OCS Study MMS 2010-004

cANIMIDA Task 2 

Hydrocarbon and Metal Characterization of 

Sediments in the cANIMIDA Study Area 

Final Report 

 

Submitted to: 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Minerals Management Service 

Anchorage, Alaska 

Submitted by: 

Exponent 

1 Clock Tower Place, Suite 150 

Maynard, Massachusetts 01754 

Contract No. M04PC00001 

U.S. Department of the Interior

M inerals Manageme nt S ervice

Ala ska Outer Continenta l Shelf Re gion 
cANIMIDA Task 2 

Hydrocarbon and Metal Characterization 

of Sediments in the cANIMIDA Study Area 

Final Report 

John Brown, Principal Investigator 

Exponent, Inc. 

1 Clock Tower Place, Suite 150 

Maynard, Massachusetts 01754 

This study was funded by the U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service (MMS), Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region, 

Anchorage, Alaska, under Contract No. M04PC00001 

 as part of the MMS Alaska Environmental Studies Program. 

February 2010 

The opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this report or product 

are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department 

of the Interior, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement 

or recommendation for use by the Federal Government.
List of Authors 

Mr. John Brown, Exponent 

Dr. Paul Boehm, Exponent 

Ms. Linda Cook, Exponent 

Dr. John Trefry, Florida Institute of Technology (FIT) 

Dr. Woollcott Smith, Temple University 

Mr. Gregory Durell, Battelle 
 

i 

Table of Contents 

Page

LIST OF FIGURES IV

LIST OF TABLES X

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS XII

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES­1

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1­1

1.1  Study Area  1‐1 

1.2  Development History in the Study Area  1‐2 

1.3  Current/Proposed Oil Development  1‐2 

1.3.1  Northstar  1‐2 

1.3.2  Liberty  1‐3 

1.4  Potential Contaminants and Disturbances of Concern  1‐3 

1.5  Study Objectives  1‐4 

1.5.1  Task Order 2 Research Questions and Hypotheses  1‐4 

2.0 METHODS 2­1

2.1  Field Methods  2‐1 

2.1.1  Summer 2004 Survey  2‐1 

2.1.2  Summer 2005 Survey  2‐2 

2.1.3  Summer 2006 Survey  2‐3 

2.1.4  Field Sampling Procedures  2‐4 

2.2  Analytical Methods  2‐5 

2.2.1  Grain Size and Total Organic Carbon  2‐5 

2.2.2  Organic Chemical Parameters  2‐5 

2.2.3  Inorganic Parameters  2‐6 

2.3  Quality Assurance/Quality Control  2‐6 

2.3.1  Quality Assurance  2‐6 

2.3.2  Quality Control  2‐7 
 

ii 

2.4  Statistical Methods  2‐8 

3.0 RESULTS 3­1

3.1  Surficial Sediment Results  3‐1 

3.1.1  General Chemical and Physical Measurements  3‐1 

3.1.2  Organics  3‐2 

3.1.3  Metals  3‐5 

3.1.4  Radionuclides  3‐6 

3.1.5  Statistical Results  3‐7 

3.2  Sediment Core Results  3‐8 

3.2.1  General Chemical and Physical Measurements  3‐8 

3.2.2  Organics  3‐8 

3.2.3  Metals  3‐10 

3.2.4  Geochronology of Sediment Cores  3‐10 

3.3  Quality Control Results  3‐11 

3.3.1  Field Quality Control  3‐11 

3.3.2  Organic Laboratory Quality Control  3‐12 

3.3.3  Metals Laboratory Quality Control  3‐12 

3.3.4  Liberty ‐ 2004  3‐17 

3.3.5  Liberty ‐ 2005  3‐17 

3.3.6  Liberty ‐ 2006  3‐17 

4.0 DISCUSSION 4­1

4.1  Surficial Sediments  4‐1 

4.1.1  Grain Size  4‐1 

4.1.2  Organics (Hydrocarbons)  4‐2 

4.1.3  Metals  4‐11 

4.2  Sediment Cores  4‐16 

4.2.1  Geochronology  4‐16 

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 5­1
 

iii 

6.0 REFERENCES 6­1

Appendices Enclosed on CD: 

Appendix A Metals, TOC and Grain Size Data 

Appendix B Organic Data 

Appendix C Sample Preparation and Analytical Methods 

Appendix D Quality Control Summary 

Appendix E Field Reports 

Appendix F Reports, Publications and Presentations Resulting from 

ANIMIDA/cANIMIDA Task 2 
iv 

List of Figures 

Section 1 

Figure 1-1. Map of the ANIMIDA study area. 

Figure 1-2. General map of onshore and offshore oil and gas development in the study areas. 

Figure 1-3. Schematic of BP’s Northstar development. 

Section 2 

Figure 2-1. Summer 2004 cANIMIDA sampling locations. 

Figure 2-2. Summer 2005 cANIMIDA sampling locations. 

Figure 2-3. Summer 2006 cANIMIDA sampling locations. 

Section 3 

Figure 3-1. Histograms showing grain size distribution as percent gravel (black bar), sand 

(red bar), silt (green bar) and clay (yellow bar) for sediment samples collected 

during 2004 in the Northstar area. 

Figure 3-2. Histograms showing grain size distribution as percent gravel (black bar), sand 

(red bar), silt (green bar) and clay (yellow bar) for sediment samples collected 

during 2005 in the Northstar area. 

Figure 3-3. Histograms showing grain size distribution as percent gravel (black bar), sand 

(red bar), silt (green bar) and clay (yellow bar) for sediment samples collected 

during 2006 in the Northstar area. 

Figure 3-4. Histograms showing grain size distribution as percent gravel (black bar), sand 

(red bar), silt (green bar) and clay (yellow bar) for sediment samples collected 

during 2004 in the Liberty area. 

Figure 3-5. Histograms showing grain size distribution as percent gravel (black bar), sand 

(red bar), silt (green bar) and clay (yellow bar) for sediment samples collected 

during 2005 in the Liberty area. 

Figure 3-6. Histograms showing grain size distribution as percent gravel (black bar), sand 

(red bar), silt (green bar) and clay (yellow bar) for sediment samples collected 

during 2006 in the Liberty area. 

Figure 3-7. Concentrations of Al versus Silt + Clay for surface sediments from all stations 

sampled during (a) 1999-2002 and (b) 2004-2006. 

Figure 3-8. Concentrations of Al versus (a) Fe and (b) V for surface sediments from 2004-

2006.

Figure 3-9. Concentrations of Al versus (a) activity of 226Ra and (b) activity of excess 210Pb 

for surface sediments from 2004-2006.
List of Figures (continued) 

 

v 

Figure 3-10. Activities of 137Cs versus activities of excess 210Pb for surface sediments from 

2004-2006.

Figure 3-11. Sediment Core Profiles for Station 1C – 2005 (dashed line shows depth in 

sediment that corresponds to Year 1950). 

Figure 3-12. Sediment Core Profiles for Station 2A – 2005 (dashed line shows depth in 

sediment that corresponds to Year 1950). 

Figure 3-13. Sediment Core Profiles for Station BP01 – 2005 (dashed line shows depth in 

sediment that corresponds to Year 1950). 

Figure 3-14. Sediment Core Profiles for Station N26 – 2005 (dashed line shows depth in 

sediment that corresponds to Year 1950). 

Figure 3-15. Sediment Core Profiles for Station PB01 – 2005 (dashed line shows depth in 

sediment that corresponds to Year 1950). 

Figure 3-16. Sediment Core Profiles for Station 7A – 2006 (dashed line shows depth in 

sediment that corresponds to Year 1950). 

Figure 3-17. Sediment Core Profiles for Station 7C – 2006 (dashed line shows depth in 

sediment that corresponds to Year 1950). 

Figure 3-18. Sediment Core Profiles for Station 7E – 2006 (dashed line shows depth in 

sediment that corresponds to Year 1950). 

Figure 3-19. Sediment Core Profiles for Station L22 – 2006 (dashed line shows depth in 

sediment that corresponds to Year 1950). 

Figure 3-20. Sediment Core Profiles for Station N17 – 2006 (dashed line shows depth in 

sediment that corresponds to Year 1950). 

Figure 3-21. Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in sediments from station 

L17B sampled during 2005. Dashed line shows depth in sediment that 

corresponds with 1950 based on sediment geochronology. 

Figure 3-22. Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in sediments from station 1C 

sampled during 2005. Dashed line shows depth in sediment that corresponds with 

1950 based on sediment geochronology.

Figure 3-23. Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in sediments from station 2A 

sampled during 2005. Dashed line shows depth in sediment that corresponds with 

1950 based on sediment geochronology.

Figure 3-24. Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in sediments from station 

BP01 sampled during 2005. Dashed line shows depth in sediment that 

corresponds with 1950 based on sediment geochronology.

Figure 3-25. Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in sediments from station E01 

sampled during 2005. Dashed line shows depth in sediment that corresponds with 

1950 based on sediment geochronology.
List of Figures (continued) 

 

vi 

Figure 3-26. Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in sediments from station 

PB1A sampled during 2005. Dashed line shows depth in sediment that 

corresponds with 1950 based on sediment geochronology.

Figure 3-27. Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in sediments from station N26 

sampled during 2005. Dashed line shows depth in sediment that corresponds with 

1950 based on sediment geochronology.

Figure 3-28. Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in sediments from station N17 

sampled during 2006. Dashed line shows depth in sediment that corresponds with 

1950 based on sediment geochronology.

Figure 3-29. Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in sediments from station L22 

sampled during 2006. Dashed line shows depth in sediment that corresponds with 

1950 based on sediment geochronology.

Figure 3-30. Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in sediments from station 7A 

sampled during 2006. Dashed line shows depth in sediment that corresponds with 

1950 based on sediment geochronology.

Figure 3-31. Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in sediments from station 7C 

sampled during 2006. Dashed line shows depth in sediment that corresponds with 

1950 based on sediment geochronology.

Figure 3-32. Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in sediments from station 7E 

sampled during 2006. Dashed line shows depth in sediment that corresponds with 

1950 based on sediment geochronology.

Figure 3-33. Vertical profiles for activities of 137Cs, total 210Pb, and excess 210Pb for sediments 

core from stations 1C, 2A and BP01 collected during 2005.

Figure 3-34. Vertical profiles for activities of 137Cs, total 210Pb, and excess 210Pb for sediments 

core from stations E01, L17B and PB1A collected during 2005.

Figure 3-35. Vertical profiles for activities of 137Cs, total 210Pb, and excess 210Pb for sediments 

core from station N26 sampled during 2005 and stations 6B and 7A collected 

during 2006.

Figure 3-36. Vertical profiles for activities of 137Cs, total 210Pb, and excess 210Pb for sediments 

core from stations 7E and L22 collected during 2006 and 137Cs for stations N05 

and N17 sampled during 2006. 

Section 4 

Figure 4-1. Map identifies sampling sites and histograms show grain size distribution as 

percent gravel (black bar), sand (red bar), silt (green bar) and clay (yellow bar) 

for sediment samples collected during 1999 and 2000. 

Figure 4-2. Map identifies sampling sites and histograms show grain size distribution as 

percent gravel (black bar), sand (red bar), silt (green bar) and clay (yellow bar) 

for sediment samples collected during 2004 and 2002. 
List of Figures (continued) 

 

vii 

Figure 4-3. Map identifies sampling sites and histograms show grain size distribution as 

percent gravel (black bar), sand (red bar), silt (green bar) and clay (yellow bar) 

for sediment samples collected during 2004 and 1999. 

Figure 4-4. North Slope Crude Oil – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH distribution 

histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

Figure 4-5. Northstar Oil – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH distribution histogram 

(middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

Figure 4-6. Colville River Sediment, Year 1999 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH 

distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

Figure 4-7. Canning River Sediment, Year 2002 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH 

distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

Figure 4-8. Northstar Station 6 Sediment, Year 1999 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH 

distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

Figure 4-9. Northstar Station N06 Sediment, Year 2000 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH 

distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

Figure 4-10. Northstar Station N06 Sediment, Year 2002 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH 

distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

Figure 4-11. Northstar Station N06 Sediment, Year 2004 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH 

distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

Figure 4-12. Northstar Station N06 Sediment, Year 2005 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH 

distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

Figure 4-13. Station N06 Sediment, Year 2006 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH 

distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

Figure 4-14. Station L08 Sediment, Year 1999 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH 

distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

Figure 4-15. Liberty Station L08 (Rep 3) Sediment, Year 2000 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), 

PAH distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

Figure 4-16. Liberty Station L08 Sediment, Year 2005 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH 

distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

Figure 4-17. Station L08 Sediment, Year 2006 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH 

distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

Figure 4-18. Station 3A Sediment, Year 1999 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH 

distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

Figure 4-19. Station 3A Sediment, Year 2005 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH 

distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

Figure 4-20. Station 2A Sediment, Year 2005 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH 

distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 
List of Figures (continued) 

 

viii 

Figure 4-21. Comparison of regional minimum, maximum, and mean concentrations by year 

for total polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations to sediment quality 

guidelines effects range-low and effects range-medium values (Long et al., 

1995). 

Figure 4-22. Scatterplot of Silt + Clay results versus total polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons 

less perylene for Northstar surficial sediment samples in 1999 through 2006. 

Figure 4-23. Total polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (TPAH) less perylene concentrations 

normalized to fines for all 1999 through 2006 Northstar stations. 

Figure 4-24. Pyrogenic:petrogenic ratios of Northstar surficial sediment samples for 1999 

through 2006. 

Figure 4-25. Double ratio source plot of C2D/C2P versus C3D/C3P for BSMP, Liberty, 

Northstar, and River sediment samples for 1999 through 2006. 

Figure 4-26. Double ratio source plot of S25/S28 versus T21/T22 for BSMP, Liberty, 

Northstar, and River sediment samples for 1999 through 2006. 

Figure 4-27. Regression plot of total PAH less perylene versus silt + clay for all 1999 through 

2006 Northstar, Liberty and BSMP sediments. 

Figure 4-28. Regression plot of LN total PAH less perylene versus silt + clay for all 2004 

through 2006 Northstar, Liberty and BSMP sediments. 

Figure 4-29. Regression plot of Total PAH less perylene versus perylene for all 1999 through 

2006 Northstar, Liberty and BSMP sediments. 

Figure 4-30. Concentrations of aluminum versus chromium for surface sediment from the 

cANIMIDA study area collected in (a) 1999-2002 and (b) 2004-2006. 

Figure 4-31. Concentrations of aluminum versus (a) copper, (b) cobalt and (c) arsenic for 

sediment from the cANIMIDA study area collected in 2004-2006. 

Figure 4-32. Concentrations of aluminum versus (a) nickel, (b) silver and (c) mercury for 

sediment from the cANIMIDA study area collected in 2004-2006. 

Figure 4-33. Concentrations of excess metals for sediment from 1999 station 5D versus 2005 

station N14. 

Figure 4-34. Concentrations of aluminum versus (a) zinc, (b) cadmium and (c) lead for 

sediment from the cANIMIDA study area collected in 2004-2006. 

Figure 4-35. Concentrations of aluminum versus (a) barium, (b) antimony and (c) beryllium 

for sediment from the cANIMIDA study area collected in 2004-2006. 

Figure 4-36. Sediment Core N26 Interval 0-2 cm, Year 2005 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), 

PAH distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

Figure 4-37. Sediment Core N26 Interval 8-10 cm, Year 2005 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), 

PAH distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 
List of Figures (continued) 

 

ix 

Figure 4-38. Sediment Core 1C Interval 0-2 cm, Year 2005 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), 

PAH distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

Figure 4-39. Sediment Core 1C Interval 28-30 cm, Year 2005 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), 

PAH distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

Figure 4-40. Regression plot of total PAH less perylene versus perylene for all 2005 through 

2006 sediment core samples. 

Figure 4-41. Double ratio source plot of C2D/C2P versus C3D/C3P for 2001, 2005, and 2006 

sediment core samples. 

Figure 4-42. Double ratio source plot of S25/S28 versus T21/T22 for 2001, 2005, and 2006 

sediment core samples. 

Figure 4-43. Concentrations of aluminum versus (a) iron, (b) vanadium and (c) beryllium for 

sediment from the cANIMIDA study area collected in 2004-2006. 

Figure 4-44. Concentrations of aluminum versus (a) nickel, (b) copper and (c) cobalt for 

sediment from the cANIMIDA study area collected in 2004-2006. 

Figure 4-45. Concentrations of aluminum versus (a) zinc, (b) silver and (c) cadmium for 

sediment from the cANIMIDA study area collected in 2004-2006. 

Figure 4-46. Concentrations of aluminum versus (a) lead, (b) mercury and (c) arsenic for 

sediment from the cANIMIDA study area collected in 2004-2006. 

Figure 4-47. Concentrations of aluminum versus (a) antimony, (b) thallium and (c) chromium 

for sediment from the cANIMIDA study area collected in 2004-2006. 

Figure 4-48. Concentrations of aluminum versus barium for (a) all sediment core samples 

from 2005 and 2006 and (b) 2005 samples that plotted above the upper prediction 

interval. Shaded rectangle in (a) is expanded in (b). 

Figure 4-49. Concentrations of aluminum versus barium for (a) all sediment core samples 

from 2005 and 2006 and (b) 2006 samples that plotted above the upper prediction 

interval. Shaded rectangle in (a) is expanded in (b). 

Figure 4-50. Vertical profile for the Ba/Al ratio in sediments from 2006 station 7E. 
x 

List of Tables 

Section 1 

Table 1-1. Alaska North Slope Oil and Gas Past Development and Production 

Section 2 

Table 2-1. MMS cANIMIDA Summer 2004 Sediment Sampling Stations 

Table 2-2. MMS cANIMIDA Summer 2005 Sediment Sampling Stations 

Table 2-3. MMS cANIMIDA Summer 2006 Sediment Sampling Stations 

Table 2-4. Sample Containers, Preservation, and Laboratory List 

Table 2-5. Saturated Hydrocarbons Target List 

Table 2-6. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon and Alkyl Polynuclear Aromatic 

Hydrocarbon Target List 

Table 2-7. Sterane and Triterpane Target List 

Table 2-8a. Summary of Instrumental Methods and Method Detection Limits for Metal 

Analysis of Sediment (2004) 

Table 2-8b. Summary of Instrumental Methods and Method Detection Limits for Metal 

Analysis of Sediment (2005) 

Table 2-8c. Summary of Instrumental Methods and Method Detection Limits for Metal 

Analysis of Sediment (2006) 

Section 3 

Table 3-1. Summary Data for Total Metals, Total Organic Carbon (TOC), and Grain Size in 

Sediment from the Coastal Beaufort Sea 

Table 3-2. Table of Concentrations for Selected Organic Parameters and Grain Size in 

BSMP Sediment Samples 

Table 3-3. Table of Concentrations for Selected Organic Parameters and Grain Size in 

Northstar Sediment Samples 

Table 3-4. Table of Concentrations for Selected Organic Parameters and Grain Size in 

Liberty Sediment Samples 

Table 3-5. Table of Concentrations for Selected Organic Parameters and Grain Size in 

Sediment Core Samples 

Table 3-6. Diagnostic Ratios and Parameters of Saturated Hydrocarbons, Polynuclear 

Aromatic Hydrocarbons, and Steranes and Triterpanes 
List of Tables (continued) 

 

xi 

Table 3-7. Average Total Organic Concentrations in Surficial Sediments from ANIMIDA 

Study Area, Alaska Marine Sediments, and Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait 

Sediments 

Table 3-8. Table of Concentrations of Selected Metals in BSMP Sediment Samples 

Table 3-9. Table of Concentrations for Selected Metals in Northstar Sediment Samples 

Table 3-10. Table of Concentrations of Selected Metals in Liberty Sediment Samples 

Table 3-11. Statistical Model Result Summary with Silt + Clay Covariate 

Table 3-12. Statistical Model Result Summary with Perylene Covariate 

Table 3-13. Summary Data for 2004 for Radionuclides and Aluminum in Surface Sediment 

from the Coastal Beaufort Sea 

Table 3-14. Summary Data for 2005 for Radionuclides and Aluminum in Surface Sediment 

from the Coastal Beaufort Sea 

Table 3-15. Summary Data for 2006 for Radionuclides and Aluminum in Surface Sediment 

from the Coastal Beaufort Sea 

Table 3-16. Summary Data for Total Metals, Total Organic Carbon (TOC), and Grain Size in 

Sediment Cores from the Coastal Beaufort Sea 

Table 3-17. Summary Data for Age-Dated Sediment Cores from the Coastal Beaufort Sea 

Section 4 

Table 4-1. Sites with Metal Values for Surface Sediments Above the Upper Prediction 

Interval on Metal Versus Aluminum Plots and Values for Effects Range 

Low (ERL) and Effects Range Median (ERM) from Long et al. (1995) with 

Results from this Study. 

Table 4-2. Concentrations of excess metal in sediments from stations N14 (2005) and 

5D (1999) with extrapolated values to pyrite (FeS2) and reported values for 

metals in pyrite. 

