using net-sampling and
> quantitative
>
> echosounder sur­veys of zooplankton in the EAB during September of
> 1985-86 and 1998- 2000, providing data on geo­graphic and among-year
> variation. The sampling was done
>
> from a 13‑m boat, and included both **• **broad-scale surveys of the
> EAB and **• **specific
>
> sampling around locations where bowheads were observ­ed feeding (and at
> nearby
>
> reference sites without feeding whales). The average zooplankton
> biomass available at
>
> locations near feeding whales was \~2 g/m^3^ (wet weight), much higher
> than the overall
>
> aver­age in the EAB. Copepods were the dominant zooplankton taxon on a
> biomass basis.
>
> *Aircraft-based studies of bowheads* during the five field seasons
> included the following:
>
> **•** System­atic aerial sur­veys to assess distribution and numbers
> (and their variability).
>
> **•** Aerial observations of bow­head behavior to derive correc­tion
> factors for whales missed
>
> during aerial surveys and to characterize the frequency and nature of
> feeding. **• **Aerial
>
> photogrammetry to assess size/age segregation in use of the EAB, and
> to determine
>
> residence times of recognizable individual whales. Data from MMS BWASP
> sur­veys
>
> (1979--2000) were also used; the broader aerial and temporal coverage
> of BWASP
>
> provided important perspective. Bow­heads were found to feed for an
> average of 47% of
>
> their time in the EAB, but average residence times were relatively
> short (\~3.8 d).
>
> *Stomach content analyses* of whales harvested in fall at Kaktovik,
> and at more westerly
>
> locations in the Beaufort, showed that the majority had been eating
> shortly before death.
>
> At Kaktovik, 83% of 29 stomachs contained food, and 39% (7 of 18) had
> \>20 L.
>
> Copepods dominated the diet near Kaktovik.
>
> *Stable isotope analyses* of bowhead tissue continue to suggest that
> bowheads acquire most of their annual energy intake from the
> Bering--Chukchi system, not the eastern and central Beaufort. This
> con­clusion is based on the small spring-fall differences (and strong
> Bering--Chukchi signa­ture) in isotopic com­po­si­tion of bowhead tissue,
> in comparison with the isotopic composition of potential prey in the
> Bering--Chukchi vs. eastern Beaufort areas. On the other hand,
> bowheads apparently have larger circum­ferences and more fat when
> leaving the Beaufort in fall than when arriving in spring, and they
> are known to feed for much of the summer in the Canadian Beaufort and
> during fall migration across the Alaskan Beaufort.
>
> The most parsimonious (though incomplete) *seasonal feeding scenario*
> is this:
>
> **• **Bowheads feed and become "fatter" in the eastern and central
> Beaufort during summer
>
> and early fall. **• **They feed even more when in postulated richer
> prey concentrations
>
> occurring in fall in Bering--Chukchi water in the Bar­row, western
> Chukchi, and perhaps
>
> northern Bering regions. **• **They feed little if at all in winter,
> such that they are thinner
>
> when they return to Beaufort in spring than when they left in fall.
>
> *In conclusion*, the results show that bowhead whales feed commonly
> when in the EAB in
>
> late summer and early fall. The EAB is, without question, a feeding
> area for bowhead
>
> whales. However, few individ­uals linger there for more than a few
> days, and food
>
> availability in that area is not unusually high compared with other
> regions (e.g., the main
>
> summering range in the Canadian Beaufort Sea, farther east). Subject
> to many
>
> assumptions and approximations, it was estimated that in an average
> year, about 2.4% of
>
> the annual food requirements for the Bering--Chukchi--Beaufort
> population may be
>
> obtained in the EAB. The best estimates for the five years of study
> varied from 0.2% to
>
> 7.5%. Despite the uncertainties, it is implausible that the bowhead
> population consumes
>
> more than a few percent of its annual food require­ments in the EAB in
> an average year.
>
> However, the EAB is more important to some individual whales that
> linger in the area for
>
> longer than the average residence time. This project has been notable
> because of its extensive collaboration with Native groups during
> plan­ning, conduct, and interpretation. Traditional knowledge was taken
> into account. The project provided a better understanding not only of
> bowhead feeding in the EAB, but also of the annual nutritional needs
> and feeding cycle. The methods developed and applied here could be
> used to assess bowhead feeding else­where, providing better comparative
> data on the importance of feeding in different areas. The results have
> been used in MMS's recent Beaufort Sea EIS, and will be of value for
> future endan­gered species consultations. The results will be of use to
> all those participating in discussions about the impacts of poten­tial
> development in the EAB, and in devising mitigation measures for any
> proposed developments.
>
> **Behavior of Ringed Seals and Re-Interpretation of Aerial Surveys**
>
> Dr. Brendan Kelly, Associate Professor of Marine Biology at the
> University of Alaska Southeast & University of Alaska Fairbanks:
> Juneau Center, School of Fisheries & Ocean Sciences, explained that
> ringed seals spend much of the year hidden from view in snow caves
> (lairs) on the shorefast ice of the Arctic Ocean. Each spring, as the
> snow melts, seals abandon their snow caves and rest on the surface of
> the ice. In the past, aerial surveys have been used to relate seal
> numbers to ecological variables and industrial activities. Aerial
> surveys, however, count an unknown proportion of the population that
> is visible on the surface of the ice and assumes that the proportion
> does not change over time.
>
> We are testing the implicit assumptions of aerial surveys and
> investigating how the proportion of visible seals changes over time
> and between years. The results will be used in a reanalysis of past
> ringed seal surveys.
>
> From 1999‑2002, 48 ringed seals (8, 10, 14, 16 respectively) were
> tagged in Prudhoe Bay. During May and June each year, we recorded
> hourly the proportion of tagged seals in the water, hidden in snow
> caves, or visible on the surface of the ice. The proportion of tagged
> seals that were visible 1) had a strong diurnal pattern, peaking at
> 3:00 p.m. and
>
> 2\) was highly variable, changing from as much as 100% to 13% by the
> next day. Lastly, the timing of lair abandonment varied greatly from
> year to year.
>
> In 2001 and 2002, in conjunction with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
> we found that spaceborne Ku‑band scatterometer data were sensitive to
> snow deterioration and remotely indicated the timing of lair
> abandonment. We are continuing to test the utility of scatterometer
> data and we plan to model the effects of environmental covariates on
> the proportion of seals visible. The model will then be used in a
> reanalysis of previous ringed seal surveys.

