**Alaska Outer Continental** *Administratively Confidential*

**Shelf Region**

**Alaska Studies Development Plan**

**Draft FY 2004 -- 2006**

![](media/image1.png){width="6.311805555555556in"
height="4.905555555555556in"}

![](media/image2.png){width="0.8541666666666666in"
height="0.3020833333333333in"}U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service

Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region March 2003

Prepared by

U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service

Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region

949 East 36th Avenue, Room 308

Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4363

March 2003

For copies of this document, please contact Tim Holder at (907) 271-6625
or by email, Tim.Holder@mms.gov.

The inclusion of studies proposed in this document does not constitute a
commitment by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management
Service, to conduct or fund any or all of the studies. The scope of the
studies is subject to change prior to initiation of any work.

Any use of trade names is for description purposes only and does not
constitute endorsement of these products by the Minerals Management
Service.

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

[Acronyms, Initialisms, Abbreviations, and Symbols
iv](#acronyms-initialisms-abbreviations-and-symbols)

[**SECTION 1.0 Programmatic Overview**
1](#section-1.0-programmatic-overview)

[**1.1 Introduction to the Region** 1](#introduction-to-the-region)

> [**1.1.1** Background 1](#background)
>
> [**Figure 1.** Alaska Planning Areas
> 3](#figure-1.-alaska-planning-areas)
>
> [**1.1.2** Issues To Be Addressed 4](#issues-to-be-addressed)
>
> [**1.1.3** Participatory Planning 6](#participatory-planning)
>
> [**1.1.4** Coordination and Cooperation
> 7](#coordination-and-cooperation)

[**1.2 Projected OCS Activities** 8](#projected-ocs-activities)

> [**1.2.1** Prelease Considerations 8](#prelease-considerations)
>
> [**1.2.2** Postlease Considerations 9](#postlease-considerations)
>
> [**Figure 2.** Beaufort Sea Oil- and Gas-Leasing Activity
> 11](#figure-2.-beaufort-sea-oil--and-gas-leasing-activity)
>
> [**Figure 3.** Northstar Island August 2000
> 12](#figure-3.-northstar-island-august-2000)
>
> [**Figure 4.** Cook Inlet Oil- and Gas-Leasing Activity
> 13](#figure-4.-cook-inlet-oil--and-gas-leasing-activity)

[**1.3 Identification of Information Needs**
14](#identification-of-information-needs)

> [**1.3.1** Beaufort Sea General Information Needs
> 15](#beaufort-sea-general-information-needs)
>
> [**1.3.2** Chukchi/Hope Basin General Information Needs
> 17](#chukchihope-basin-general-information-needs)
>
> [**1.3.3** Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait General Information Needs
> 17](#cook-inletshelikof-strait-general-information-needs)
>
> [**1.3.4** Norton Basin General Information Needs
> 18](#norton-basin-general-information-needs)
>
> [**1.3.5** General Information Needs 18](#general-information-needs)

[**SECTION 2.0 Proposed Studies** 19](#section-2.0-proposed-studies)

[**2.1: Introduction** 19](#introduction)

[**2.2: Profiles of Studies Proposed for FY 2004 National Studies List
(NSL)**
20](#profiles-of-studies-proposed-for-fy-2004-national-studies-list-nsl)

> [**Table 1.** Alaska Region Ranking of Proposed Studies for FY 2004
> NSL
> 20](#table-1-alaska-region-ranking-of-proposed-studies-for-fy-2004-nsl-february-13-2003)

[Surface Circulation Radar Mapping in Alaskan Coastal Waters: Field
Study Beaufort Sea and Cook Inlet
21](#title-surface-circulation-radar-mapping-in-alaskan-coastal-waters-field-study-beaufort-sea-and-cook-inlet)

[Improvements in the Fault Tree Approach to Oil Spill Occurrence
Estimators for the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas
23](#title-improvements-in-the-fault-tree-approach-to-oil-spill-occurrence-estimators-for-the-beaufort-and-chukchi-seas)

[Empirical Weathering Properties of Oil in Snow and Ice
25](#title-empirical-weathering-properties-of-oil-in-snow-and-ice)

[Workshop and Field Evaluation of Bird Hazing/Deterrent Techniques
27](#title-workshop-and-field-evaluation-of-bird-hazingdeterrent-techniques)

[Passive Acoustic Monitoring of Whales in Lower Cook Inlet
29](#title-passive-acoustic-monitoring-of-whales-in-lower-cook-inlet)

[Survey of Steller's Eiders Wintering in Lower Cook Inlet
31](#title-survey-of-stellers-eiders-wintering-in-lower-cook-inlet)

[Movements and Habitat Use of Harbor Seals in Cook Inlet
33](#title-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.
35](#title-review-and-monitoring-ambient-artificial-light-intensity-in-the-ocs-and-the-potential-for-effects-on-resident-fauna.)

[Communicating Agency Goals and Processes with Alaskan Coastal
Communities
37](#title-communicating-agency-goals-and-processes-with-alaskan-coastal-communities)

[**2.3 Profiles of Studies Proposed for FY 2005 National Studies List
(NSL)**
39](#profiles-of-studies-proposed-for-fy-2005-national-studies-list-nsl)

> [**Table 2.** Alaska Region Proposed Studies for FY 2005 NSL
> 39](#table-2-alaska-region-proposed-studies-for-fy-2005-nsl-february-13-2003)

[Mapping Sea Ice Overflood Using Remote Sensing from Smith Bay to Camden
Bay
41](#title-mapping-sea-ice-overflood-using-remote-sensing-from-smith-bay-to-camden-bay)

[Hydrological Modeling along the Alaskan Arctic Coast
43](#title-hydrological-modeling-along-the-alaskan-arctic-coast)

[Norton Basin Planning Area Circulation and Oil Spill Trajectory Model
45](#title-norton-basin-planning-area-circulation-and-oil-spill-trajectory-model)

[Update Digital Interactive Climatic Atlases
47](#title-update-digital-interactive-climatic-atlases)

[Worst-Case Blowout Occurrence Estimators for the Alaska OCS
49](#title-worst-case-blowout-occurrence-estimators-for-the-alaska-ocs)

[Cook Inlet Pollock Migration Study
51](#title-cook-inlet-pollock-migration-study)

[Joint Funding Opportunities in Existing Marine Bird or Marine Mammal
Studies
53](#title-joint-funding-opportunities-in-existing-marine-bird-or-marine-mammal-studies)

[Bowhead Whale Feeding in the Central and Western Alaskan Beaufort Sea
55](#title-bowhead-whale-feeding-in-the-central-and-western-alaskan-beaufort-sea)

[Influence of Climatic and Environmental Factors on Polar Bear
Distribution and Abundance on the North Slope of Alaska During the Fall
57](#title-influence-of-climatic-and-environmental-factors-on-polar-bear-distribution-and-abundance-on-the-north-slope-of-alaska-during-the-fall)

[Collection of Traditional Knowledge of the Cook Inlet and Shelikof
Strait
59](#title-collection-of-traditional-knowledge-of-the-cook-inlet-and-shelikof-strait)

[Sociological and Visual Documentation and Analysis of the Bowhead Whale
Subsistence Hunt
61](#title-sociological-and-visual-documentation-and-analysis-of-the-bowhead-whale-subsistence-hunt)

[Mapping of Ice Gouge and Strudel Scour Density for the Beaufort Sea
Utilizing Existing Data
63](#title-mapping-of-ice-gouge-and-strudel-scour-density-for-the-beaufort-sea-utilizing-existing-data)

[GIS Internet Map Server (ARCIMS) Web Site for the MMS Sub-sea Physical
Environmental Database (SPED)
65](#title-gis-internet-map-server-arcims-web-site-for-the-mms-sub-sea-physical-environmental-database-sped)

[Cumulative Effects of Offshore and Onshore Oil and Gas Development on
the Beaufort Sea Environment
67](#title-cumulative-effects-of-offshore-and-onshore-oil-and-gas-development-on-the-beaufort-sea-environment)

[**SECTION 3.0 Topical Areas for FY 2006**
69](#section-3.0-topical-areas-for-fy-2006)

[**3.1** Physical Oceanography 69](#physical-oceanography)

[**3.2** Fate and Effects 70](#fate-and-effects)

[**3.3** Sea Bed and Sub-sea Bed Physical Processes
70](#sea-bed-and-sub-sea-bed-physical-processes)

[**3.4** Endangered and Protected Species
71](#endangered-and-protected-species)

[**3.5** Waterfowl in Lower Cook Inlet
72](#waterfowl-in-lower-cook-inlet)

[**3.6** Effects on Unique Marine Benthic Communities
72](#effects-on-unique-marine-benthic-communities)

[**3.7** Marine Fish Migrations, Recruitment and Essential Fish Habitat
72](#marine-fish-migrations-recruitment-and-essential-fish-habitat)

[**3.8** Biotechnology Potential 73](#biotechnology-potential)

[**3.9** Subsistence 73](#subsistence)

[**3.10** Socioeconomic Change on the North Slope
74](#socioeconomic-change-on-the-north-slope)

[**3.11** Natural Gas Pipeline 74](#natural-gas-pipeline)

[**SECTION 4.0 Literature Cited** 75](#section-4.0-literature-cited)

# ACRONYMS, INITIALISMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS

ABL Auke Bay Laboratory

ADCP acoustic Doppler current profiler

ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game

AEPS Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy

AEWC Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission

AFTC Alaska Frozen-Tissue Collection AK - Alaska

AK Alaska

AMAP Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program

AMMTAP Alaska Marine Mammal Tissue Archival Project

ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

ANIMIDA Arctic Nearshore Impact Monitoring in Development Area

ANWR Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

ASP Annual Studies Plan (Alaska OCS Region)

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BRD Biological Resources Division (USGS)

C Celsius

CAFF Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna \[working group\]

CD-ROM Compact Disk Read Only Memory

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations

CI Confidence Interval

CIRCAC Cook Inlet Regional Citizens'Advisory Council

cm centimeter

CMI Coastal Marine Institute

CORIS Coastal Offshore Resource Information System

COZOIL Coastal and Surf Zone Oil-Spill-Transport Model

CP Comprehensive Program

CTD conductivity-temperature-depth \[measuring device\]

DOI Department of Interior

DPP Development and Production Plan

EA Environmental Assessment

EAS Environmental Assessment Section

ECMRWF European Center for Medium Range Weather Forecasting

Ed. Editor

Eds. Editors

e.g. for example

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESP Environmental Studies Program

EVOS *Exxon Valdez* Oil Spill

FEAM Fisheries Economic Assessment Model

Fig. Figure

FJMC Fisheries Joint Management Committee

FLIR Forward Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) Imagery

FNOC Fleet Numerical Oceanography Center

FY Fiscal Year

GIS Geographical Information Systems

GPS Global Positioning System

GSA General Services Administration

GUI Graphical User Interface

Hg Mercury

IA Interagency Agreement

IBR Information Base Review

i.e. that is

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning

IR infrared

ITM Information Transfer Meeting

IUM Information Update Meeting

kHz kiloHertz

km kilometer

m meter

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

MMS Minerals Management Service

NAB Northwest Arctic Borough

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NODC National Oceanographic Data Center

NORM normally occurring radioactive materials

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPR-A National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska

NRC National Research Council

NSB North Slope Borough

NSF National Science Foundation

NSP National Strategic Plan (MMS)

NTIS National Technical Information Service

OCS Outer Continental Shelf

OCSEAP Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program

OCSLA Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

OCSLAA Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act as Amended

ODPCP Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan

OMPA Office of Marine Pollution Assessment

OSRA Oil-Spill-Risk Analysis

OWM Oil-Weathering Model

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

PC personal computer

PDF portable document file

ppm parts per million

RFIC Request for Information and Comments

SDE Spatial database engine

SINTEF A Norwegian acronym which in English stands for "The Foundation
for Scientific and Industrial Resources of the Norwegian Institute of
Technology"

SNOMED Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine

SPED Sub-sea Physical Environmental Database

SPEM Semi-Spectral Primitive Equation Model

SRB Scientific Review Board

TAG Technical Assessment Group

TAR Technology Assessment and Research (TAR) Program

TBD To Be Determined

TDR time-depth recorder

TIMS Technical Information Management System

TR Technical Report

UAA University of Alaska Anchorage

UAF University of Alaska Fairbanks

U.S. United States

USDOC U.S. Department of Commerce

USDOD U.S. Department of Defense

USDOI U.S. Department of the Interior

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

U.S.S.R. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

WOSM World Oil-Spill Model

**Symbols**

\> greater than

\< less than

# SECTION 1.0 Programmatic Overview {#section-1.0-programmatic-overview .Style-1}

# 1.1 Introduction to the Region {#introduction-to-the-region .Style2}

# 1.1.1 Background {#background .Style3}

> The Alaska Environmental Studies Program (ESP) was initiated by the
> U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) in 1974 in response to the
> Federal Govern­ment's decision to propose areas of Alaska for offshore
> gas and oil develop­ment. Federal management of the Outer Continental
> Shelf (OCS) is guided by several legislative acts. Regulations
> implementing the OCS Lands Act (OCSLA) of 1953, as amended in 1978
> (OCSLAA), designated the Bureau of Land Manage­ment (BLM) as the
> administrative agency responsible for leasing and the U.S. Geological
> Survey (USGS) as responsible for supervising classification,
> evaluation, development, and production of mineral resources on
> submerged Federal lands. The offices under BLM and USGS responsible
> for offshore leasing were reor­ganized as the Minerals Management
> Service (MMS) in 1982. One of the goals of the OCSLA was to provide
> for protection of the environment concomitant with mineral‑resource
> development. The OCSLA requires the Secretary of the Interior to
> conduct environmental studies to obtain information pertinent to sound
> leasing decisions as well as to monitor the human, marine, and coastal
> environments (OCSLAA, 1978 \[Public Law 95‑372, Section 20\]). Also,
> the National Environ­mental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires that all
> Federal Agencies use a systematic, interdis­ciplinary approach that
> will ensure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences in
> any planning and decision making that may have effects on the
> environment. Federal laws impose additional requirements on the
> offshore leasing process, including the Coastal Zone Management Act;
> Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments; Marine Mammal
> Protection Act (MMPA); Endangered Species Act (ESA); and Marine
> Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act.
>
> The purpose of the ESP is to define information needs and implement
> studies to assist in predicting, projecting, assessing, and managing
> potential effects on the human, marine, and coastal environments of
> the OCS and coastal areas that may be affected by gas and oil
> development. Lease‑management decisions are enhanced when current,
> pertinent, and timely information is available. To attain program
> goals, data on specific environmental, social, and economic concerns
> arising from offshore leasing are required. The ESP then monitors any
> effects during and after oil exploration and development. It is the
> largest, single‑agency, mission‑oriented, marine-studies program in
> the Federal Government. Since the ESP inception through Fiscal Year
> (FY) 2002, more than \$733 million have been spent on the ESP
> nationally. More than \$275 million of this amount has funded Alaskan
> studies in 15 planning areas in the Arctic, Bering Sea, and Gulf of
> Alaska Subregions (see Fig. 1).
>
> Early in the development of the program, the focus was on obtaining
> baseline information on the vast biologi­cal resources and physical
> characteristics of the Alaskan environment for prelease decision
> making. These studies included biological surveys of marine species,
> basic oceanography and meteorology, and geologic and sea‑ice
> phenom­ena. As a broader base of information was established, it became
> possible to focus on more topical studies in smaller areas to answer
> specific questions and fill identified information needs. In addition,
> a number of generic studies were initiated on the potential effects of
> oil contamination on biological resources and on the probable
> transport and dispersion of oil that might be spilled in the marine
> environment.
>
> The use of computer‑modeling techniques has been implemented to aid in
> the assessment of potential oil‑spill and other pollutant risks to the
> environment and to key species such as fur seals, sea otters, and
> endangered whales. Modeling also has been used in the ecosystem
> studies, especially where extrapolation to other areas seemed
> warranted.
>
> As more disciplinary data were collected and analyzed, the importance
> of taking an integrated, interdis­ciplinary look at complete ecosystems
> in sensitive areas became apparent. During this time, the leasing
> program was maturing. As a number of sales were held and exploration
> activities began, postlease studies to monitor the possible effects of
> gas and oil activities on the environment and resources of these areas
> were initiated. The ESP provides information for development of the
> 5‑year leasing schedule and for prelease- and lease-related decisions,
> and develops monitoring information necessary for postlease
> management.
>
> As studies information has been amassed, improved focus has required
> greater integration of various scientific disciplines. The MMS has
> initiated Synthesis Meetings, Information Transfer Meetings (ITM's),
> and Information Update Meetings (IUM's) to gather maximum expertise
> and assess the status of existing informa­tion, and to plan the best
> possible approach to a study within the constraints of time and
> resources. As the MMS and other Federal and State agencies collect
> more pertinent information, the MMS funds studies to search and
> evaluate existing literature and data prior to initiation of field
> efforts. This prevents duplication of effort and saves valuable
> resources by focusing later study efforts on the areas of greatest
> information need and highest usefulness to MMS decision needs.
>
> As noted by the National Research Council (NRC, 1994), the MMS Alaska
> ESP is "extensive, substantive and high quality." However, the Alaska
> ESP has been challenged to meet its mission in an increasingly
> conservative fiscal environment. For example, the ESP's funding
> declined significantly since 1986. Despite this challenging situation,
> the ESP, at the national level and in all the regions including
> Alaska, remains committed to attaining quality environmental and
> socioeconomic information.

# Figure 1. Alaska Planning Areas {#figure-1.-alaska-planning-areas .Style4}

![](media/image3.png){width="6.180555555555555in"
height="8.136111111111111in"}

> The *Alaska Studies Development Plan FY 2004-2006* (March 2003)
> complements and reinforces the *Environmental Studies Program National
> Strategic Plan (NSP) 1998-2002*. The NSP has several broad themes,
> which include the following:
>
> 1\. Monitoring Marine Environments
>
> 2\. Seismic and Acoustic Impacts
>
> 3\. Understanding Social and Economic Impacts
>
> 4\. Oil-Spill Research Techniques
>
> 5\. Efficient and Effective Information Management
>
> To be responsive to changing programs, issues, and offshore
> technologies, the MMS Alaska Region proposes new studies and innovates
> in conjunction with the NSP themes. Due to the great differences
> existing between Alaska environments and other OCS areas, the
> uniqueness of the environment and related issues in Alaska underscores
> the need to be flexible in planning and implementation of needed
> studies.

# 1.1.2 Issues To Be Addressed {#issues-to-be-addressed .Style3}

> At each step of the offshore leasing and development process, a
> variety of potential issues or resource‑use conflicts may be
> encountered. There are numerous issues and multiple‑use conflicts
> related to offshore oil and gas development in Alaska. This section
> "Issues To Be Addressed" forms a framework for the section on
> "Identification of Information Needs." As a result of issues
> characterized by uncertain information we identify specific
> Information Needs. Two questions are fundamental:
>
> 1\. What is the expected change in the human, marine, and coastal
> environment due to offshore development and, therefore, expected
> change in benefits to humans from affected natural resources?
>
> 2\. Can undesirable change be minimized by mitigating measures?
>
> Environmental studies are often critical to answering both types of
> questions; and are expected to provide information useful to decision
> making in both regards. Currently the Alaska ESP has primary focus on
> upcoming developments, possible lease sales, and existing leases in
> the Beaufort Sea, Cook Inlet, Chukchi/Hope Basin, and Norton Basin
> Planning Area.
>
> Current offshore oil- and gas-related issues for which studies are
> proposed to address in the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi/Hope Basin, and
> Norton Basin Planning Area include but are not limited to:

-   What long term changes in heavy metal and hydrocarbon levels may
    occur near Beaufort Sea development prospects such as Liberty or
    regionally along the Beaufort Sea coast?