Table 4-3. Sites with metal values for sediment cores above the upper prediction 

interval on metal versus aluminum plots and values for Effects Range Low 

(ERL) and Effects Range Median (ERM) from Long et al. (1995) with 

Results from this study.
xii 

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ANIMIDA Arctic Nearshore Impact Monitoring in the Development Area 

ANOVA Analysis of Variance 

BPXA British Petroleum Exploration Alaska 

BS Blank Spike 

BSMP Beaufort Sea Monitoring Program 

°C Degrees Celsius 

C Carbon 

CaCl2 Calcium Chloride 

cANIMIDA Continuation of ANIMIDA 

cm Centimeter 

COC Chain of Custody 

CPI Carbon Preference Index 

CRM Certified Reference Material 

CV Coefficient of Variation 

CVAAS Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Spectrometry 

%D Percent Difference 

DDW Distilled, Deionized Water 

dpm/g Decompositions per Minute per Gram 

DQO Data Quality Objectives 

DRO Diesel Range Organics 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

ERL Effects Range-Low 

ERM Effects Range-Medium 

FAAS Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrometry 

FID Flame Ionization Detection 

FIT Florida Institute of Technology 

FY Fiscal Year 

GC Gas Chromatography 

GC/MS Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry 

GFAAS Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry 

H Hypothesis 

H2O Water 

H2SO4 Sulfuric Acid 

HCl Hydrochloric Acid 

HClO4 Perchloric Acid 

HF Hydrogen Fluoride 

HNO3 Nitric Acid 

ICP/MS Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry 

ID Inner Diameter 

IRM Instrument Reference Material 

K-D Kuderna-Danish 

Kg Kilogram 

km Kilometer 
Acronyms and Abbreviations (continued) 

xiii 

LALK Lower-Molecular-Weight Alkanes 

LN Log-normal 

m Meter 

MDL Method Detection Limit 

mg Milligram 

mL Milliliter 

mm Millimeter 

MMS Minerals Management Service 

MRL Minimum Reporting Limit 

MS Mass Spectrometry 

N Normal 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NRC National Research Council of Canada 

OCS Outer Continental Shelf 

OCSLA Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

PAH Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon 

PB Procedural Blank 

Pb Lead 

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl 

ppm Parts Per Million 

Q Question 

QA Quality Assurance 

QAM Quality Assurance Manual 

QC Quality Control 

RF Response Factor 

RPD Relative Percent Difference 

rpm Revolutions Per Minute 

RSD Relative Standard Deviation 

S/T Steranes/Triterpanes 

SHC Saturated Hydrocarbons 

SIM Selected Ion Monitoring 

SOP Standard Operating Procedure 

SRM Standard Reference Material 

TALK Total Alkanes 

TOC Total Organic Carbon 

TPHC Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 

μg Microgram 

μL Microliter 

μm Micrometer 

UCM Unresolved Complex Mixture 

URSGWC URS Greiner Woodward Clyde 

UPI Upper Prediction Interval 

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers 

USAEDA United States Army Engineering District, Alaska 
Acronyms and Abbreviations (continued) 

xiv 

USDOI United States Department of the Interior 

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

WBS Work Breakdown Structure 

yr Year 

ZGFAAS Zeeman Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry 
ES-1

Executive Summary 

Overview 

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) Amendments of 1978 (92 Stat. 629) 

established a policy for the management of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and for 

protection of the marine and coastal environments. The amendments authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to conduct studies in areas of offshore leasing activities to assess potential impacts 

on the marine and coastal environments resulting from oil exploration, development, and 

production activities. 

In the nearshore Alaskan Beaufort Sea, offshore oil development and production activities 

initially proposed for both the Northstar and Liberty sites by British Petroleum Exploration 

Alaska, Inc. (BPXA) are currently underway at Northstar and after a delay likely to be initiated 

at Liberty from an alternative location on the Endicott Satellite Drilling Island. At Northstar, 

the oil field was developed from a gravel island and is currently producing oil, which is 

transported to land-based pipelines through a sub-sea pipeline. 

In 1998, Minerals Management Service (MMS) decided to conduct studies to characterize the 

pre-construction environment near Northstar and Liberty and to monitor selected parameters 

over time as part of a long-term program to assess potential spatial and temporal changes related 

to oil development and production near both the Northstar and Liberty sites. The initial 

program, Arctic Nearshore Impact Monitoring in the Development Area (ANIMIDA), was 

designed to carefully monitor perturbations specifically related to construction activities and oil 

recovery and transportation via pipeline from the gravel islands to the onshore processing 

facilities (Boehm et al., 2001b and Brown et al., 2005). Priorities were placed on characterizing 

the pre-construction environment and establishing a scientific basis for post-construction and 

production monitoring. Task Order 002 (Task 2) of the Continuation of Arctic Nearshore Impact 

Monitoring in Development Area (cANIMIDA) program continues the ANIMIDA sediment 

chemistry program. 

Objectives 

The cANIMIDA Program was designed to address a series of scientific questions concerning the 

potential for shifts in environmental chemistry parameters associated with the Northstar and 

Liberty developments. Each question can then be turned into a testable hypothesis, which 

guides the design of the technical program. The key questions, which drive Task 2 of 

cANIMIDA, are as follows: 

Question 1. What are the background levels of chemicals of concern (i.e., anthropogenic-related 

organic and metal parameters) that are known to be associated with oil exploration, 

development, and production activities, and do the concentrations of these chemicals increase in 

area sediments as a result of the developments? 
ES-2

Question 2. If concentrations of organic and/or metal chemicals of concern do increase in the 

environment as a result of the developments, do the increased concentrations exceed 

environmental quality guidelines (Effects Range-Lows [ERLs], Long et al., 1995)? 

Question 3. What trends in the background levels of the chemicals of concern (i.e., 

anthropogenic-related organic and metal parameters) that are known to be associated with oil 

exploration, development, and production activities are seen in the historical sediment record, 

and do the concentrations of these chemicals increase as a result of these activities? 

To provide the data needed to address these questions, the specific objectives of Task 2 include: 

 Perform three annual field studies (fiscal years [FYs] 2004 to 2006) for the monitoring 

of sediment chemistry in the nearshore Beaufort Sea, focusing on potential contaminant 

inputs from the Northstar and Liberty developments. 

 Perform organic and inorganic chemical analyses that are consistent with previous 

measurements and thus capable of determining incremental changes. 

It is an explicit goal of the cANIMIDA Program to examine temporal and spatial changes and to 

determine if any observed changes in concentration and/or composition are related to the 

currently operating Northstar development. 

cANIMIDA Task 2 Study Design 

To meet the objectives of the cANIMIDA program, the study design of Task 2 focused on 

measuring those parameters that would be leading indicators of, or related to environmental 

contaminant inputs from oil development projects. The elements of primary focus included: 

 Hydrocarbons and associated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and metals as 

primary contaminants of concern 

 Sediment contamination 

 Other natural and anthropogenic sources of chemicals of concern 

The study design for cANIMIDA built on the ANIMIDA design (Boehm et al., 2001b and 

Brown et al., 2005) and involved: 

 Design of a site-specific radial array sampling grid around the Northstar development 

 Selection of area-wide stations that had previously been sampled as part of the MMS 

Beaufort Sea Monitoring Program (BSMP; Boehm et al., 1991) and ANIMIDA 

Programs 

 Location and sampling of reference stations and regional sources. 
ES-3

Findings

As part of cANIMIDA, surficial sediment samples were collected from the cANIMIDA study 

area during the summers of 2004 through 2006 and sediment cores were collected in 2005 and 

2006. All samples were analyzed for PAH, saturated hydrocarbons (SHC), steranes/triterpanes 

(S/T), metals, grain size, total organic carbon (TOC), and radionuclides for age-dating. This 

report also compares cANIMIDA results to surficial sediment sample data collected in 1999, 

2000, and 2002 as part of the ANIMIDA Phase I (Boehm et al. 2001b) and Phase II (Brown et 

al., 2005). 

Sediment Characteristics. Comparison of grain size data from 1999 with data from 2000 shows 

some inter-annual shifts in the texture of surficial sediment throughout the cANIMIDA study 

area. Large changes in grain size distribution were first observed between 1999 and 2000 

(Figure ES-1). During 1999, surficial sediment at stations N11-N14 was essentially all sand and 

gravel. In contrast, the 2000 samples from the same stations were dominated by silt and clay. 

Although the exact mechanism for this shift is unknown, the 1999 samples were collected after 

a 6-day storm with winds >25 knots that may have eroded away finer-grained material. No such 

storms preceded collection of the 2000 samples that probably contained finer-grained material 

carried in by the Kuparuk River during the spring of 2000. At stations N06 and N10 (Figure 

ES-1), both close to Northstar Island, much finer-grained particles were collected during 1999 

than 2000. This shift may have resulted from inputs of coarser material at these stations in 

association with construction of the island. Most importantly, Figure 1 depicts the marked 

patchiness in sediment composition and the spatial and temporal variability of sediment in the 

area. 

Figure ES-1. Values for silt + clay in surficial sediment from the coastal Beaufort Sea 

for 2000 versus 1999 with data from Northstar area (circles) Liberty Prospect (squares) 

and adjacent areas (triangles). Large and small dashed lines represent 90% and 80% deviation 

Silt + Clay 2000 (%)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Silt + Clay 1999 (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 N06 N10

5(10)

5A

N05

N03

3A N04

3B

L06 N02

5D

L04

4A

N12

N13

N14

L07

L08

L09

N09

5(0)

5H

N08 5(5) 5E

4B

5F N07

5(1) 4C N11 L01

N15

N01

5B

1:1
ES-4

intervals from a 1:1 relationship between the two years, respectively. Solid line shows 1:1 relationship 

between 1999 and 2000 data. Dashed lines show interannual deviations of ±10 and ±20% for silt + clay. 

The largest changes in grain size distribution observed during the ANIMIDA study occurred 

between 1999 and 2000. Differences in grain size distribution between the 2000 and 2002 

sampling are less than observed between 1999 and 2000. Grain size distribution in 2004 - 2006 

was different at several stations relative to 2002. More fine-grained sediment was observed in 

2004 at stations 5B, 5D, N02 and N03 relative to 2002. In contrast, more gravel was collected 

at station N15 and more sand at station N11 in 2004. Collectively, the data from 1999-2006 

show both abrupt and gradual movement of sediments in the Northstar area over time. 

 

Previous shifts in grain size in the Liberty area were noted at station L01 where finer-grained 

sediment was collected during 2000 than during 1999 and at stations L08 and L09 where the 

opposite trend was found. Between 1999 and 2004, an increase in the amounts of fine-grained 

sediment has been observed at several stations including 4A, L07, L08 and 3A. The 2005 grain 

size data for the Liberty area shows increases in the coarser fractions at stations 4A and L08. 

The presence of a gravel (10.4%) and sand fraction (30.5%) at the deeper-water station L22 

(29.2 m) suggests that ice-rafting may be a significant source of sediment to this location. 

 

The most important finding derived from the grain size data is that sediments in many locations 

throughout the cANIMIDA study area are regularly shifting and that the sediment grain sizes 

found during one year may change prior to sampling during a subsequent year. Furthermore, 

the grain size distribution in surface sediments is very patchy from site to site. Thus, techniques 

that normalize sediment chemistry to account for differences in grain size have been used and 

radionuclide measurements have been made to determine that sediment collected during any 

given year is recent and not relict material. 

Hydrocarbons. In contrast to a crude oil composition (Figure ES-2), the surficial sediments in 

the Northstar area and indeed for the whole region (e.g., Figure ES-3) exhibit a mixture of 

primarily terrestrial biogenic hydrocarbons and lower levels of petroleum hydrocarbons. This 

assemblage is clearly dominated by plant wax normal (i.e., straight-chain) alkanes in the n-C27 

through n-C33 carbon range. This is further demonstrated by carbon preference index (CPI) 

values that range from two to seven for most samples, which is characteristic of sediments 

influenced by terrigenous plant inputs (Wakeham and Carpenter, 1976; Boehm, 1984). 

The PAH distributions for most of the surficial sediments (e.g., Figure ES-3) show that the 

PAHs are primarily of a combined fossil fuel origin (i.e., petroleum and coal) with a biogenic 

component (perylene), and lesser contributions of pyrogenic or combustion-related compounds 

(e.g., 4-, 5-, and 6-ring PAHs). The petrogenic PAHs account for approximately 90 percent of 

the Total PAH less perylene throughout the study area (Figure ES-4). Perylene was abundant in 

surficial sediments, often the most abundant single PAH compound in the overall PAH 

distribution. Perylene is not a contaminant associated with petroleum exploration and 

production activities, but is associated with biogenic sources of hydrocarbons in the Beaufort 

Sea. 
ES-5

Concentrations of hydrocarbons in the sediments adjacent to Northstar and Liberty are generally 

within the observed historical range for these parameters in the overall study area. Background 

concentrations of Total PAHs (a sum of 2 to 6 ringed parent and alkylated PAHs) in recent 

Alaskan surficial sediment studies range from <10 parts per billion (ppb) to 1000 ppb. 

Typically PAH profiles indicate significant levels of a fossil fuel-type signature, which appears 

to be sourced in organics shales brought to the sediments from river runoff and coastal peat. 

The composition of the sediment hydrocarbons at Northstar is best summarized by a comparison 

of the pyrogenic to petrogenic PAH ratios in 1999, 2000, 2002 and 2004 – 2006 (Figure ES-4). 

A comparison for this ratio for all paired Northstar stations reveals no significant difference 

between years 1999 and 2000 indicating that there were no changes in sources of anthropogenic 

hydrocarbons to the Northstar area as a result of construction activities in 2000. The pyrogenic 

to petrogenic PAH ratios for Northstar stations in 2002 and 2004 show an increasing trend, 

which then decreases in 2005 and 2006. The comparisons of PAH data show a significant 

increase in the pyrogenic to petrogenic PAH ratio region-wide for years 2000 through 2004. A 

subsequent statistical analysis revealed that pyrogenic to petrogenic ratios for Northstar 2002 

and Liberty/BSMP 2002 were not significantly different from each other, but that the ratios for 

Northstar 2004 were significantly greater than Liberty/BSMP 2004 and Northstar 2002. Also, 

the Northstar 2004 petrogenic PAH concentrations were significantly less than Northstar 2002 

and Liberty/BSMP 2004 concentrations, while no significant differences were noted for 

pyrogenic PAHs between regions or years. These results suggest that the observed shift to a 

greater relative proportion of pyrogenic hydrocarbons in 2002 and 2004 could be the result of 

subtle increases in pyrogenic PAH; possibly related to Northstar area inputs (flaring, boat and 

vehicle traffic, etc). However, this shift in inputs is clearly variable (as shown by the decreased 

values in 2005 and 2006) and not currently of sufficient magnitude to result in a statistically 

significant increase in concentrations of PAH parameters. However, the observed potential of 

such a shift warrants continued sediment hydrocarbon monitoring in the area. 

The observation that the Northstar 1999 sediments may be depleted in hydrocarbons relative to 

the other 1999, 2000, 2002, and 2004 - 2006 sediments is supported by a Total PAH less 

perylene versus silt + clay regression plot for all the 1999, 2000, 2002, and 2004 - 2006 

sediment data. In this plot (Figure ES-5), the regression and 95% prediction intervals are shown 

for all data. The plot shows a small cluster of Northstar 1999 samples which are below the 95% 

prediction interval, indicating that these samples are significantly lower in PAH versus silt + 

clay than the overall population of 1999, 2000, 2002 and 2004 - 2006 samples. An analysis of 

the Northstar 2000, 2002, and 2004 – 2006 samples versus the BSMP and Liberty 2000, 2002, 

and 2004 - 2006 samples resulted in no significant difference for all bulk hydrocarbon 

parameters and most of the diagnostic ratios. The results of this analysis are illustrated by a 

PAH regression plot (Figure ES-6) which shows complete overlap between the regression lines 

and 95% prediction intervals (i.e., no significant difference) for the Northstar, BSMP, and 

Liberty sediments for 2004 through 2006. No evidence of any inputs of Northstar-related 

petroleum hydrocarbons were observed in the surface sediments. 

A comparison of the Total PAH from all cANIMIDA sediments from the study region in 1999, 

2000, 2002, and 2004 - 2006 to the Effects Range Low (ERL) and Effects Range Median 

(ERM) sediment quality guidelines reveals that none of the Total PAH concentrations 

determined in this study exceed the guidelines. Additionally, potential toxicity of the PAHs in 
ES-6

cANIMIDA sediments was evaluated using a more recent methodology; EPA’s Procedures for 

the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection of 

Benthic Organisms: PAH Mixtures (EPA, 2003). Based on this approach, if the sum of 

Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmark Toxic Units for “total PAHs” is less than or 

equal to 1.0, the PAH levels in the sediment is acceptable for the protection of benthic 

organisms. Toxic Unit values for the cANIMIDA Program sediments ranged from 0.01 to 0.7 

for all samples collected, providing further evidence the concentrations of PAH present in the 

study area sediments are not likely to pose a risk to benthic organisms. 
ES-7

Figure ES-2. Northstar Oil – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH distribution histogram 

(middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

55000

Time

Response_

10170214.D\FID1A

02-NOR-01-PHC-O (Northstar Oil)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAA

C0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHIP

Concentration (mg/Kg)

36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

55000

60000

65000

70000

75000

Time-->

Abundance

Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): S6405.D

T22

T21

T19

T15

T12

T11

T10

T9

T4

n-C17 

n-C27 
ES-8

Figure ES-3. Station N06 Sediment, Year 2006 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), 

PAH distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAAC0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDP...

DAHA

BGHIP

Concentration (ug/Kg)

06-N06-01-PHC-S

n-C17 

n-C27 

T15

T19

T21 T22
ES-9

.00

.02

.04

.06

.08

.10

.12

.14

.16

5A

N01N02N03N04N05N06N07N08N09N10N11N12N13N14N15N16N17N18N19N20N21N23N28

Pyrogenic:Petrogenic Ratio 

Pyrogenic:Petrogenic Ratios at Northstar Area Stations

1999 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006

Figure ES-4. Pyrogenic:petrogenic ratios of Northstar surficial sediment samples for 

1999 through 2006. 
ES-10

Silt+Clay(%)

100806040200-20 120

LN Total PAH (ug/Kg)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Region by Year

Lib/BSMP 2004-2006

Northstar 2004-2006

Lib/BSMP 2000+2002

Northstar 2000+2002

Lib/BSMP 1999

Northstar 1999

Total Population

Rsq = 0.5333 

7G 6B 2A

1E

N14

5B

N08

N03

N08

5D

Figure ES-5. Regression plot of Total PAH less perylene versus silt + clay for all 1999 

through 2006 Northstar, Liberty and BSMP sediments. The lines, Rsq, and 95% individual 

prediction intervals are from linear regression. 
ES-11

Silt+Clay(%)

806040200-20 100 120

LN Total PAH (ug/Kg)

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Region by Year

Lib/BSMP 2004-2006

Northstar 2004-2006

5B

N08

Figure ES-6. Regression plot of LN total PAH less perylene versus silt + clay for all 2004 

through 2006 Northstar, Liberty and BSMP sediments. The lines and 95% mean regression 

prediction intervals are from linear regression and related statistical calculations.

Trace Metals. Concentrations of metals in sediment help identify spatial and temporal trends in 

the distribution of potential anthropogenic chemicals. Fourteen metals (Ag, As, Be, Cd, Co, Cr, 

Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Sb, Tl, V and Zn) were analyzed in sediment from this study because of their 

potential as pollutants. Four other metals (Al, Fe, Ba, and Mn) were included in the study as 

indicator metals because they provide insight to sediment composition (Al in clays and Fe in 

iron oxide coatings), the presence of drilling discharges (Ba in barite, a common additive in 

drilling fluids), and sediment redox conditions (Mn, a redox-sensitive metal). 

A spatial patchwork in concentrations of metals in sediment was observed as a function of 

variability in the distribution of sediment texture as described above. However, concentrations 

of trace metals generally correlated well with concentrations of Al and Fe because 

concentrations of most metals are very low in quartz sand or carbonate shell material and much 

higher in fine-grained, metal-bearing aluminosilicates. Anthropogenic processes rarely affect 

Al and Fe concentrations because these major elements are naturally present at percent levels in 

most sediment relative to part per million (ppm) levels for trace metals. Thus, Al and Fe 
ES-12

provided a valuable normalization tool for this study that incorporated the metal-controlling 

variables of grain size, organic carbon content and mineralogy. In the ideal case, a good linear 

correlation was observed between concentrations of a trace metal and Al and/or Fe. Significant, 

positive deviations from this linear trend helped identify metal contamination. 

Concentrations of all trace metals in sediment from all study years have been plotted versus Al. 

Each plot has been fit with a linear regression line and a 99% prediction interval. ANIMIDA 

metal data for 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 were used to produce a series of templates that can 

be used to identify possible metal contamination now and in the future. These templates were 

further tested with the cANIMIDA 2004 - 2006 data. For example, concentrations of Cr for 

2004 - 2006 correlated well with Al (r = 0.99 for 2004 in Figure ES-7). The 2004 - 2006 data, 

with several noted exceptions for sites that had not previously been occupied during the 

ANIMIDA or cANIMIDA projects, plotted within the 99% prediction interval established 

previously using the 1999-2002 data from the Beaufort Sea (Trefry et al., 2003). The good 

linear fit for Al versus Cr is consistent with the mixing of relatively uniform composition, 

metal-rich aluminosilicate phases with metal-poor sand and shell. Thus, Cr levels in natural 

sediment from the Beaufort Sea are predicted to follow the trend presented in Figure ES-7. 