**J. [Recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy]{.underline}**

Mr. Edward B. Rasmuson, a member of the Commission, reported on recent
Commission activities. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy was
established by the Oceans Act of 2000, and is charged with reviewing
federal ocean-related programs and laws and making recommendations to
the President and Congress for a coordinated and comprehensive National
Ocean Policy. During its 18-month investigation, the Commission examined
such issues as responsible stewardship of living and non-living
resources; protection of the marine environment; impact of, and
protection against, natural and manmade hazards; the role of oceans in
climate change; and enhancement of oceanographic science, to name but a
few.

**K. [Discipline Breakout Groups Reports]{.underline}**

Reports from the previous day's breakout sessions were presented and are
summarized as follows:

***Physical Oceanography***

Alaska OCS Region:

1.  Three of the Physical Oceanography studies are closely tied to the
    MMS mission.

2.  Upgrading fault tree approach is essential due to high spill
    consequences.

3.  Region-specific oil weather data is essential for credible fate
    predictions.

4.  Labs/test tanks be used as much as possible for studying oil
    behavior in ice.

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region:

1.  The studies are clearly tied to the needs of the Environmental
    Impact Statement processes.

2.  Data mining/synthesis efforts are critical.

3.  Exploratory Integrated Modeling is meaningful to the MMS mission and
    that presentation is not sufficiently developed for assessing the
    study plan. It suggested that the MMS staff could better study needs
    through internal thinking or external input.

4.  Suggested reconsidering whether hydrate study is highest priority
    and stated that there is a technical need for upgrading blowout
    modeling.