-   What role will currents play in distribution of contaminants near
    development prospects?

-   What long term changes in underwater industrial noise will occur and
    how might such noise propagate near development prospects relative
    to ambient noise levels?

-   What are the effects of seismic exploration on the availability of
    bowhead whales for subsistence and other important marine species
    such as seals or fish?

-   What changes might occur in habitat, distribution, abundance, and
    movement of key, potentially sensitive species such as bowhead
    whales, waterfowl, polar bears, other marine mammals, or fish?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   What interactions between human activities and the physical
    environment have affected these potentially sensitive species?

-   What is the importance of future proposed or potential lease sale
    areas to feeding bowhead whales and overall bowhead population
    nutritional requirements?

-   What potential contaminants are occurring in various sensitive
    species?

-   What changes might occur in socioeconomics and subsistence
    lifestyles of coastal Alaska communities?

-   What are current subsistence harvest patterns and what changes might
    occur in key social indicators as a result of offshore exploration
    and development?

-   What changes might occur in sensitive benthic communities such as
    the Stefansson Sound "Boulder Patch," other Beaufort Sea kelp
    communities or fish habitats?

-   What refinements are there to our knowledge of major oceanographic
    and meteorological processes and how do they influence the human,
    marine, and coastal environment?

-   How do we improve our projection of the fate of potential oil
    spills?

-   If oil is spilled in broken ice, what will its fate be and how might
    it be cleaned up?

-   What effects might pipeline construction have on nearby marine
    communities or organisms such as fish?

-   How can we better integrate traditional knowledge of local residents
    into scientific processes and studies related to the Alaska ESP?

> Similarly, there are a number of offshore oil- and gas-related issues
> that environmental studies in the Cook Inlet Region propose to
> address, including but not limited to:

-   What long-term changes in heavy metal and hydrocarbon contamination
    have occurred in water and sediment quality?

-   What refinements are there to our knowledge of major oceanographic
    and meteorological processes in Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait and
    how do they influence the human, marine, and coastal environment?

-   How do we improve our prediction of the fate of potential oil
    spills?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   What long term changes related to past or future activities have
    occurred in marine food webs, especially regarding key fish,
    seabirds and sensitive marine mammals?

-   What are the effects of offshore oil and gas exploration or
    development on important socioeconomic activities such as commercial
    fishing or existing community infrastructures?

-   What are the near term and long term effects on key economic
    activities such as sport fisheries?

-   What are current subsistence harvest patterns and what changes might
    occur in key social indicators as a result of offshore exploration
    and development?

-   How can we better integrate traditional knowledge of local residents
    into scientific processes and studies related to the Alaska ESP?

# 1.1.3 Participatory Planning {#participatory-planning .Style3}

> As proposals for exploration and development continue to evolve,
> Alaska's coastal communities on the Beaufort Sea are expecting
> increased involvement in project reviews and decisions that may affect
> their subsistence lifestyle. Since the people of Alaska's remote
> Arctic communities rely so heavily on subsistence resources of the
> marine environment, they are especially concerned about industrial
> activities that may directly or indirectly affect hunting success or
> the habitats of the species important to subsistence. They have an
> opportunity to comment on proposed and ongoing studies, especially
> those focused on the interactions of human activities and the natural
> environment.
>
> Traditional knowledge has been incorporated into specific study
> planning, fieldwork, and interpretation of results over the years of
> the ESP. It is a continuing process to synthesize information from
> many projects into a broader, multi disciplinary view of research
> results. Past efforts such as MMS ITM's have helped us guide the
> design of future studies toward a more encompassing involvement of
> traditional information with scientific activities and results. Also
> of particular importance is the sharing of information between social
> and economic disciplines and other scientific fields. The process of
> melding traditional knowledge with other MMS studies varies from
> project to project, but the outcome of better information for decision
> making is a common goal.
>
> Over the years, the MMS ESP has involved Alaskans and others in its
> research planning and execution in a number of ways. Solicitation of
> comments on the Alaska Annual Studies Plans (ASP's) has been practiced
> for years. The MMS ESP has sought out and included the knowledge of
> coastal community residents in planning. Another key source of input
> is discussion and advice on the ASP by the MMS Scientific Committee,
> which occurs on an annual basis. Other public involvement, such as
> participation on study project-management-review boards or
> scientific-review boards of certain studies, has assisted the MMS. In
> all MMS field-oriented studies, researchers coordinate directly with
> local communities to discuss their plans, seek advice, and assure that
> interested people learn about the project and its results. Recently,
> the MMS has incorporated traditional knowledge of Alaskan residents
> directly in the preparation of its EIS's and decision documents.
>
> The MMS sponsored a Social and Economic Planning Conference in 1999.
> MMS Scientific Committee members, university professors, consultants,
> and MMS staff participated. For the Alaska Region discussions of major
> issues focused on impact assessment, monitoring key indicators,
> traditional knowledge, and stakeholder participation. The Alaska
> Region has taken the results of this Conference into consideration in
> preparing study profiles for proposed studies and scopes of work for
> studies to be contracted. Further information on this conference is
> available at http://www.mms.gov/eppd/socecon/conference.htm.

# 1.1.4 Coordination and Cooperation {#coordination-and-cooperation .Style3}

> The Alaska ESP through its day-to-day operations and ASP process:

-   Coordinate plans and ongoing studies with other ongoing programs and
    research to assure optimal studies management and to manage budget
    resources efficiently.

-   Enhance utilization of existing information.

-   Share logistics and equipment.

-   Enhance team approaches to interdisciplinary projects.

> Currently a major portion of the program is conducted on a cooperative
> basis. In 1993, to take advantage of scientific expertise at the local
> level in addressing issues of mutual concern, the MMS developed the
> Coastal Marine Institute (CMI). Under an initial 5-year Cooperative
> Agreement with CMI, the MMS committed \$1,000,000 per year with a
> dollar-for-dollar match arrangement of Federal and State funds. The
> University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) School of Fisheries and Ocean
> Sciences, nationally recognized for its coastal and marine expertise,
> administers the Alaskan CMI. The cooperative agreement was renewed for
> another 5 years in 2002. The MMS anticipates discussing an additional
> "Framework Issue" with the CMI: the examination of selected species of
> algae and invertebrates living on OCS oil industry platforms for
> potential bio-compounds. Genetic and taxonomic investigations combined
> with screening tests would be used to identify active bio-compounds
> such as: cancer inhibitors, biochemical enzymes for medical testing,
> and commercial bio-adhesives. In addition to funding CMI scientific
> research, a substantial portion of the MMS contribution supports
> education in Alaska by funding tuition and travel for UAF
> graduate-student research related to CMI projects.
>
> The Alaska ESP also coordinates with other U.S. and local research
> entities such as the National Science Foundation, Arctic Research
> Commission, USGS- Biological Resources Division, *Exxon Valdez* Oil
> Spill Trustee Council research program, North Slope Borough Department
> of Wildlife Management, National Research Council, Polar Research
> Board, Cook Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory Council, and industry
> programs. Additional international linkages with the Russian Academy
> of Sciences Institutes in Magadan and Vladivostok have also been
> established.
>
> Recently, the U.S. and seven other Arctic nations voluntarily agreed
> to cooperate on an Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS)
> which has evolved into the formation of the Arctic Council in 1996.
> The Alaska ESP maintains contacts and coordination with Arctic Council
> activities, such as the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program
> (AMAP) and Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF). The ESP
> provides information to these working groups through review of reports
> and plans, and helps to inform participants of available information
> sponsored by MMS. Further, specific studies that can coordinate and
> integrate with working group activities are identified and beneficial
> linkages facilitated.

# 1.2 Projected OCS Activities {#projected-ocs-activities .Style2}

# 1.2.1 Prelease Considerations {#prelease-considerations .Style3}

> This *Alaska Studies Development Plan FY 2004-2006* (March 2003)
> reflects consideration of the proposed lease sales in the *Final Outer
> Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program 2002-2007* (July 2002).
> In a frontier region such as the Alaskan Arctic with large and remote
> planning areas, potential environmental hazards associated with
> offshore activities, and still-developing technology required for
> hydrocarbon extraction, maximum lead-time is necessary to conduct
> adequate environmental studies.
>
> The *Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program
> 2002-2007* proposes lease sales in the Beaufort Sea in 2003, 2005, and
> 2007; and Chukchi/Hope Basin in 2004 and 2007; and in Cook
> Inlet/Shelikof Strait in 2004 and 2006. Norton Basin Planning has a
> sale proposed for 2003. But before MMS proceeds in Norton Basin, it
> will issue a request for nominations and comments and will move
> forward only if environmentally acceptable blocks are nominated by
> industry. If this does not occur, the sale will be postponed and the
> process will be repeated the following year and so on through the
> 5-year schedule until a sale is held or the schedule expires (see
> Fig.1). Studies proposed for FY 2003 are for EIS's and related
> documentation for these possible lease sales.
>
> Preparation of the EIS is the most important part of the prelease
> process that requires environmental information. In particular,
> information is needed in time to prepare draft EIS's for proposed
> lease sales. Although much information exists for certain Alaska OCS
> lease areas, changing conditions and environments often lead to the
> need to update past studies so that EIS information is current and
> accurate.

# 1.2.2 Postlease Considerations {#postlease-considerations .Style3}

> Prior to FY 1982, most studies of the Alaskan offshore were planned,
> con­ducted, and concluded before a sale was held to provide decision
> information for EIS's. However, not all information needs can be
> obtained prior to a sale. In accordance with mandates of Section 20(e)
> of the OCS Lands Act, as amended, postlease studies are needed to
> address environmental concerns and monitoring related to specific
> developments. The MMS acquires additional information for
> environmental analyses related to development and production in the
> postlease phase environmental analyses. Thus, an increasing number of
> studies have become more closely related to development schedules and
> monitoring and evaluation in addition to those broader studies related
> to the prelease phase. As with the prelease phase, the wide range of
> environmental conditions from Cook Inlet to the Arctic and planning
> lead times are accounted for in the process of formulating new studies
> for the ASP.
>
> Postlease activities that raise issues and require environmental data
> and assessment are:

-   Geophysical surveys.

-   Exploration drilling.

-   Development, construction, and production activity.

-   Oil transportation, including pipelines and tankers.

-   Lease termination or expiration (platform abandonment).

> As of February 2003, exploration, artificial-island construction and
> abandonment, and unitization agreements (including suspension of
> leases) have occurred.
>
> In the Beaufort Planning Area, there have been 716 tracts leased in
> eight OCS Lease Sales. There are currently 42 active leases (see Fig.
> 2). Thirty one exploratory wells have been drilled and 11 were
> determined to be producible.
>
> [Beaufort Sea Planning Area Lease Sales]{.underline}
>
> Sale BF - December 1979 Sale 71 - October 1982
>
> Sale 87 - August 1984 Sale 97 - March 1988
>
> Sale 124 - June 1991 Sale 144 - September 1996
>
> Sale 170 - August 1998
>
> The British Petroleum Exploration Alaska (BPXA) Northstar development
> project is located about 10 miles north of Prudhoe Bay (see Fig. 2 and
> Fig. 3). While the Northstar Island is in State waters, 6 to 7 wells
> will be on the OCS. The project was approved by the U.S. Army Corps of
> Engineers May 1999 and by MMS September 1999. Construction started in
> the winter of 2000. Production started the last day of October 2001.
> Recoverable reserves are estimated at 158 million barrels of oil, with
> peak daily production estimated at 65,000 barrels per day.
>
> A second BPXA proposed project is the Liberty Unit in Foggy Island Bay
> (see Fig. 2). It is located about 6 miles east of the State Endicott
> Project. MMS released the *Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
> the Liberty Development and Production Plan* (January 2001). In
> January 2002 BPXA put the Liberty project on hold. MMS issued the
> Final EIS for the project in May 2002. Recoverable reserves are
> estimated at 120 million barrels of oil.
>
> AEC Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. drilled an exploration well on McCovey in
> December 2002 (see Fig. 2). The firm plugged and abandoned it in
> February 2003.
>
> The only other active leases are in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. Cook
> Inlet Lease Sale 149 was held in June 1997 and generated two leases
> (see Fig. 4).
>
> There are no active leases from previous lease sales in the Chukchi
> Sea or Hope Basin portions of the Arctic Subregion, or in the Bering
> Sea or Gulf of Alaska Subregions (see Fig. 1).

# Figure 2. Beaufort Sea Oil- and Gas-Leasing Activity {#figure-2.-beaufort-sea-oil--and-gas-leasing-activity .Style4}

![](media/image4.png){width="5.729861111111111in"
height="8.16388888888889in"}

# Figure 3. Northstar Island August 2000 {#figure-3.-northstar-island-august-2000 .Style4}

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="5.5368055555555555in" height="8.175in"}

# Figure 4. Cook Inlet Oil- and Gas-Leasing Activity {#figure-4.-cook-inlet-oil--and-gas-leasing-activity .Style4}

![](media/image6.png){width="6.504861111111111in"
height="8.372916666666667in"}

# 1.3 Identification of Information Needs {#identification-of-information-needs .Style2}

We distributed the *Final Alaska Annual Studies Plan FY 2003* (June
2002) followed with a letter in September 2002 to approximately 200
Federal, State, local, environmental, Native, industry, international,
and other requesting suggestions for new studies for the FY 2003. We
considered comments in response to that request and previous program
reviews. In addition, we requested suggestions for new studies from all
components of the Alaska OCS Region staff and considered their comments
in identifying needed studies.

The ESP also relies heavily on information needs identified through
solicitation of public comment and suggestions on how to enhance our
information base at information transfer meetings (ITM) and other
meetings. For example an ITM was held in January 1999. Approximately
1,000 invitations for the ITM were sent to State and Federal Agencies;
borough, city, and village leaders; oil and fishing industry personnel;
environmental groups; scientists; contractors; and others. Approximately
200 people, including about 30 MMS personnel, attended various sessions.
Also, in March 2000, the Beaufort Sea Information Update Meeting (IUM)
was held in Barrow at the request of the North Slope Borough. Over 100
attendees heard 15 presentations. We held another ITM in April 2001 with
mailing of a similar number of invitations to the same range of
entities. Approximately 100 people attended various sessions. At each of
these meetings session chairs encouraged attendees to comment on the
information available, either through oral participation in the
question-and-answer periods or afterward in writing. At the Beaufort Sea
IUM, we participated in an auxiliary meeting and local residents
expressed ideas for new study needs.

Several of the approved and proposed studies address recommendations
from Cook Inlet communities and the Cook Inlet Regional Citizens
Advisory Council (CIRCAC); and a few of the proposed studies also were
highlighted in previous ESP plans.

Some of the studies address recommendations from the NRC in the Alaska
ESP. The review is entitled "Environmental Information for Outer
Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Decisions in Alaska" (NRC, 1994). The NRC
report was prepared in response to a request from the U.S. House of
Representatives that MMS seek NRC advice about the adequacy of
environmental information for Beaufort Sea lease sales. The NRC
committee concluded that the environmental information currently
available for the Beaufort Sea OCS area is generally adequate for
leasing and exploration decisions, except with regard to effects on the
human environment (NRC, 1994: Executive Summary, p. 3). Since that time,
the MMS has enhanced research components on the human environment.

The Alaska ESP has also considered a series of reviews of the national
ESP by the NRC. The reviews are entitled "Assessment of the U.S. Outer
Continental Shelf Environmental Studies Program." Volume I focuses on
Physical Oceanography (NRC, 1990), Volume II on Ecology (NRC, 1992*a*),
and Volume III on Social and Economic Sciences (NRC, 1992*b*); Volume IV
summarizes Lessons and Opportunities (NRC, 1993).

Although the NRC (1994) concluded that the ESP in Alaska is generally
extensive, substantive, and of high quality, it recommended documenting
more carefully the changes in the human environment that result from all
phases of Federal actions on the OCS.

In addition, the NRC review mentioned the importance of documenting
long-term, gradual sociocultural changes from all phases of OCS
activities. The NRC also recommended careful quantification and analysis
in social and cultural assessments. Proposed and ongoing social science
studies would further meet this recommendation.

# 1.3.1 Beaufort Sea General Information Needs  {#beaufort-sea-general-information-needs .Style3}

> [Long-Range Monitoring of Interdependent Physical, Biological, and
> Social Processes]{.underline}: Both offshore and onshore oil and gas
> development and production activities are increasing across Alaska's
> North Slope. Residents of Nuiqsut, Kaktovik and Barrow are
> particularly concerned about long term effects of offshore
> developments at Northstar and other possible developments as well as
> long-term and cumulative effects of any exploration from OCS Beaufort
> Sea lease sales. Interagency reviews of related EIS's and Development
> and Production Plans are expected to lead to additional
> recommendations for monitoring impacts of Northstar and other possible
> developments. Key constituents have identified the need to monitor
> under ice currents, sedimentation, and potential effects on social
> systems/subsistence in the vicinity of Northstar and Liberty
> developments. Related questions that need to be addressed are the
> characteristics of major oceanographic and meteorological processes
> and how they influence the human, marine and coastal environment. One
> method of collecting oceanographic data that has improved
> significantly in recent years is through radar mapping and this method
> should be investigated for the Beaufort Sea.
>
> [Information on Bowhead Whales and Other Wildlife]{.underline}:
> Inupiat whale hunters rely heavily on bowhead whales for subsistence.
> The bowhead whale is central to village cultural and spiritual life.
> Whale hunters have observed that migrating bowhead whales deflect from
> their normal migratory route well upstream of active seismic vessels
> and divert their migration route far offshore. They contend that
> deflection around oil- and gas-industry activity (including drilling
> activity and associated icebreaker support) forces whales farther and
> farther offshore, making them harder and more dangerous to hunt. They
> also are concerned that whales may avoid traditional feeding grounds
> and are concerned as to the extent to which certain areas are
> important feeding grounds for migrating bowhead whales. Noise from
> industrial activity is the central concern.
>
> These concerns are addressed in part by ongoing studies such as the
> MMS Bowhead Whale Aerial Survey Project (BWASP) and the study titled
> "Bowhead Whale Feeding in the Eastern Alaskan Beaufort Sea: Update of
> Scientific and Traditional Information" completion in October 2002.
> Also, a study currently under contract titled "Reference Manual and
> GIS Geospatial Database of Oil Industry and other Human Activity
> (1979-1998)" is collecting information on past human activities in the
> Beaufort Sea and will provide this information to proposed future
> studies. Analysis of this information for covariance of human
> activities and sea ice in relation to fall migrations of bowhead
> whales will be needed. It is important to assess the factors that may
> be affecting the migration routes of bowhead whales.
>
> The populations of bowhead whales, polar bears, beluga whales,
> spectacled eiders, and other endangered species are an ongoing concern
> of environmental groups, Federal agencies, and the International
> Whaling Commission. North Slope villages are particularly concerned
> about potential disturbance of ringed seals, waterfowl, and other
> subsistence-wildlife species by oil-industry activities such as
> helicopter overflights.
>
> [Native Culture]{.underline}: The Inupiat feel that their culture is
> vulnerable to short-term, long-term, and cumulative effects from OCS
> activities. They feel OCS activities might lead to:

-   Social disruption and a change in cultural values through population
    shifts (immigration of large numbers of non-Inupiat to the North
    Slope).