Graphs for Al versus Ba, Ni, Co, Cu, As, Cd and Sb also show strong linear relationships with 

few anomalous points from 2004 - 2006 that plot at more than ~10% above the upper prediction 

interval. In almost all cases anomalous results which were enriched in trace metals of concern 

were linked to historical exploration drilling activities from pre-1990, when drilling muds were 

discharged directly on the ice during the winter. 

For example, Barium has been used historically as a sensitive indicator for the presence of 

petroleum drilling mud in sediment because barite (BaSO4) is such a common and distinctive 

additive. The graph for Al versus Ba for the 2004-2006 data shows 4 of 112 data points as 

positive anomalies on the Ba versus Al plot (Figure ES-8). Barium anomalies were previously 

reported for stations 7A and 7G in Harrison Bay for samples collected in 1989 and are 

consistent with exploratory drilling and drilling residues in the area. These sites had not been 

previously occupied during the ANIMIDA or cANIMIDA project. A detailed record of Ba 

contamination is described for the sediment core from station 7A below. Barium anomalies at 

stations N06 and 6H also may be due to minor remnants of drilling discharges. 

Radionuclides. The cANIMIDA study area was described by Reimnitz and Barnes (1974) as a 

net erosional sedimentary environment during the Holocene. Naidu et al. (2001) and Trefry et 

al. (2003) reported difficulties in obtaining cores that could be aged dated using radionuclides 

that focus on the past 50-100 years. At best, sediment deposition in the cANIMIDA area has 

been patchy during the past century. Trefry et al. (2003) cautioned investigators to be sure that 

sediments collected for analysis of potential pollutants are representative of the most recent 

inputs. In this regard, surficial sediments from the 2004-2006 surveys were counted for the 

activities of excess 210Pb and total 137Cs (Figure ES-9). The pre-survey assumption was that 

surface sediments with low activities of excess 210Pb (<0.5 dpm/g) or 137Cs (<0.05 dpm/g) 

would contain very little silt or clay that had been recently or sufficiently well exposed to the 

water column or at the sediment-seawater interface to adsorb excess 210Pb or 137Cs. Therefore, 

such sediments would be less likely to contain recent material that had an anthropogenic 

contribution of metals or hydrocarbons. However, in some cases, sediments with low activities 
ES-13

of excess 210Pb and 137Cs might be predominantly sand that had a naturally low affinity for these 

isotopes. Sediments that have intermediate levels of the two isotopes may be sandy or contain 

some mixture of old, recent and sandy sediments. 

The radionuclide results for 2004, 2005 and 2006 samples indicate that during each of the three 

years, surface sediments with non-detectable amounts of excess 210Pb (<0.05 dpm/g) and 137Cs 

(<0.015 dpm/g) were found. In contrast, maximum values for excess 210Pb of 2.8 dpm/g and 

137Cs of 0.20 dpm/g were observed. Collectively, the activities for 226Ra (parent isotope to 

210Pb) correlated well with concentrations of Al (Figure ES-9a). This good relationship is 

consistent with higher amounts of 226Ra in Al-rich clays. The y-intercept of 0.63 on the Al 

versus 226Ra graph suggests that another Ra-bearing phase that contains little or no Al is present 

in the sediments. The relationship between Al and excess 210Pb in surface sediments shows 

considerable scatter (Figure ES-9b). One explanation for the observed scatter is large 

differences in the accumulation rates and/or ages among the 112 samples of surface sediment. 

Samples with low amounts of excess 210Pb (<0.5 dpm/g) and Al concentrations >3% are less 

likely to contain very much recent sediment relative to samples with excess 210Pb >0.5 dpm/g 

and Al concentrations >3%. A weak, but observable trend of higher activity for excess 210Pb in 

sediments with a higher activity of 137Cs than was observed for the surface sediments, is 

consistent with increased adsorption of the two isotopes from water by more clay-rich (i.e., Alrich) samples. 
ES-14

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Cr (μg/g)

0

50

100

150

Y = 12.4X + 8.1

r = 0.91, n = 191

2002 2001 2000 1999

C

S

(a)

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Cr (μg/g)

0

50

100

150

2004

2005

2006

Y = 12.4X + 8.1

r = 0.91, n = 191

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

6H L22

(b)

WD 7A

N03

Figure ES-7. Concentrations of aluminum versus chromium for surface sediment from 

cANIMIDA study area collected in (a) 1999-2002 and (b) 2004-2006.

Equations are from linear regression calculations and r is the correlation coefficient. Dashed lines show 

the 99% prediction interval. Points marked with large letters are for suspended sediment from the 

Sagavanirktok (S) and Colville (C) Rivers. Data for sites identified on the graphs were not included in the 

regression calculations. Data for 2004-2006 were plotted with the prediction interval from the1999-2002 

data. 
ES-15

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Ba (μg/g)

0

300

600

900

1200

2005

2004

2006

Y = 72.9X +115

r = 0.82, n = 192

6H

7G

7A

N06

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

(a)

Figure ES-8. Concentrations of aluminum (Al) versus barium (Ba) for sediment from the 

cANIMIDA study area collected in 2004-2006. 

Equations are from linear regression calculations and r is the correlation coefficient. Dashed lines show 

the 99% prediction interval. Data from 2004-2006 are plotted with prediction interval from 1999-2002 

data. 
ES-16

Al (%)

02468

226Ra (dpm/g)

0

1

2

3

2004

2005

2006

Y = 0.21X + 0.63

 r = 0.80

Surface Sediments

(a)

Al (%)

02468

Excess 210Pb (dpm/g)

0

1

2

3

2004

2005

2006

Surface Sediments

(b)

Figure ES-9. Concentrations of Al versus (a) activity of 226Ra and (b) activity of excess 

210Pb for surface sediments from 2004-2006.

The lines, equations, correlation coefficients (r) and 99% prediction intervals on (a) are from linear 

regression and related statistical calculations. 
ES-17

Temporal Trends of Hydrocarbons and Metals in Cores. The historical record of 

hydrocarbons and metal levels in sediments from the cANIMIDA study area was developed 

from 14 cores collected during 2005 and 2006. As in the ANIMIDA program, collection of 

sediment cores suitable for age-dating was complicated by bottom-fast ice, ice gouging, low net 

sediment accumulation rates, low activities of excess 210Pb and 137Cs, and storm-induced resuspension and transport of sediments offshore into deeper water. Even when coring sites were 

chosen based on bathymetry (i.e., semi-restricted basins) or surface sediment composition (i.e., 

>90% silt plus clay), only a few cores were viable for establishing a geochronology over the 

past 50 to 100 years using both 137Cs and excess 210Pb. In many instances, extremely low levels 

or no detectable amounts of excess 210Pb or 137Cs were found, even in the top 0.5 cm of 

sediment. Such observations are consistent with previous reports that characterize this coastal 

area as a net erosional environment (Reimnitz and Wolf, 1998). 

 

Past efforts to reconstruct recent geochronology for coastal sediments from this nearshore area 

of the Beaufort Sea (Weiss and Naidu, 1986; Naidu and others, 2001) have encountered many of 

the same difficulties found during the cANIMIDA study. Based on inherent difficulties with 

area sediments, a primary goal of the geochronology effort for the cANIMIDA study was to 

collect some representative sediment that was deposited prior to the onset of development 

during the early 1970s and some sediments that were deposited post-development. 

Concentrations of trace metals and hydrocarbons were determined for a total of 81 samples from 

seven cores collected in 2005 (N26, PB1A, L17B, BP01, E01, 1C and 2A) and five cores 

collected in 2006 (N17, L22, 7A, 7C and 7E). Some variability in concentrations of 

hydrocarbons and metals was observed in each core, mainly due to variations in amounts of 

fine-grained sediment. 

Forty-seven of 1296 metal concentrations (3.6% of the data points) plotted above the upper 

prediction intervals developed for the ANIMIDA study area. Thirty-five of the 47 data points 

were for sediments collected in Harrison Bay and 3 of the 47 data points were for station 2A in 

Camden Bay. Both Harrison Bay and Camden Bay are not part of the original ANIMIDA study 

area, but were part of the original Beaufort Sea Monitoring Program. The remaining 9 data 

points were from five different cores in different sediment layers and plot relatively close to the 

upper prediction interval and do not reveal any striking anomalies that can be clearly tied to 

anthropogenic sources. 

Twenty of the 38 data points from outside the immediate cANIMIDA study area that plotted 

above the upper prediction interval were for Ba, 8 from Camden Bay and 12 from Harrison Bay. 

The Ba anomalies in Harrison Bay are found at depth in the core that can be best explained by 

the presence of barite residues from drilling muds. For example, a vertical profile for the Ba/Al 

ratio for the sediment core from station 7E shows that all 4 samples with significant Ba 

anomalies are between 2 and 10 cm in the 30-cm vertical section of sediment (Figure ES-10). 

The maximum anomaly dates to about 1988 ± 2 years. Drilling activity in the area of Harrison 

Bay sampled during 2006 is within the area of western Harrison Bay where drilling occurred in 

1985 and 1986. Furthermore, samples collected in western Harrison Bay during 1989 had Ba 

anomalies in the top 2 cm of sediment The results for Ba in the core from station 7E (Figure ES10) suggest that the peak concentration from the mid-1980s may have been preserved at this 

site. However, the sediments in the top 6 cm at station 7E contain high levels of TOC at 2-4%; 
ES-18

therefore, a diagenetic explanation for the observed Ba profile cannot be ruled out. More 

detailed study of the sediment column is needed to resolve natural from anthropogenic layers of 

Ba-rich sediment. 

Ba/Al

100 125 150 175 200

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Station 7E

1988 ± 2 

1950

Figure ES-10. Vertical profile for the Ba/Al ratio (as ppm/%) in sediments from 2006 

station 7E. 

Shaded area shows background Ba/Al ratio (ppm vs. %) for study area. Dashed line shows deepest 

sample with detectable amounts of 137Cs and thus dates to the early 1950s. Date of 1988 with error is 

from 137Cs and excess 210Pb data. 

In general, comparisons of the core profiles for key diagnostic organic hydrocarbon parameters 

for all of the cores do not show any clear trends that would indicate an increase in petroleum 

hydrocarbons over time. The cores for which pre- and post-development dates can be 

established generally show uniform distributions of key parameters throughout the cores, with 

some variability in specific core sections. However the overall composition of the three classes 

of analytes analyzed (SHC, PAH and biomarkers) are similar throughout the cores and are 

consistent with the regional background hydrocarbon sources identified in the surface 

sediments. 

In examining hydrocarbon trends in all of the cores, one technique developed in this study 

(discussed earlier) involves examining the relationship between the organic parameter of interest 

and perylene content. The natural background concentrations of organics in the study area have 

been shown to co-vary as a function of perylene content. Thus, samples enriched in organics 

from anthropogenic sources can be identified by normalizing the target organic parameter and 

generating a linear regression line and prediction interval on a cross-plot. A plot of all the 2005 
ES-19

and 2006 sediment core data for total PAH minus perylene versus perylene is shown in Figure 

ES-11. In this plot a regression and 95% prediction intervals are shown for all data, where the 

regression defines the natural geological/geochemical background of all the sediments. The plot 

shows that most of the core samples fall within the 95% prediction intervals, indicating that the 

2005 and 2006 core sediment samples are generally not different in Total PAH content from the 

historical natural background of the region. 

Overall, the organic analyses of the sediment cores collected during 2005 and 2006 have 

provided an important historical perspective on hydrocarbons in the sediments from the study 

area. The results have shown that the concentrations and sources of hydrocarbons are generally 

uniformly consistent over the past 50 or more years and represent a regional background 

assemblage. For most organic hydrocarbon parameters, there are no significant increases (after 

geochemical normalization) of hydrocarbons in the sedimentary record post oil and gas 

development in the Prudhoe Bay area. 

LN Perylene + 1 (ug/Kg)

3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0

LN Total PAH less perylene (ug/Kg)

8.5

8.0

7.5

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

Pre-1950

Unknown

Post-1950

Total Population

Rsq = 0.8818 

7E-02

N17-15

2A-10

Figure ES-11. Regression plot of total PAH less perylene versus perylene for all 2005 through 

2006 sediment core samples. 

The lines, Rsq, and 95% individual prediction intervals are from linear regression. 
ES-20

Summary 

Overall, the results of the three years of cANIMIDA sampling along with ANIMIDA Phase I 

and II results indicate that no significant contaminant inputs from Northstar development 

activities were detected and that any observed changes in the monitored environmental 

conditions were well within the natural spatial and temporal variability of the study area. At the 

same time, the results, coupled to increased knowledge of the chemistry of natural sources of 

hydrocarbons and metals, indicated that the monitoring and data interpretation approaches as 

designed are very sensitive to changes and that if inputs were to occur, the measurement 

systems set in place would be powerful and sensitive enough to detect such inputs. 
1-1

1.0 Introduction 

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) Amendments of 1978 (92 Stat. 629) 

established a policy for the management of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and for 

protection of the marine and coastal environments. The amendments authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to conduct studies in areas of offshore leasing activities to assess potential impacts 

on the marine and coastal environments resulting from oil exploration, development, and 

production activities. 

In the nearshore Alaskan Beaufort Sea, offshore oil development and production activities 

initially proposed for both the Northstar and Liberty sites by British Petroleum Exploration 

Alaska, Inc. (BPXA) are currently underway at Northstar and expected to commence directional 

drilling at Liberty in 2010 from the Endicott satellite drilling island. At Northstar, the oil field 

was developed from a gravel island and is currently producing oil, which is transported to landbased pipelines through a sub-sea pipeline. Extensive Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) 

were prepared for the Northstar area by the U.S. Army Engineering District, Alaska (USAEDA, 

1999) and for the Liberty area by the U.S. Department of Interior (USDOI), Minerals 

Management Service (MMS) (USDOI, 2002). 

In 1998, MMS decided to conduct studies to characterize the pre-construction environment near 

Northstar and Liberty and to monitor selected parameters over time as part of a long-term 

program to assess potential spatial and temporal changes related to oil development and 

production near both the Northstar and Liberty sites. The initial program, Arctic Nearshore 

Impact Monitoring in the Development Area (ANIMIDA), was designed to carefully monitor 

perturbations specifically related to construction activities and oil recovery and transportation 

via pipeline from the gravel islands to the onshore processing facilities (Brown et al., 2004). 

Priorities were placed on characterizing the pre-construction environment and establishing a 

scientific basis for post-construction and production monitoring. Task Order 002 of the 

Continuation of Arctic Nearshore Impact Monitoring in Development Area (cANIMIDA) 

program continues the ANIMIDA sediment chemistry program conducted under Task Order 

002. 

1.1 Study Area 

The Alaskan Beaufort Sea comprises the southern part of the Arctic Ocean; it lies adjacent to 

the northern coast of Alaska and extends from the Chukchi Sea at Point Barrow about 370 miles 

(600 kilometers [km]) east to the Canadian border. The Alaskan Beaufort Sea extends north 

about 200 miles (~320 km) to water depths >300 feet (~100 meters [m]) at 73°N. The 

continental shelf of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea is 37 to 75 miles (60 to 121 km) wide and 

shallow, with an average water depth of only 120 feet (~37 m) (USAEDA, 1999). Within 1 to 

20 miles (1.6 to 32 km) of the coast, the Beaufort Sea is characterized by numerous narrow and 

low relief barrier islands. 
1-2

The Northstar and Liberty project areas are situated in the shallow, coastal waters of the 

Alaskan Beaufort Sea (Figure 1-1). The Northstar site (Figure 1-1) is seaward of the barrier 

islands and the Liberty site is landward of several barrier islands. The Northstar development 

island is located about 6 miles (~10 km) offshore of Point Storkersen in a water depth of 

approximately 40 feet (~12 m). The island was constructed partly on the remains of Seal Island, 

which was built by Shell Oil Company during the 1980s (USAEDA, 1999). The proposed 

Liberty site was originally about 6 miles (~10 km) offshore in Foggy Island Bay or 1.5 miles 

(2 km) west of Tern Island, where water depths are about 22 feet (~6.7 m) (Figure 1-1). This 

location was 30 miles (~50 km) southeast of the proposed Northstar development and 7 miles 

(~12 km) from the Endicott Causeway. With recent advances in drilling technology, the Liberty 

development will now be directionally drilled from the Endicott satellite drilling island located 

at approximately 1.6 miles on the Endicott Causeway. 

1.2 Development History in the Study Area 

Over the past three decades, numerous onshore and offshore oil exploration and development 

projects have commenced in both the Alaskan and Canadian Beaufort Seas. Over 20 

discoveries have been made, including areas such as Endicott (an offshore field in state waters), 

Sagavanirktok Delta North, Eider, and Badami. Because of this past development, the 

cANIMIDA study area is not considered to be “pristine’ from a chemical perspective. 

Operations to the east (i.e., in Canada) may represent a source of contaminants to the Alaskan 

Beaufort Sea and hence to the Northstar and Liberty study areas. An overview of the 

developments located in the eastern Alaskan Beaufort Sea is presented in Figure 1-2. 

Since 1975, 17 gravel islands have been constructed in waters less than 50 feet (15 m) deep in 

the Alaskan Beaufort Sea for exploration drilling. Most of these islands remain in some form, 

but have been abandoned by removal of all equipment and erosion protection. Two of these 

gravel islands, Seal and Northstar, are within the Northstar unit. Natural barrier islands have 

also been used for exploration drilling activities and for staging areas (USAEDA, 1999). Table 

1-1 summarizes past oil and gas development and production activities in the Beaufort Sea 

dating back to 1949. 

1.3 Current/Proposed Oil Development 

1.3.1 Northstar 

The BPXA Northstar development project is located about 6 miles (~10 km) northwest of 

Prudhoe Bay. While the Northstar Island is in state waters, several wells are in federal waters 

on the OCS. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) approved the Northstar project in 

May 1999 and MMS approval followed in September 1999. Northstar is the first offshore oil 

production facility in the Beaufort Sea without a causeway to shore. At this site, a sub-sea 

pipeline system connects the island and discovered oil to onshore processing facilities. 

Construction of the island was completed in October 2000 and first production began late in 

2001. Recoverable reserves are estimated at 175 million barrels of oil. A schematic of the 

development is shown in Figure 1-3. 
1-3

Northstar Island was reconstructed from the existing gravel of its predecessor, Seal Island, and 

from additional gravel hauled to the island from a gravel mine site near the mouth of the 

Kuparuk River. The island is surrounded by a linked concrete mat armor island slope protection 

system and the working surface of the island is surrounded by sheet piling. Drilling and 

production at Northstar has taken place on the gravel island with an above-seawater footprint of 

about 5 acres (~0.02 km2) (URS Greiner Woodward Clyde [URSGWC], 1998) and a seafloor 

footprint designed to be 635 feet by 970 feet (allowing for uncertainties from construction, the 

footprint may be up to 835 feet by 1,170 feet). Exploration drilling had taken place at Seal 

Island dating back to the 1980s. 

1.3.2 Liberty 

In mid-2002, BPXA announced that they had halted their plans to develop the Liberty Prospect 

in Foggy Island Bay (Figure 1-1). Liberty Prospect is located about 6 miles east of the Endicott 

Project. The proposed location was adjacent to Tern Island, which was the site of exploration 

drilling dating back to 1982. MMS published a final EIS report for Liberty in 2002 (USDOI, 

2002) and an Environmental Assessment for the extended reach drilling from Endicott in 2007 

(USDOI, 2007). BPXA announced in July 2008 that they would proceed with development of 

the Liberty field using ultra-extended reach drilling from the Endicott field satellite drilling 

island. This approach greatly reduces the development logistics and potential environmental 

complexities associated with an offshore production island and pipeline as originally proposed. 

Drilling is expected to commence at Liberty in 2010. 

1.4 Potential Contaminants and Disturbances of Concern 

There are three potential perturbations to the physical environment that may occur due to 

development activities. These disturbances may be a result of: 1) changes to the physical 

environment from construction (gravel island, causeways, pipeline), 2) associated changes in 

sediment inputs and resulting sedimentation, and 3) increased levels of chemicals in the 

environment that may be bioavailable. 

The majority of wastes generated during construction and developmental drilling consist of drill 

cuttings and spent muds. Drilling fluids are disposed through onsite injection into a permitted 

disposal well or are transported offsite to a permitted disposal location. In addition, domestic 

wastewater, soil waste, and produced waters generated during the project are injected into a 

disposal well. Solid wastes, including scrap metal, are hauled offsite for disposal at an approved 

facility. 

Chronic discharges of contaminants occur during every breakup from fluids entrained in the ice 

roads. Entrained contaminants from vehicle exhaust, grease, antifreeze, oil, and other vehiclerelated fluids pass into the Beaufort Sea system at each breakup. These discharges are not 

expected to be major; however, they exist over the life of the field. 
1-4

1.5 Study Objectives 

The primary objectives of the cANIMIDA program were to characterize and monitor the 

physical environment of the Northstar and Liberty development areas to evaluate potential and 

actual disturbances from these major offshore oil developments. The primary objective for 

cANIMIDA Task 2 was to characterize the sediments near ongoing and proposed offshore oil 

development related to potential contaminants and to serve as a continuation of the ANIMIDA 

organic and inorganic chemistry monitoring program. The specific objectives for Task 2 are 

listed below: 

 Perform three annual or biannual field studies (fiscal years [FYs] 2004 to 2007) for the 

monitoring of sediment chemistry in the nearshore Beaufort Sea, focusing on potential 

contaminant inputs from the Northstar and Liberty developments. 