5.  Consider upgrading droplet size assumptions.

Pacific OCS Region:

1.  Education initiation should be sustained.

2.  Suggested exploring leveraging with National Science Foundation and
    industry.

3.  Possible benefits of MARINe be extend to Alaska.

4.  The pursuit of drifter study in nearshore zone is supported.

5.  Decommissioning studies are essential to the region.

Sand and Gravel:

1.  The Program's high priority study is the Ship Shoal and is
    appropriate and timely.

2.  The numerical wave model analysis/comparison is appropriate of the
    2005 program.

National:

1.  The Headquarters' modeling conference needs to reach out to end
    users of modeling data.

2.  Lagrangian data assimilation study is needed to make best use of
    drifter data to improve circulation model.

3.  Study of oil spill volume statistics are essential to improve
    technical basis of risk assessment.

***Social Science***

Alaska OCS Region:

1.  Proposed studies.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  Communicating Agency goals and processes with Alaskan Coastal
    Communities to improve MMS communication with local stakeholders.

b.  Responsive to Scientific Committee's recommendations from 2002
    meeting, "We recommend expanding communications with the general
    public".

c.  Provide visual documentation of whale hunt in order to form a
    baseline for impact analysis and possible orientation for OCS
    workers.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  Recommendations.

> a\. Communication study should focus on assessment of existing
> communication processes, allow researchers to creatively address
> objectives, and consider opportunities for creating 2-way
> communication.
>
> b\. Visual documentation on bowhead whale study should focus on
> cultural
>
> components, document regulatory process for engaging in hunt, and
> document
>
> social process of organizing whaling crews.

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region:

1.  Proposed study. Petroleum-Involved Ports and Port Communities: An
    Assessment of Ports, Their Activities, and Their Economic and Social
    Effects on Related Communities. The objectives of this study are to
    describe OCS-involved ports/communities and analyze port/community
    relationships to assess port effects, their geographic
    distributions, and their causal associations. The Group supports
    this study.

2.  The Socio-economic Workshops held 1992-2002 were discussed.

3.  Current studies program:

    a.  30 completed; 25 ongoing,

    b.  focus on industry analysis and modeling,

    c.  baseline, area-wide analysis and history,

    d.  infrastructure (size, function, distribution),

    e.  demography, and

    f.  community-level and social effects.

4.  Suggested assimilation of significant new material, increase staff,
    improve assessments (but traditional social impact assessment method
    does not apply to Gulf regions) and make an effort to replace
    boom-bust model and track cumulative effects (begin with planning
    workshop).

5.  Recommendations for Workshop for Gulf of Mexico Socio-economic
    Research:

    a.  Strong support for workshop that will set the social science
        research agenda for the next 5 years.

    b.  Create steering committee to work with the Gulf of Mexico social
        scientists and administration (Scientific Committee members will
        head steering committee).

    c.  Invite pre-proposals to solicit ideas from appropriate
        professionals who will attend and participate in the workshop.

    d.  Explore new approaches to impact analysis.

    e.  Consider legal aspects of new approaches consulting experts at
        Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant and Louisiana Sea-Grant Legal
        Programs.

Pacific OCS Region: No new socio-economics studies were presented. The
Group

recommended, however, that decommissioning studies be coordinated
between the Gulf and

Pacific Regions.

Sand and Gravel: The proposed studies include a worldwide survey of
dredging impacts on

commercial and recreational fisheries analysis of mitigation measures.
The objectives of this

study would be to:

1.  conduct worldwide literature survey,

2.  assess the impacts of beach nourishment on commercial and
    recreational fisheries, and

3.  provide a comprehensive list of detailed mitigation.

The Group also recommended that a review of other OCS activities be
included relative to

user-group studies, with concern to including primary data through
ethnographic interviews,

expand scope and funding level of the study, and consider future
addition of conflict

resolution process.

***Biology/Ecology***

Alaska OCS Region: The Group supports the Lower Cook Inlet's three
related proposals.

1.  Passive Acoustic Monitoring of Whales

2.  Steller's Eider Survey

3.  Habitat Use by Harbor Seals

The Group also recommended that the Region conduct a review of Ambient
Light Intensity

with a separate review of literature and plan from implementation (two
phases) and conduct a

workshop on bird hazing.