-   Employment changes (further displacement of the subsistence
    lifestyle by a cash economy).

-   Cumulative effects of multiple industrial activities, alteration of
    subsistence-harvest patterns and displacement of hunters and
    subsistence resources.

> The anticipated decline in oil revenues to the North Slope Borough is
> an issue of concern to the Natives also.
>
> The Inupiat rely on a wide variety of marine resources as significant
> sources of food. In addition, the harvesting, sharing, and consuming
> of subsistence resources form an important part of the traditional
> Inupiaq culture and spiritual life. The Inupiat are concerned that a
> temporary or permanent elimination of primary subsistence foods would
> cause North Slope residents either to shift to less desired
> subsistence resources or to replace subsistence foods with expensive
> Western foods. The Inupiat are concerned about mitigation, including
> compensation, for potential losses. There is a need to monitor
> potential key indicators of socioeconomic and cultural changes of
> communications on the North Slope.
>
> Another concern is the use of traditional Inupiaq knowledge in
> analysis of potential environmental effects; mitigation measures to
> protect environmental resources; and general offshore planning,
> leasing, and regulation of industry activity. We should continue to
> recognize and include firsthand knowledge of local subsistence hunters
> to augment the Western-science knowledge base.
>
> [Pollutants]{.underline}: North Slope villagers are concerned about
> any potential contamination of their food supply. In the Beaufort Sea,
> such foods include bowhead whales, seals, waterfowl, and fish. Of
> particular concern is the fate, behavior, and cleanup of a major oil
> spill and the potential mortality to marine wildlife in open water or
> effects resulting from entrainment of oil in sea ice. Other oil- and
> gas-industry activities are perceived to pose a threat of
> contamination through drilling mud disposal. Related to these
> concerns, additional information is needed regarding currents carrying
> oil under ice. The most current information on climate and ice is
> important to addressing these concerns.
>
> Small portions of the Beaufort sea floor near the Liberty development
> unit have a special benthic environment referred to as the "kelp
> community" or the "Boulder Patch." Sediments or pollutants associated
> with oil- and gas-industry activities could negatively affect this
> unique environment.

# 1.3.2 Chukchi/Hope Basin General Information Needs {#chukchihope-basin-general-information-needs .Style3}

> The fundamental issues in the Chukchi/Hope Basin are very similar to
> the Beaufort Sea. The Native culture focused on subsistence,
> particularly on marine resources, predominates in these regions. These
> issues likewise interrelate with physical and biological processes and
> pollutants. The major difference is that the last OCS activity in the
> Chukchi Sea was in the early 1990\'s and no OCS activity has occurred
> in the Hope Basin. MMS has conducted studies in the Chukchi/Hope Basin
> but they are relatively fewer since the early 1990\'s compared to the
> Beaufort Sea. The *Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing
> Program* *2002-2007* proposes Chukchi/Hope Basin Lease sales in 2004
> and 2007. We propose several studies that will provide environmental
> information to address information needs in the Chukchi/Hope Basin.

# 1.3.3 Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait General Information Needs {#cook-inletshelikof-strait-general-information-needs .Style3}

> [Physical Oceanography]{.underline}: The MMS Oil Spill Risk Assessment
> (OSRA) Model needs additional validation in Alaskan waters. One method
> of collecting oceanographic data that has improved significantly in
> recent years is through radar mapping and this method should be
> investigated for the Cook Inlet. A way to verify the OSRA is to deploy
> satellite-tracked drifters to measure surface currents, a study to be
> started in 2003. A few modest studies have been performed on surface
> currents in Cook Inlet. But more extensive information is needed
> particularly in middle and upper Cook Inlet.
>
> [Protected Species]{.underline}: Beluga whales are vulnerable to
> potential oil spills in Cook Inlet. Noise from vessel traffic
> associated with oil development activities may temporarily disturb and
> displace belugas from preferred habitat areas. Additional information
> is needed to determine areas of Cook Inlet important to beluga whales
> during winter months to supplement information collected in 1997.
> Harbor seals are also vulnerable to a potential oil spill in Cook
> Inlet and their distribution and abundance should be studied.
>
> [Social Science and Economics]{.underline}: MMS needs to initiate a
> project to collect traditional knowledge of Cook Inlet and Shelikof
> Strait. This would create an indexed annotate bibliography and
> abstracts of recorded traditional knowledge sources.
>
> [Information Access]{.underline}: Most of the common problems facing
> the public, researchers, and managers in Cook inlet is the poor
> understanding of the research needs, and public understanding of what
> numerous agencies are doing. A multi-agency tracking system of ongoing
> research in Cook Inlet and its watershed will help MMS focus funding
> decisions.

# 1.3.4 Norton Basin General Information Needs {#norton-basin-general-information-needs .Style3}

> The last EIS MMS prepared for this area was for Lease Sale 100 in
> 1984. Sale 100 was cancelled. Information in all disciplines would
> need to be updated. However, the *Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil
> and Gas Leasing Program 2002-2007* proposes a new approach to leasing.
> MMS proposes a sale for 2003. However, before MMS proceeds, it will
> issue a request for nominations and comments and will move forward
> only if industry nominates environmentally acceptable blocks. See
> Section 1.3 Projected OCS Activities for a description of the system
> for further explanation. Also Norton Basin is on the schedule as a
> potential source of natural gas for local residents and businesses.
> Natural gas involves a smaller set of issues compared to those for OCS
> oil. An EIS will not be prepared prior to the request for nominations.
> Therefore it is possible the information updates needs may be
> relatively limited.

# 1.3.5 General Information Needs {#general-information-needs .Style3}

> The Alaska OCS Region has a need to have internet capability for the
> Sub-sea Physical Environmental Database. It also has a need for data
> management support.
>
> /media/pszemraj/PeterTrove/project-files/DATA/ms-word-files/big-DOC/349906.doc

# SECTION 2.0 Proposed Studies {#section-2.0-proposed-studies .Style1}

# 2.1: Introduction {#introduction .Style2}

Profiles of ongoing studies can be found at:

http://www.mms.gov/eppd/sciences/esp/profiles/index.htm.

This website is up dated three times each year and includes:

-   An updated status of each study.

-   Report due dates.

-   Related publications.

-   Affiliated websites.

For all completed ESP Studies go to:

www.mmpub.mms.gov/

This has the Environmental Studies Program Information System (ESPIS).
ESPIS provides access to all completed study products. ESPIS is a
searchable, web-based, full text retrieval system allowing users to view
reports online or download their complete text.

# 2.2: Profiles of Studies Proposed for FY 2004 National Studies List (NSL) {#profiles-of-studies-proposed-for-fy-2004-national-studies-list-nsl .Style2}

# Table 1 Alaska Region Ranking of Proposed Studies for FY 2004 NSL, February 13, 2003 {#table-1-alaska-region-ranking-of-proposed-studies-for-fy-2004-nsl-february-13-2003 .Style4}

+-----+---------+--------------------------------------------+--------+
| >   | > **    | > **Title**                                | **     |
| **P | Topic** |                                            | Rank** |
| age | >       |                                            |        |
| > \ | > *     |                                            |        |
| #** | *\*\*** |                                            |        |
+-----+---------+--------------------------------------------+--------+
| 21  | PO      | Surface Circulation Radar Mapping in       | High   |
|     |         | Alaskan Coastal Waters: Field Study        |        |
|     |         | Beaufort Sea and Cook Inlet                |        |
+-----+---------+--------------------------------------------+--------+
| 23  | FE      | Improvements in the Fault Tree Approach to | H      |
|     |         | Oil Spill                                  | ighest |
|     |         |                                            |        |
|     |         | Occurrence Estimators for the Beaufort and |        |
|     |         | Chukchi Seas                               |        |
+-----+---------+--------------------------------------------+--------+
| 25  | FE      | Empirical Weathering Properties of Oil in  | Higher |
|     |         | Snow and Ice                               |        |
+-----+---------+--------------------------------------------+--------+
| 27  | BIO     | Workshop and Field Evaluation of Bird      | H      |
|     |         | Hazing/Deterrent Techniques                | ighest |
+-----+---------+--------------------------------------------+--------+
| 29  | PS      | Passive Acoustic Monitoring of Whales in   | H      |
|     |         | Lower Cook Inlet                           | ighest |
+-----+---------+--------------------------------------------+--------+
| 31  | PS      | Survey of Steller's Eiders Wintering in    | H      |
|     |         | Lower Cook Inlet                           | ighest |
+-----+---------+--------------------------------------------+--------+
| 33  | PS      | Movements and Habitat Use of Harbor Seals  | Higher |
|     |         | in Cook Inlet                              |        |
+-----+---------+--------------------------------------------+--------+
| 35  | PS      | Review and Monitoring Ambient Artificial   | High   |
|     |         | Light Intensity in the OCS and the         |        |
|     |         | Potential for Effects on Resident Fauna    |        |
+-----+---------+--------------------------------------------+--------+
| 37  | SE      | Communicating Agency Goals and Processes   | High   |
|     |         | with Alaskan Coastal Communities           |        |
+-----+---------+--------------------------------------------+--------+
| \   |         |                                            |        |
| *\* |         |                                            |        |
| PO  |         |                                            |        |
| =   |         |                                            |        |
| Ph  |         |                                            |        |
| ysi |         |                                            |        |
| cal |         |                                            |        |
| Oce |         |                                            |        |
| ano |         |                                            |        |
| gra |         |                                            |        |
| phy |         |                                            |        |
| FE  |         |                                            |        |
| =   |         |                                            |        |
| F   |         |                                            |        |
| ate |         |                                            |        |
| &   |         |                                            |        |
| Eff |         |                                            |        |
| ect |         |                                            |        |
| BIO |         |                                            |        |
| =   |         |                                            |        |
| B   |         |                                            |        |
| iol |         |                                            |        |
| ogy |         |                                            |        |
|     |         |                                            |        |
| PS  |         |                                            |        |
| =   |         |                                            |        |
| Pro |         |                                            |        |
| tec |         |                                            |        |
| ted |         |                                            |        |
| S   |         |                                            |        |
| pec |         |                                            |        |
| ies |         |                                            |        |
| SE  |         |                                            |        |
| =   |         |                                            |        |
| Soc |         |                                            |        |
| ial |         |                                            |        |
| &   |         |                                            |        |
| Ec  |         |                                            |        |
| ono |         |                                            |        |
| mic |         |                                            |        |
| OT  |         |                                            |        |
| =   |         |                                            |        |
| Ot  |         |                                            |        |
| her |         |                                            |        |
+-----+---------+--------------------------------------------+--------+

**ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM: Studies Development Plan FY 2004-2006**

**Region:** Alaska

**Planning Areas**: Beaufort Sea, Cook Inlet

**Type:** Competitive or Joint Funding

####### Title: **Surface Circulation Radar Mapping in Alaskan Coastal Waters: Field Study Beaufort Sea and Cook Inlet** {#title-surface-circulation-radar-mapping-in-alaskan-coastal-waters-field-study-beaufort-sea-and-cook-inlet .Profile}

**Cost Range** (in thousands): \$480-\$720 **Period of Performance:** FY
2004-2006

**Description:**

*[Background]{.underline}* Over the past 25 years, oceanographic radar
techniques have been developed and improved so that detailed, gridded,
2-dimensional maps of surface circulation can be provided and recorded
in real time. Currents would play a critical role in the transport and
fate of spilled oil, but there is paucity of direct circulation
measurements in some areas of the Beaufort Sea and Cook Inlet. Current
meters provide only data at specific points and not at the water
surface, where the oil would be. These radar techniques provide a
measured equivalent of a gridded circulation model and can be used as
input to and validation for oil spill trajectory models.

Several entities, including MMS, NOAA, the Prince William Sound Oil
Spill Recovery Institute, the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and oil
industry have expressed interest in using circulation mapping radar
techniques in Alaskan coastal waters. The radar units are expensive and
cost and use-sharing rental agreements among multiple users is a
preferred approach. This study presumes the development of a users group
to cost and use sharing of radar units under a prior Feasibility Study.

*[Objectives]{.underline}* This study's objectives would be to implement
the Beaufort Sea and Cook Inlet radar mapping strategies. This study
would require an additional funding commitment from MMS and may be
dependent on cost sharing among the radar users group.

*[Methods]{.underline}*

1.  Implement a radar mapping strategy for Beaufort Sea.

2.  Implement a radar mapping strategy for Cook Inlet.

*[Importance to MMS]{.underline}* The Oil-Spill-Risk Analysis (OSRA) is
a cornerstone to regional EIS's environmental assessments, and
oil-spill-contingency planning. MMS is being tasked with providing
circulation and oil-spill-trajectory information at higher resolution
than feasible or justifiable by current modeling state-of-the-art or
current-meter technology. Oil-spill issues constitute a significant
portion of public comments submitted on sale or development EIS's in the
Alaska OCS Region.

**Date Information Required:** Information from this study will be used
by Alaska OCS Region staff in preparing future development EIS's, lease
sale EIS's under the *Final Proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas
Leasing Program 2002-2007* (July 2002), and in reviewing
oil-spill-contingency plans.

**Revised Date:** January 2003

***ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM: Studies Development Plan FY
2004-2006***

**Region:** Alaska

**Planning Areas:** Beaufort and Chukchi Seas

**Type:** Competitive or Contract Modification

####### Title: **Improvements in the Fault Tree Approach to Oil Spill Occurrence Estimators for the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas** {#title-improvements-in-the-fault-tree-approach-to-oil-spill-occurrence-estimators-for-the-beaufort-and-chukchi-seas .Profile}

**Cost Range** (in thousands): \$160-\$240 **Period of Performance:** FY
2004

**Description:**

*[Background]{.underline}* The MMS has been estimating the likelihood of
Arctic oil spills in Alaska OCS Region EIS's for a quarter century,
mostly based on what has happened elsewhere on the OCS. Now that Arctic
OCS oil production is occurring, the methodology and validity of the MMS
spill estimates used for Arctic OCS areas are increasingly questioned by
other government agencies, the public, and oil industry. The standard
U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) historical platform and pipeline
crude oil spill estimates are based on the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific
OCS experience. This spill record does not include pipeline spills
inshore of the OCS, in State waters, or on land. The MMS Alaska OCS
Region is examining spill occurrence based on Regional considerations,
such as Alaska North Slope and Arctic Canada rather than on the Gulf of
Mexico and Pacific OCS experience. It is also desirous to include all
major pipeline spills, both onshore and offshore, in environmental risk
assessment. The first step in this process was a prior study (OCS Study
MMS 2000-007) that collated available information on crude and diesel
spills of at least 100 bbl from the oil industry in the Alaska North
Slope and Arctic Canada; and that estimated provisional occurrence rates
for use in the nearshore Beaufort Sea OCS. A second step in this process
was developing fault tree estimates (OCS Study MMS 2002-047) of spill
occurrence taking into account (1) differences in risk factors between
the Arctic and Gulf of Mexico OCS and (2) Arctic-specific factors.

*[Objectives]{.underline}* The objective is to improve the initial fault
tree model approach by:

1.  Generating additional model validation and statistical measures from
    oil spill statistical data.

2.  Providing MMS with fault tree scenarios for ongoing (Liberty and
    McCovey) environmental assessment.

3\. Providing MMS with user-friendly software to develop
scenario-specific fault tree oil spill occurrence estimates for future
environmental assessment.

*[Methods]{.underline}*

1\. Use the fault tree model of oil spill occurrence to generate
additional model validation information from specific non-Arctic
scenarios, such as Cook Inlet and Gulf of Mexico projects, which have an
oil spill statistical history.

2\. Use the model in a sensitivity analysis to identify the importance
of different Arctic variables to provide a prioritized list of variables
having the highest potential impact on Arctic oil spills.

3.  Use Gulf of Mexico OCS historical data together with its measures of
    spill size variance and setup the Monte Carlo fault tree model to
    run with these measures of variance.

4.  Generalize the model so that it can be run both in an expected value
    and distributive value (Monte Carlo) form.

5.  Expand the fault tree analytical system to include causeway
    pipelines.

6.  Develop fault tree scenarios with risk factors, for Liberty and
    McCovey environmental assessments.

7.  Convert the current fault tree model into a user-friendly software
    package, which can be used to estimate oil spill occurrence and
    characteristics for future scenarios. Include modular structure,
    user manual, online help, password protected parameters and
    algorithms, and extensive graphical outputs.

8.  Provide professional support to MMS in regard to statistical issues
    of occurrence rates and estimator(s) related to this study and its
    results.

*[Importance to MMS]{.underline}* The Oil-Spill-Risk Analysis (OSRA) is
a cornerstone to regional EIS's, environmental assessments, and
oil-spill-contingency planning. Oil-spill issues constitute a
significant portion of public comments submitted on sale or development
EIS's in the Alaska OCS Region. This study responds to technical
recommendations provided to MMS on the fault tree oil spill risk
approach used in Beaufort Sea Multi-Sale EIS.

**Date Information Required:** Information from this study will be used
in the future Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Sale assessments within the
*Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program 2002-2007*
(June 2002), potential Liberty development environmental assessments,
potential McCovey development environmental assessments, and review of
oil-spill-contingency plans for OCS and coastal facilities.

**Revised Date:** February 2003

***ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM: Studies Development Plan FY
2004-2006***

**Region:** Alaska

**Planning Areas**: Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, Hope Basin, Cook Inlet

**Type:** Competitive or Joint Funding

####### Title: **Empirical Weathering Properties of Oil in Snow and Ice** {#title-empirical-weathering-properties-of-oil-in-snow-and-ice .Profile}

**Cost Range** (in thousands): \$480-\$720 **Period of Performance:** FY
2004-2006

**Description:**

*[Background]{.underline}* Oil spill weathering models are used in
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis as well as Oil
Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plans (ODPCPs). The results of
these models are used to estimate impacts in NEPA analysis as well as
pre-planning for oil spill response. A modest amount of work in the
field was done in the 1970's and 1980's on order physics for oil
weathering in ice. Additional studies have continued in the laboratory
in the late 1980's and 1990's, but were generally limited to low
viscosity, low pour-point oils. We now know that oil weathering is
strongly dependent on the specific chemical composition and
characteristics of individual crudes. The physical and chemical data
required by modern state-of-the-art models (such as the SINTEF oil
weathering model used by MMS in Alaska) are scarce, of poor quality, or
nonexistent for oil-ice interaction. Such models, therefore, ignore the
more difficult aspects of oil-in-ice weathering. Sophisticated
measurement techniques currently available would enable precise
measurements regarding oil evaporation, spreading, and dispersion in ice
(as well as on ice) as a function of oil type and chemistry.

*[Objectives]{.underline}*

1.  For low and high pour-point oils, measure emulsification,
    evaporation, dispersion, spreading, slick thickness, and oil
    composition in an ice field and snow on top of sea ice.

2.  Develop a database on oil weathering in ice fields for use in model
    validation.

3.  Use these data, in concert with other oil-ice weathering data, to
    validate and enhance or develop new algorithms of oil weathering in
    ice.

*[Methods]{.underline}* Collect and analyze data on weathering of oil in
ice and snow on top of sea ice, including but not limited to
evaporation, emulsion, dispersion, spreading and slick thickness.
Dependant tasks include developing a dataset from the experimental data
for use to validate weathering algorithms and oil weathering models in
the presence of ice. Create a database or experimental data set of oil
weathering parameters in ice fields and snow. Some of this work should
be done with both high and low pour point oils. Liberty crude would be
an example of a high-pour crude with pour point above environmental
temperatures. Validate or enhance oil in ice weathering algorithms.
Include recommendations for new algorithms in the oil weathering model
that are validated by the field results.