 Perform organic and inorganic chemical analyses that are consistent with previous 

measurements and thus capable of determining incremental changes. 

The results from ANIMIDA Task 2 sediment and biota sampling surveys indicated that no 

significant organic and metal contaminant inputs from Northstar were detected, and that any 

observed changes were well within the natural variability (Brown et al., 2004). 

1.5.1 Task Order 2 Research Questions and Hypotheses 

The objectives of the cANIMIDA program address a series of scientific questions concerning 

the potential impacts of the Northstar and Liberty developments. Each question can be turned 

into a testable hypothesis, which guides the design of the technical program. Three questions 

(Q) and hypotheses (H) applicable to Task Order 002 surficial sediments samples follow. 

Q1. What are the background levels of chemicals of concern (i.e., anthropogenic-related 

organic and metal parameters) that are known to be associated with oil exploration, 

development, and production activities, and do the concentrations of these chemicals increase as 

a result of the developments? 

H1. The concentrations of organic (H1a) and metal (H1b) chemicals of concern in sediments 

do not show any increase as a result of the development of the Northstar and/or Liberty units. 

Q2. If concentrations of organic and/or metal chemicals of concern do increase in the 

environment as a result of the developments, do the increased concentrations exceed 

environmental quality guidelines (Effects Range-Lows [ERLs], Long et al. 1995, Equilibrium 

Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks [ESBs], EPA 2003)? 

H2. Concentrations of organic (H2a) and metal (H2b) chemicals of concern adjacent to the 

Northstar and/or Liberty developments do not pose an ecological risk to marine organisms as 

determined by sediment quality benchmarks. 
1-5

Q3. What trends in the background levels of the chemicals of concern (i.e., anthropogenicrelated organic and metal parameters) that are known to be associated with oil exploration, 

development, and production activities are seen in the historical sediment record, and do the 

concentrations of these chemicals increase as a result of these activities? 

H3. The background level of chemical of concern in the historical sediment record show no 

trends associated with oil exploration, development, and production activities. 

Incremental variations in hydrocarbons and metals are difficult to measure because of the 

known high background levels and high variability from natural inputs – eroded shales, coals, 

peat, etc. These changes can only be inferred from a strategy of: 1) low-level sensitive 

measurements that can detect change; 2) a statistical sampling program that affords enough 

measurements to detect changes; and 3) a sampling program that includes obtaining samples of 

other representative sources (natural and anthropogenic) of these chemicals, so that sources can 

be fingerprinted and in turn detected and identified in sediments. All of these elements were 

built into this program. The design of this program is inherently limited by the large variability 

and the dynamics of the area, which in turn impose practical limits on the amount of replication 

that can be accomplished for a given program budget. The bottom line is that changes in 

measured parameters might only be determined by factors of two or more, which may be the 

lowest statistically significant change that can be detected in pre- and post-development 

monitoring efforts.
1-6

Table 1-1. Alaska North Slope Oil and Gas Past Development and Production 

Name Location of 

Field or Pool 

Oil or Gas 

Production 

Location of 

Production 

Facility 

Discovery Production 

Began Category 

South Barrow Onshore Gas Onshore 1949 1950 Field 

Prudhoe Bay Onshore Oil Onshore 1967 1977 Field 

Lisburne Onshore Oil Onshore 1967 1981 Field 

Kuparuk Onshore Oil Onshore 1969 1981 Field 

East Barrow Onshore Gas Onshore 1974 1981 Field 

Milne Point Onshore Oil Onshore 1969 1985 Field 

Endicott Offshore Oil Offshore 1978 1986 Field 

Sag Delta Offshore Oil Onshore 1976 1989 Field 

Sag Delta North Offshore Oil Offshore 1982 1989 Satellite1 

Schrader Bluff Onshore Oil Onshore 1969 1991 Satellite2 

Walakpa Onshore Gas Onshore 1980 1992 Field 

Pt. McIntyre Offshore Oil Onshore 1988 1993 Field 

N. Prudhoe Bay Onshore Oil Onshore 1970 1993 Field 

Niakuk Offshore Oil Onshore 1985 1994 Field 

Sag River Onshore Oil Onshore 1969 1994 Satellite3 

West Beach Onshore Oil Onshore 1976 1994 Field 

Cascade Onshore Oil Onshore 1993 1996 Field 

West Sak Onshore Oil Onshore 1969 1997 Satellite2 

Badami Offshore Oil Onshore 1990 1998 Field 

Eider Offshore Oil Offshore 1998 1998 Satellite1 

Tarn Onshore Oil Onshore 1991 1998 Field 

Tabasco Onshore Oil Onshore 1992 1998 Satellite2 

Midnight Sun Onshore Oil Onshore 1998 1999 Satellite4 

Alpine Onshore Oil Onshore 1994 2000 Field 

Northstar Offshore Oil Offshore 1984 2001 Field 

Aurora Onshore Oil Onshore 1999 2001 Satellite4

NW 

Eileen/Borealis 

Onshore Oil Onshore 1999 2001 Field 

Polaris Onshore Oil Onshore 1999 2001 Satellite 

Meltwater Onshore Oil Onshore 2000 2001 Pool 

Palm Onshore Oil Onshore 2001 2002 Pool 

Orion Onshore Oil Onshore 2000 2003 Satellite 

Raven Onshore Oil Onshore ? 2006 Pool 

Fiord (CD 3) Onshore Oil Onshore 1992 2006 Pool 

Nanuq (CD 4) Onshore Oil Onshore 1996 2006 Pool 

Oooguruk Offshore Oil Offshore 2003 2008 Pool 

Category Definitions: 

Field – infrastructure installed to produce one or more pools. 

Satellite – a pool developed from an existing pad. 

Pool – petroleum accumulation with defined limits. 

Note 1

 – Satellite associated with Duck Island production unit 

Note 2

 – Satellite associated with Kuparuk River production unit 

Note 3

 – Satellite associated with Milne Point production unit 

Note 4

 – Satellite associated with Prudhoe Bay production unit

Source: USDOI, 2008 
1-7

Figure 1-1. Map of the ANIMIDA study area. 
1-8

Figure 1-2. General map of onshore and offshore oil and gas development in the study are
1-9

Figure 1-3. Schematic of BP’s Northstar development. 

Source: http://www.bp.com/alaska
2-1

2.0 Methods 

This section and Appendix C describe the methods used in field sampling, field measurements, 

laboratory analyses, and data analyses. 

2.1 Field Methods 

2.1.1 Summer 2004 Survey 

The summer 2004 field sampling was conducted from July 28 to August 27, 2004. The scientific 

crew, aboard the MMS Vessel 1273, collected samples for chemical and other analyses from the 

program study area. The field sampling and logistics plan (Battelle, 2004a) prepared for the 

summer 2004 field survey provides detailed explanations of the field methods for sample 

collection, equipment decontamination, and subsampling. Field sampling personnel from 

Battelle, Florida Institute of Technology (FIT), and Kinnetic Laboratories participated in the 

survey. The scientific team and ship’s captain (Mark Mertz - TEG Ocean Services) conducted 

the work on a 12- to 20-hour-a-day basis depending on operating conditions and logistic 

considerations. A detailed description of the activities conducted during the survey, including a 

log of the daily activities, is included in the Field Survey Report (Battelle, 2004b). A summary 

of the field sampling activities and methods follows in this section. 

Samples 

The scientific crew collected samples for chemical analyses from the program study area. Task 2 

surface sediment samples (0 to 1 centimeters [cm]) for hydrocarbon and metals chemistry were 

successfully collected from 47 offshore stations, including: 

 16 historic Beaufort Sea Monitoring Program (BSMP) stations, 

 22 historic Northstar Island and Northstar pipeline stations, 

 7 historic Liberty stations, 

 new Liberty locations, and 

 1 crude oil source sample from Northstar. 

A complete list of the sediment sampling stations that were occupied and sampled in the study 

area is included in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 also provides the station identification, station type, 

latitude and longitude, and date of collection for each sample. Figure 2-1, a map of the 

cANIMIDA study area, shows the locations of the summer 2004 sampling stations. Additional 

daily survey and sampling station information is included in the 2004 station logs contained in 

the Summer 2004 Field Survey Report (Battelle, 2004b). Two stations were originally collected 

from incorrect positions [Stations 5(5) and L01] due to coordinate discrepancies, this error was 
2-2

noted while in the field and samples were later collected from the correct locations. The results 

for the two mis-positioned samples are reported but were not included in the data analyses. 

2.1.2 Summer 2005 Survey 

The summer 2005 field sampling was conducted from July 26 to August 14, 2005. The scientific 

crew, aboard the MMS Vessel 1273, collected samples for chemical and other analyses from the 

program study area. The field sampling and logistics plan (Battelle, 2005a) prepared for the 

summer 2005 field survey provides detailed explanations of the field methods for sample 

collection, equipment decontamination, and subsampling. Field sampling personnel from 

Battelle, FIT, and Kinnetic Laboratories participated in the survey. The scientific team and 

ship’s captain (Mark Mertz - TEG Ocean Services) conducted the work on a 12- to 20-hour-aday basis depending on operating conditions and logistic considerations. A detailed description 

of the activities conducted during the survey, including a log of the daily activities, is included in 

the Field Survey Report (Battelle, 2005b). A summary of the field sampling activities and 

methods follows in this section. 

Samples 

The scientific crew collected samples for chemical analyses from the program study area. Task 2 

surface sediment samples (0 to 1 cm) for hydrocarbon and metals chemistry were successfully 

collected from 33 offshore stations, including: 

 18 historic and 1 new BSMP stations, 

 8 historic and 1 new Northstar Island stations, 

 historic and 1 new Liberty stations, 

 1 historic and 1 new Prudhoe Bay stations, 

 1 historic Endicott station, and 

 1 new Boulder Patch station. 

Task 2 sediment cores were collected from seven stations. Five to nine sediment depth segments 

were selected for chemical analysis from five of the seven sediment core stations for a total of 32 

sediment core samples. 

A complete list of the sediment sampling stations that were occupied and sampled in the study 

area is included in Table 2-2. Table 2-2 also provides the station identification, station type, 

latitude and longitude, and date of collection for each sample. Figure 2-2, a map of the 

cANIMIDA study area, shows the locations of the summer 2005 sampling stations. Additional 

daily survey and sampling station information is included in the 2005 station logs contained in 

the Summer 2005 Field Survey Report (Battelle, 2005b). 
2-3

2.1.3 Summer 2006 Survey 

The summer 2006 field sampling was conducted from July 24 to August 12, 2006. The scientific 

crew, aboard the MMS Vessel 1273, collected samples for chemical and other analyses from the 

program study area. The field sampling and logistics plan (Battelle, 2006a) prepared for the 

summer 2006 field survey provides detailed explanations of the field methods for sample 

collection, equipment decontamination, and subsampling. Field sampling personnel from 

Battelle, FIT, and Kinnetic Laboratories participated in the survey. The scientific team and 

ship’s captain (Mark Mertz - TEG Ocean Services) conducted the work on a 12- to 18-hour-aday basis depending on operating conditions and logistic considerations. A detailed description 

of the activities conducted during the survey, including a log of the daily activities, is included in 

the Field Survey Report (Battelle, 2006b). A summary of the field sampling activities and 

methods follows in this section. 

Samples 

The scientific crew collected samples for chemical analyses from the program study area. Task 2 

surface sediment samples (0 to 1 cm) for hydrocarbon and metals chemistry were successfully 

collected from 34 offshore stations, including: 

 13 historic and 1 new BSMP stations, 

 6 historic and 2 new Northstar Island stations, 

 historic and 4 new Liberty stations, 

 1 new McCovey station, 

 1 new West Dock station, 

 2 historic and 1 new Endicott station, and 

 1 historic Boulder Patch station. 

Collected five source/peat material samples 

Fourteen sediment cores were collected from seven stations. Six to eight sediment depth 

segments were selected for chemical analysis from five cores from Stations 7A, 7C, 7E, L22, and 

N17 for a total of 34 sediment core samples. 

A complete list of the sediment sampling stations that were occupied and sampled in the study 

area is included in Table 2-3. Table 2-3 also provides the station identification, station type, 

latitude and longitude, and date of collection for each sample. Figure 2-3, a map of the 

cANIMIDA study area, shows the locations of the summer 2006 sampling stations. Additional 

daily survey and sampling station information is included in the 2006 station logs contained in 

the Summer 2006 Field Survey Report (Battelle, 2006b). 
2-4

2.1.4 Field Sampling Procedures 

Established and consistent sampling procedures were followed at each sampling station 

according to the Field Logistics and Sampling Plans for the 2004, 2005, and 2006 Field Surveys 

(Battelle, 2004a, 2005a, and 2006a). 

Photodocumentation, station logs, and field notes were recorded during the field survey. The 

station logs for each sampling station are included in the Field Survey reports (Battelle, 2004b, 

2005b, and 2006b). A copy of each Field Survey report is included in Appendix E. Each station 

log includes a description of the sampling location, observations, number and type(s) of samples 

collected, and comments. 

2.1.4.1 Surface Sediment Sampling 

Surficial sediment samples were collected using a modified Van-Veen grab sampler. During the 

collection and handling of sediment samples from the grab sampler, extreme care was taken to 

avoid contact with metal and hydrocarbon sources. Samples were taken away from the sides of 

the grab and metal spatulas were not used for the collection of trace metal samples. The grab 

sampler was protected from stack smoke, grease drips from winches and wire, and other 

potential airborne contamination during the sampling process. 

Sediment samples were collected from the top 1 cm of the grab to represent recent accumulation. 

Unconsolidated sediment 1 cm deep was removed from the grab with a stainless-steel scoop 

coated with Kynar or a Teflon spatula. The scoop is 1 cm in depth to facilitate accurate 

collection depth of the sediment. The top 1 cm was collected by several scoops of the grab, up to 

the volume required for subsamples, and placed directly in appropriate sample containers. 

Specific subsamples were collected from each grab into individual containers and stored as 

indicated in Table 2-4. 

2.1.4.2 Sediment Core Sampling 

The sediment core sampling procedure included deployment of a dual-barrel gravity corer 

weighted with lead to allow “freefall” into the bottom to collect “side-by-side” cores for 

geochronology and chemistry. Polybutyrate core liners were placed within the metal barrels of 

the corer. After the cores were collected, the core liners were removed from the metal sleeves, 

sealed with plastic end caps and stored until returned to shore. 

At an onshore facility, the cores were carefully extruded from the tops of the core liners and 

subsectioned as required for analysis. As each sediment interval was extruded, the edge of the 

core which has been in contact with the polybutyrate core liner was removed with a Teflon® 

spatula to prevent cross-contamination between sediment sections due to smearing during the 

extrusion. Then each section was sliced from the core using stainless-steel spatulas and 

transferred to the appropriate container. 
2-5

One core was designated for trace metal determinations and geochronology (2005 and 2006) plus 

total organic carbon (2006). This core was sliced in 0.5-cm sections from 0-10 cm followed by 

1-cm intervals from 10-20 cm and then 2-cm sections for the remainder of the core. The other 

core was used for organic contaminant determinations and grain size analysis (2005 and 2006) 

plus total organic carbon (2005). This core was sectioned in 2-cm intervals over its entire length. 

2.2 Analytical Methods 

Sample preparation and analysis methods are detailed in Appendix C of this report. General 

descriptions of these procedures are described in this section. 

2.2.1 Grain Size and Total Organic Carbon 

Grain size analyses were performed at FIT and were carried out using the classic method of Folk 

(1974) that includes a combination of wet sieving and pipette techniques. Total organic carbon 

(TOC) analyses were also performed at FIT and were determined using a combustion method 

described by Froelich (1980) for the analysis of organic carbon in marine sediments. 

2.2.2 Organic Chemical Parameters 

Analysis for organic contaminants was conducted by Battelle’s environmental chemistry 

laboratory. The analyses were conducted in accordance with the laboratory’s standard operating 

procedures (SOPs) and generally followed the same procedures used in previous ANIMIDA 

studies (Brown et al., 2005). Targeted compounds are listed in Tables 2-5, 2-6, and 2-7. 

2.2.2.1 Saturated Hydrocarbons 

Sediment samples were prepared using solvent extraction for the determination of organic 

chemical parameters. Saturated hydrocarbons (SHC) were determined by gas 

chromatography/flame ionization detection (GC/FID) based on United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA) Method 8015 (USEPA, 1993) and according to Battelle SOP No. 5-

202-06, Determination of Low Level Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (Diesel Range Organics – 

DRO) and Individual Hydrocarbon Concentration in Environmental Samples.

2.2.2.2 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Biomarkers 

Sediment samples were prepared using solvent extraction for the determination of organic 

chemical parameters. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and geochemical biomarkers 

(steranes/triterpanes [S/T]) were determined by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry detection 

(GC/MS) according to Battelle SOP 5-157-08 Identification and Quantification of Semi-volatile 

Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, which is based on USEPA 

Method 8270 (USEPA, 1993) with modifications to expand the list of PAH (Table 2-6) and to 

lower detection limits using selected ion monitoring (SIM). 
2-6

2.2.3 Inorganic Parameters 

Analysis for inorganic parameters was conducted by FIT. The analyses were conducted in 

accordance with FIT’s SOPs. The inorganic analytes for the sediment and source samples were 

trace and major metals. Target analytes and associated MDLs are listed in Tables 2-8a through 

2-8c. 

2.2.3.1 Trace and Major Metals Analysis in Sediment 

Sediment samples were prepared using acid digestion for the determination of trace and major 

metals. Sediment samples and associated quality control samples were analyzed by flame atomic 

absorption spectrometry (FAAS), graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry (GFAAS; 

Zeeman or Continuum background correction), cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometry 

(CVAAS), or inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry (ICP/MS). Mercury concentrations 

were measured by CVAAS. The method used for each element and the corresponding MDLs are 

presented in Tables 2-8a to 2-8c. All analytical techniques followed manufacturers’ 

specifications and laboratory SOPs. These methods are based on USEPA methods described for 

Series 7000 (FAAS and GFAAS), Series 7470 (CVAAS), and Series 6010A (ICP/MS) (USEPA, 

1991). 

2.2.3.2 Radionuclides in Surface Sediment and Geochronology of Sediment Core 

Surface sediment samples also were analyzed for excess 210Pb and total 137Cs in an effort to 

determine whether sediment at a particular location was recently deposited. Sediment core 

samples were sub-sectioned in 0.5-cm intervals in an effort to age-date the cores. Sediment 

samples were freeze-dried and ground to a fine powder. The samples were then set aside for at 

least 20 days to establish secular equilibrium and the activities of the various radionuclides were 

then determined by counting. 

2.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

A quality assurance (QA) plan, which included quality control (QC) measures, was employed for 

the program. This section summarizes important aspects of this plan. QA/QC plan details are 

presented in Appendix C. 

2.3.1 Quality Assurance 

The procedures for monitoring the activities of key staff, meeting contract requirements, 

submission of all deliverables, budget control, and communications are detailed in the various 

documents that together compose the project management plan: 

 A detailed work breakdown structure (WBS) for all tasks, designating primary task leader 

and responsibilities for key personnel and staff; 
2-7

 A field sampling and logistics plan for field operations, including scheduling, staffing, 

training, QC sample collection and analysis procedures, sample chain-of-custody (COC) 

specifications, and sample shipping; and 

 A laboratory work plan for laboratory analysis, including laboratory procedures, 

analytical data quality objectives (DQOs), QC procedures, corrective action criteria, and 

data entry/data management. 

The supporting quality assurance documentation includes the general company policies and 

procedures (hiring practices, performance evaluations, program management and control tools, 

and technical review procedures), the Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) for the respective 

laboratories, and SOPs for field and laboratory operations. 

2.3.2 Quality Control 

2.3.2.1 Field Quality Control 

Equipment decontamination procedures were strictly followed during the sampling to minimize 

potential cross-contamination. The decontamination procedure included a physical scrub with 

soap and water, rinses with seawater and distilled water, and a rinse with isopropanol. 

Field replicates were collected during the survey to assess the reproducibility and variability of 

the results. 

Throughout the field surveys, field notes were maintained by the scientists in log books and on 

station logs. Exceptions to procedures specified in the sampling and analysis plans, if any, were 

recorded on the forms. Film and digital media were used to photo-document the surveys. This 

documentation recorded specific samples, sampling procedures, and unusual sediment types. 

2.3.2.2 Laboratory Quality Control 

A set of DQOs was established for the program to ensure that the analytical data would be of the 

quality necessary to achieve the project objectives. The DQOs were also designed to enhance 

the ability of the methods to identify and accurately quantify source-specific oils. The DQOs 

were adapted from the specific laboratory analytical SOPs and were included in the laboratory 

workplan specific for the program. DQOs for organics and metals are presented in Appendix C. 