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region:

> 1\. Integrated Modeling of Coastal Ecosystems. Start with a workshop
> to determine which models to use and the scale and environmental
> components to which the models (biological and physical) would apply.
>
> 2\. Reanalysis of MMS Database.
>
> a\. add a biological component and
>
> b\. allow the inclusion of non-MMS databases.
>
> 3\. Literature Search and Data Synthesis of Biological Concerning
> Decommissioning.
>
> 4\. Synthesis of Physical and Geological Oceanography. The Group
> supports this study because of its relevance to biological processes.
>
> 5\. Long-Term Effects of Oil and Gas Activities off Mississippi and
> Alabama. Start with a workshop to evaluate earlier data sets to
> determine what aspects should be included in a new study.
>
> 6\. The Group supports the following studies:
>
> a\. Chemo II
>
> b\. Evaluation of Subsea Processing
>
> c\. Evaluation of Noise from Platforms
>
> d\. Monitoring of Development Site
>
> e\. Natural Seeps

Pacific OCS Region: The Group supports the continuation of MARINe and
MINT studies and

recommends that decommissioning studies be connected with sea floor
mapping.

Sand and Gravel:

> 1\. The Group supports the proposals presented.
>
> 2\. Ship Shoal study recommendations:
>
> a\. the Gulf OCS Region needs to participate on the Technical Proposal
> Evaluation
>
> Committee (TPEC),
>
> b\. ensure individuals with broad backgrounds are included on the
> TPEC, and
>
> c\. this study should integrate with CMI studies on shrimp and other
> fisheries.
>
> 3\. Utilization of Benthic Communities by Fish:
>
> a\. This study should be able to examine fish trophic structures.
>
> b\. Consider conducting the fish population study at Ship Shoal.
>
> 4\. World-wide Survey of Dredging Impacts - Include support for site
> visits to industry and fishers.

The Group supports the Sand and Gravel Plan for Fiscal Year 2005.

National:

> 1\. Studies.
>
> a\. Comprehensive Annotated Bibliography
>
> b\. Methods/Protocol to test for PAHs and Associated Stress:
> Information Synthesis
>
> 2\. Recommendations.
>
> a\. Get Interagency support.

b.  Expand the study to look at other indicators of PAH stress.

> 3\. General Comments.
>
> a\. The other regions should pursue activities similar to the outreach
> and education efforts in the Pacific Region.
>
> b\. Enhance the description of products for all regions.
>
> c\. Good continuity of past, current, and proposed work was presented
> by the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region.

**L. [Committee Business]{.underline}**

Items for the Letter to the Director:

-   Coordinate studies.

-   Data storage. Invite someone to address the Committee on this topic
    regarding ways data storage can be done. It should be standardized
    and accessible and not regionally limited.

-   Have contractor create outreach information on CD for public
    consumption and get students involved. Invite students to
    Information Transfer Meetings, educate the public on the value of
    the ocean, and promote MMS as science agency without making it
    region-specific.

-   Emerge Canada/US issue since Canada lifting moratoria.

-   Maintain literature.

Emerging Issues/Topics of Interest:

-   Each of the Subcommittees and its members were identified:

-- Deepwater Subcommittee and Floating Production, Storage and
Offloading

Subcommittee: Drs. James Coleman, Joe Smith, Mike Rex, and William
Schroeder.

-- Beaufort Sea Monitoring Issues Subcommittee: Drs. Michael Castellini,
Scott

Goldsmith, Lynda Shapiro, and William Schroeder.

-- Sand and Gravel Subcommittee: Drs. James Coleman, Robert Diaz, Duane
Gill, and

Chuck Marek.

-- Chemical Contaminates Subcommittee: Drs. Denise Stephenson-Hawk, Joe
Smith,

John Trefry, and Mary Scranton. (This is a stand-by Subcommittee and
used to be the

Mercury Subcommittee.)

-- Decommissioning Subcommittee: Drs. Denise Stephenson Hawk, Livingston

Marshall, Richard Hildreth, Mary Scranton, and Mike Kosro.

-- Social Science Subcommittee for the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region: Drs.
Duane Gill, Richard Hildreth, Edella Schlager, and Scott Goldsmith.

The Committee requested that:

-- the members' bios' contain their appointment information

-- maps and/or charts depicting study areas be provided for future
meetings

-- Committee recommendations be compiled in a table format stating the
outcome of each recommendation

-- MMS assign a "point person" in each region for each discipline who
has extended

knowledge of discipline

The next meeting of the OCS Scientific Committee will be held in New
Orleans, Louisiana, in March or April 2004.