*[Importance to MMS]{.underline}* The Alaska Region of the MMS leases in
areas which are ice covered. Better estimates of the weathering of oil
in snow and ice are important for to further impact assessment and oil
spill contingency and response planning.

**Date Information Required:** The information will be used in EA's for
the Beaufort and Cook Inlet sales and investigation future proposed
Development and Production Plans and their associated Oil Discharge
Prevention and Contingency Plans.

**Revised date:** January 2003

***ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM: Studies Development Plan FY
2004-2006***

**Region:** Alaska

**Planning Areas**: Beaufort Sea

**Type:** Competitive

####### Title: **Workshop and Field Evaluation of Bird Hazing/Deterrent Techniques** {#title-workshop-and-field-evaluation-of-bird-hazingdeterrent-techniques .Profile}

**Cost Range** (in thousands): \$264-\$396 **Period of Performance:** FY
2004

**Description:**

*[Background]{.underline}* Despite cleaning and rehabilitation efforts
associated with oil spills, most oiled birds do not survive. Prevention
of contact with spilled oil would avoid this mortality and the expense
of operating an avian treatment facility that invariably is associated
with a major oil spill. The Wildlife Protection Guidelines for Alaska
within the State/Federal Unified Response Plan identifies hazing
wildlife away from and deterring entry into a spill area as secondary
response strategies for minimizing oil effects. Birds tend to avoid
areas where disturbing human activities or devices producing loud sounds
occur. These include aircraft and motorboat operations, and devices such
as Breco buoy, wailer; 12-gauge cracker shell, and propane cannon. The
latter devices, intended to haze birds away from a specific area, have
been used in the field or undergone some evaluation for effectiveness.
However, none of these have been rigorously tested under specific
biological, oceanographic, or climatic conditions that would prevail if
an oil spill occurred in the Beaufort Sea. Nor have studies focused on
determining the effectiveness of a combination of hazing techniques in
habitats similar to those in the Beaufort Sea. Field testing of
hazing/deterrent devices and techniques to evaluate their effectiveness
under Beaufort Sea conditions would aid in the development of oil spill
response contingency planning in these areas. Because this involves a
relatively unexplored area of investigation, field testing will be
preceded by a workshop to evaluate available hazing/deterrent techniques
and design a field research protocol to accomplish the field testing
effectively.

*[Objectives]{.underline}* The primary goals of this study are to: a)
hold a workshop whose participants will review currently-used or
potential bird hazing methods and design a field testing protocol for
hazing devices/methods; b) conduct field tests of the effectiveness of
the devices and techniques in the Beaufort Sea and specific objectives
are to:

1.  Convene a facilitated workshop of experts knowledgeable in the field
    of bird hazing and deterrence and/or allied fields, to evaluate the
    apparent effectiveness of devices and techniques or combinations
    that may be used to haze birds from or deter their entry into the
    vicinity of an oil spill.

2.  Receive from this panel a design for a detailed field testing
    protocol, based upon this evaluation, for hazing and deterrence
    devices and methods that show the most promise for use in the
    Beaufort Sea environment under a variety of circumstances.

3.  Quantitatively field test bird hazing/deterrent devices (including
    the Breco buoy) and techniques, alone and in combination and/or
    sequence, for effectiveness in hazing waterbirds varying in flock
    size, molt status, and/or sex from major habitats used by these
    species during spring, summer and fall in the Beaufort Sea.

4.  Quantify differences in effectiveness of bird hazing from a
    simulated oil spill area in the Beaufort Sea using the most likely
    volume and discontinuous area projected by the Oil Spill Risk
    Analysis model.

5.  Make recommendations for any modifications of recommended bird
    hazing kits and procedures in the Alaska Clean Seas (ACS) Technical
    Manual and Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan.

*[Methods]{.underline}*

Workshop Phase:

1.  In collaboration with industry and governmental experts, select a
    suite of bird hazing/deterrent devices and techniques potentially
    effective for hazing birds present in the Beaufort Sea, using
    published and unpublished literature on this topic, for focal
    species (i.e., long-tailed duck, common eider, king eider,
    spectacled eider, loons, phalaropes).

2.  Select test and control sites based on aerial survey and other
    information on focal species distribution and behavior including oil
    spill scenarios projected by the MMS Oil Spill Risk Analysis model.

3.  Summarize recommendations in workshop report.

Field Phase:

1.  Record bird species, flock sizes, and activity in test and control
    sites prior to initiating hazing/deterrence activities.

2.  Expose bird flocks of varying size, species, activity, and status
    (e.g., molting, nonmolting) under various oceanographic/climatic
    conditions (e.g., open-water, broken-ice, fog), timeframes (hours,
    days), and at various times during the period of presence
    (May-October) to selected devices and techniques individually, and
    in combination and sequence; record numbers of individuals remaining
    by species, distance from hazing device(s), effort of hazing
    activities, and other appropriate measures of effectiveness.

3.  Repeat the exposure experiments substituting a simulated oil spill
    scenario and utilizing multiple devices and/or techniques over an
    area comparable to that projected to occur after 10 days as a result
    of spilling the most likely volume of oil assumed by MMS in OCS
    EIS/EA MMS 2002-029.

4.  Based on test results, modify as necessary the contents of a
    recommended hazing equipment kit and hazing procedures to conduct
    hazing operations in the Beaufort Sea.

*[Importance to MMS]{.underline}* The workshop will provide information
to determine how to proceed with a full study to test these
technologies. These technologies could be used in oil spill response
contingency planning to mitigate potential impacts to birds resulting
from OCS activities in the Beaufort Sea.

**Date Information Required:** This information would be useful for
post-lease permit approvals after Beaufort Sea Planning Area Sale 186 in
2005 and beyond.

**Revised date:** January 2003

***ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM: Studies Development Plan FY
2004-2006***

**Region:** Alaska

**Planning Area:** Cook Inlet

**Type:** Joint Funding

####### Title: **Passive Acoustic Monitoring of Whales in Lower Cook Inlet** {#title-passive-acoustic-monitoring-of-whales-in-lower-cook-inlet .Profile}

**Cost Range** (in thousands): \$720-\$1,080 **Period of Performance:**
FY 2004-2005

**Description:**

*[Background]{.underline}* There are numerous species of cetaceans that
can occur within or near the proposed Cook Inlet Lease Sale area.
However, for all of these species, there is considerable uncertainty
about their patterns of use of these areas.

There are at least two species of endangered baleen whales (humpback and
fin whales) that have been sighted in areas within or very near the
proposed Cook Inlet Lease Sale. Fin whales are present in Shelikof
Strait year-round, but their use of the entrances to Cook Inlet and of
southern Cook Inlet is not well-studied. Humpback whales are known to
feed seasonally in the area near the Barren Islands, and to occur
seasonally in southern Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait. However, neither
abundance in, nor seasonal use patterns of, these areas are well
documented. The intensity of their use of northern Shelikof Strait, the
entrances to Cook Inlet, and southern Cook Inlet are not well-defined.
Sei whales have been, but are rarely, sighted in Shelikof Strait.
Individuals from the eastern stock of the North Pacific right whales,
the most highly endangered large cetacean population in the world, have
been sighted in the Gulf of Alaska, outside of the Kenai Peninsula and
off of Kodiak Island. It is believed that this species does not occur in
Cook Inlet or Shelikof Strait. However, its potential use of the areas
near the Barren Islands is unclear. On the outer coast of Kodiak Island,
this species has been sighted in areas in which humpback whales also
feed.

The Cook Inlet stock of beluga whales, listed as depleted under the MMPA
and as a candidate species under the ESA, occurs within the inlet. At
present, its non-summer and especially its winter, distribution and
habitat use is not well understood. Relatedly, the use of the lower
inlet, the entrances to Cook Inlet, and the Gulf of Alaska by beluga
whales is also not well understood. Some individuals or groups from this
population may travel outside of the inlet in all or some winters.

Some species of cetaceans may be adversely affected by activities
associated with OCS oil and gas. For example, underwater noise
associated with industry activities may cause some species or some
segments of some species of whales to avoid areas where exploration is
occurring. Additionally, other types of activity associated with oil and
gas development may disturb, and modify the behavior of, whales. While
the sensitivity of cetaceans to large and very large oil spills is not
well-studied, oil spills could potentially have adverse effects on, or
even result in the death of, cetaceans that surfaced in fresh oil and
that inhaled high concentrations of volatile components of crude oil.

In the proposed study, passive acoustic monitoring would be used to
estimate the seasonal patterns of use of the proposed Cook Inlet
Multi-sale area by both toothed and baleen threatened and endangered
cetaceans.

*[Objectives]{.underline}*

1.  Baleen Whales\--Estimate the intensity and patterns of use of the
    proposed Cook Inlet Multi-Sale area by at least 4 threatened or
    endangered baleen whale species.

2.  Beluga Whale\--Estimate the intensity and patterns of use of the
    proposed Cook Inlet Multi-Sale area by the candidate beluga whale.

3.  Estimate minimum abundances of the five species in the proposed Cook
    Inlet Multi-Sale area.

4.  Evaluate areas within the proposed Cook Inlet Multi-Sale area that
    are hypothesized to be important to these species.

*[Methods]{.underline}*

1.  Deploy an array of continuous seafloor acoustic recorders in the
    deeper waters of Lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait to address the
    objectives for baleen whales.

2.  Deploy hydrophone arrays with shore based continuous recorders in
    Kachemak Bay and selected bays along the coastline of western Cook
    Inlet to address the objectives for beluga whales.

3.  Data would be analyzed, mapped and otherwise displayed to optimize
    utility for risk assessment by MMS Analysts.

*[Importance to MMS]{.underline}* Study results will be generally useful
to support NEPA and ESA pre- and post- lease analyses. Under both the
MMPA and the ESA MMS evaluates which species could be affected by
activities that it permits and estimates when such effects could and
could not occur. Such information underlies Incidental Take
Authorizations and specific mitigation requirements associated with
activities that may result in the taking of a cetacean.

**Date Information Required:** Study results will be useful for NEPA
documentation for the proposed Cook Inlet Lease Sale in 2006.
Information will be useful for post-lease assessments following the Cook
Inlet Lease Sale in 2004.

**Revised date:** January 2003

***ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM: Studies Development Plan FY
2004-2006***

**Region:** Alaska

**Planning Area:** Lower Cook Inlet

**Type:** Intra-agency Agreement

####### Title: **Survey of Steller's Eiders Wintering in Lower Cook Inlet** {#title-survey-of-stellers-eiders-wintering-in-lower-cook-inlet .Profile}

**Cost Range** (in thousands): \$62-\$94 **Period of Performance:** FY
2004-2005

**Description:**

*[Background]{.underline}* In 1997, the Alaska-breeding population of
the Steller's eider was listed as threatened under the Endangered
Species Act. The decision to list was based on the observed substantial
decrease in the nesting range of Steller's eiders breeding in Alaska,
the overall reduction in numbers of Steller's eiders nesting in Alaska,
and the increased vulnerability of the remaining breeding population to
extinction (Draft Recovery Plan, USFWS 2001).

Steller's eiders that breed in northern Alaska and Russia winter in the
lower Cook Inlet, but the distribution and abundance of the species is
currently uncertain. Moreover, the relative proportion of birds
wintering in Cook Inlet from the Russian population versus the
threatened Alaska population in not known. Opportunistic observations
indicate that Steller's eiders, numbering in the hundreds to thousands,
winter in lower Cook Inlet ( Unpublished USFWS Reports, Larned 1997,
2001). Steller's eiders have frequently been observed along the Homer
Spit, arriving in early- to mid-November and departing by the end of
April. Concentrations of wintering Steller's eiders have been reported
from both the eastern and western coastlines of Lower Cook Inlet, but
the majority of the sightings have been reported from the shoal
extending from the Homer Spit, westward in Kachemak Bay, around Anchor
Point and northward to Clam Gulch

A cooperative study between the USFWS and MMS in 1993-1994 suggested
that aerial surveys were much more effective than offshore boat surveys
for detecting flocks of Steller's eiders (OCS Study: MMS 94-0063, Agler
et al. 1994). Systematic aerial surveys to identify the timing and
location of Steller's eiders that winter in lower Cook Inlet would be
useful for ongoing analyses of the environmental consequences of
potential oil and gas development proposed for that area by MMS.

*[Objectives]{.underline}*

1.  Identify locations important to Steller's eiders wintering in lower
    Cook Inlet.

2.  Understand temporal variation in Steller's eiders winter use of the
    waters in lower Cook Inlet.

3.  Estimate numbers of Steller's eiders wintering in lower Cook Inlet.

[*Methods*]{.underline}

Surveys will be flown in lower Cook Inlet by experienced observers along
transects perpendicular to the coastline in fixed-winged aircraft.
Coverage will be from the shoreline to the 20 m isobath. Surveys will be
flown monthly from December through early-April for a total of 5 surveys
per year for 2 years.

*[Importance to MMS]{.underline}* The *Final OCS Leasing Program
2002-2007* proposes to offer tracts for lease in lower Cook Inlet for
oil and gas exploration and development. Lease sales are planned for
2004 and 2007. Related potential risk to Steller's eider populations can
best be understood if temporal and spatial variation in the distribution
of Steller's eiders wintering in lower Cook Inlet is fully documented.

**Date Information Required:** Information on the spatial and temporal
distribution of eiders in lower Cook Inlet is needed as soon as
possible. Data will support the Environmental Assessment to be prepared
for the 2007 lease sale. Data will also support permitting and
mitigation related to exploration following the 2004 lease sale. Data
will also be important for any EIS risk analysis related to development
if recoverable quantities of resources are discovered.

**Revised date:** January 2003

***ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM: Studies Development Plan FY
2004-2006***

**Region:** Alaska

**Planning Areas:** Cook Inlet

**Type:** Interagency

####### Title: Movements and Habitat Use of Harbor Seals in Cook Inlet {#title-movements-and-habitat-use-of-harbor-seals-in-cook-inlet .Profile}

**Cost Range** (in thousands): \$960-\$1,440 **Period of Performance:**
FY 2004-2007

**Description:**

*[Background]{.underline}* In recent decades, the abundance of harbor
seals has declined at several Alaskan locations. For example, counts of
harbor seals at Tugidak Island declined 85% between 1976 and 1988
(Pitcher 1990); in Bristol Bay and the north side of the Alaska
Peninsula, recent seal counts are less than 42% of 1975 numbers (Withrow
and Loughlin 1995); and trend site counts in Prince William Sound
suggest declines in harbor seal populations of approximately 63% between
1984 and 1997 (Frost et al. 1999). The significance and causes of these
declines are unknown, but concern is rising about the present and future
status of Alaska harbor seal populations, most notably in the Gulf of
Alaska. Because of the proximity of the declining populations to Cook
Inlet, and the inherent vulnerability of harbor seals to spilled oil, it
is particularly important to assess the potential impacts of oil and gas
activities on the harbor seal population in the Cook Inlet Region.

The commonly used approach to estimate harbor seal distribution and
abundance employs aircraft-borne observers that count seals when they
haul out of the water and are visible. In Alaska, aerial surveys have
generally been conducted during the molt period (August-September) when
the number of seals hauled out is thought to be highest and the weather
conditions are likely to be most favorable for flying. Haul-out patterns
at other times of the year are not well known. Since any seal's activity
budget includes a significant time away from haul outs, information is
also needed about at-sea behaviors for oil spill risk assessment. The
proposed study would employ satellite telemetry to study the movements,
foraging behavior, and habitat use of individual harbor seals in Cook
Inlet. This study would also result in a coordinated benefit to ongoing
MMS-funded aerial surveys of harbor seals by allowing a correction of
survey counts for the numbers of animals missed when they are not hauled
out.

*[Objectives]{.underline}* The general goal of this study is to employ
satellite telemetry to document the movements, foraging behavior, and
habitat use of harbor seals in Cook Inlet. Specific objectives are to:

1.  Enhance estimates of harbor seal abundance in Cook Inlet by
    determining and applying a correction factor to survey counts of
    harbor seals from concurrent aerial surveys at haul outs in Cook
    Inlet.

2.  Obtain Cook Inlet-wide information on harbor seal relative
    abundance, distribution and behavior with emphasis on habitat other
    than major haul outs.

3.  Identify and prioritize any specific habitat areas that are or
    particular importance to the Cook Inlet harbor seal population(s)
    for specific activities such as feeding, breeding, pup rearing,
    wintering, etc.

4.  Conduct a comprehensive evaluation of whether individual populations
    (or stocks) exist in the MMS Cook Inlet planning area.

*[Methods]{.underline}*

1.  Capture and instrument 30 seals in each of 3 successive years (N
    = 90) with Argos satellite-linked time-depth recorders (TDR's).
    Seals to be instrumented would include approximately equal
    proportions of juveniles, adult females and adult males each year.
    Seals would be captured from locations throughout Cook Inlet, in
    relative numbers that are proportionate to local abundance.

2.  Develop necessary statistical analyses or statistical models to
    produce a correction factor for harbor seal abundance derived from
    aerial surveys at haul outs.

3.  Use movement and behavioral data from this study with any existing
    published results or other data in a comprehensive analysis of
    harbor seal distribution and habitat use in, or adjacent to, the MMS
    Cook Inlet Planning Area.

4.  Use text, maps, photographs or other data summaries to portray
    harbor seal distribution and habitat use in Cook Inlet for use in
    oil spill risk analysis.

5.  Produce a synthesis of movement data, and other existing evidence
    (e.g. genetic analyses or tagging studies) to evaluate whether
    individual populations (or stocks) exist in the MMS Cook Inlet
    planning area. Use tissue samples obtained from instrumented seals
    for supplemental genetic analyses, if needed.

*[Importance to MMS]{.underline}* This study will provide valuable
information about a harbor seal population (or populations) that is used
for subsistence by local Alaska Natives and that is exhibiting a trend
toward seriously declining abundance. The study will provide information
that addresses public concerns raised during MMS outreach. Information
on distribution, abundance and behavior will be used in pre- and
post-lease assessments and could form the basis for post-development
monitoring if oil or gas related development is undertaken in the MMS
Cook Inlet Planning Area. This proposed study augments the ongoing MMS
study entitled, "Distribution and Abundance of Harbor Seals" by
providing a correction factor and other information on the distribution
and behavior of seals away from established haul-outs.

**Date Information Required:** Quarterly and Annual Reports will provide
information for NEPA documentation for the proposed Cook Inlet Lease
Sale in 2006. Information will be useful for post-lease assessments and
monitoring after the Lease Sale in 2004.

**Revised date:** January 2003

***ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM: Studies Development Plan FY
2004-2006***

**Region:** Alaska

**Planning Areas:** Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, Hope Basin, Cook Inlet

**Type:** Competitive

####### Title: **Review and Monitoring Ambient Artificial Light Intensity in the OCS and the Potential for Effects on Resident Fauna.** {#title-review-and-monitoring-ambient-artificial-light-intensity-in-the-ocs-and-the-potential-for-effects-on-resident-fauna. .Profile}

**Cost Range** (in thousands): \$600-\$900 **Period of Performance:** FY
2004-2007

**Description:**

*[Background]{.underline}* Stipulation No. 8 of the MMS Final Beaufort
Sea Multisale EIS (February 2003) requires that all structures
associated with offshore drilling must be lighted, but that light
radiating outward from structures must be minimized. Other industrial
support facilities such as the buildings and storage areas at West Dock,
structures at Endicott Spur Drilling Island, structures and work areas
on Northstar Island and support vessels and supporting facilities are
already brightly lighted. More lighted structures can be expected as OCS
development proceeds.