In the laboratory, samples were grouped together in batches of approximately 20 field samples 

for organic analyses or 40 field samples for metals analyses, plus associated QC samples. In 

general, the QC samples processed along with the sediment samples included procedural blanks, 

blank or matrix spikes (BS), and reference samples. Additional elements were added to the 

processing of the samples to monitor QC and to aid in the assessment of the data’s usability 

including balance calibration, solvent and standard checks, instrument calibrations and blanks, 

and duplicate sample analyses. 
2-8

The laboratories maintained detailed records throughout the processing of the samples and all 

raw instrumental data were archived electronically. The final laboratory data packages contained 

sufficient detail so that an external audit could be performed. Laboratory reports were peer 

reviewed to ensure the DQOs were met, that the analyses met the program objectives, and that 

the data were accurate and defensible. The final laboratory data packages were reviewed prior to 

release of the final data. 

2.4 Statistical Methods 

Organic parameters were analyzed to investigate the hypothesis that there was a shift in these 

parameters associated with the island construction and oil production activities at Northstar. 

Statistical analyses were carried out using the statistical program SPSS® 8.0. The datasets used 

in these analyses included the summer sediment sampling survey results from 1999, 2000, 2002, 

2004, 2005 and 2006. The summer 1999 sampling represented pre-construction and 

development activities at Liberty and Northstar, the summer 2000 sampling represented postconstruction, pre-production measurements at Northstar and additional pre-construction baseline 

measurements at Liberty. The summer 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2006 sampling represented postconstruction, and ongoing production measurements at Northstar and additional pre-construction 

baseline measurements at Liberty. 

For the statistical analyses, a standard Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model was constructed. 

In this model, variation in the dependent variable was assumed to be dependent on four fixed 

effects; these were region, phase, station, and an interaction of region by phase. The sediment 

stations were divided into two general regions: the Northstar region and a region that combined 

the Liberty stations with the BSMP stations (BSMP station 5A is located within 3 km of the 

Northstar Island and thus was included as a Northstar region station for the statistical analyses). 

The field surveys were divided into two phases: pre-Northstar construction including the summer 

1999 field survey and post-Northstar construction including the summer 2000 through 2006 field 

surveys. Several Liberty stations were only sampled during the summer 1999 survey and several 

were added for the summer 2004 survey. Additional Northstar stations were added for the 

summer 2000, 2002, and 2004 surveys. For the reported ANOVA models, only those stations 

sampled pre-construction and at least once post-construction were included in the analyses. The 

results for BSMP station 5D from the summer 1999 survey, BSMP station 5B from the summer 

of 2004 survey, and Northstar station N08 from the summer 2004 survey were severe outliers 

and thus were excluded from the statistical analyses. Results from stations 5D were not outliers 

in the other surveys but were excluded from the ANOVA model since the pre-construction result 

was an outlier. The S/T key parameters were not included in the statistical analyses due to 

limited pre-construction sample analyses performed in 1999 for these parameters. 

The organic concentration variables were log-transformed prior to analysis to normalize the 

distribution. All organic concentration variables were adjusted for sediment type by using 

percent silt+clay as the covariate. Additional models were developed with log-transformed 

perylene as the covariate. Perylene is not an expected contaminant from the construction or 

production activities at Northstar and is not present in Northstar oil or North Slope Crude oil, but 

is associated with biogenic sources of hydrocarbons in the Beaufort Sea. Additional sub-models 
2-9

were also developed to evaluate the differences between the Northstar and BSMP/Liberty 

regions post-construction and to evaluate the differences between the BSMP/Liberty region preand post-construction. The false discovery rates were controlled according to the Hochberg 

procedure (Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995). 

ANOVA models were also developed using the complete sediment dataset to determine if the 

results obtained using only the matched samples were biased. Similar parameter estimates and 

p-values were noted when the complete dataset was used as compared to the matched dataset. 

Thus, only the results of the matched dataset analyses have been included in this report. 
2-10

Sample ID Station ID Station Type Latitude Longitude Date Sediment Type C

04-3A-01-PHC-S 3A BSMP 70° 16.9327 147° 05.4570 30-Jul-04 Surface 04-3B-01-PHC-S 3B BSMP 70° 17.9035 147° 02.5445 30-Jul-04 Surface 04-4A-01-PHC-S 4A BSMP 70° 18.4539 147° 40.2372 3-Aug-04 Surface Four grab attempt

sample (1 org, 1 m

04-4B-01-SHC-S 4B BSMP 70° 21.0155 147° 40.0320 3-Aug-04 Surface 04-4C-01-PHC-S 4C BSMP 70° 26.0898 147° 42.9757 3-Aug-04 Surface 04-5(0)-01-PHC-S 5(0) BSMP 70° 22.7435 147° 00.3850 3-Aug-04 Surface 04-5(1)-01-PHC-S 5(1) BSMP 70° 25.0763 148° 03.5628 5-Aug-04 Surface 04-5(10)-01-PHC-S 5(10) BSMP 70° 27.3238 148° 30.0676 8-Aug-04 Surface 04-5(5)-01-PHC-S 5(5) BSMP 70° 26.0820 147° 18.0805 3-Aug-04 Surface 04-5(5a)-01-PHC-S 5(5a) BSMP 70° 26.0079 148° 18.8205 8-Aug-04 Surface Error in coordinat

correct location. 

04-5A-01-PHC-S 5A BSMP 70° 29.6986 148° 46.0600 9-Aug-04 Surface 04-5B-01-PHC-S 5B BSMP 70° 34.8745 148° 55.1429 9-Aug-04 Surface 04-5D-01-PHC-S 5D BSMP 70° 24.4578 148° 33.5676 8-Aug-04 Surface 04-5E-01-PHC-S 5E BSMP 70° 38.3621 149° 16.3576 9-Aug-04 Surface 04-5F-01-PHC-S 5F BSMP 70° 26.4946 148° 49.5346 9-Aug-04 Surface 04-5H-01-PHC-S 5H BSMP 70° 22.2280 147° 47.8581 2-Aug-04 Surface 04-L01-01-PHC-S L01 Liberty 70° 17.9321 148° 40.0906 2-Aug-04 Surface 04-L01A-01-PHC-S L01A Liberty 70° 18.9281 147° 33.9044 11-Aug-04 Surface Error in coordinat

correct location. 

04-L04-01-PHC-S L04 Liberty 70° 17.0604 147° 40.0976 2-Aug-04 Surface 04-L06-01-PHC-S L06 Liberty 70° 16.9242 147° 34.0839 2-Aug-04 Surface Field Triplicate 04-L06-02-PHC-S L06 Liberty 70° 16.9242 147° 34.0839 2-Aug-04 Surface Field Triplicate 04-L06-03-PHC-S L06 Liberty 70° 16.9242 147° 34.0839 2-Aug-04 Surface Field Triplicate 04-L07-01-PHC-S L07 Liberty 70° 16.7760 147° 32.0016 2-Aug-04 Surface 04-L08-01-PHC-S L08 Liberty 70° 16.7007 147° 30.3426 2-Aug-04 Surface 04-L09-01-PHC-S L09 Liberty 70° 16.5705 147° 27.2041 2-Aug-04 Surface 04-L17-01-PHC-S L17 Liberty 70° 23.6088 147° 32.9282 3-Aug-04 Surface New station adde04-L18-01-PHC-S L18 Liberty 70° 18.3738 147° 45.6664 3-Aug-04 Surface New station adde04-N01-01-PHC-S N01 Northstar 70° 31.6679 148° 41.4653 8-Aug-04 Surface 04-N02-01-PHC-S N02 Northstar 70° 30.5390 148° 41.3394 7-Aug-04 Surface 04-N03-01-PHC-S N03 Northstar 70° 30.0202 148° 41.4901 7-Aug-04 Surface 04-N04-01-PHC-S N04 Northstar 70° 29.6787 148° 48.0977 9-Aug-04 Surface 

Table 2-1. MMS cANIMIDA Summer 2004 Sediment Sampling Stations
2-11

Sample ID 

Station 

ID 

Station 

Type Latitude Longitude Date Sediment Type C

04-N05-01-PHC-S N05 Northstar 70° 29.6337 148° 44.6996 7-Aug-04 Surface 04-N06-01-PHC-S N06 Northstar 70° 29.5591 148° 43.2685 7-Aug-04 Surface Field Triplicate 04-N06-02-PHC-S N06 Northstar 70° 29.5591 148° 43.2685 7-Aug-04 Surface Field Triplicate 04-N06-03-PHC-S N06 Northstar 70° 29.5591 148° 43.2685 7-Aug-04 Surface Field Triplicate 04-N07-01-PHC-S N07 Northstar 70° 29.5703 148° 40.0925 6-Aug-04 Surface 04-N08-01-PHC-S N08 Northstar 70° 29.4281 148° 38.3250 6-Aug-04 Surface 04-N09-01-PHC-S N09 Northstar 70° 29.3405 148° 35.1494 6-Aug-04 Surface 04-N10-01-PHC-S N10 Northstar 70° 29.0187 148° 41.7696 6-Aug-04 Surface 04-N11-01-PHC-S N11 Northstar 70° 28.4650 148° 42.0122 6-Aug-04 Surface Large rocks at tar04-N12-01-PHC-S N12 Northstar 70° 27.3503 148° 42.1061 6-Aug-04 Surface 04-N13-01-PHC-S N13 Northstar 70° 26.9832 148° 43.5749 9-Aug-04 Surface 04-N14-01-PHC-S N14 Northstar 70° 25.9829 148° 40.3584 9-Aug-04 Surface 04-N15-01-PHC-S N15 Northstar 70° 26.7197 148° 44.5858 9-Aug-04 Surface 04-N16-01-PHC-S N16 Northstar 70° 29.9089 148° 42.3907 7-Aug-04 Surface Thin layer of flock 

volume of sample 

04-N17-01-PHC-S N17 Northstar 70° 29.8177 148° 40.3584 6-Aug-04 Surface Fine flock over sti04-N18-01-PHC-S N18 Northstar 70° 29.0908 148° 42.2610 6-Aug-04 Surface 04-N19-01-PHC-S N19 Northstar 70° 29.1251 148° 40.5610 6-Aug-04 Surface 04-N20-01-PHC-S N20 Northstar 70° 27.9697 148° 41.6865 6-Aug-04 Surface 04-N21-01-PHC-S N21 Northstar 70° 26.8124 148° 41.7302 9-Aug-04 Surface 04-N23-01-PHC-S N23 Northstar 70° 29.3749 148° 41.9297 6-Aug-04 Surface 

Table 2-1. MMS cANIMIDA Summer 2004 Sediment Sampling Stations (continued) 
2-12 

Table 2-2: MMS cANIMIDA Summer 2005 Sediment Sampling Stations 

Sample ID Station ID Station Type Latitude Longitude Date Sediment Type 

05-1A-01-PHC-S 1A BSMP 70° 01.6023 144° 32.8494 07-Aug-05 Surface 05-1B-01-PHC-S 1B BSMP 70° 04.1803 144° 47.5640 07-Aug-05 Surface 05-1C-01-PHC-S 1C BSMP 70° 09.1850 145° 01.3962 07-Aug-05 Surface 05-1C-01-PHC-S-C 1C-01 BSMP 70° 09.1850 145° 01.3962 07-Aug-05 Core 05-1C-02-PHC-S-C 1C-02 BSMP 70° 09.1850 145° 01.3962 07-Aug-05 Core 05-1C-03-PHC-S-C 1C-03 BSMP 70° 09.1850 145° 01.3962 07-Aug-05 Core 05-1C-04-PHC-S-C 1C-04 BSMP 70° 09.1850 145° 01.3962 07-Aug-05 Core 05-1C-05-PHC-S-C 1C-05 BSMP 70° 09.1850 145° 01.3962 07-Aug-05 Core 05-1C-06-PHC-S-C 1C-06 BSMP 70° 09.1850 145° 01.3962 07-Aug-05 Core 05-1C-07-PHC-S-C 1C-07 BSMP 70° 09.1850 145° 01.3962 07-Aug-05 Core 05-1C-10-PHC-S-C 1C-10 BSMP 70° 09.1850 145° 01.3962 07-Aug-05 Core 05-1C-15-PHC-S-C 1C-15 BSMP 70° 09.1850 145° 01.3962 07-Aug-05 Core 05-1D-01-PHC-S 1D BSMP 70° 05.6494 144° 05.3693 07-Aug-05 Surface 05-1E-01-PHC-S 1E BSMP 70° 06.1382 143° 46.5326 07-Aug-05 Surface 05-2A-01-PHC-S 2A BSMP 70° 00.5031 145° 05.7580 08-Aug-05 Surface 05-2A-01-PHC-S-C 2A-01 BSMP 70° 00.5031 145° 05.7580 08-Aug-05 Core 05-2A-02-PHC-S-C 2A-02 BSMP 70° 00.5031 145° 05.7580 08-Aug-05 Core 05-2A-03-PHC-S-C 2A-03 BSMP 70° 00.5031 145° 05.7580 08-Aug-05 Core 05-2A-04-PHC-S-C 2A-04 BSMP 70° 00.5031 145° 05.7580 08-Aug-05 Core 05-2A-05-PHC-S-C 2A-05 BSMP 70° 00.5031 145° 05.7580 08-Aug-05 Core 05-2A-10-PHC-S-C 2A-10 BSMP 70° 00.5031 145° 05.7580 08-Aug-05 Core 05-2A-15-PHC-S-C 2A-15 BSMP 70° 00.5031 145° 05.7580 08-Aug-05 Core 05-2B-01-PHC-S 2B BSMP 70° 04.0493 145° 12.3790 08-Aug-05 Surface 05-2C-01-PHC-S 2C BSMP 70° 09.8125 145° 20.1312 07-Aug-05 Surface 05-2D-01-PHC-S 2D BSMP 70° 03.6074 145° 19.3016 08-Aug-05 Surface 05-2E-01-PHC-S 2E BSMP 70° 12.9076 146° 11.7098 06-Aug-05 Surface 05-2F-01-PHC-S 2F BSMP 70° 10.2610 146° 02.0765 06-Aug-05 Surface 05-2G-01-PHC-S 2G BSMP 70° 06.0654 145° 32.5651 08-Aug-05 Surface 

05-2H-01-PHC-S 2H BSMP 70° 04.8725 145° 03.4209 08-Aug-05 Surface 05-3A-01-PHC-S 3A BSMP 70° 16.9268 147° 05.4828 30-Jul-05 Surface 05-3B-01-PHC-S 3B BSMP 70° 17.9819 147° 02.2393 30-Jul-05 Surface 
Table 2-2. MMS cANIMIDA Summer 2005 Sediment Sampling Stations (continued)

2-13

Sample ID Station ID Station Type Latitude Longitude Date Sediment Type 

05-4A-01-PHC-S 4A BSMP 70° 18.4483 147° 40.3106 30-Jul-05 Surface 05-4B-01-PHC-S 4B BSMP 70° 21.0517 147° 40.0062 30-Jul-05 Surface 05-5(1)-01-PHC-S 5(1) BSMP 70° 25.0151 148° 03.4548 09-Aug-05 Surface 05-5(5)-01-PHC-S 5(5) BSMP 70° 18.8060 148° 23.2290 09-Aug-05 Surface 05-BP01-01-PAC-S-0-1 BP01 

Boulder 

Patch 70° 20.7485 147° 32.9140 01-Aug-05 Surface 

05-BP01-01-PHC-S-C BP01-01 

Boulder 

Patch 70° 20.7485 147° 32.9140 01-Aug-05 Core 

05-BP01-02-PHC-S-C BP01-02 

Boulder 

Patch 70° 20.7485 147° 32.9140 01-Aug-05 Core 

05-BP01-03-PHC-S-C BP01-03 

Boulder 

Patch 70° 20.7485 147° 32.9140 01-Aug-05 Core 

05-BP01-04-PHC-S-C BP01-04 

Boulder 

Patch 70° 20.7485 147° 32.9140 01-Aug-05 Core 

05-BP01-05-PHC-S-C BP01-05 

Boulder 

Patch 70° 20.7485 147° 32.9140 01-Aug-05 Core 

05-BP01-06-PHC-S-C BP01-06 

Boulder 

Patch 70° 20.7485 147° 32.9140 01-Aug-05 Core 

05-L07-01-PHC-S L07 Liberty 70° 16.7876 147° 31.0398 30-Jul-05 Surface 05-L08-01-PHC-S L08 Liberty 70° 16.6976 147° 30.2128 30-Jul-05 Surface 05-N03-01-PHC-S N03 Northstar 70° 30.0139 148° 41.4768 10-Aug-05 Surface 05-N04-01-PHC-S N04 Northstar 70° 29.6879 148° 48.1382 04-Aug-05 Surface 

Core athis loc

05-N06-01-PHC-S N06 Northstar 70° 29.5199 148° 43.2428 04-Aug-05 Surface 05-N08-01-PHC-S N08 Northstar 70° 29.4106 148° 38.3036 04-Aug-05 Surface 05-N11-01-PHC-S N11 Northstar 70° 28.4375 148° 41.9479 04-Aug-05 Surface 05-N11-02-PHC-S N11 Northstar 70° 28.4375 148° 41.9479 04-Aug-05 Surface 05-N14-01-PHC-S N14 Northstar 70° 26.0127 148° 40.4733 04-Aug-05 Surface 05-N18-01-PHC-S N18 Northstar 70° 29.0884 148° 42.2224 04-Aug-05 Surface 05-N26-01-PHC-S N26 Northstar 70° 37.4202 148° 24.1883 10-Aug-05 Surface 05-N26-01-PHC-S-C N26-01 Northstar 70° 37.4202 148° 24.1883 10-Aug-05 Core 05-N26-02-PHC-S-C N26-02 Northstar 70° 37.4202 148° 24.1883 10-Aug-05 Core 05-N26-03-PHC-S-C N26-03 Northstar 70° 37.4202 148° 24.1883 10-Aug-05 Core 05-N26-04-PHC-S-C N26-04 Northstar 70° 37.4202 148° 24.1883 10-Aug-05 Core 05-N26-05-PHC-S-C N26-05 Northstar 70° 37.4202 148° 24.1883 10-Aug-05 Core 
Table 2-2. MMS cANIMIDA Summer 2005 Sediment Sampling Stations (continued)

2-14

Sample ID Station ID Station Type Latitude Longitude Date Sediment Type 

05-PB1-01-PHC-S PB1 Prudhoe 70° 18.7944 148° 23.1992 10-Aug-05 Surface 

Core athis loc

05-PB1A-01-PHC-S PB1A Prudhoe 70° 19.9592 148° 21.3937 10-Aug-05 Surface 05-PB1A-01-PHC-S-C PB1A-01 Prudhoe 70° 19.9592 148° 21.3937 10-Aug-05 Core 05-PB1A-02-PHC-S-C PB1A-02 Prudhoe 70° 19.9592 148° 21.3937 10-Aug-05 Core 05-PB1A-03-PHC-S-C PB1A-03 Prudhoe 70° 19.9592 148° 21.3937 10-Aug-05 Core 05-PB1A-04-PHC-S-C PB1A-04 Prudhoe 70° 19.9592 148° 21.3937 10-Aug-05 Core 05-PB1A-05-PHC-S-C PB1A-05 Prudhoe 70° 19.9592 148° 21.3937 10-Aug-05 Core 05-E01-01-PHC-S-0-1 E01-0-1 

Sag - near 

mouth 70° 21.1003 147° 56.0895 01-Aug-05 Surface 
2-15 

Table 2-3. MMS cANIMIDA Summer 2006 Sediment Sampling Stations 

Sample ID Station ID Station Type Latitude Longitude Date Sediment Type 

06-4A-01-PHC-S 4A BSMP 70°18.4578 147°40.1781 28, 29-Jul-06 Surface 06-5(1)-01-PHC-S 5(1) BSMP 70°24.9899 148°03.4663 27-Jul-06 Surface 06-5(5)-01-PHC-S 5(5) BSMP 70°26.0927 148°18.1566 31-Jul-06 Surface 06-5A-01-PHC-S 5A BSMP 70°29.6996 148°46.1128 6, 7-Aug-06 Surface 06-6A-01-PHC-S 6A BSMP 70°32.2000 149°57.7200 3, 4-Aug-06 Surface 06-6B-01-PHC-S 6B BSMP 70°33.3611 150°24.6255 1, 2, 3-Aug-06 Surface 06-6D-01-PHC-S 6D BSMP 70°44.9300 150°28.5100 03-Aug-06 Surface 06-6F-01-PHC-S 6F BSMP 70°40.1641 151°12.1239 2, 3-Aug-06 Surface 06-6G-01-PHC-S 6G BSMP 70°31.4000 149°54.6000 03-Aug-06 Surface 06-6H-01-PHC-S 6H BSMP 70°29.6753 150°14.5986 01-Aug-06 Surface 06-7A-01-PHC-S 7A BSMP 70°37.6525 152°09.8789 02-Aug-06 Surface 06-7A-01-PHC-SC 7A-01 BSMP 70°37.6525 152°09.8789 02-Aug-06 Core 06-7A-02-PHC-SC 7A-02 BSMP 70°37.6525 152°09.8789 02-Aug-06 Core 06-7A-03-PHC-SC 7A-03 BSMP 70°37.6525 152°09.8789 02-Aug-06 Core 06-7A-04-PHC-SC 7A-04 BSMP 70°37.6525 152°09.8789 02-Aug-06 Core 06-7A-05-PHC-SC 7A-05 BSMP 70°37.6525 152°09.8789 02-Aug-06 Core 06-7A-07-PHC-SC 7A-07 BSMP 70°37.6525 152°09.8789 02-Aug-06 Core 06-7A-09-PHC-SC 7A-09 BSMP 70°37.6525 152°09.8789 02-Aug-06 Core 06-7C-01-PHC-SC 7C-01 BSMP 70°54.8501 152°00.3010 02-Aug-06 Core 06-7C-02-PHC-SC 7C-02 BSMP 70°54.8501 152°00.3010 02-Aug-06 Core 06-7C-03-PHC-SC 7C-03 BSMP 70°54.8501 152°00.3010 02-Aug-06 Core 06-7C-04-PHC-SC 7C-04 BSMP 70°54.8501 152°00.3010 02-Aug-06 Core 06-7C-05-PHC-SC 7C-05 BSMP 70°54.8501 152°00.3010 02-Aug-06 Core 06-7C-10-PHC-SC 7C-10 BSMP 70°54.8501 152°00.3010 02-Aug-06 Core 06-7C-15-PHC-SC 7C-15 BSMP 70°54.8501 152°00.3010 02-Aug-06 Core 06-7E-01-PHC-S 7E BSMP 70°43.5819 152°04.3662 02-Aug-06 Surface 06-7E-01-PHC-SC 7E-01 BSMP 70°43.5819 152°04.3662 02-Aug-06 Core 06-7E-02-PHC-SC 7E-02 BSMP 70°43.5819 152°04.3662 02-Aug-06 Core 06-7E-03-PHC-SC 7E-03 BSMP 70°43.5819 152°04.3662 02-Aug-06 Core 06-7E-04-PHC-SC 7E-04 BSMP 70°43.5819 152°04.3662 02-Aug-06 Core 06-7E-05-PHC-SC 7E-05 BSMP 70°43.5819 152°04.3662 02-Aug-06 Core 
Table 2-3. MMS cANIMIDA Summer 2006 Sediment Sampling Stations (continued)

2-16

Sample ID Station ID Station Type Latitude Longitude Date Sediment Type 

06-7E-07-PHC-SC 7E-07 BSMP 70°43.5819 152°04.3662 02-Aug-06 Core 06-7E-09-PHC-SC 7E-09 BSMP 70°43.5819 152°04.3662 02-Aug-06 Core 06-7E-15-PHC-SC 7E-15 BSMP 70°43.5819 152°04.3662 02-Aug-06 Core 06-7G-01-PHC-S 7G BSMP 70°38.9050 151°53.6441 2, 3 Aug-06 Surface 06-BP01-01-PHC-S BP01 Boulder Patch 70°20.7490 147°32.9140 28, 29 Jul; 9 Aug-06 Surface 06-COL-03-01-PHC-P COL-03 Other 70°23.9847 150°28.9083 03-Aug-06 Peat 06-E01-01-PHC-S E01 Other 70°21.1034 147°56.1035 27 Jul; 9 Aug-06 Surface 06-E02-01-PHC-S E02 Other 70°21.0539 147°58.2819 28-Jul-06 Surface 06-EI01-01-PHC-P EI01 Other 70°34.8687 151°59.2539 02-Aug-06 Peat 06-Kup-01-PHC-P Kup Other 70°19.5355 149°00.1299 28-Jul-06 Peat 06-L03-01-PHC-S L03 Liberty 70°17.3384 147°33.2819 28, 29 Jul-06 Surface 06-L08-01-PHC-S L08 Liberty 70°16.7030 147°30.2990 28, 29 Jul; 9 Aug-06 Surface 06-L19-01-PHC-S L19 Liberty 70°18.6216 147°49.3156 27, 28 Jul-06 Surface 06-L20-01-PHC-S L20 Liberty 70°15.4461 147°43.9446 27-Jul-06 Surface 06-L21-01-PHC-S L21 Liberty 70°13.7169 147°38.2051 27-Jul-06 Surface 06-L22-01-PHC-S L22 Liberty 70°29.2491 147°16.4027 30-Jul-06 Surface 06-L22-01-PHC-SC L22-01 Liberty 70°29.2491 147°16.4027 30-Jul-06 Core 06-L22-02-PHC-SC L22-02 Liberty 70°29.2491 147°16.4027 30-Jul-06 Core 06-L22-03-PHC-SC L22-03 Liberty 70°29.2491 147°16.4027 30-Jul-06 Core 06-L22-04-PHC-SC L22-04 Liberty 70°29.2491 147°16.4027 30-Jul-06 Core 06-L22-05-PHC-SC L22-05 Liberty 70°29.2491 147°16.4027 30-Jul-06 Core 06-L22-14-PHC-SC L22-14 Liberty 70°29.2491 147°16.4027 30-Jul-06 Core 06-M01-01-PHC-S M01 McCovey 70°30.7602 148°27.3847 31-Jul-06 Surface 06-N03-01-PHC-S N03 Northstar 70°30.0020 148°41.5700 5, 6, 7 Aug-06 Surface 06-N03-02-PHC-S N03 Northstar 70°30.0020 148°41.5700 5, 6, 7 Aug-06 Surface 06-N06-01-PHC-S N06 Northstar 70°29.5360 148°43.1940 05-Aug-06 Surface 06-N11-01-PHC-S N11 Northstar 70°28.4295 148°41.9090 5, 6, 7 Aug-06 Surface 06-N14-01-PHC-S N14 Northstar 70°26.0060 148°40.4290 4, 5, 6 Aug-06 Surface 06-N17-01-PHC-SC N17-01 Northstar 70°29.8717 148°40.2850 31-Jul-06 Core 06-N17-02-PHC-SC N17-02 Northstar 70°29.8717 148°40.2850 31-Jul-06 Core 06-N17-03-PHC-SC N17-03 Northstar 70°29.8717 148°40.2850 31-Jul-06 Core 
Table 2-3. MMS cANIMIDA Summer 2006 Sediment Sampling Stations (continued)

2-17

Sample ID Station ID Station Type Latitude Longitude Date Sediment Type 

06-N17-04-PHC-SC N17-04 Northstar 70°29.8717 148°40.2850 31-Jul-06 Core 06-N17-05-PHC-SC N17-05 Northstar 70°29.8717 148°40.2850 31-Jul-06 Core 06-N17-15-PHC-SC N17-15 Northstar 70°29.8717 148°40.2850 31-Jul-06 Core 06-N28-01-PHC-S N28 Northstar 70°29.5230 148°41.5252 5, 6 Aug-06 Surface 06-PI01-01-PHC-P PI01 

Other 

(Pingok Island) 70°33.3634 149°28.2316 04-Aug-06 Peat 

06-Sag-01-PHC-P Sag 

Other 

(Sagavanirktok 

River) 70°00.0748 148°40.0873 28-Jul-06 Peat 

06-SDI-1-01-PHC-S SDI01 Other (SDI) 70°19.5860 147°52.3960 27 Jul; 9 Aug-06 Surface 06-WD01-01-PHC-S WD01 

Other (West 

Dock) 70°23.8470 148°31.4233 6, 8 Aug-06 Surface 
2-18

Table 2-4. Sample Containers, Preservation, and Laboratory List 

Sample Type Analysis Precleaned 

Container 

Storage/ 

Preservative Analytical Laboratory 

Sediment SHC, PAH, S/T 250 mL glass Frozen -20C Battelle 

Sediment Metals, TOC, 

radiochemistry Plastic jar Frozen -20C Florida Institute of Technology 

Sediment Grain Size Plastic bag Stored at 4C Florida Institute of Technology 
2-19

Table 2-5. Saturated Hydrocarbons Target List 

Compound Reporting 

Code 

Internal 

Standard/Surrogate 

Reference 

Compound Reporting 

Code 

Internal 

Standard/Surrogate 

Reference 

n-Octane 

(optional) 

C8 A/1 n-Hexacosane C26 A/1 

n-Nonane C9 A/1 n-Heptacosane C27 A/1 

n-Decane C10 A/1 n-Octacosane C28 A/1 

n-Undecane C11 A/1 n-Nonacosane C29 A/1 

n-Dodecane C12 A/1 n-Triacontane C30 A/1 

n-Tridecane C13 A/1 n-Hentriacontane C31 A/1 

Isoprenoid 

RRT 1380 

1380 A/1 n-Dotriacontane C32 A/1 

n-Tetradecane C14 A/1 n-Tritriacontane C33 A/1 

Isoprenoid 

RRT 1470 

1470 A/1 n-Tetratriacontane C34 A/1 

n-Pentadecane C15 A/1 n-Pentatriacontane C35 A/1 

Isoprenoid 

RRT 1650 

1650 A/1 n-Hexatriacontane C36 A/1 

n-Hexadecane C16 A/1 n-Heptatriacontane C37 A/1 

n-Heptadecane C17 A/1 n-Octatriacontane C38 A/1 

Pristane PRIS A/1 n-Nonatriacontane C39 A/1 

n-Octadecane C18 A/1 n-Tetracontane C40 A/1 

Phytane PHYT A/1 

n-Nonadecane C19 A/1 Surrogate 

Compounds

 

n-Eicosane C20 A/1 Tetracosane-d50 D50T A/1 

n-Heneicosane C21 A/1 5a-Androstane 5AA B/1 

n-Docosane C22 A/1 

n-Tricosane C23 A/1 Internal Standard 

n-Tetracosane C24 A/1 Triacontane-d62 D62T 1 

n-Pentacosane C25 A/1 

Internal Standard/Surrogate Reference indicates internal standard used for quantitation and surrogate 

compound used to correct analytical results 

Also used in reporting: 

TOTRES: Total of resolved compounds in sample extract 

TPHC: Total of resolved and unresolved compounds in sample extract 
2-20

Table 2-6. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon and Alkyl Polynuclear Aromatic 

Hydrocarbon Target List 

Compound Reporting 

Code 

Internal 

Standard/ 

Surrogate 

Reference 

Compound Reporting 

Code 

Internal 

Standard/ 

Surrogate 

Reference 

Naphthalene C0N A/1 Benzo[a]anthracene BAA B/3 

C1-Naphthalenes C1N A/2 

C2-Naphthalenes C2N A/2 Chrysene C0C B/3 

C3-Naphthalenes C3N A/2 C1-Chrysenes C1C B/3 

C4-Naphthalenes C4N A/2 C2-Chrysenes C2C B/3 

 C3-Chrysenes C3C B/3 

Acenaphthylene ACEY A/2 C4-Chrysenes C4C B/3 

Acenaphthene ACE A/2 

Biphenyl BIP A/2 

 Benzo[b]fluoranthene BBF B/4 

Fluorene C0F A/2 Benzo[k]fluoranthene BKF B/4 

C1-Fluorenes C1F A/2 Benzo[e]pyrene BEP B/4 

C2-Fluorenes C2F A/2 Benzo[a]pyrene BAP B/4 

C3-Fluorenes C3F A/2 Perylene PER B/4 

 Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene IND B/4 

Anthracene C0A A/3 Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene DAH B/4 

Phenanthrene C0P A/3 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene BGP B/4 

C1-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes C1P/A A/3 

C2-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes C2P/A A/3 

C3-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes C3P/A A/3 

C4-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes C4P/A A/3 

Dibenzothiophene C0D A/3 

C1-Dibenzothiophenes C1D A/3 Surrogate Compounds 

C2-Dibenzothiophenes C2D A/3 Naphthalene-d8 D8N A/1 

C3-Dibenzothiophenes C3D A/3 Acenaphthene-d10 D10ACE A/2 

 Phenanthrene-d10 D10PH A/3 

Fluoranthene FLANT A/3 Benzo(a)pyrene-d12 D12BAP B/4 

Pyrene PYR A/3 

C1-Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes C1F/P A/3 Internal Standard 

C2-Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes C2F/P A/3 Fluorene-d10 D10F A 

C3-Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes C3F/P A/3 Chrysene-d12 D12C B 

Internal Standard/Surrogate Reference indicates internal standard used for quantitation and surrogate compound 

used to correct analytical results. 

2-ring PAHs include: napthalenes, acenaphthylene, acenaphthene, biphenyl, and fluorenes 

3-ring PAHs include: anthracenes, phenanthrenes, and dibenzothiophenes 

4-ring PAHs include: fluoranthenes, pyrenes, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysenes, benzo(b)fluoranthene, and 

benzo(k)fluoranthene 

5-ring PAHs include: benzo(e)pyrene, benzo(a)pyrene, perylene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, and dibenz(a,h)anthracene 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene is a 6-ring PAH 
2-21

Table 2-7. Sterane and Triterpane Target List 

Compound Reporting 

Code 

Internal 

Standard/ 

Surrogate 

Reference 

Compound Reporting 

Code 

Internal 

Standard/ 

Surrogate 

Reference 

C23 Diterpane T4 A/1 Surrogate 

Compounds

 

13β,17α-diacholestane(20S) S4 A/1 5β(H)-

cholane 

5B 2 

13β,17α-diacholestane(20R) S5 A/1 

C29 Tricyclictriterpane T9 A/1 Internal 

Standards

 

C29 Tricyclictriterpane T10 A/1 Chrysene-d12 D12C A 

## 5α,14α,17α-cholestane(20R) S17 A/1 

18α(H)-22,29,30-trisnorhopane(TS) T11 A/1 

17α(H)-22,29,30-trisnorhopane(TM) T12 A/1 

5α,14α,17α,24-methylcholestane(20R) S24 A/1 

5α,14α,17α,24-ethylcholestane(20S) S25 A/1 

5α,14α,17α,24-ethylcholestane(20R) S28 A/1 

17α(H),21β(H)-30-norhopane T15 A/1 

18α(H)-oleanane T18 A/1 

17α(H),21β(H)-hopane T19 A/1 

22S-17α(H),21β(H)-30-homohopane T21 A/1 

22R-17α(H),21β(H)-30-homohopane T22 A/1 

## 17β(H),21β(H)-hopane T23 A/1 

Internal Standard/Surrogate Reference indicates internal standard used for quantitation and surrogate 

compound used to correct analytical results 

## Compound used in calibration, but not reported 
2-22

Table 2-8a. Summary of Instrumental Methods and Method Detection Limits for Metal 

Analysis of Sediment (2004) 

2004 Sediments 

Metal Method 

MDLs 

(μg metal/g 

dry sediment) 

Ag – silver ZGFAAS 0.007 

Al – aluminum FAAS 10 

As – arsenic ZGFAAS 0.1 

Ba – barium FAAS 22 

Be – beryllium ZGFAAS 0.003 

Cd – cadmium ZGFAAS 0.003 

Co – cobalt ZGFAAS 0.04 

Cr – chromium FAAS 3 

Cu – copper FAAS 2 

Fe – iron FAAS 10 

Hg – mercury CVAAS 0.001 

Mn – manganese FAAS 2 

Ni – nickel FAAS 0.5 

Pb – lead ZGFAAS 0.03 

Sb – antimony ZGFAAS 0.05 

Tl – thallium ZGFAAS 0.03 

V – vanadium FAAS 10 

Zn – zinc FAAS 0.5 

Grain Size Sieve and Pipet --- 

TOC Shimadzu Carbon 

System 

0.03% 

Notes: 

CVAAS = Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Spectrometry 

FAAS = Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrometry 

GFAAS = Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry 

MDL = Method Detection Limit 

ZGFAAS = Zeeman Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry 
2-23

Table 2-8b. Summary of Instrumental Methods and Method Detection Limits for Metal 

Analysis of Sediment (2005) 

2005 Sediments 

Metal Method MDLs 

(μg metal/g 

Ag – silver ZGFAAS 0.007 

Al – aluminum FAAS 10 

As – arsenic ZGFAAS 0.08 

Ba – barium FAAS 22 

Be – beryllium ZGFAAS 0.003 

Cd – cadmium ZGFAAS 0.003 

Co – cobalt ZGFAAS 0.04 

Cr – chromium FAAS 3 

Cu – copper FAAS 2 

Fe – iron FAAS 10 

Hg – mercury CVAAS 0.001 

Mn – manganese FAAS 2 

Ni – nickel FAAS 0.08 

Pb – lead ZGFAAS 0.03 

Sb – antimony ZGFAAS 0.05 

Tl – thallium ZGFAAS 0.03 

V – vanadium FAAS 10 

Zn – zinc FAAS 0.5 

Grain Size Sieve and Pipet --- 

TOC Shimadzu Carbon 

System 

0.04% 

Notes: 

CVAAS = Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Spectrometry 

FAAS = Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrometry 

GFAAS = Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry 

MDL = Method Detection Limit 

ZGFAAS = Zeeman Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry 
2-24

Table 2-8c. Summary of Instrumental Methods and Method Detection Limits for Metal 

Analysis of Sediment (2006) 

2006 Sediments 

Metal Method MDLs 

(μg metal/g 

dry sediment) 

Ag – silver ICP-MS 0.007 

Al – aluminum FAAS 10 

As – arsenic ICP-MS 0.02 

Ba – barium ICP-MS 0.01 

Be – beryllium ICP-MS 0.009 

Cd – cadmium ICP-MS 0.001 

Co – cobalt ZGFAAS 0.001 

Cr – chromium FAAS 1 

Cu – copper FAAS 2 

Fe – iron FAAS 10 

Hg – mercury CVAAS 0.001 

Mn – manganese FAAS 2 

Ni – nickel ICP-MS 0.004 

Pb – lead ICP-MS 0.002 

Sb – antimony ICP-MS 0.001 

Tl – thallium ICP-MS 0.001 

V – vanadium FAAS 10 

Zn – zinc FAAS 0.5 

Grain Size Sieve and Pipet --- 

TOC Shimadzu Carbon 

System

0.04 

Notes: 

CVAAS = Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Spectrometry 

FAAS = Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrometry 

GFAAS = Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry 

ICP-MS = Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry 

MDL = Method Detection Limit 
2-25

5H

5F

5E

5D

5B

5A

4C

4B

4A

L17

N23

N21

N20

N17

N15 N14

N09

N02

N01

L18

L09 L08 L06

L04

N04

L01A

5(5)

5(1)

5(10) 5(5a)

149°30'0"W 149°20'0"W 149°10'0"W

149°10'0"W

149°0'0"W

149°0'0"W

148°50'0"W

148°50'0"W

148°40'0"W

148°40'0"W

148°30'0"W

148°30'0"W

148°20'0"W

148°20'0"W

148°10'0"W

148°10'0"W

148°0'0"W

148°0'0"W

147°50'0"W

147°50'0"W

147°40'0"W

147°40'0"W

147°30'0"W

147°20'0"W 147°10'0

70°30'0"N 70°40'0"N

Sediment

012345

Nautical Miles

0 5 10

Kilometers

Map Doc ID: 24

Figure 2-1. Summer 2004 cANIMIDA sampling locations. 
2-26

Figure 2-2. Summer 2005 cANIMIDA sampling locations.
2-27

Figure 2-3. Summer 2006 cANIMIDA sampling locations.
3-1

3.0 Results 

The results and general trends in the TOC, grain size, organic, and inorganic data from the 

surficial sediment and sediment core samples collected during the summer 2004, 2005, and 2006 

cANIMIDA field surveys are presented in this section. The results from the ANIMIDA field 

surveys (1999-2002) are presented in separate reports (Brown et al., 2004 and Boehm et al., 

2001b) and are discussed as appropriate in this report for comparison with the 2004 though 2006 

results. 

During 2004, surface sediment samples were collected from the Northstar (n = 23 locations), 

Liberty (n = 9 locations) and BSMP stations from 3A to 5H and 5(0) to 5(10) (n = 16). Then, 

during 2005, samples were collected at eastern BSMP stations 1A to 2H (n = 13) along with a 

more limited number of samples from Northstar (n = 7), Liberty (n = 5) and the 2004 BSMP sites 

(n = 6). In 2006, sediments were collected from western BSMP stations 6A to 7G (n = 10) along 

with a more limited number of samples from Northstar (n = 7), Liberty (n = 10) and the 2004 

BSMP sites (n = 4). This sampling strategy provided a suite of samples that extended from 

Camden Bay to Harrison Bay with repeated focus on the Northstar and Liberty areas. Sediment 

cores were collected at seven locations during both the 2005 (1C, 2A, BP01, E01, L17B, PB1A 

and N26) and 2006 (6B, 7A, 7C, 7E, N05, N17 and L22) field surveys. The cANIMIDA 

collection scheme greatly extended the original ANIMIDA study area to both the east and the 

west. 

3.1 Surficial Sediment Results 

3.1.1 General Chemical and Physical Measurements 

3.1.1.1 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and Grain Size 

Surficial sediments from each station were analyzed for TOC and grain size (percent gravel, 

sand, silt and clay). The TOC values for surficial sediments ranged from 0.02% in the sandy 

sediment in shallow water (1.8 m) at station L21 near the mouth of the Sagavanirktok River to 

6.4% in a peat-bearing sample from station N14 (Tables 3-1 through 3-4 and Appendix A). The 

overall mean value for TOC of 0.77 ± 0.77% for 2004-2006 was not significantly different 

(p<0.01) to the means from 1999-2002 of 0.91 ± 0.86%. Considerable patchiness was found for 

TOC values across the study area, partly in response to similar patchiness in the occurrence of 

fine-grained sediment. Overall, the TOC concentrations are typical of values reported for other 

Beaufort Sea data. For example, Carsola (1954) reported a range of TOC values from 0.2-1.2 % 

for Beaufort Sea sediments. 