Little study has been made of the introduction of artificial light into
the formerly dark habitat of numerous species of marine invertebrates,
fish, waterbirds, and mammals. These include a number of protected
marine mammals that live in, or migrate through, potentially
artificially lighted habitat. However, at a recent interagency
coordination meeting a representative of NOAA Fisheries raised the issue
of potential conflict between lighting strategies and other marine life.
The proposed study will address the issue of artificial light in the
dark arctic by establishing a light monitoring program, and will lay
groundwork for studies of ecological effects of increasing artificial
lighting at several trophic levels.

*[Objectives]{.underline}*

1.  Review the literature and evaluate the theoretical basis of
    artificial lighting affects on the physiology, reproductive biology
    and/or behavior of key predators and their forage species in the
    Beaufort Sea area.

2.  Plan and/or initiate long-term, meso-scale monitoring to measure and
    document general levels of ambient light in the Beaufort Sea
    OCS: (a) Design appropriate sampling methods and regime and (b)
    measure and document light in specific OCS development areas at
    various distances from sources, including new sources as they are
    created.

3.  Initiate relevant ecological studies of Arctic marine systems in the
    vicinity of artificial light sources to estimate any effects of
    artificial light on the system's trophic processes, and
    productivity, and behaviors.

*[Methods]{.underline}*

All activities will be coordinated with ongoing industry studies as
appropriate.

Phase I:

1.  Conduct a comprehensive literature review. Prepare an annotated
    bibliography and summary report on the potential effects of
    artificial ambient lighting on relevant taxa.

2.  Hold a facilitated scientific meeting to make recommendations on the
    justification for, and design of, a monitoring program.
    Recommendations for specific studies, defined under Objective 3,
    will also be recorded.

Phase II:

1.  If justified, initiate a meso-scale monitoring study to document the
    intensity of artificial ambient lighting as per Objective 2, above.

2.  Refine design and initiate focused ecological studies, as per
    Objective 3.

*[Importance to MMS]{.underline}* Information from this study will
potentially be useful for evaluating the effects of post-lease
development on various protected or endangered species, including:
spectacled eider, Steller's eider, Bowhead whale, Beluga whale, polar
bears, ringed-seals, and several other cetaceans and pinnipeds. If
ambient light is found to have effects on these, or other, local fauna,
mitigation measures can be designed and initiated through stipulations
in future development- or production-oriented EIS's or permits.
Information from this study may be used to update any extant MMS/FWS
cooperative lighting protocols recommended for offshore oil and gas
development.

**Date Information Required:** This planning and monitoring study can be
most effective if initiated before significant additional development
involving the deployment of artificial light sources is undertaken.
Results will be useful for mitigation related to developments that may
be proposed during the next few years, for example: Liberty and McCovey.

**Revised date:** January 2003

***ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM: Studies Development Plan FY
2004-2006***

**Region:** Alaska

**Planning Areas:** Beaufort Sea and Lower Cook Inlet

**Type:** Competitive

####### Title: **Communicating Agency Goals and Processes with Alaskan Coastal Communities** {#title-communicating-agency-goals-and-processes-with-alaskan-coastal-communities .Profile}

**Cost Range** (in thousands): \$256-\$384 **Period of Performance:** FY
2004-2006

*[Background]{.underline}* MMS written communication efforts with local
stakeholder groups do not always achieve the desired results of
instilling broad confidence in OCS management decisions. There are a
number of generic problems inherent in communicating with the public
that stem from the uncertainties of environmental assessment,
ambiguities of language, unfamiliar regulatory processes, and
longstanding issues of trust that interfere with public understanding.
These obstacles can be further magnified by social and cultural
discrepancies between local residents of a planning area and the agency
experts who conduct regulatory functions. A large body of research
indicates that differing knowledge bases and paradigms of credible
authority routinely complicate the communication efforts of federal
institutions in Alaskan coastal communities. Some agencies, such as the
USDA Forest Service/Alaska Region, have already made significant
progress in efforts to assess and improve the effectiveness of their
written communication efforts with various stakeholder groups.

The proposed research would specifically investigate new methods of MMS
written communication efforts in selected coastal communities through
pilot-testing a series of carefully prepared "newsletters" on targeted
focus groups. Is MMS successfully communicating the messages that it
intends to communicate? Does the communication have any measurable
effect on relevant local understandings? Are unintended messages being
communicated? Can MMS improve communication techniques through cost
efficient measures? Can issues of public trust be addressed through a
more effective written communication process?

If specific written communication problems can be identified through
controlled prototype testing, the study would then seek to provide both
a rationale and a method to explore potential changes in future agency
communications with regard to:

-   message content

-   mechanisms of message delivery

-   timeliness of communication

-   availability and use of supporting materials and information

*[Objectives]{.underline}*

1.  Assess the measurable effectiveness of MMS written communication
    methods with various communities of coastal Alaska;

2.  Identify potential obstacles in MMS written communication efforts
    and develop a strategy for their amelioration;

3.  Generate specific recommendations for improved written communication
    methods and for their implementation in agency processes.

*[Methods]{.underline}*

1.  Conduct a literature search on federal agency written communication
    methods with local populations that are specifically relevant to MMS
    goals and processes.

2.  Identify appropriate samples of study participants in communities on
    the North Slope and the Kenai Peninsula.

3.  Devise a cost effective procedure to assess the successful
    communication of key written messages from previous MMS publications
    among the targeted population.

4.  Work with MMS management and staff to prepare new (theory-driven)
    textual materials to disseminate agency statements under controlled
    and variable circumstances; that is, prepare and distribute various
    "newsletters" to pilot-test and compare their effectiveness as
    measured across a range of key variables.

5.  Monitor changes in comprehensibility, understanding, and trust among
    study participants from pilot-test materials, and devise new
    materials based upon the findings.

6.  Continue to test and monitor communication efforts in a limited and
    controlled "newsletter" format until a model based upon "lessons
    learned" can be implemented.

7.  Develop recommendations for MMS communication strategies that could
    be activated in the event of unexpected hazards to reduce unwelcome
    impacts.

8.  Coordinate communication processes with other relevant MMS studies.

*[Importance to MMS]{.underline}* Since MMS is charged with the
fundamental responsibility of communicating to a diverse public through
the preparation of regulatory measures, Environmental Impact Statements,
and other documents, an analytic investigation of alternative
communication processes and their effects on key constituents is highly
relevant. This study would evaluate the effectiveness of various
communication strategies, explore prospects for altering or improving
future communication efforts, and seek to make the regulatory and EIS
communication process more effective in the Alaska region. Furthermore,
this study would make substantial contributions to the national
management goal of developing and implementing an offshore
communications plan to enhance agency publicity of our work, as
expressed in the 2002-2007 Offshore Minerals Management Program
Strategies and Tactical Plans, item #17.

**Date Information Required:** FY 2005

**Revised date:** January 2003

# 2.3 Profiles of Studies Proposed for FY 2005 National Studies List (NSL)  {#profiles-of-studies-proposed-for-fy-2005-national-studies-list-nsl .Style2}

# Table 2 Alaska Region Proposed Studies for FY 2005 NSL, February 13, 2003 {#table-2-alaska-region-proposed-studies-for-fy-2005-nsl-february-13-2003 .Style4}

+-----+------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| **P | *    | **Title**                                               |
| age | *Top |                                                         |
| \   | ic** |                                                         |
| #** |      |                                                         |
|     | **\* |                                                         |
|     | \*** |                                                         |
+-----+------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| 41  | PO   | Mapping Sea Ice Overflood Using Remote Sensing from     |
|     |      | Smith Bay to Camden Bay                                 |
+-----+------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| 43  | PO   | Hydrological Modeling along the Alaskan Arctic Coast    |
+-----+------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| 45  | PO   | Norton Basin Planning Area Circulation and Oil Spill    |
|     |      | Trajectory Model                                        |
+-----+------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| 47  | PO   | Update Digital Interactive Climatic Atlases             |
+-----+------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| 49  | FE   | Worst-Case Blowout Occurrence Estimators for the Alaska |
|     |      | OCS                                                     |
+-----+------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| 51  | BIO  | Cook Inlet Pollock Migration                            |
+-----+------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| 53  | PS   | Joint Funding Opportunities in Existing Marine Bird or  |
|     |      | Marine Mammal Studies                                   |
+-----+------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| 55  | PS   | Bowhead Whale Feeding in the Central and Western        |
|     |      | Alaskan Beaufort Sea                                    |
+-----+------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| 57  | PS   | Influence of Climatic and Environmental Factors on      |
|     |      | Polar Bear Distribution on the North Slope of Alaska    |
|     |      | During Fall                                             |
+-----+------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| 59  | SE   | Collection of Traditional Knowledge of the Cook Inlet   |
|     |      | and Shelikof Strait                                     |
+-----+------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| 61  | SE   | Sociological and Visual Documentation and Analysis of   |
|     |      | the Bowhead Whale Subsistence Hunt                      |
+-----+------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| 63  | OT   | Mapping of Ice Gouge and Strudel Scour Density for the  |
|     |      | Beaufort Sea Utilizing Existing Data                    |
+-----+------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| 65  | OT   | GIS Internet Map Server (ARCIMS) Web Site for the MMS   |
|     |      | Sub-sea Physical Environmental Database (SPED)          |
+-----+------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| 67  | M    | Cumulative Effect of Offshore and Onshore Oil and Gas   |
|     | ULTI | Development on the Beaufort Sea Environment             |
+-----+------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| \   |      |                                                         |
| *\* |      |                                                         |
| PO  |      |                                                         |
| =   |      |                                                         |
| Ph  |      |                                                         |
| ysi |      |                                                         |
| cal |      |                                                         |
| Oce |      |                                                         |
| ano |      |                                                         |
| gra |      |                                                         |
| phy |      |                                                         |
| FE  |      |                                                         |
| =   |      |                                                         |
| F   |      |                                                         |
| ate |      |                                                         |
| &   |      |                                                         |
| Eff |      |                                                         |
| ect |      |                                                         |
| BIO |      |                                                         |
| =   |      |                                                         |
| B   |      |                                                         |
| iol |      |                                                         |
| ogy |      |                                                         |
|     |      |                                                         |
| PS  |      |                                                         |
| =   |      |                                                         |
| Pro |      |                                                         |
| tec |      |                                                         |
| ted |      |                                                         |
| S   |      |                                                         |
| pec |      |                                                         |
| ies |      |                                                         |
| SE  |      |                                                         |
| =   |      |                                                         |
| Soc |      |                                                         |
| ial |      |                                                         |
| &   |      |                                                         |
| Ec  |      |                                                         |
| ono |      |                                                         |
| mic |      |                                                         |
| OT  |      |                                                         |
| =   |      |                                                         |
| Ot  |      |                                                         |
| her |      |                                                         |
|     |      |                                                         |
| MU  |      |                                                         |
| LTI |      |                                                         |
| =   |      |                                                         |
| Mu  |      |                                                         |
| lti |      |                                                         |
| dis |      |                                                         |
| cip |      |                                                         |
| lin |      |                                                         |
| ary |      |                                                         |
+-----+------+---------------------------------------------------------+

***ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM: Studies Development Plan FY
2004-2006***

**Region:** Alaska

**Planning Area:** Beaufort Sea

**Type:** Competitive or Joint Funding

####### Title: **Mapping Sea Ice Overflood Using Remote Sensing from Smith Bay to Camden Bay**  {#title-mapping-sea-ice-overflood-using-remote-sensing-from-smith-bay-to-camden-bay .Profile}

**Cost Range** (in thousands): \$288-\$432 **Period of Performance:** FY
2005-2006

**Description:**

*[Background]{.underline}* MMS has limited spatial and temporal
information on rivers overflooding the nearshore sea ice in spring. The
most recent work, Dickins (1999), focused on overflood of the
Sagavairiktok River in the vicinity of the proposed Liberty prospect.
There are also three years of overflood data for the Kuparuk River in
the vicinity of Northstar. Landsat Imagery has been collected by
Stringer (1988, 1993) and archived at the University of Alaska
Geophysical Institute for the Beaufort Sea. With the advent of
development in the Beaufort Sea this type of information is needed to
address issues regarding pipeline routing and facility siting. This
study would provide baseline data and improve the accuracy of
information for environmental assessment and hazard mitigation. These
observations would also be of value to the offshore industry for
planning operations on the OCS.

*[Objectives]{.underline}* The objectives of this project are to produce
a time series depicting the spatial distribution of river water
overflooding the landfast ice adjacent to the Beaufort sea coast where
exploration and development may occur. A second objective is to quantify
the relationship between stream flow and ice damming for the
Sagavanirktok and Kuparuk rivers, and the aerial extent of overflooding
on the landfast ice adjacent to those rivers

*[Methods]{.underline}*

1.  Collect and synthesize existing Landsat/Radarsat remote sensing
    data.

2.  Quantify the spatial and temporal distribution of river overflood of
    the moderate size rivers on the North Slope of Alaska from Smith Bay
    to Camden Bay. Focus on mapping the maximum overflood extent.

3.  Fly an aerial survey for one season to ground truth remote sensing
    data and quantify uncertainties of estimating the overflood from
    remotely sensed data.

4.  Collect new hydrographic data for the Sagavanirktok and Kuparuk
    rivers and quantify any relationship between river runoff and aerial
    extent of overflood.

5.  Create a geographic information system map summarizing the spatial
    distribution of river overflood by year along the Beaufort Sea
    Coast. Provide individual years as well as maximum historical
    overflood extent.

6.  Provide relevant attributes to spatial data for use in a geographic
    information system.

*[Importance to MMS]{.underline}* Analysis of overflood and its
implications for exploration and development requires information on
both the temporal and spatial distribution of ice overflood from the
breakup of North Slope rivers in the spring. This information is useful
to determine how overflood limits affect pipeline and ice road routes
and siting of gravel islands and exploration platforms. This information
is also important to the development of hydrological models to feed the
ocean general circulation model for local forcing in the nearshore
region of the Beaufort Sea. In addition, this information could be used
to assist in the development of ice models and their performance during
breakup in the landfast ice zone.

**Date Information Required:** Data collection will be ongoing and the
information will be fed into our data processing and analysis
procedures. The data will be used for NEPA documentation for possible
industry exploration, development and production plans in the Beaufort
Sea.

**Revised Date:** January 2003

***ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM: Studies Development Plan FY
2004-2006***

**Region:** Alaska

**Planning Area:** Beaufort Sea

**Type:** Competitive or Interagency

####### Title: **Hydrological Modeling along the Alaskan Arctic Coast** {#title-hydrological-modeling-along-the-alaskan-arctic-coast .Profile}

**Cost Range** (in thousands): \$200-\$300 **Period of Performance:** FY
2005-2007

**Description:**

*[Background]{.underline}* There is a strong need to focus on
hydrological observations and processes to determine river runoff along
the Arctic coast. These include terrain elevation, terrain ground cover,
precipitation, snow drifting, and melting. For the North Slope of
Alaska, this is more of graphical/GIS analysis of runoff and aquifer or
ground water system modeling. The fresh water input is important locally
for several reasons: it controls breakup of nearshore ice; it may affect
timing of release of particulates (or spilled oil, if present) from
landfast ice; and it defines the water mass properties and dynamics of
the nearshore shelf, particularly within or near barrier islands. This
inshore area is the area of highest interest to oil industry.

Changes in the timing and amounts of river runoff to the arctic shelves
may have an effect on the circulation. Hydrologic work has been done in
the Kuparuk River watershed, but this is a small portion of the entire
Arctic coast, and has focused on understanding the fundamental
hydrological processes in this smaller watershed.

*[Objectives]{.underline}* The objective of this project is to develop a
hydrological model of river runoff that would be incorporated into a
general circulation model. The model would incorporate the first order
hydrological processes to estimate river runoff into the Arctic Ocean
primarily along the Beaufort Sea coast.

*[Methods]{.underline}*

1.  Synthesize existing information on hydrological modeling of Arctic
    watersheds.

2.  Quantify first order hydrologic processes along the Alaska Canada
    Arctic coast from approximately Icy Cape to the McKenzie Delta.

3.  Develop hydrological model incorporating first order hydrologic
    processes.

4.  Synthesize existing hydrographic data for model validation.

5.  Provide model code and documentation.

*[Importance to MMS]{.underline}* The incorporation of river runoff into
a general circulation model is important to advance prediction of the
current fields in the nearshore region. Since very few rivers along the
Arctic coast have gauges, it is important to develop a physically based
hydrologic model that can be used to predict the temporal variation
river runoff.

**Date Information Required:** Data collection will be ongoing and the
information will be input to our databases. Starting the model in FY
2005 would allow for the planned incorporation of the model into a
potential additional phase of work on the ongoing CMI study of the
Beaufort oil spill model, Nowcast/Forecast Model for the Beaufort Sea
Ice-Ocean-Oil Spill System. The information will be used in NEPA
analyses related to industry exploration, development and production
plans in the Beaufort Sea.

**Revised Date:** January 2003

***ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM: Studies Development Plan FY
2004-2006***

**Region:** Alaska

**Planning Areas**: Norton Basin

**Type:** Competitive or Joint Funding

####### Title: **Norton Basin Planning Area** Circulation and **Oil Spill Trajectory Model** {#title-norton-basin-planning-area-circulation-and-oil-spill-trajectory-model .Profile}

**Cost Range** (in thousands): \$200-\$300 **Period of Performance:** FY
2005-2006

**Description:**

*[Background]{.underline}* MMS proposes to lease within the Norton Basin
Planning Area from an annual nomination process. Although MMS expects
the nomination process may result in primarily exploration and
production of gas for local use, this expectation does not preclude the
need for oil spill risk analysis tools. MMS does not have a functional
oil spill trajectory model for the Norton Basin Planning Area. Previous
MMS contractors (RAND Corporation and Applied Science Associates) did
develop circulation and oil spill trajectory models for the northern
Bering Sea and Norton Basin Planning Area in the late 1970's through the
late 1980's, but these models are no longer functional, available to
MMS, or state-of-the art.

*[Objectives]{.underline}* The objective is to provide MMS with
circulation modeling capabilities specific to the Norton Basin Planning
Area for use in NEPA assessments. This objective may be accomplished by
providing one of the following: ocean circulation fields, a usable
in-house circulation model, or in-house stochastic oil spill trajectory
or fate (trajectory plus weathering) modeling capabilities/tools.

*[Methods]{.underline}* Develop or adapt existing model(s) to provide
ocean surface circulation fields or model suitable for oil spill
trajectory modeling for any location in Norton Basin. Model output must
be suitable as input to MMS oil spill risk analysis programs.

*[Importance to MMS]{.underline}* The Oil-Spill-Trajectory Model is a
cornerstone to regional NEPA analyses and oil-spill-contingency
planning. Oil-spill issues constitute half the public comments submitted
on EIS's on proposed offshore oil and gas sales in the Alaska OCS
Region. Model results are used to evaluate the risks and advantages of
specific alternatives, and they are used to fine-tune lease-sale
stipulations. The oil industry and MMS use the model results in
preparation and review of postlease oil-spill-contingency plans. The
Department of State used the model results to evaluate foreign policy
implications of OCS activities. The U.S. Coast Guard uses model results
in analysis of local, national, and international oil-transportation and
spill-response issues. The Canadian and Alaskan oil industry and spill
cooperatives have adapted portions of MMS circulation and trajectory
models for their own application, including the placement of
spill-response equipment.