The grain size results (Tables 3-1 through 3-4 and Appendix A) show similar variability to that 

described above for TOC. Gravel content (>2 mm) ranged from 0% at 68 of 112 surface samples 

locations to 61% at station N15, located adjacent to Stump Island and 46% above the pipeline 

just south of Northstar Island. Likewise, the clay content (<0.002 mm) varies from <1% at 

several locations to ~50% at station 4A. The highest clay content in the 1999-2002 (ANIMIDA) 
3-2

data set also was 50% at station 4A. Sediment resuspension, along with across and along shelf 

transport, are dynamic components of the inner shelf of the Beaufort Sea that certainly contribute 

to observed variations in grain size distribution in the top 1 cm of sediment. 

Across the extended study area of the cANIMIDA program, sediment sampled during 2004, 

2005 and 2006 averaged 47%, 40% and 50% silt + clay, respectively, (Table 3-1) relative to 

values for silt + clay that averaged 43% in 1999, 52% in 2000 and 50% in 2002. Similarly, 

concentrations of Al, an indicator of clay content, averaged 3.8% in 2004, 3.6% in 2005 and 

3.8% in 2006, relative to 3.6% in 1999, 4.1% in 2000, and 3.8% in 2002. Despite having similar 

mean values for TOC, silt + clay, and Al, from year to year, the standard deviations within a 

given year are large (Table 3-1), thus no significant differences in mean values for TOC, silt + 

clay, or Al have been observed among years for 1999-2006. 

Based on the 2004 grain size data, a few general trends were observed. Gravel was found at 

>2% of the total sediment mass in 10 samples. Three samples contained >10% gravel (22.5% at 

N04, 61% at N15 and 45.7% at N23). Station N23 is near the pipeline from Northstar Island that 

was backfilled with gravel and station N15 is close the gravel-rich Stump Island (Figure 3-1). 

Sediment to the east of Northstar Island at stations N07 and N09 was rich in sand, as was the 

case at stations N01, N02 and N03 north of the island and station N11 south of Northstar Island 

(Figure 3-1). An area containing more silt and clay follows along a southeast to northwest line to 

the south and west of Northstar Island. The sediment at stations 5F and 5D that are in the 

transport pathway of the Kuparuk River contained 84% and 100% silt + clay, respectively 

(Figure 3-1). Comparison of the 2004 grain size data with the 1999-2002 data in Section 4 

considers temporal and spatial trends in more detail. 

In 2005, at Northstar stations N04, N05, N06 and N08, an increase in the sand fraction was 

observed relative to 2004 (Figures 3-1 and 3-2). In contrast, the stations sampled within 4 km of 

Northstar in 2006 contained a larger fraction of silt and clay than found in 2005. Stations N14, 

5(5) and 5(1) had similar grain size distribution in 2004, 2005 and 2006 (Figures 3-1, 3-2, and 3-

3). 

In the area of the Liberty Prospect during 2004, the highest amounts of sand were recovered at 

nearshore Stations L17 and L18 (Figure 3-4) and more offshore at Stations L01, 4B and 4C 

(Figure 3-5). A patch of mostly silt and clay was found to the east and west of the proposed site 

for the Liberty Prospect (Figure 3-4). With limited repetition of stations during 2005 and 2006, 

no clear trends were observed. However, the sand fraction in the Liberty area averaged 44%, 

40% and 59% for years 2004, 2005 and 2006, respectively (Figures 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6). Sediments 

at the new coastal stations (L19, L20 and L21) sampled in 2006 were predominantly sand. Once 

again, some interesting interannual trends are discussed in Section 4. 

3.1.2 Organics 

Organic parameter results for the surficial sediment samples are summarized in Tables 3-2 

through 3-4. The summary results include total PAH (the sum of all target parent and alkyl 

PAHs), total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHC; the sum of the resolved and unresolved saturated 
3-3

hydrocarbons n-C9 through n-C40), and total S/T (the sum of the sterane and triterpane target 

compounds). The data for each of these summary parameters are presented on a dry-weight 

basis and results for field replicates are presented as the mean value with the standard deviation 

in parentheses. The results are separated into three regional groupings: BSMP stations (Table 3-

2), Northstar stations (Table 3-3), and Liberty stations (Table 3-4). Within this report and with 

the associated data analyses, BSMP station 5A was designated as a Northstar station based on its 

location within 4 km from the Northstar Island. Descriptions of key diagnostic parameters, 

which are useful in describing the overall organics dataset and will be used for comparisons to 

historic ANIMIDA and BSMP program data, are provided in Table 3-6. The complete organics 

data, including concentrations for individual PAH, SHC, and S/T target compounds, are included 

in Appendix B. 

3.1.2.1 Saturated Hydrocarbons 

Concentrations of TPHC in surficial sediments ranged from 1.1 to 57 mg/kilogram (mg/Kg) 

during the summer 2006 survey, 0.2 to 38 mg/kilogram (mg/Kg) during the summer 2005 

survey, and 1.0 to 33 mg/Kg during the summer 2004 survey. Outliers of 100 mg/Kg at Station 

N14 in 2005 and 85 mg/Kg at Station N08 in 2004 were detected, and may have been influenced 

by the entrainment of recent organic material (i.e., peat). The TPHC concentrations at Stations 

N08 and N14 ranged from 0.6 to 24 mg/Kg in 1999, 2000, and 2002. A TPHC measurement of 

230 mg/Kg was noted for the 2006 Eskimo Island peat sample. 

The mean TPHC concentrations for the three regions (Northstar, Liberty, and BSMP) were 10, 

7.2, and 12 mg/Kg (Table 3-2 through 3-4), respectively in the summer 2006 survey; 17, 15, 8.0 

mg/Kg in the summer 2005 survey; and 16, 17, and 8.5 in the summer 2004 survey. Overall, the 

levels of TPHC measured during the summer 2004 through 2006 surveys are within the range of 

values reported from previous studies of the region and other Alaskan coastal areas (Table 3-7). 

An increase in the mean regional concentration of TPHC at Northstar is observed between the 

summer 1999 pre-construction measurements and the combined summer 2000 through 2006 

post-construction measurements. This increase remained statistically significant when the 

silt+clay variable was used as a covariate in the regression equation. However, when the 

concentration of TPHC was normalized to perylene (a PAH compound associated with biogenic 

but not anthropogenic hydrocarbon sources) in the full statistical model, no significant 

Northstar*construction interaction effects were noted (Tables 3-11 and 3-12). 

The composition of SHCs in the river sediment was similar to the surficial sediments, indicating 

a common TPHC source relationship between the river sediments and the nearshore surficial 

sediments. For example, similar patterns are noted in the GC/FID chromatograms for the 

Colville River sediment (Figure 4-6), Northstar station 6 (Figures 4-8 through 4-13), and BSMP 

station 3A (Figures 4-18 and 19). Also, the composition of the SHCs in surficial sediments in 

2000, 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2006 are similar to the 1999 sediment samples, indicating that no 

new source of SHCs impacted these sediment samples. For example, similar patterns are noted 

in the GC/FID chromatograms for station N06 in 1999 through 2006 (Figures 4-8 through 4-13). 
3-4

3.1.2.2 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

Concentrations of Total PAH in surficial sediments ranged from 25 to 1,800 micrograms/Kg 

(μg/Kg) during the summer 2006 survey, 31 to 1,600 micrograms/Kg (μg/Kg) during the summer 

2005 survey, and 13 to 1,100 μg/Kg during the summer 2004 survey. 

The mean Total PAH concentrations for the three regions (Northstar, Liberty, and BSMP) were 

640, 280, and 750 μg/Kg (Tables 3-2 through 3-4), respectively in the summer 2006 survey; 560, 

710, and 430 μg/Kg in the summer 2005 survey, and 460, 640, and 310 μg/Kg in the summer 

2004 survey. Overall, the levels of PAH measured during the summer 2004 through 2006 

surveys are within the range of values reported from previous studies of the region and other 

Alaskan coastal areas (Table 3-7). 

An increase in the mean regional concentration of Total PAH at Northstar was noted between the 

1999 pre-construction measurements and the combined 2000 through 2006 post-construction 

measurements. This increase remained statistically significant when the silt+clay variable was 

used as a covariate in the regression equation. When the concentration of Total PAH less 

perylene was normalized to perylene in the full statistical model, no significant 

Northstar*construction interaction effects were noted (Tables 3-11 and 3-12).

As noted with the SHC composition, the composition of Total PAH in the river sediment and 

peat samples was similar to the surficial sediments, indicating a common PAH source 

relationship between the river sediments and the nearshore surficial sediments. Also, the 

composition of the Total PAH in surficial sediments collected from Northstar in 2000, 2002, 

2004, and 2005 was similar to the 1999 Northstar sediment samples, indicating that no new 

source of PAH impacted these sediment samples. For example, similar patterns are noted in the 

PAH distribution histograms for station N06 in 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2005 (Figures 4-8 

through 4-12). 

3.1.2.3 Steranes and Triterpanes 

Concentrations of Total S/T in surficial sediments from the ranged from 3.3 to 173 μg/Kg during 

the summer 2006 survey, 2.1 to 98 μg/Kg during the summer 2005 survey, and 1.8 to 110 μg/Kg 

during the summer 2004 survey. One outlier at 660 μg/Kg was detected at Station N14 in 2005. 

The mean Total S/T concentrations for the three regions (Northstar, Liberty, and BSMP) were 

55, 34, and 65 μg/Kg (Tables 3-2 through 3-4), respectively, in the summer 2006 survey; 99, 85, 

and 32 μg/Kg in the summer 2005 survey, and 54, 52, and 31 μg/Kg in the summer 2004 survey. 

Overall, the levels of Total S/Ts measured during the summer 2004 through 2006 surveys are 

within the range of values reported from previous studies of the region and other Alaskan coastal 

areas (Table 3-7). 
3-5

3.1.3 Metals 

All surficial sediments, (top 1 cm) were analyzed for total concentrations of Ag, Al, As, Ba, Be, 

Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Mn, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, Sn, Tl, V and Zn (Table 3-1 and Appendix A). 

Concentrations of all metals show a high degree of patchiness throughout the study area as 

previously described for TOC and grain size (Tables 3-2 through 3-4). However, metal 

concentrations do vary in response to variations in grain size and TOC as will be discussed 

below. The highest concentrations of metals were found in Al-rich (>6% Al) sediments from 

stations N03, N17, L06, L07, and 7C (Tables 3-8 through 3-10). These maximum concentrations 

are within natural limits for the area as discussed in Section 4. 

During 2004, sediment was collected from 22 stations in the Northstar area, eight more than 

during 1999. Several of the additional stations were sited close to the island and along the 

pipeline. The lowest metal concentrations were found in sandy sediment at stations N01, N09, 

N11, and N15 (Table 3-9). In accordance with the grain size distribution, the highest levels of 

metals occurred at stations N04, N05, N12, N13, N21 and N23 where silty sediment was present 

(Table 3-9). Concentrations of Fe, Zn, Cu, Cr and Ni were slightly elevated in the gravel-rich, 

Al-poor sediment from the top of the pipeline (Station N23). In the immediate area of Liberty 

Prospect, no clear trends in grain size or metal distribution were observed. Highest metal levels 

were found at Stations L06 and L07 and the lowest metal values were observed at station L01 

(Table 3-10). 

The patchwork of metal concentrations throughout the study area can be normalized by ratioing 

metal values to either Al or Fe and thereby removing variations in metal concentrations that 

result from differences in grain size, TOC and/or mineralogy. For example, Figure 3-7a shows a 

strong, positive relationship between Al and grain size data for 1999-2002, expressed as percent 

(silt+clay). The Al versus grain size data for 2004-2006 (Figure 3-7b) plot well with the 

prediction intervals from the 1999-2002 data. The finer-grained material is richer in Al-bearing 

clays whereas the coarser grained sediment contains Al-poor quartz sands and carbonate shell 

fragments. 

Iron concentrations for 2004-2006 correlated well with Al levels (Figure 3-8a). The 2004-2006 

data are plotted in Figure 3-8a with the prediction interval from the 1999-2002 data. Six of the 

112 data points on the graph for Al versus Fe plotted above the upper prediction interval from 

the 1999-2002 data (Figure 3-8a). These six samples appear to contain an enriched Fe phase and 

will be discussed in more detail below. 

Only an example of a metal/Al plot for V is given in this section to show the effectiveness of the 

normalization process (Figure 3-8b). Even though individual metal concentrations are extremely 

variable from site to site, these differences in absolute concentrations can be almost completely 

explained by variations in grain size, TOC and/or mineralogy when normalized to Al. 

Concentrations of V and other metals follow Al in that higher levels are found in aluminosilicate 

clays and lower levels are found in quartz and carbonate sands. Thus, plots such as shown in 

Figure 3-8b show the natural trend (i.e., V/Al ratio) for area sediments. The 2004-2006 data for 

V and Al are plotted with the prediction interval for the 1999-2002 data (Figure 3-8b) to help 
3-6

further validate the previously established trend. Positive deviations from a prediction interval 

constructed around the regression line such as in Figure 3-8b can often be related to 

anthropogenic inputs of that metal. The two of 112 data points on the Al versus V graph that 

plot above the upper prediction interval are most likely due to natural processes. This concept is 

outlined below. Then, an overall detailed evaluation of likely sites with metal contamination is 

presented in Section 4. 

With respect to the Fe anomalies, station L22 was sited at the deepest water depth (29.2 m) in 

either the ANIMIDA or cANIMIDA programs and a small amount of additional iron oxide on 

these fine-grained offshore particles was most likely responsible for the high Fe concentration in 

Figure 3-8a. The presence of an enriched iron oxide in the sediment from station L22 is 

supported by enrichment of V (Figure 3-8b) as well as for As and Cr. These three metals exist as 

oxyanions in seawater and are readily adsorbed by freshly precipitated iron oxides that form at 

river mouths Semmler, 2006). Thus, as future studies are carried out, this observation will need 

to be further checked and included in evaluations of sediment contamination. Perhaps an 

enriched iron oxide phase also fits the data from station N03 (e.g., V enrichment at station N03, 

Figure 3-8b) as well as stations 6G and 6H near the mouth of the Colville River. In contrast with 

observations for stations L22, N03, 6G and 6H, the observed Fe enrichment for stations N14 and 

WDK (Figure 3-8a) is accompanied by enrichment Ag, As, Cd, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, Hg and Zn is 

believed to be due to the presence of trace amounts of naturally occurring sulfide minerals. A 

detailed evaluation of this explanation is developed in Section 4. A similar observation was made 

for nearby station 5D in 1999 and no explanation for that anomaly was presented at that time. 

Finding and addressing these anomalies in the Al versus metal plots is important to future use of 

these plots to identify anthropogenic metal contamination. 

Detailed identification of possible metal contamination in surface sediments, along with 

evaluation of possible adverse biological impacts from any contamination will be presented in 

the discussion (Section 4). 

3.1.4 Radionuclides 

The cANIMIDA study area was described by Reimnitz and Barnes (1974) as a net erosional 

sedimentary environment during the Holocene. Naidu et al. (2001) and Trefry et al. (2003) 

reported difficulties in obtaining cores that could be aged dated using radionuclides that focus on 

the past 50-100 years. At best, sediment deposition in the cANIMIDA area has been patchy 

during the past century. Trefry et al. (2003) cautioned investigators to be sure that sediments 

collected for analysis of potential pollutants are representative of the most recent inputs. In this 

regard, surficial sediments from the 2004-2006 surveys were counted for the activities of excess 

210Pb and total 137Cs (Figure 3-9a). The pre-survey assumption was that surface sediments with 

low activities of excess 210Pb (<0.5 dpm/g) or 137Cs (<0.05 dpm/g) would contain very little silt 

or clay that had been recently or sufficiently well exposed to the water column or at the 

sediment-seawater interface to adsorb excess 210Pb or 137Cs. Therefore, such sediments would be 

less likely to contain recent material that had an anthropogenic contribution of metals or 

hydrocarbons. However, in some cases, sediments with low activities of excess 210Pb and 137Cs 

might be predominantly sand that had a naturally low affinity for these isotopes. Sediments that 
3-7

have intermediate levels of the two isotopes may be sandy or contain some mixture of old, recent 

and sandy sediments. 

The results for 2004, 2005 and 2006 are presented in Tables 3-13 through 3-15. During each of 

the three years, surface sediments with non-detectable amounts of excess 210Pb (<0.05 dpm/g) 

and 137Cs (<0.015 dpm/g) were found (Tables 3-13 through 3-15). In contrast, maximum values 

for excess 210Pb of 2.8 dpm/g and 137Cs of 0.20 dpm/g were observed (Tables 3-13 through 3-

15). Collectively, the activities for 226Ra (parent isotope to 210Pb) correlated well with 

concentrations of Al (Figure 3-9a and Pb). This good relationship is consistent with higher 

amounts of 226Ra in Al-rich clays. The y-intercept of 0.63 on the Al versus 226Ra graph (Figure 3-

9a) suggests that another Ra-bearing phase that contains little or no Al is present in the 

sediments. 

The relationship between Al and excess 210Pb in surface sediments shows considerable scatter 

(Figure 3-9b). One explanation for the observed scatter is large differences in the accumulation 

rates and/or ages among the 112 samples of surface sediment. Samples with low amounts of 

excess 210Pb (<0.5 dpm/g) and Al concentrations >3% are less likely to contain very much recent 

sediment relative to samples with excess 210Pb >0.5 dpm/g and Al concentrations >3%. The 

pertinent isotope information for each is listed in Tables 3-13 through 3-15. A weak, but 

observable trend of higher activity for excess 210Pb in sediments with a higher activity of 137Cs 

than was observed for the surface sediments is consistent with increased adsorption of the two 

isotopes from water by more clay-rich (i.e., Al-rich) samples (Figure 3-10). 

3.1.5 Statistical Results 

Using the statistical model described in Section 2, the null hypotheses “The concentrations of 

organic pollutants in sediments do not show any increase as a result of the development of the 

Northstar unit” was tested. The results of the statistical analyses are presented in the Tables 3-11 

to 3-12. 

In Tables 3-11 to 3-12, the first column gives the parameter analyzed as the dependant variable 

in the model. The second, third, and fourth columns give the R-squared, p-value, and intercept 

for the entire model. The R-squared is the proportion of variance explained by the ANOVA 

model. In most cases the R-squared is above 70%, indicating that the model adequately 

explained most of the sources of variation in the sampling, measurement, and analysis of these 

sediments. The fifth and sixth columns give the parameter estimate and p-value for the sediment 

covariate (silt+clay or LN perylene). The next 6 columns describe the model estimates for the 

three fixed effects in the same way. The first binary effect is the mean effect associated with the 

Northstar stations in all years 1999 through 2006. A positive (or negative) effect along with a 

significant p-value (p-value < 0.05) indicates an increase (or decrease) in the parameter 

associated with Northstar. The second binary effect is the increase or decrease associated with 

construction (years 2000 through 2006) at all stations. The third effect is the additional increase 

or decrease associated with Northstar stations and construction, the Northstar*Construction 

effect. The last column gives the p-value associated with the two-sided test of the null 

hypothesis of no Northstar*Construction effect. P-value here is defined as the probability - 
3-8

assuming no Northstar*Construction effect - of obtaining an estimated effect as large or larger 

than the observed effect. The false discovery rates for these tests were controlled by using the 

Hochberg procedure (Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995). 

In general, the results show that there is an apparent increase in PAH and petroleum hydrocarbon 

concentrations associated with Northstar*Construction effect (2000 through 2006) even after 

adjusting for grain size. However, when the data are adjusted for log-normal (LN) perylene (a 

PAH parameter associated only with the natural sources of PAH in the region) there is no 

significant increase in organic concentrations associated with Northstar*Construction effect. 

3.2 Sediment Core Results 

3.2.1 General Chemical and Physical Measurements 

3.2.1.1 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and Grain Size 

Sampling locations for sediment cores were based on the presence of fine-grained sediments as 

well as specific locations such as revisiting the 1989 sites in Harrison Bay (7A, 7C, 7E). Thus, 

the average fraction of silt + clay for the 2005-2006 sediment cores was ~70% relative to ~44% 

for the surface sediments (Table 3-16). The highest average silt + clay content of 88% was found 

for the core from station 7C (2006) and the lowest average silt + clay content was 43% from 

BP01 (2005). Station 7C is located ~55 km from the mouth of the Colville River in western 

Harrison Bay and station BP01 is located in the general area of the Boulder Patch. The most finegrained layer in all of the cores with 95% silt + clay was at 18-20 cm in the core from station 7C. 

The coarsest grained sample, with only 28% silt + clay was at 28-30 cm in the core from station 

N17. The coarse sample from station N17 contained some peat that distorted the grain size 

distribution. 

Concentrations of TOC averaged 1.1% for the 2005-2006 sediment cores relative to 0.9 % for 

the surface samples (Table 3-16). Both these averages show again the generally low organic 

matter content for sediments from the study area. The highest average TOC value was 2.1% for 

the core from station 7E in western Harrison Bay and the lowest average TOC was 0.46% for the 

core from station N26 located about 0.2 km northeast of Northstar Island. The most TOC-rich 

layer was from station 7E at 3.88% (2-4 cm) and the lowest TOC value of 0.34% was for station 

N26 (2-4 cm). 