**Date Information Required:** Information from this study will be used
in NEPA analysis related to proposed leasing and exploration,
development EIS's, and in reviewing oil-spill-contingency plans for
Norton Basin Planning Area OCS and coastal facilities. The *Outer
Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program 2002-2007,* offers the
area for nomination annually.

**Revised date:** January 2003

***ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM: Studies Development Plan FY
2004-2006***

**Region:** Alaska

**Planning Areas:** Beaufort, Chukchi, and Bering Seas and Cook Inlet

**Type:** Joint Funding/Interagency

####### Title: **Update Digital Interactive Climatic Atlases**  {#title-update-digital-interactive-climatic-atlases .Profile}

**Cost Range** (in thousands): \$440-\$660 **Period of Performance:** FY
2005-2007

**Description:**

*[Background]{.underline}* This study will update and improve existing
climatic atlases that will be a decade old. These atlases cover all
planning areas in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering, Chukchi, and
Beaufort Seas. Improvements will be made in digital accessibility of
data and consolidation of existing data. Although more than a fourfold
number of marine data above 65oNorth Latitude were available in 1987
than for the same area in the 1977 atlas, the data amount remained
inadequate to permit a detailed analysis by meteorologists or by
computer-contouring routines.

Historical climatic data exist at the National Climatic Data Center in
two Comprehensive Ocean Atmosphere Data Set files---file names TD-1170
(1854-1995) and TD 1129 (1980-1995). Both of these files have been
updated to December 1995. The MMS has climatic data that have been
summarized statistically by month in paper format updated to 1984. The
budget for this study assumes 50 percent cost participation by other
interested agencies.

*[Objectives]{.underline}*

1.  Acquire 1987 digital data presented in climatic atlases
    (specifically sea surface temperature, wave height, precipitation,
    wind speed and direction, visibility, and air temperature).

2.  Update climatic data to the present, collecting digital climatic
    data from the National Climatic Data Center, the U.S. Air Force's
    Environmental Technical Applications Center, and other applicable
    sources.

3.  Synthesize and format climatic data in a relational database similar
    to hardcopy climatic atlases for digital use in charts, graphs,
    maps, Geographical Information System (GIS) ArcView and Arc/Info
    software and word-processing applications.

4.  Create the database on CD-ROM for use by other participating
    agencies, the public and MMS.

*[Methods]{.underline}* This will be a three phase effort. The first
phase in the first year will verify the availability of needed digital
data sets. Project managers would develop a coordination plan with other
interested Federal agencies. If a significant portion of the data is not
available in digital format, then the study will not proceed to the next
level of effort unless additional funding is made available. The second
phase of the study in the second year will collect previous digital data
for the 1987 climatic atlas and update digital climate data to the
present. Scientists will apply quality control to the data using both
computer and visual techniques to eliminate duplicate observations and
questionable elements. Scientists will synthesize the data into monthly
data elements previously established in the 1977 and 1987 climatic
atlases. The last phase of the study will compile the data into a CD-ROM
digital relational database and develop GIS and other graphical tools to
analyze and display the data.

This study will provide users' manual, and one- or half-day workshop to
demonstrate database and provide user training.

*[Importance to MMS]{.underline}* The primary MMS need is for an
electronic rather than a paper climatic atlas. Paper climatic data are
no longer fully adequate to meet MMS and other user needs. The data will
be used for MMS oceanographic modeling efforts and to interpret the
occurrence of biological data collected under the studies plan. MMS
analysts use the current paper atlas data in describing the environment
and setting the initial parameters for oil-spill-weathering models. MMS
and others use the data for oil-spill-contingency planning. Because of
potential oil development in nearshore State and OCS waters, both MMS
and the State of Alaska are particularly interested in a revised atlas
with a comprehensive update of wind data for nearshore areas of the
Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.

**Date Information Required:** There is continuous and increasing need
for these data for EIS's and post lease assessments for all
active-planning areas.

**Revised Date:** January 2003

***ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM: Studies Development Plan FY
2004-2006***

**Region:** Alaska

**Planning Areas**: Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, Hope Basin, Cook Inlet

**Type:** Competitive

####### Title: **Worst-Case Blowout Occurrence Estimators for the Alaska OCS** {#title-worst-case-blowout-occurrence-estimators-for-the-alaska-ocs .Profile}

**Cost Range** (in thousands): \$96-\$144 **Period of Performance:** FY
2005-2006

**Description:**

*[Background]{.underline}* The MMS has used the historical spill record
on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) primarily as an indicator of future
spill occurrence rates on the OCS. These data are supplemented in other
ways, for example by engineering and fault tree studies of spill risk.
Often as part of environmental assessments, MMS is tasked with providing
analysis and probability of what at varying times has been known as a
worst case, catastrophic case, large-spill case, or
very-large-low-probability case spill. These low-probability statistics
cannot be provided by MMS Field Operations or Resource Evaluation
offices. In response to this issue, the MMS Technology Assessment and
Research Program initiated a study in 2000 to estimate worst case
pipeline spills, primarily for the Gulf of Mexico, and considered, but
was unable to extend that study to cover blowouts. The study described
here will similarly evaluate the probabilities of occurrence of blowouts
larger than have ever occurred on the U.S. OCS.

*[Objectives]{.underline}*

1.  Derive statistical/engineering procedures to extrapolate occurrence
    rates for worst case OCS oil blowouts.

2.  Develop model/algorithm that would allow desktop PC estimation of
    blowout size given a probability of occurrence and the probably of
    occurrence for a given blowout size.

*[Methods]{.underline}*

1.  Review existing worst-case blowout examples (probability, size, and
    basis) from regional (Alaska) oil spill contingency plans and
    environmental assessments.

2.  Evaluate applicability of alternate approaches against data needs
    and availability for each approach, considering:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  Geological formation constraints.

b.  Environmental and geological hazards specific to individual planning
    areas and more local hazards that may effect size or likelihood of
    blowouts.

c.  Potential effect of engineering design on size or likelihood of
    worst case blowouts.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
3.  Develop a model that provides blowout size or probability of
    occurrence, given the other parameter, for very large or worst case
    blowouts.

4.  Coordinate this study with the MMS Technology Assessment and
    Research Program related studies.

*[Importance to MMS]{.underline}* The Oil-Spill-Risk Analysis (OSRA) is
a cornerstone to regional EIS's environmental assessments, and
oil-spill-contingency planning. Oil-spill issues constitute a

significant portion of public comments submitted on sale or development
EIS's in the Alaska OCS Region.

**Date Information Required:** Information from this study will be used
for NEPA pre- and post-lease documentation for proposed Beaufort Sea
Lease Sales in 2005 and 2007, Cook Inlet Lease Sale in 2006, and
Chukchi/Hope Basin Lease in 2007 and in reviewing oil-spill-contingency
plans.

**Revised Date:** January 2003

***ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM: Studies Development Plan FY
2004-2006***

**Region:** Alaska

**Planning Areas:** Cook Inlet

**Type:** Joint Funding

####### Title: **Cook Inlet Pollock Migration Study** {#title-cook-inlet-pollock-migration-study .Profile}

**Cost Range** (in thousands): \$186-\$430 **Period of Performance:** FY
2005

**Description:**

*[Background]{.underline}* The pollock fishery is the most important
fishery in Alaska marine waters. Pollock is also an important prey
species of other fish and marine mammals. Pollock is a key species in
the marine ecosystem at every life stage; it may prey on a species at
one life stage and be preyed upon by that species in another life stage.

Shelikof strait just south of Lower Cook Inlet is the primary spawning
location for Gulf of Alaska pollock and also a likely recipient of oil
spilled in Cook Inlet off shore oil production and transportation. MMS
must assess the potential effects of oil spill on pollock and pollock
habitat. Of primary concern is where and in what seasons pollock might
be affected by a potential oil spill. Yet very little is known about
migrations after the egg stage or the extent to which the Shelikof
Strait and Prince William Sound populations are discrete non-mixing
populations.

There may be an opportunity to augment ongoing pollock fishery research
efforts with new satellite "pop-up" tagging technology to obtain pollock
migration information useful to several fisheries management agencies.
Being able to use pop-up tag technology would allow tagging of fish
during the summer trawl surveys and follow the pollock through to the
final life stages to identify where and when they might be potentially
affected by oil spills.

The commercial harvest is managed by the North Pacific Fisheries
Management Council (of the National Marine Fisheries Service) and the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

*[Objectives]{.underline}*

1.  Determine feasibility of using pop-up tags on walleye pollock.

2.  Tag and release fish during the biennial trawl test fishery.

3.  Download data and analyze migratory movements through the annual
    cycle.

*[Methods]{.underline}*

Phase I: Try pop-up tags in a controlled environment to estimate
mortality rates of tagged fish and determine feasibility and possible
negative side effects. If Phase I proves successful, then proceed to
Phase II.

Phase II:

1.  Install tags on fish caught during summer trawl survey.

2.  Download data from satellite once pre-programmed tags are released
    from the fish and pop-up to ocean surface where they beam up their
    stored data.

3.  Analyze times and location of fish to predict potential effects of
    oil spills.

4.  Identify whether stocks remain separate or when and where they may
    mix.

5.  Develop GIS Map layers by season compatible with MMS GIS & oil spill
    modeling.

*[Importance to MMS]{.underline}* This study will provide information on
likely pollock life stages and locations that may be affected by
potential oil spills. This information will be important for evaluating
potential effects of potential oil spills from OCS activity associated
with Cook Inlet Lease Sales scheduled for 2004 and 2006. Information
from this study will also be valuable to commercial harvest managers
such as North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (of the National
Marine Fisheries Service) and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and
to industry research groups such as the Pollock Conservation Cooperative
Research Center.

**Revised date:** January 2003

***ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM: Studies Development Plan FY
2004-2006***

**Region:** Alaska

**Planning Areas**: All

**Type:** Joint Funding

####### Title: **Joint Funding Opportunities in Existing Marine Bird or Marine Mammal Studies** {#title-joint-funding-opportunities-in-existing-marine-bird-or-marine-mammal-studies .Profile}

**Cost Range** (in thousands): \$40-\$60 **Period of Performance:** FY
2005-2006

**Description:**

*[Background]{.underline}* The MMS periodically learns about relatively
short-term, partnership opportunities on existing marine bird or marine
mammal studies initiated or underway by other agencies. Such proposals
range from funding specific aspects of existing studies that are
perceived to be of interest to MMS to funding specific products that
would be used by MMS analysts. Some of these items address MMS issues
and needs or would provide data of use to MMS in GIS and other analyses
or data that is considered too narrow in scope to warrant a fully
developed/funded MMS study.

*[Objectives]{.underline}* The purpose of this Study Profile is to
establish a mechanism whereby the Alaska Region may enter into joint
funding arrangements with other agencies to facilitate the acquisition
of needed, small-scale scientific information and/or scientific data.

*[Methods]{.underline}* Joint funding agreements would be arranged
through Inter-agency Agreements or Purchase Orders indicating the
specific data collection that is proposed for funding by MMS, products
that would be delivered (reports, journal articles, digital data), and
the agreed funding level. MMS would potentially cost-share up to 25
percent of the total project cost(s).

*[Importance to MMS]{.underline}* Data produced by such study tasks
potentially would supply MMS with information needed to address issues
that result from late-breaking legal, regulatory or political
developments that were nonexistent or unanticipated during the
preparation of the relevant MMS study profile. Such developments
typically result from initiation of the NEPA process, court actions,
publication of proposed and final regulatory rules, or the need to
formulate mitigation procedures. Acquisition of issue-specific
information in many cases would allow MMS to effectively resolve
differing opinions with other agencies without protracted discussion.

**Date Information Required:** This has no due date, but we recommend
the information that would result from funded tasks be available prior
to initiation of EIS or other processes associated with future
leasing/production in the relevant planning area.

**Revised Date:** February 2003

This page left blank intentionally.

***ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM: Studies Development Plan FY
2004-2006***

**Region:** Alaska

**Planning Areas**: Beaufort Sea

**Type:** Competitive

####### Title: **Bowhead Whale Feeding in the Central and Western Alaskan Beaufort Sea** {#title-bowhead-whale-feeding-in-the-central-and-western-alaskan-beaufort-sea .Profile}

**Cost Range** (in thousands): \$1,200-\$1,800 **Period of
Performance:** FY 2005-2008

**Description:**

*[Background]{.underline}* An MMS study completed in 2002 estimated the
extent to which the bowhead whale population utilizes OCS areas in the
eastern Alaskan Beaufort Sea for feeding, as well as this area's
importance to individual whales. In a 2001 Arctic Region Biological
Opinion, National Marine Fisheries Service made a Conservation
Recommendation that MMS continue to study "the use of the Beaufort Sea
by feeding bowheads and assess the importance of this feeding to the
health and well being of these animals." At annual workshops, the North
Slope Borough has consistently recommended that MMS expand the scope of
the current feeding study to include the entire Alaskan Beaufort Sea.
This study would repeat key components of the eastern Beaufort study in
order to characterize the importance of feeding habitat in the central
and western Alaskan Beaufort Sea.

*[Objectives]{.underline}* The overall goal of the study is to estimate
the distribution and relative importance of the central and western
Alaskan Beaufort Sea as feeding areas for bowhead whales. Specific
objectives for accomplishing this goal include:

1.  Estimate time spent by bowhead whales feeding in the central and
    western Alaskan Beaufort Sea over a 3-year period.

2.  Assemble historic data and traditional knowledge on known feeding
    areas in the study area.

3.  Use collected information, historic information, traditional
    knowledge, and energy budget information collected for the eastern
    Alaskan Beaufort Sea to estimate the relative importance of the
    central and western Alaskan Beaufort Sea as feeding areas for
    bowhead whales.

*[Methods]{.underline}* The study would use methods similar to those
used for the previous eastern Alaskan Beaufort Sea bowhead feeding
study. The study would focus on analyses of stomach contents at Barrow
and Cross Island, behavioral observations by aircraft, plankton tows by
small vessel, radio isotope ratios in baleen annuli, fatty acid
comparisons, recording of traditional knowledge, and computer modeling
of feeding information. Real-time distribution of whales in the Beaufort
Sea, as well as historic information on bowhead whale feeding activity
in the study area, would be provided by the ongoing MMS "Bowhead Whale
Aerial Survey Project." Scientific information collected would furnish
inputs to a model similar to that used to estimate the importance of the
eastern Alaskan Beaufort Sea as a feeding area for bowhead whales.
Scientific permits would be obtained for all fieldwork. The study would
be carefully coordinated with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission and
Whaling Captains Associations in Barrow and Nuiqsut to avoid
interference with fall subsistence hunts and, where feasible, to involve
whaling communities in the conduct of the study.

*[Importance to MMS]{.underline}* With additional information on the
importance of the study area to feeding bowhead whales, alternative
mitigation options for future Beaufort Sea lease sales may be feasible.
Also this study addresses a Conservation Recommendation in National
Marine Fisheries Service's 2001 Arctic Region Biological Opinion that
MMS study "the use of the Beaufort Sea by feeding bowheads and assess
the importance of this feeding to the health and well being of these
animals."

**Date Information Required:** Information on the importance of the
central and western Alaskan Beaufort Sea as feeding areas for bowhead
whales is needed for post-lease permit approvals for all Beaufort Sea
sales. The information also needed for NEPA pre-and post-lease
documentation for the proposed Beaufort Sea Lease Sales in 2003, 2005
and 2007.

**Revised date:** January 2003

***ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM: Studies Development Plan FY
2004-2006***

**Region:** Alaska

**Planning Areas:** Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea

**Type:** Joint Funding/Interagency

####### Title: **Influence of Climatic and Environmental Factors on Polar Bear Distribution and Abundance on the North Slope of Alaska During the Fall** {#title-influence-of-climatic-and-environmental-factors-on-polar-bear-distribution-and-abundance-on-the-north-slope-of-alaska-during-the-fall .Profile}

**Cost Range** (in thousands): \$200-\$300 **Period of Performance:** FY
2005

**Description:**

*[Background]{.underline}* During the past 10 years there has been an
increasing trend for significant numbers of polar bear to occupy and use
coastal habitats of the Beaufort Sea for loafing and feeding. The period
of increased utilization is during the fall open water and early freeze
up period. Industry reports and monitoring data from the Prudhoe Bay
area, resident reports from Kaktovik, Barrow, and Nuiqsut (Cross
Island), and aerial surveys of a portion of the central Beaufort Sea
that will be concluding this year confirm the trend. During the fall of
2002 approximately 150-200 polar bears were present along the coast and
barrier islands. Additional bears were present on the coast from Barrow
west to Icy Cape. The numbers may represent approximately 10% of the
total population and are significant. These bears arrived months prior
to formation of annual pack ice and were stranded on land for up to
eight weeks. Several bears had to be killed in Barrow and Prudhoe Bay
for human safety reasons. Potential factors contributing to the apparent
shift in distribution of polar bears in this area at this time of year
are not fully understood but may include: climate change,
environmental/physical oceanographic factors associated with the
development and position of pack ice, and attraction and fidelity of
polar bears to bowhead whaling carcasses.

Polar bears are an important international resource, and jointly managed
under international treaties and agreements that include circumpolar
countries such as the United States, Canada, Russia, and others.

*[Objectives]{.underline}* To estimate the distribution and abundance of
polar bears in the vicinity of coastal Alaska in the Southern Beaufort
Sea and Eastern Chukchi Sea area, and intra-annual factors influencing
their distribution and abundance.

*[Methods]{.underline}*

1.  Conduct weekly low level aerial surveys along the barrier islands,
    shoreline, and ice habitat from approximately September 15th to
    October 30th, for four years. The area will include the shoreline
    from Icy Cape to the Canadian border.

2.  Acquire ice coverage and environmental data including data on
    ambient temperatures and daily/weekly winds for the study area.

3.  Analyze and model the relationship between ice and environmental
    data to polar bear distribution and abundance.

*[Importance to MMS]{.underline}* Oil and gas activities are occurring
in the Beaufort Sea region and leasing activities are planned for the
Chukchi/Bering Seas region. Mounting evidence indicates that climate and
environmental change is occurring in the Arctic. Effect of climate
change on marine systems is poorly understood. Federal and state lease
sale stipulations in environmental impact assessments for oil and gas
operations rely on an accurate assessment of the effects of the
activity. This study will help estimate when bears utilize coastal
habitats at critical times of year when they are vulnerable to potential
effects from an oil spill, and would allow for greater accuracy in
assessing potential impacts from a spill. Also, a greater understanding
of the role of environmental factors on bowhead whale carcasses and
annual shifts in distribution and abundance potentially associated with
global climate change and any potential mitigation measures would be
obtained. Measures to decrease impacts of human activities on polar bear
habitat and to minimize human interactions with polar bears can then be
more effectively integrated into project planning.

Results of this study would also be used by agencies and subsistence
organizations for polar bear management decision making, including U.S.,
Canada, Russia, and other national authorities.

**Date Information Required:** This information is needed for NEPA
documentation for proposed Beaufort Sea Lease Sales and review of
exploration, development and production plans.

**Revised date:** March 2003

***ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM: Studies Development Plan FY
2004-2006***

**Region:** Alaska

**Planning Areas**: Cook Inlet

**Type:** Competitive

####### Title: **Collection of Traditional Knowledge of the Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait** {#title-collection-of-traditional-knowledge-of-the-cook-inlet-and-shelikof-strait .Profile}

**Cost Range** (in thousands): \$160-\$240 **Period of Performance:** FY
2005-2006

**Description:**

*[Background]{.underline}* Native peoples of Alaska have populated the
coastal environments of Cook Inlet and the Shelikof Strait for
centuries, accumulating much knowledge about the biological and physical
environment of both the marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Most of this
knowledge has been passed on from one generation to the next by word of
mouth. Only a fraction of it has been systematically recorded, and even
less has been indexed. Much is unavailable to the scientific community,
even as public input increasingly urges government agencies to
incorporate traditional knowledge in their documents.

This Cook Inlet study will follow upon the completion and evaluation of
a similar project entitled "Collection of Traditional Knowledge of the
Alaska North Slope." That study is expected to yield insights regarding
the process of documenting traditional knowledge and will inform the
design of the Cook Inlet study. Most notably, these include a sharper
understanding of 1) the varieties of traditional knowledge that must be
distinguished to achieve validation thru independent corroboration and
internal consistency; 2) the field methods that are appropriate for the
systematic compilation of traditional knowledge; and 3) concerns of
communities that must be addressed. Within these parameters, traditional
knowledge can be used to guide scientific research on OCS impacts by
identifying key locations and processes that inform hypothesis testing
and focus sampling programs.

*[Objective]{.underline}* To create an indexed annotated bibliography
and abstracts of recorded traditional knowledge sources.

*[Methods]{.underline}*

1.  Work with community elders, Native villages, and subsistence
    coordinators with Native organizations to identify traditional
    knowledge sources and statements appropriate for inclusion in the
    traditional knowledge database.

2.  Include in the traditional knowledge database, at a minimum:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  Subsistence areas.

b.  Harvest methods.

c.  Relationships between the physical environment and animal
    populations and behavior.

d.  Marine mammal behavior, movement, and distribution.

e.  Ice conditions and movement.

f.  Wind and current patterns.

g.  Place name information.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
3.  Locate, collect, and organize all "traditional knowledge"
    information associated with Cook Inlet, including:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  Oral history taped interviews.

b.  Written transcripts.

c.  Published sources.

d.  Textual and video records of CD-ROM "jukeboxes" of elder interviews.

e.  Textual and video records of elders' conferences.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
4.  Identify key traditional knowledge indices for structuring and
    abstracting.

5.  Prepare an annotated bibliography, abstracts, traditional knowledge
    indices, and findings of this study on a PC-based CD-ROM and for
    mounting on the MMS, Alaska OCS Region's website.

6.  Distribute the CD-ROM to Native communities, local governments,
    State of Alaska, and Federal agencies involved in environmental
    research and assessment.

This project will occur in two phases. Phase I will establish a
prototype and populate it with preliminary sources. MMS will review the
Phase I product, determine its value as a source of traditional
knowledge, and recommend revisions to the structure. The Contractor will
assess of the number of sources remaining that have potential value for
addition to the collection in phase II and the cost for adding them to
the collection. If MMS finds that the collection is of value in Phase I,
it will propose proceeding with Phase II.

*[Importance to MMS]{.underline}* This database will help MMS better
address Executive Orders on Government-to-Government consultation and
Environmental Justice and facilitate incorporation of Native stakeholder
comments in planning, analysis, and decision-making processes.

**Date Information Required:** For upcoming Cook Inlet Lease Sales in
described in the MMS *OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program 2002-2007* and
potential post-lease NEPA documents.

**Revised date:** January 2003

***ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM: Studies Development Plan FY
2004-2006***

**Region:** Alaska

**Planning Areas**: Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea

**Type:** Competitive or Joint Funding

####### Title: **Sociological and Visual Documentation and Analysis of the Bowhead Whale Subsistence Hunt** {#title-sociological-and-visual-documentation-and-analysis-of-the-bowhead-whale-subsistence-hunt .Profile}

**Cost Range** (in thousands): \$368-\$552 **Period of Performance:** FY
2005-2006

**Description:**

*[Background]{.underline}* The Beaufort Sea bowhead whale subsistence
hunt has a centuries-long history and continues to be an important
organizing feature of life in Alaskan North Slope villages. The
technology with which the hunt is implemented is continually changing,
but its basic aspects and associated social practices have remained
relatively constant over time. Meanwhile, various other aspects of North
Slope life have changed dramatically during the last century. These
changes relate to large-scale sociopolitical and economic events and
processes, with implications for the whale hunt. Examples include
institution of Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the International
Whaling Commission and its quota system, and the arrival of oil industry
and associated revenue.

Modern Iñupiat hold fast to traditional subsistence practices amidst the
many influences of modernity. The whale hunt arguably is the most
important of these practices. Modern-traditional dynamics related to the
hunt constitute an important area of research relevant to OCS
decision-making processes. MMS is addressing perceptual aspects of such
issues with survey-focused research. This sociological study will
complement that work to enable further analysis of these important
issues. A well-defined and germane focus for the study will derive from
key findings of the MMS study titled "Quantitative Description of
Potential Impacts of OCS Activities on Bowhead Whale Hunting Subsistence
Activities in the Beaufort Sea."

*[Objectives]{.underline}* The objective of this study is to provide an
sociological and visual documentation of the subsistence whale hunt as a
baseline for impact analysis and, possibly, orientation for oil and gas
industry workers active in the Beaufort Sea OCS Planning Area.

*[Methods]{.underline}* The project will employ sociological and visual
documentary methods to describe the subsistence whale hunt, explain its
importance, and disseminate that analysis through film or video. A mix
of project planning and social science research methods will be required
as follows:

1.  Identify a topical focus for the ethnographic study. This should
    involve review of previous MMS research including the study titled
    "Quantitative Description of Potential Impacts of OCS Activities on
    Bowhead Whale Hunting Subsistence Activities in the Beaufort Sea,"
    and key person interviews with Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission
    leaders, whaling association leaders, and village elders.

2.  Cooperate with North Slope institutions, leaders, and residents to
    complete a sustained period of sociological observation in the
    community of interest. Use participant observation, non-reactive,
    and interviewing methods to document the hunt and associated
    practices.

3.  Based on the data collected in (2) above, describe the modern whale
    hunt, including associated observed and expressed problems,
    challenges, and rewards given modern economic/cultural influences.

4.  Develop a comprehensive explanatory analysis of the data gathered
    in (2) above and factors described in (3) above. The analysis should
    effectively address the topical focus identified in (1) above.

5.  Use state-of-the-art film technology and expertise to document those
    aspects of the whale hunt and associated social practices directly
    relevant to the analysis outlined in (3) above. The investigators
    will have achieved rapport with the hunters and deep familiarity
    with the subject matter and analysis through the many months of
    previous involvement in the project.

6.  Edit and compile film footage to produce a film or video documentary
    of the whale hunt, associated practices, hunter narratives, and
    analysis of the challenges, rewards, and social implications of
    bowhead whale subsistence hunting in 21st century Alaska.

*[Importance to MMS]{.underline}* One possible use of this study is to
make results available to industry companies for use in stipulated
orientation programs. MMS also can use the products of this study to
address OCSLA requirements, assist NEPA-document preparation, review
oil-spill-contingency plans, facilitate outreach with North Slope
communities regarding the MMS program, and review and formulate offshore
policy for Alaska.

**Date Information Required:** This information is needed for NEPA pre-
and post-lease documentation for proposed Beaufort Sea Lease Sales in
2003, 2005 and 2007, and review of exploration, development and
production plans.

**Revised date:** January 2003

***ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM: Studies Development Plan FY
2004-2006***

**Region:** Alaska

**Planning Areas**: Beaufort Sea

**Type:** Competitive or Joint Funding

####### Title: **Mapping of Ice Gouge and Strudel Scour Density for the Beaufort Sea Utilizing Existing Data** {#title-mapping-of-ice-gouge-and-strudel-scour-density-for-the-beaufort-sea-utilizing-existing-data .Profile}

**Cost Range** (in thousands): \$280-\$420 **Period of Performance:** FY
2005-2006

**Description:**

*[Background]{.underline}* Quantitative information on ice gouge and
strudel scour are sparse to non-existent in the Beaufort Sea. Ice gouge
data was last collected on a regional basis over twenty years ago when
instrument and navigation quality was less accurate than current
technology. MMS has reviewed all of the available ice gouge and strudel
scour data for site-specific surveys and development surveys in the
Beaufort Sea. We have determined that there are insufficient interpreted
data to predict the occurrence, extent and magnitude of these features.
In addition, we do not know the relationship between overflood limit and
the occurrence of strudel scour over most of the nearshore portions of
the Beaufort Sea where offshore oil and gas pipelines may be located in
the future. The data sets associated with magnitude of the occurrence of
ice gouge and strudel scour are critical in the evaluating the degree of
risk associated the building of pipelines to offshore fields in the
Beaufort Sea.

These data tie into other recently collected site survey and development
pipeline surveys compiled in the MMS Sub-sea Physical Environmental
Database (SPED) for the Beaufort Sea. This study did not analyze
existing MMS geophysical records present for quantitative data on ice
gouge or strudel scour. There is a new proposal to collect ice gouge and
strudel scour data for the proposed natural gas pipeline in the Beaufort
Sea. These data if collected would be incorporated into the current
database and analysis effort.

*[Objectives]{.underline}*

1.  Estimate the density and degree of severity of ice gouging for all
    of the site-specific surveys in the Beaufort Sea utilizing the
    available MMS geophysical seismic records.

2.  Map the strudel scours found within the site-specific surveys with
    MMS geophysical records (few if any).

3.  Incorporate the new information into the SPED for the Beaufort Sea,
    Alaska.

4.  Estimate the ice gouge density across the Beaufort Sea Shelf based
    upon the mapped ice gouges and bathymetry.

5.  Estimate the statistical significance between ice gouge intensity,
    bathymetry and sea ice severity.

6.  Update the current Graphical User Interface for the analysis of ice
    gouge, strudel scour (if observed) as they relate to bathymetry, and
    the concentration of sea ice.

7.  Update the database documentation and data loaders.

8.  Describe the methods for the collection and analysis of the data.

*[Methods]{.underline}*

1.  Map the density and magnitude of ice gouges for the Beaufort Sea
    using the available MMS geophysical seismic records and data.

2.  Incorporate data into the current SPED.

3.  Provide new tools within to query the newly established data.

4.  Compare the occurrence of ice gouge to water depth and to the
    magnitude of sea ice using statistical methods.

5.  Describe the methodology to analyze the data.

6.  Provide final database, database documentation and database design
    based upon Coastal Offshore Resource Information System (CORIS)
    standards.

*[Importance to MMS]{.underline}* This information will be used for
future EIS's in the Beaufort Sea. The information is needed to fill data
gaps in our understanding of the occurrence and intensity of ice gouging
in the Beaufort Sea. MMS and industry will be able to update
understanding of ice gouge intensity, for review of potential pipelines
such as for the proposed natural gas pipeline and for possible scenarios
associated with Kuvlum and Wild Weasel prospects. These data may also be
used by MMS and industry to estimate risk associated with the
development of pipelines from shore based facilities.

**Date Information Required:** The interim and final information from
this study will be used for NEPA pre- and post-lease documentation for
proposed Beaufort Sea Lease Sales in 2003, 2005 and 2007. The
information from the study will also be used for permit and planning
decisions for possible exploration, development, and production plans.

**Revised Date:** January 2003

***ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM: Studies Development Plan FY
2004-2006***

**Region:** Alaska

**Planning Areas**: Beaufort Sea

**Type:** Competitive

####### Title: **GIS Internet Map Server (ARCIMS) Web Site for the MMS Sub-sea Physical Environmental Database (SPED)** {#title-gis-internet-map-server-arcims-web-site-for-the-mms-sub-sea-physical-environmental-database-sped .Profile}

**Cost Range** (in thousands): \$80-\$120 **Period of Performance:** FY
2005

**Description:**

*[Background]{.underline}* The Sub-sea Physical Environmental Database
(SPED) for the Beaufort Sea, Alaska OCS Region is a compilation of all
the available sub-sea environmental features. These features include the
navigation, bathymetry, isopach, structure, strudel scour, ice gouge,
shallow gas, Boulder Patch and borehole data. These data were collected
by the oil and gas industry for site-specific exploratory well surveys
and for the pipeline surveys over the last twenty years. The data are
stored within an ArcView/Access database and accessible by all MMS
analysts. These data are very useful to those companies who would want
to participate in an oil and gas lease sale in the Beaufort Sea but are
unfamiliar with the specific drilling and pipeline hazards there. The
oil and gas industry may also utilize these data to plan for proposed
pipeline surveys on their existing units or leased areas. Current
companies planning large projects in the Beaufort Sea such as the
proposed Natural Gas Pipeline Project can utilize these data products
for planning and comparison purposes. Universities and international
organizations can utilize these data for planning future research in the
Beaufort Sea (e.g., currents, permafrost, etc.).

A Web-enabled GIS database and descriptive database is needed in order
to provide important technical information to the oil and gas industry
about potential geologic hazards pertaining to drilling and pipeline
construction for the Beaufort Sea. The GIS Internet Map Server (ARCIMS)
is an internet mapping software developed by Environmental Systems
Research Inc. (ESRI). ESRI software will be used to query spatial
information across the Beaufort Sea Shelf for any site-specific survey
or pipeline survey done within Federal OCS waters. The database will be
stored as ACCESS tables and as ArcView shapefiles. MMS will provide the
necessary tools so that the public including industry can query the
content of the database. This dynamic database will be updated, as new
data becomes available

*[Objectives]{.underline}*

1.  Provide internet mapping capability within the Alaska OCS Region for
    SPED.

2.  Provide access to the existing geohazard and geotechnical reports
    found in SPED.

3.  Provide query tools with ARCIMS to query the available information
    contained with the SPED.

*[Methods]{.underline}*

1.  Compile the currently available information from the SPED and link
    the data to ARCIMS software for serving the data over the MMS web
    site.

2.  Scan and convert to portable document file (PDF) the hard copy
    reports for the Beaufort Sea site-specific surveys, Boulder Patch
    Surveys, pipeline route surveys, and borehole surveys.

3.  Link the spatial information from SPED to the hard copy documents of
    PDF files.

4.  Establish query routines within ARCIMS to extract spatial
    information from the SPED and descriptive information from the
    site-survey and pipeline reports in PDF files.

5.  Provide user documentation online.

*[Importance to MMS]{.underline}* The MMS customer base of the oil and
gas industry, government agencies, universities, the public and other
potential customers will be connected to the most comprehensive database
on oil and gas drilling and pipeline hazards database for the Alaska,
Beaufort Sea. The ARCIMS and SPED will provide important decision making
information to the oil and gas industry both within and outside Alaska.
This information will provide quantitative ocean bottom and sub-bottom
geophysical and geotechnical data to the oil and gas industry currently
working in the Beaufort Sea and to those companies that may be planning
to do so in the future. The geophysical information is shallow gas,
shallow stratigraphic, structural, earthquake, etc. The geotechnical
information is shallow borehole data on permafrost, sediment type, etc.
Connecting the SPED to our customer base will provide them with better
decisions making tools which will affect their future participation in
the Beaufort Sea, whether it would be for future oil and gas activities,
for research, or for other purposes.

**Date Information Required:** The ARCIMS database and SPED will provide
information for NEPA pre-and post-lease documentation for proposed
Beaufort Sea Lease Sales in 2003, 2005 and 2007.

**Revised date:** January 2003

***ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM: Studies Development Plan FY
2004-2006***

**Region:** Alaska

**Planning Area**: Beaufort Sea

**Type:** Competitive

####### Title: **Cumulative Effects of Offshore and Onshore Oil and Gas Development on the Beaufort Sea Environment** {#title-cumulative-effects-of-offshore-and-onshore-oil-and-gas-development-on-the-beaufort-sea-environment .Profile}

**Cost Range** (in thousands): \$320-\$480 **Period of Performance:** FY
2005-2006

**Description:**

*[Background]{.underline}* Both offshore and onshore oil and gas
exploration, development, and production activities are increasing
across Alaska's North Slope. Proposed in connection with the
recommendation of the National Research Council\'s (NRC) committee on
North Slope Cumulative Effects potential, several studies would address
issues on cumulative effects raised by numerous stakeholders. Coastal
indigenous peoples are particularly concerned about cumulative effects
on onshore developments at the Kuparuk, Alpine, and Prudhoe Bay and
potential NPRA oil fields in conjunction with offshore developments at
Liberty, Northstar, and possible upcoming offshore lease sales. However,
potential recommendation from the NRC may provide for the basis for this
research.

*[Objectives]{.underline}* The objectives are to:

1.  Establish or augment baseline data on the natural and cultural
    environment.

2.  Estimate cumulative effects of human interactions on Federal lands
    and resources.

3.  Estimate cumulative effects on marine ecosystems, values species,
    and subsistence activity.

4.  Provide effective data management and sharing capabilities.

[*Method*s]{.underline}

1.  Structure planning (first year) and implementation (second year)
    phases for data collection addressing the following questions
    focused on the Smith Bay, Harrison Bay, Simpson Lagoon, Prudhoe Bay,
    Foggy Island Bay, Mikkelson Bay and Camden Bay vicinities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  What are the regional baseline and trends of key sensitive marine
    species which might be affected by cumulative offshore and onshore
    oil and gas development?

b.  What are the cumulative effects of offshore and onshore oil and gas
    development on Beaufort Sea Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) marine
    ecosystems and valued species?

c.  What are the cumulative effects of offshore and onshore oil and gas
    development on subsistence activities?

d.  To what extent can monitoring of oil and gas activities or of
    subsistence make mitigation on the North Slope more effective?

e.  What traditional knowledge will help us understand cumulative
    effects of onshore and offshore oil and gas activities on the OCS
    marine ecosystems and valued species?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  Build this study on previous relevant studies.

3.  Cooperate and collaborate with federal agencies including Bureau of
    Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Biological Resources
    Division.

*[Importance to MMS]{.underline}* This study is important to MMS because
cumulative oil and gas activities are becoming an increasing concern and
the information is needed to improve MMS decision making. This study
addresses concerns of coastal indigenous people in the villages of
Nuiqsut, Kaktovik and Barrow, particularly about cumulative effects of
onshore and offshore developments. Other constituents, particularly in
the environmental community, are concerned about cumulative effects
also. The cumulative developments include: Kuparuk, Alpine, Prudhoe Bay;
NPR-A leasing; offshore developments at Liberty and Northstar; oil and
gas continue in state waters of the Beaufort Sea; and potential OCS
activities from existing leases and potential leases from OCS Beaufort
Sea Lease Sales planned for 2003, 2005, and 2007.

**Date Information Required:** The timing of the study will be useful in
monitoring effects of the Liberty, if approved, and Northstar
developments. This study also will be used for NEPA documentation for
probable lease sales in the Beaufort Sea in the *Final Proposed Outer
Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program 2002-2007*). Current
information on selected topics is available but some of them may be out
of date or not have appropriate geography, season, or design
considerations for this effort. This study probably will build on
previous relevant studies.

**Revised Date:** February 2003

# SECTION 3.0 Topical Areas for FY 2006 {#section-3.0-topical-areas-for-fy-2006 .Style1}

This section presents a general forecast of significant topical issues
and concerns to be addressed by proposed studies for FY 2006 and beyond.
In general, these topics conform with the research themes of the NSP.
Due to the great differences existing between Alaska environments and
other OCS areas, the uniqueness of issues in Alaska have dictated the
need to anticipate new topical areas for needed implementation within
the Alaska ESP. These projects will focus on MMS mission needs within
the context of increasing industrial development and potential trends in
changing climates. Specific geographic emphases are likely to change due
to potential changes in leasing or development schedules.

Many of the studies proposed for FY 2004 and FY 2005 address the topical
areas described below. These will be re-assessed as part of the FY 2004
planning process.

Offshore production started at Northstar in 2001. Industry proposes
exploration in the Beaufort Sea and may propose development projects.
MMS proposes numerous lease sales in the Alaska OCS in the *Final Outer
Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program 2002-2007*: 3 in the
Beaufort Sea; 2 in Chukchi/Hope Basin; 2 in Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait;
and 1 in Norton Basin. For these reasons, it will be important to
continue monitoring studies and other priority studies of key species
and marine communities. Monitoring of bowhead whales will continue, and
additional studies may be brought online which address ringed seals,
kelp communities, fishes and migratory waterfowl. Studies will vary from
description of behaviors and habitat to monitoring for changes.
Additional studies of the physical environment such as current regimes
and ice characteristics will be proposed to support interpretation of
data from living resource investigations and to provide a better
understanding of the fate and dispersion of OCS discharges.

# 3.1 Physical Oceanography {#physical-oceanography .Style2}

One of the emerging issues in the Alaska OCS Region, is the need for
better, finer scale circulation and oil-spill models and higher
resolution data for the nearshore portions of the Beaufort Sea. Multiple
offshore oil fields have been developed (Endicott and Northstar),
exploration efforts are accelerating, and development plan potentially
can be submitted. MMS will be completing a nearshore Beaufort Sea
ice-ocean circulation model in 2003. One goal is further development of
this model into a nowcast/forecast ice-ocean-oil spill system for the
nearshore Beaufort Sea.

Construction of such a system requires formation of a user group, higher
data density, and ability to assimilate such data into the model in
real-time. The Region will be working toward forming a users group to
provide surface radar mapping capabilities and data for the nearshore
Beaufort Sea and other Alaskan waters as needed. Over the past 25 years,
oceanographic radar techniques have been developed and improved to the
point that detailed, grided, 2-dimensional maps of surface circulation
can be provided and recorded in real time and directly assimilated into
real-time models.

Additional improvements will also be needed in sea-ice aspects of the
modeling. The resolution of ice models and ice data needs to be
increased to address the fine scale interactions necessary to model oil
spill trajectories in the nearshore Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea,
including within and among the barrier islands. Ice models currently in
use by MMS and others use relatively simple thermodynamics and ice
thickness distribution, approximating the ice as slabs of a one to few
thicknesses plus open water. While sufficient as a first approximation
of the arctic ice pack, this treatment lacks the ability to sufficiently
resolve the spectrum of ice thickness from thin new ice to thick-ridged
ice to landfast ice. In addition, these ice models are based on
empirical ice physics valid at a 100-km scale and extrapolated to
smaller grid dimension. The MMS will work to improve the state of the
art in ocean-ice modeling and to produce either a stand-alone model or
one that can be coupled to and or nested in existing ice/ocean models.

# 3.2 Fate and Effects {#fate-and-effects .Style2}

The Region has collected baseline biological and chemical monitoring
data in the vicinity of the Liberty Prospect and Northstar as part of
the study Arctic Nearshore Impact Monitoring in the Development Area
(ANIMIDA). The summer of 2002 was the last full field season for
ANIMIDA. With Northstar in production and the potential for other
developments being proposed, there will need to be a follow-on
monitoring effort to quantify construction and develop effects. The
Region has proposed a continuation of ANIMIDA for FY 2003-2008. The
frequency of sampling will probably be less than in the original years
of the ANIMDA project. BPXA put its plan for developing the Liberty
Prospect on hold in January 2002. It was the first oil development
proposed for OCS waters in Alaska. However, collecting information at
this site is useful for the long term monitoring continuity.
Developments are possible at this site or others in the central
Beaufort.

In addition to site-specific monitoring, there is a need to re-examine
the regional contaminant levels in the U.S. Beaufort Sea. The MMS set up
the Beaufort Sea Monitoring Program (BSMP) in the 1980\'s to monitor
sediment quality. The BSMP monitors trace metal and hydrocarbon levels
in sediments and benthic biota at specific locations on a regional
basis. The ANIMIDA program has resampled BSMP stations locally near
Northstar and Liberty, but not elsewhere. Regional BSMP sampling has not
been done since 1989 and needs to be repeated.

The International Arctic Marine Assessment Program (AMAP) has
recommended that additional contaminants be included in Arctic
monitoring programs because of their increasing levels. Because of AMAP
recommendations and Environmental Justice issues, mercury and persistent
organic pollutants should be added to the BSMP analyte list.

# 3.3 Sea Bed and Sub-sea Bed Physical Processes {#sea-bed-and-sub-sea-bed-physical-processes .Style2}

MMS has reviewed all of the available ice gouge and strudel scour data
for site-specific surveys and development surveys in the Beaufort Sea.
We have determined that there are insufficient interpreted data to
predict the occurrence, extent and magnitude of these features. In
addition, we do not know the relationship between overflood limit and
the occurrence of strudel scour over most of the nearshore portions of
the Beaufort Sea where offshore oil and gas pipelines may be located in
the future. The data sets associated with magnitude of the occurrence of
ice gouge and strudel scour are critical in the evaluating the degree of
risk associated the building of pipeline to offshore fields in the
Beaufort Sea. These data tie into other recently collected site survey
and development pipeline surveys compiled in the MMS Sub-sea Physical
Environmental Database (SPED) for the Beaufort Sea.

The SPED should be updated with the remaining shallow core data for the
Beaufort Sea Continental Shelf. The shallow core data are very important
for understanding the shallow shelf stratigraphy, surface sediment
types, location of permafrost, the velocity of sediments, existence of
shallow gas, and for the identification of archeological sites.

In the south-central part of Cook Inlet, under 60 to 90 meters of water,
lies a vast blanket of sand, sculpted into large sand waves, up to 15m
in height and 1 km in wavelength. Previous studies (Whitney et al.,
1979, and Whitney et al., 1980a and 1980b) showed by precision
comparison of side scan sonar and seafloor profiles collected 4 and 5
years apart over the exact same locations that these large features had
not moved. Confirming or denying the static nature of these features by
comparing their structure over a longer time period may add to the
knowledge of bottom currents in lower Cook Inlet near both the entrance
to Shelikof Strait and to Kennedy and Stephenson Entrances.

# 3.4 Endangered and Protected Species {#endangered-and-protected-species .Style2}

Production at the Northstar site and OCS activities possible at other
sites may lead to risks of oil spills from buried pipelines, other
discharges, noise from various industrial and support activities and
increased human interaction with arctic offshore species. Species
protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Marine Mammal
Protection Act, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act are of particular concern
if impacted by such factors. Study of the effects on endangered marine
mammals, and the need for continued monitoring of fall bowhead whale
migrations are expected to be continued -- especially research on how
any changes in the bowhead whale migration's distance from shore could
relate to subsistence success (see below). Future bowhead studies are
expected to continue to explore use of satellite tagging for information
on bowhead whale residence times in development areas and information on
bowhead behavior in response to industrial noise. Also needed will be
continuation of vital region-wide fall monitoring of the migration by
the MMS Bowhead Whale Aerial Survey Project (BWASP) and additional
knowledge it obtains on bowhead feeding patterns.

Effects of construction activities on polar bears, especially on denning
bears and concerns about the adequacy of information about all age/sex
categories of the bear population will need to be addressed by
additional research. Several ongoing studies are expected to lead to
recommendations for additional information regarding polar bears and
continued study of the bear population's vulnerability to oil spills
through improved models.

Also, research on waterfowl migration corridors across the Beaufort
nearshore zone will be needed to better define migration corridors and
improve impact mitigation. For example, offshore structures constructed
in migratory corridors would increase waterfowl collisions with such
structures. Of concern are endemic eider species, old squaw, and other
waterfowl.

Other key subsistence species potentially exposed to short-term or
cumulative impact factors include beluga whales, ringed seals, and
bearded seals for which behavioral or monitoring studies will be needed.

# 3.5 Waterfowl in Lower Cook Inlet {#waterfowl-in-lower-cook-inlet .Style2}

Information on waterfowl abundance and species composition in
predominant bays of Lower Cook Inlet is needed. A study by the U.S.
Geological Survey identified the Upper Cook Inlet as an extremely
important migration and wintering area for shorebirds. Major portions of
the Western Sandpiper, Dunlin, and Rock Sandpiper populations either
migrate through or winter in Cook Inlet, and at least four major bays in
the Upper Cook Inlet qualify as Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve
Network sites. Assessing the relative importance of bays in the Lower
Cook Inlet will compliment the previous study and improve evaluation of
potential impacts of oil and gas exploration, development and
production.

Steller's eiders, common eiders, surf scoters, white-winged scoters,
black scoters, long-tailed ducks, and harlequin ducks all winter, stage,
or molt in lower Cook Inlet marine habitats. Steller's eiders are listed
as a threatened species and population estimates for long-tailed ducks,
scoters, and common eiders are also indicating long-term declines.
Causes of these declines are unknown. Winter and spring survey data in
lower Cook Inlet is incomplete and sporadic. Distribution and abundance
information is needed to better evaluate risk to populations or habitats
from oil and gas activities, to better evaluate species status
population trends, and to further understand causes of declines. MMS can
also use such information for oil spill contingency planning,
establishing baseline information for long-term monitoring and
mitigation planning, and establishing survey protocols for long-term
monitoring.

# 3.6 Effects on Unique Marine Benthic Communities {#effects-on-unique-marine-benthic-communities .Style2}

Pipeline construction and other activities may generate sediment plumes
that could potentially impact the unique "Boulder Patch" benthic
community, known to cover an extensive area to the northwest of the
Liberty site in Stefansson Sound. This is a boulder-strewn seabed area
with a kelp-dominated community. Similar areas are known to exist to the
east in Camden Bay. Some kelp plants in the Boulder Patch are up to 40
years old. Ongoing studies in the ANIMIDA project are studying kelp
productivity and will use inherent optical properties of ice and water
to determine the impact of sediment resuspention on kelp productivity.
Optical-related measurements will include spectral irradiance, light
scattering coefficients, and total suspended solids. Results of this
work will be used to determine future information needs related to this
issue. Research on invertebrate and vertebrate components of this
community and refined development of monitoring protocols are
anticipated for the future.

# 3.7 Marine Fish Migrations, Recruitment and Essential Fish Habitat {#marine-fish-migrations-recruitment-and-essential-fish-habitat .Style2}

Nuiqsut villagers are concerned that OCS activities have affected arctic
cisco populations in the Colville River and reduced subsistence
utilization. Data in recent years has been spotty due to the completion
of relevant causeway studies. Until more consistent time-series data
regarding wind-driven recruitment of young-of-year arctic cisco and
recruitment of that population are available, offshore oil and gas
development could be considered the potential impact-causing factor.
Thus, additional research on near-shore arctic fisheries and recruitment
to Colville River populations should be initiated.

Proposed and recent pipeline construction in the Beaufort nearshore have
led to concerns about effects of trenching and back-filling on fish
populations and habitats. Several important fish species used for
subsistence migrate through or are found in the Northstar and Liberty
areas, including arctic and least cisco, Dolley Varden char, and
humpback and broad whitefish. Also, intermittent occurrences of pink and
chum salmon may be found in Beaufort coastal waters. As a result of the
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Beaufort waters are
considered as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for endemic salmonids. Future
research establishing the significance of salmonid reproduction in
drainages to the Beaufort sea may be necessary in order to clarify
environmental assessment and mitigation needs.

# 3.8 Biotechnology Potential {#biotechnology-potential .Style2}

One day soon the search for oil and gas on the OCS may be joined by the
search for genetic and biochemical resources found in marine organisms.
Such materials could one day lead to new therapeutic drugs for fighting
cancer, AIDS or heart disease. Many DOI bureaus are coming to terms with
the possibility of locating, conserving, and licensing the natural
products of their trust resources.

The MMS has had a long history of studying the ecology of platforms and
currently the MMS Gulf of Mexico and Pacific Regions are conducting
studies through their CMIs to examine the availability and distribution
of bioharvestable marine organisms on OCS structures. Thus far, several
"candidate" organisms producing possible therapeutic natural products
have been identified. One candidate organism, the bryozoan, *Bugula
neritina*, lives in the Gulf and potentially could be commercially
harvested from OCS platforms. This organism produces a chemical,
Bryostatin 1, which is in Phase II trial testing as a treatment against
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and chronic leukemia. If OCS platforms can be
shown to be a ready source for this organism, then MMS may be dealing
with this emerging issue in a significant way. As these MMS Gulf and
Pacific Regional studies progress, the Alaska OCS Region may consider
whether similar research efforts should be initiated.

# 3.9 Subsistence {#subsistence .Style2}

Inupiat of the North Slope have repeatedly in recent years expressed
concern about cumulative impacts of offshore and onshore developments on
their subsistence lifestyle. The Inupiat villages of most concern are
Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, and Barrow. Consideration of cumulative impacts is an
increasingly important issue from a legal standpoint for MMS in
preparing NEPA documents. Some of the concerns of the Inupiat are access
to hunting and fishing areas being limited by oil industry
infrastructure, reduced harvests, increased hunter efforts, and
increased hunter cost. How and to what degree subsistence activities
have been affected over the last 10 years or so by industry
infrastructure and industry activity should be studied.

Related to the long-term study of the cumulative effects of oil industry
on subsistence is a broader set of measures of how the Inupiat society
has been affected. Aspects such as how the cash component of households
affects participation in subsistence activities, stress, sharing of
subsistence resources and participation of younger Native in subsistence
compared to their elders. Such social indicators should be studied to
serve as a basis for determining long-term cumulative impacts.

# 3.10 Socioeconomic Change on the North Slope {#socioeconomic-change-on-the-north-slope .Style2}

The North Slope has undergone tremendous economic change since the
advent of the oil developments centered at Prudhoe Bay in the late
1960\'s. The North Slope Borough (NSB) was formed in the early 1970\'s.
Its formation enabled the permanent Inupiat residents of the North Slope
to levy a tax on the industrial improvements at Prudhoe Bay. The taxes
have financed considerable public facilities including schools and sewer
and water facilities in the NSB. They have also financed many jobs with
the North Slope Borough thus expanding job opportunity that otherwise
would not have been there. Since the beginning of production at Prudhoe
Bay in 1978 the long range forecast was for a decline in production
within 20 years. The NSB has been aware of the potential decline in
property tax revenues on the oil industry infrastructure for some time
since its inception.

Running counter to this decline may be extraction of gas from the North
Slope to provide increasing demand in the Lower 48 states. In the year
2000 private companies initiated feasibility studies for construction of
pipelines from Prudhoe Bay to Calgary, which would connect with the
pipeline system in the Lower 48. This would require substantial
industrial infrastructure, which forms the tax base for the NSB. The
extent to which these proposals would stabilize the NSB tax base is not
certain. Even though the gas development proposals are in the offing,
the tax revenue future for the NSB is uncertain and could have
significant adverse effects on its economy and residents. This should
issue should be studied.

# 3.11 Natural Gas Pipeline {#natural-gas-pipeline .Style2}

One of the routes for the natural gas pipeline being considered by
industry is from Prudhoe Bay, northward to about 4 miles offshore,
eastward 300 miles, then southward along the Mackenzie River, and
finishing at Calgary, Alberta. Most of the offshore portion would be on
the US OCS. (The other major alternative is onshore.) If the preferred
route is on the OCS, MMS would be responsible for issuing permits. A
buried gas pipeline (as opposed to an oil pipeline) under the seafloor
of the Beaufort Sea is a new issue. If the Beaufort OCS is the preferred
route, the Alaska Region may need to conduct environmental studies on a
variety of environmental issues.

# SECTION 4.0 Literature Cited {#section-4.0-literature-cited .Style1}

National Research Council (NRC). 1990. *Assessment of the U.S. Outer
Continental Shelf Environmental Studies Program. I. Physical
Oceanography*. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Physical
Oceanography Panel, Committee to Review the Outer Continental Shelf
Environmental Studies Program, Board on Environmental Studies and
Toxicology, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources. 143
pp.

National Research Council. 1992a. *Assessment of the U.S. Outer
Continental Shelf Environmental Studies Program. II. Ecology*, National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 20418. 152 pp.

National Research Council. 1992b. *Assessment of U. S. Outer Continental
Shelf Environmental Studies Program. III. Social and Economic Studies*,
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 20418. 59 pp.

National Research Council. 1993. *Assessment of U. S. Outer Continental
Shelf Environmental Studies Program. IV. Lessons and Opportunities*,
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 20418. 59 pp.

National Research Council. 1994. *Environmental Information For Outer
Continental Shelf Oil And Gas Decisions In Alaska*. National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C. 20418. 254 pp.

United States Cabinet Report to the President. *Turning to the Sea:
America's Ocean Future.* September 1999. 64 pp.

U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service, Environmental
Studies Program. *Report on the 1999 Minerals Management Service Social
and Economic Studies Conference.*
http://www.mms.gov/eppd/socecon/conference.htm

U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service. *Final Outer
Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program 2002-2007*. July 2002.

U.S. Department of Interior, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region,
Minerals Management Service, *Alaska Annual Studies Plan FY 2003*.
October 2001. Anchorage, Alaska 99508.

U.S. Department of Interior, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region,
Minerals Management Service. *Liberty Development and Production Plan
Draft Environmental Impact Statement*.
http://www.mms.gov/alaska/cproject/liberty. January 2001. Anchorage,
Alaska 99508.

U.S. Department of Interior, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region,
Minerals Management Service. *Liberty Development and Production Plan
Final Environmental Impact Statement*.
http://www.mms.gov/alaska/cproject/liberty. May, 2002. Anchorage, Alaska
99508.

U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service. *Report to the
Offshore Environmental Management, Development of a Corporate
Environmental Database* (1997).

Whitney, J.W., W.G. Noonan, D. Thurston, A.H. Bouma, and M.A. Hampton.
1979. \"Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska: Do Those Large Sand Waves Migrate.\"
*Proceedings 11^th^ Annual Offshore Technology Conference*, pp. 1071-76.
(Note: RU 327, OCSEAP #2816, incomplete citation, including missing
authors.)

Whitney, J.W., K.D. Holden, and L. Lybeck. 1980a. *Isopath Map of
Quarternary Glacial-Marine Sediments, Outer Continental Shelf, Shelikof
Strait, Alaska.* U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey.

Whitney, J.W., P.J. Hoose, and L. Lybeck. 1980b. *Geological Cross
Sections of the* *Outer Continental Shelf, Shelikof Strait, Alaska.*
U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey.

**Contributing Authors and Support Staff**

Michael Burwell, Socioeconomic Specialist

Cleve Cowles, Chief, Environmental Studies Section

Tim Holder, Socioeconomic Specialist, Coordinator for Annual Studies
Plan

Warren Horowitz, Oceanographer

Joel Hubbard, Wildlife Biologist

Ida Menge DeBock, GIS Technician

Charles Monnett, Marine Ecologist

Richard Newman, Oceanographer

Dick Prentki, Oceanographer

Lisa Rotterman, Wildlife Biologist

Caryn Smith, Oceanographer

Kathy Tolson, Secretary

Dennis Thurston, Geophysicist

Steve Treacy, Senior Wildlife Biologist

Kate Wedemeyer, Fisheries Oceanographer

Dee Williams, Sociocultural Specialist

g:\\\...ess\\sp04\\spd04-06\\

front cover.cdr

Inside Front Cover.doc

Toc.doc

Figures 1,2,3,4

Section 1.doc

Section 2.doc

Sections 3 & 4.doc