3.2.2 Organics 

Concentrations of organics were determined for 32 samples from 5 sediment cores in 2005 

(Cores 1C, 2A, BP01, N26, and PB1A) and for 34 samples from 5 sediment cores in 2006 (Cores 

7A, 7C, 7E, L22, and N17). Each core was sectioned into 2-cm layers. Organic parameter 

results for the sediment core samples are summarized in Table 3-5. The summary results include 

Total PAH, TPHC, Total S/T, the percent of the fine grain-size fraction (the sum of the silt + 

clay grain-size fraction), and the ratio of pyrogenic PAHs to petrogenic PAHs. The results are 

separated into groupings by core locations with results listed in order of sample depth. 
3-9

Descriptions of key diagnostic parameters, which are useful in describing the overall organics 

dataset are provided in Table 3-6. Vertical core profiles of 6 key parameters for each core are 

included in Figures 3-11 through 3-20. As discussed later, only two of the core samples (Cores 

PB1A and N26) yielded geochronology results that allowed accurate determination of 

sedimentation rates, and thus estimates of deposition dates (Table 3-17). According to the agedating results for these cores, pre-development sediment is clearly present at depths > 2.5 cm and 

post-development (since 1970) sediment would most likely be found in the top 2 cm of the 

sediment column. The complete organics data, including concentrations for individual PAH, 

SHC, and S/T target compounds, are included in Appendix B. 

3.2.2.1 Saturated Hydrocarbons 

Concentrations of TPHC in the summer 2005 and 2006 sediment core samples ranged from 3.8 

to 42 mg/Kg. TPHC concentrations in the summer 2001 sediment core samples ranged from 3.2 

to 31 mg/Kg. 

The composition of SHCs through the depth of all the sediment cores was generally similar, 

indicating a common TPHC source relationship between pre-1970 and post-1970 sediments. For 

example, similar patterns are noted in the GC/FID chromatograms for the top and bottom 

segment (pre-1970 and post-1970) sediments from cores N26 (Figures 4-21 and 4-22) and 1C 

(Figures 4-23 and 4-24). 

Overall, the levels of TPHC measured during the 2005 and 2006 sediment core surveys are 

within the range of values reported from previous studies of the region and other Alaskan coastal 

areas (Table 3-7). 

3.2.2.2 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

Concentrations of Total PAH in the summer 2005 and 2006 sediment core samples ranged from 

300 to 2,950 μg/Kg. 

As noted with the SHC composition, the composition of Total PAH in the pre-1970 and post1970 sediments was similar, indicating a common PAH source relationship. For example, 

similar patterns are noted in the PAH histograms for the top and bottom segments (pre-1970 and 

post-1970) sediments from cores N26 (Figures 4-21 and 4-22) and 1C (Figures 4-23 and 4-24). 

Overall, the levels of PAH measured during the 2005 and 2006 sediment core surveys are within 

the range of values reported from previous studies of the region and other Alaskan coastal areas 

(Table 3-7). 

3.2.2.3 Steranes and Triterpanes 

Concentrations of Total S/T in the summer 2005 and 2006 sediment core samples ranged from 

13 to 200 μg/Kg. 
3-10

 As noted with the SHC composition, the composition of triterpanes in the pre-1970 and post1970 sediments was similar, indicating a common triterpane source. For example, similar 

patterns are noted in the triterpane EICPs for the top and bottom segments (pre-1970 and post1970) sediments from cores N26 (Figures 4-21 and 4-22) and 1C (Figures 4-23 and 4-24). 

Overall, the levels of Total S/T measured during the 2005 and 2006 sediment core surveys are 

within the range of values reported from previous studies of the region and other Alaskan coastal 

areas (Table 3-7). 

3.2.3 Metals 

Concentrations of trace metals were determined for 47 samples from all seven cores collected in 

2005 (stations 1C, 2A, BP01, E01, L17B, PB1A and N26) and for 34 samples from 5 cores 

collected in 2006 (stations 7A, 7C, 7E, L22 and N17). Each core was sectioned into 0.5- and 

2.0-cm thick layers. The average Al concentration for all sediments from cores was 31% greater 

than found for the 2005-2006 surface sediments. Similarly greater averages were found for Ba, 

Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Ni, Pb, Sb, Tl, V and Zn in the cores than the surface sediments. These 

differences are directly related to naturally higher metal concentrations in the more clay-rich 

(i.e., more aluminosilicate rich) sediments in the cores. 

Some variability in concentrations of metals was observed in most cores (Figures 3-FIT9-20), 

mainly due to shifts in the relative amounts of fine-grained sediment. However, the vertical 

profiles for metals/Al for most metals in most cores show a relatively uniform trend because Al 

concentrations were relatively uniform with increasing depth in each core (Figures 3-21 through 

3-32). The metals data are evaluated with respect to possible contamination and for temporal 

trends in Section 4. 

3.2.4 Geochronology of Sediment Cores 

The historical record of sediment deposition was investigated using the vertical distribution of 

the activities of 137Cs and excess 210Pb in sediment cores collected at seven locations in 2005 

(1C, 2A, BP01, E01, L17B, PB1A and N26) and seven locations in 2006 (6B, 7A, 7C, 7E, L22, 

N05 and N17). As previously reported (Weiss and Naidu, 1986; Naidu et al., 2001; Trefry et al., 

2003), efforts to reconstruct recent geochronology for sediments in the cANIMIDA study area 

have been complicated by the impacts of bottom-fast ice, ice gouging, low net accumulation 

rates, low activities of 137Cs and excess 210Pb, and storm-induced resuspension and transport of 

sediment offshore in deeper water. In the ANIMIDA study, only 3 of 11 cores provided reliable 

geochronologies for excess 210Pb (i.e., r>0.9 for log normalized excess 210Pb versus depth); 

however, a decrease to non-detectable values for 137Cs was found in each core that identified 

layers of sediment that pre-dated the early 1950s (Brown et al., 2003). Based on previous results 

and aware of inherent difficulties, the primary goal of the geochronology portion of the 

cANIMIDA study was to be able to differentiate layers in sediment cores that were most likely 

deposited prior the late 1960s and early 1970s relative to layers of sediment that were most likely 

deposited during the subsequent post-development period. 
3-11

Among the 14 cores collected for this study, between 2 and 4 cores provided reliable results for 

excess 210Pb according the conditions specified above, depending on whether selected points 

(e.g., sand layers) were not included in the regression analysis for excess 210Pb. A decrease in 

activities of 137Cs to non-detectable values was observed for all 14 cores and a reasonable 

identification of sediment layers that were deposited during pre-development versus postdevelopment could be made in most cases. This simplified division can be used to help test the 

null hypothesis that no contaminant inputs have been deposited at a given site since development 

began in 1970. Table 3-17 summarizes sedimentation rates and provides a calculated depth that 

most likely coincides with 1950, a year that pre-dates the presence of 137Cs on Earth. In the 

worst case, comparison of concentrations of potential contaminants in sediments from above and 

below the ~1950 horizon provided information needed to determine whether contaminants have 

been deposited since development began. 

The vertical profiles for 137Cs, total 210Pb and log normalized excess 210Pb for all 14 cores are 

presented in Figures 3-33 through 3-36. In some instances, such as 2006 stations N05 and N17, 

only a few samples were analyzed because no detectable 137Cs and very low values for excess 

210Pb were observed at the top of the core. 

Sedimentation rates for the 14 cores ranged from <0.02 cm/yr at stations E01, L22, N05 and N17 

(Table 3-17) to 0.3 cm/yr at station 1C in Camden Bay (Table 3-17). The mean sedimentation 

rate for the 13 stations (using 0.02 cm/yr for four stations and excluding station 7C) was 0.10 ± 

0.08 cm/yr. 

3.3 Quality Control Results 

Laboratory and field QC samples were analyzed to assess precision, accuracy, and 

representativeness of the sample preparation and analytical procedures. The number and type of 

laboratory and field QC samples was based on the total number of field samples and as specified 

in Battelle SOPs and the Field Sampling and Logistics Plans (Battelle 2004a, 2005a, and 2006a). 

For this program, the following field and laboratory QC samples and measures were used to 

evaluate accuracy, precision, and representativeness of the analytical data: field replicates, 

surrogate recoveries, procedural blanks, blank spike samples, matrix spike samples, laboratory 

duplicates, standard reference materials, and/or oil reference standards. 

This section provides a general summary of the quality and usability of the environmental data 

based on the results for the field and laboratory QC samples collected and analyzed during this 

program. Quality control result details are presented in Appendix D of this report. 

In general, no serious data quality issues were noted that would adversely affect the quality or 

usability of the organic data and no data quality issues were noted for the inorganic data. 

3.3.1 Field Quality Control 

Field replicate samples were collected to assess overall precision and representativeness of the 

sampling and analytical efforts. The results for the field QC sample analyses are presented in 
3-12

Appendices A and B, along with the associated environmental samples. A summary of these 

results is provided in this section and detailed discussion is provided in Appendix D. 

3.3.2 Organic Laboratory Quality Control 

The results for the organic QC samples and measures are presented in Appendix B, along with 

the results for the associated environmental samples. A summary of these results is provided in 

the following section and detailed discussion is provided in Appendix D. 

The majority of the quality control samples prepared and analyzed along with the organic 

analysis samples met the DQOs and acceptance limits presented in Appendix C and Tables C-1 

through C-2. Minor quality control exceedances included low surrogate recoveries, trace level 

blank contamination, low and high blank spike recoveries, laboratory duplicate precision 

exceedances, low SRM recoveries, and high control oil recoveries. These minor data quality 

exceedances did not adversely affect the quality or usability of the organic data. 

The results for one sample were considered to be unusable due to severe quality control 

exceedances. Sample 04-N08-01-PHC-S had very low recoveries (<10%) for all four surrogates. 

The PAH results for this sample were outliers when assessed against the complete dataset, thus, 

this sample was considered an outlier and not used for statistical evaluation of the data or 

presented in graphics. 

3.3.3 Metals Laboratory Quality Control 

The results for the metal QC samples and measures are presented in Appendix A, along with the 

results for the associated environmental samples. A summary of these results is provided in the 

following section and detailed discussion is provided in Appendix D. 

All of the quality control samples prepared and analyzed along with the metal analysis samples 

met the DQOs and acceptance limits presented in Appendix C and Table C-3. All metal results, 

as reported by FIT, are usable for project objectives and statistical analyses. 

 
3-13

Table 3-1. Summary Data for Total Metals, Total Organic Carbon (TOC), and Grain Size in Sediment from th

Samples Ag (μg/g) Al (%) As (μg/g) Ba (μg/g) Be (μg/g) Cd (μg/g) Co (μg/g) Cr (μg/g) 

Surface 

Sediment 

2004

Mean ± 

Std. Dev. 

(n = 47)

0.09 

±0.03

3.83 

±1.35

10.3 

±3.4

410 

±143

1.0 

±0.5

0.17 

±0.07

8.3 

±2.5

61.4 

±21.7

Surface 

Sediment 

2005

Mean ± 

Std. Dev. 

(n = 31)

0.10 

±0.08

3.55 

±1.24

10.2 ±4.4

426 

±142

0.9 

±0.3

 0.19 ±0.15

7.7 

±2.4

54.1 

±18.6

Surface 

Sediment 

2006

Mean ± 

Std. Dev. 

(n = 34)

0.14 

±0.03

3.82 

±1.20

10.7 

±3.8

458 

±158

1.1 

±0.3

0.21 

±0.09

9.0 

±2.6

67.9 

±19.7

All data 

2004-2006 Range 0.03-0.44 1.3-6.3 4.7-24.9 142-863 0.4-3.6 0.03-0.77 3.6-13.8 14.7-100 

All data 

1999-2002 Range 0.01-0.44 1.1-7.3 4.2-28.4 155-753 0.3-2.3 0.03-0.82 2.2-18.6 12.7-104 

Samples Hg (μg/g) Mn (μg/g) Ni (μg/g) Pb (μg/g) Sb (μg/g) Tl (μg/g) V (μg/g) Zn (μg/g) 

Surface 

Sediment 

2004

Mean ± 

Std. Dev. 

(n = 47)

0.043 

±0.021

324 

±110

25.0 

±8.2

9.3 

±3.6

0.41 

±0.15

0.29 

±0.12

88.7 

±35.2

73.8 

±26.7

Surface 

Sediment 

2005

Mean ± 

Std. Dev. 

(n = 31)

0.037 

±0.023

291 

±105

25.7 

±9.4

 10.1 

±3.5

0.39 

±0.16

0.28 

±0.10

74.9 

±29.0

64.8 

±25.2

Surface 

Sediment 

2006

Mean ± 

Std. Dev. 

(n = 34)

0.038 

±0.017

341 

±116

27.7 

±8.7

 10.5 

±3.6

0.50 

±0.13

0.37 

±0.13

92.1 

±33.4

73.3 

±22.7

All data 

2004-2006 Range 0.003- 0.113 100-633 6.9-45.8 4.3-20.1 0.14-0.82 0.0.05-0.64 25.2-155 15.1-136 

All data 

1999-2002 Range 0.003- 0.20 62-898 6.0-48.4 3.2-22.3 0.15-1.14 0.12-0.92 26.9-173 14.8-157 
3-14

Table 3-2. Table of Concentrations for Selected Organic Parameters and Grain Size in 

BSMP Sediment Samples

Station Total PAH 

(g/Kg) 

Total PHC 

(mg/Kg) 

Total S/T 

(g/Kg) TOC (%) Silt+Clay (%) 

BSMP - 2004 

3A 460 9.8 37 0.87 60 

3B 470 11 35 0.81 -- 

4A 1100 15 49 0.77 82 

4B 85 3.6 5.7 0.30 10 

4C 40 1.3 4.0 0.22 1.6 

5(0) 200 6.8 18 0.91 38 

5(1) 23 1.1 2.5 0.04 0.1 

5(10) 130 8.0 26 0.16 -- 

5(5) 250 8.2 35 0.43 30 

5B 18 4.5 1.8 0.08 71 

5D 459 25 90 0.54 100 

5E 190 1.7 20 0.05 13 

5F 720 17 91 0.61 84 

5H 230 5.9 20 0.30 21 

2004 Mean (SD) 310 (300) 8.5 (6.8) 31 (29) 0.44 (0.32) 43 (35) 

BSMP – 2005 

1A 190 3.6 31 0.92 38 

1B 100 1.6 11 0.18 14 

1C 430 11 56 0.50 54 

1D 36 0.56 2.4 -- 12 

1E 150 8.2 40 1.7 71 

2A 1400 20 68 0.91 30 

2B 68 0.39 4.6 0.12 4.0 

2C 500 10 72 0.50 68 

2D 45 0.23 2.1 0.18 3.1 

2E 64 0.54 5.4 0.60 5.9 

2F 280 2.5 13 0.61 20 

2G 1300 14 44 1.5 84 

2H 270 2.9 30 0.40 34 

3A 700 9.0 49 0.91 75 

3B 560 10 41 0.80 68 

4A 410 38 24 0.65 23 

4B 170 1.4 11 0.49 14 

5(1) 48 0.30 3.2 0.05 3.3 

5(5) 370 5.4 37 0.87 41 

BP01 250 3.8 19 0.60 27 

E01 1200 17 62 0.84 92 

PB1 180 1.6 13 -- -- 

PB1A 1100 20 98 -- -- 

2005 Mean (SD) 430 (430) 8.0 (9.2) 32 (26) 0.67 (0.43) 37 (29) 
3-15

Table 3-2 continued. Table of Concentrations for Selected Organic Parameters and Grain 

Size in BSMP Sediment Samples 

Station Total PAH 

(g/Kg) 

Total PHC 

(mg/Kg) 

Total S/T 

(g/Kg) TOC (%) Silt+Clay (%) 

BSMP - 2006 

4A 370 5.1 19 0.65 54 

5(1) 180 3.1 12 0.46 26 

5(5) 190 3.6 16 0.75 19 

6A 1300 22 120 1.5 93 

6B 1600 17 74 0.81 52 

6D 1100 11 78 0.74 51 

6F 180 2.0 14 0.68 12 

6G 970 19 130 2.1 49 

6H 120 1.1 12 0.08 4.6 

7A 910 10 90 0.76 61 

7E 1800 26 170 2.2 94 

7G 1400 19 120 0.81 39 

BP01 290 5.6 19 0.80 48 

E01 220 3.9 14 0.28 18 

E02 1200 26 130 2.8 61 

M01 92 1.3 8.0 0.62 6.3 

SDI 420 10 29 1.0 60 

WD01 1100 27 120 2.8 81 

COL (Peat) 740 47 83 -- -- 

EI01 (Peat) 120 230 87 -- -- 

KUP (Peat) 110 57 35 -- -- 

PI01 (Peat) 13 8.7 3.0 -- -- 

SAG (Peat) 290 25 41 -- -- 

2006 Mean (SD)1 750 (580) 12 (9.3) 65 (55) 1.1 (0.81) 46 (28) 

BSMP 1999 - 

2002 Mean (SD) 340 (420) 6.6 (7.8) 27 (20) 0.81 (1.4) 39 (29) 

Note1 - Peat samples were not included in the average sediment concentrations. 
3-16

Table 3-3. Table of Concentrations for Selected Organic Parameters and Grain Size in 

Northstar Sediment Samples 

Station Total PAH (g/Kg) Total PHC (mg/Kg) Total S/T (g/Kg) TOC (%) Silt+Clay (%) 

Northstar – 2004 

5A 500 5.4 56 0.76 56 

N01 73 4.9 7.5 0.07 7.6 

N02 480 3.3 35 0.38 46 

N03 1100 25 110 0.46 24 

N04 490 5.1 47 1.2 48 

N05 540 11 52 0.33 79 

N061 830 (28) 19 (0.89) 81 (1.8) 0.39 53 

N07 180 1.0 18 0.12 16 

N08 28 85 100 0.41 79 

N09 170 12 18 0.14 14 

N10 860 23 100 0.48 89 

N11 76 5.6 7.5 0.05 2.7 

N12 250 9.6 24 1.7 -- 

N13 580 21 68 0.88 87 

N14 650 15 78 0.57 58 

N15 13 1.2 2.0 0.04 0.40 

N16 650 15 59 0.29 75 

N17 750 25 100 0.55 88 

N18 470 7.0 53 0.92 34 

N19 350 9.8 31 0.98 24 

N20 380 8.1 40 1.4 55 

N21 350 10 31 0.29 31 

N23 760 30 100 0.63 46 

2004 Mean (SD) 460 (290) 15 (17) 53 (24) 0.58 (0.45) 45 (29) 

Northstar – 2005 

N03 950 14 59 -- -- 

N04 180 2.9 12 0.11 10 

N06 410 6.6 32 0.20 33 

N08 350 5.0 27 0.51 45 

N11 490 7.2 38 0.44 -- 

N11 72 0.60 6.7 -- -- 

N14 1600 100 660 6.4 44 

N18 590 9.0 38 0.83 41 

N26 290 1.6 25 -- -- 

2005 Mean (SD) 560 (480) 17 (33) 99 (210) 1.4 (2.4) 34 (14) 

Northstar – 2006 

5A 500 5.6 43 0.70 42 

N03 1100 22 90 1.4 95 

N03 1000 15 81 1.2 94 

N06 810 11 68 0.95 80 

N11 510 8.8 49 0.76 74 

N14 170 1.2 13 0.23 10 

N28 440 6.3 39 1.1 45 

2006 Mean (SD) 640 (330) 10 (6.7) 55 (27) 0.91 (0.38) 63 (32) 

Northstar 1999-2002 

Mean (SD) 610 (440) 11 (7.0) 63 (41) 0.97 (0.72) 58 (33) 

Note1 – Field Triplicates were collected at this station. The average value of the triplicates is reported with the standard 

deviation in parentheses.
3-17

Table 3-4. Table of Concentrations for Selected Organic Parameters and Grain Size in 

Liberty Sediment Samples 

Station Total PAH (g/Kg) Total PHC (mg/Kg) Total S/T (g/Kg) TOC(%) Silt+Clay(%) 

3.3.4 Liberty - 

2004 

 

L01 430 7.3 43 0.47 -- 

L04 490 12 35 0.69 49 

L061 960 (88) 23 (6.9) 71 (9.4) 1.6 82 

L07 980 25 85 2.4 91 

L08 740 26 88 1.1 57 

L09 410 13 36 0.97 66 

L17 270 9.3 21 0.65 47 

L18 880 18 62 0.47 49 

2004 Mean (SD) 640 (280) 17 (7.2) 52 (24) 1.0 (0.65) 63 (17) 

3.3.5 Liberty - 

2005 

 

L07 1100 23 140 1.6 84 

L08 310 7.8 30 0.28 21 

2005 Mean (SD) 710 (580) 15 (11) 85 (77) 0.94 (0.93) 52 (45) 

3.3.6 Liberty - 

2006 

 

L03 330 6.0 24 1.2 62 

L08 360 13 38 0.79 50 

L19 160 3.4 10 0.43 22 

L20 180 3.4 13 0.41 15 

L21 25 2.0 3.3 0.020 1.2 

L22 650 16 60 0.81 59 

2006 Mean (SD) 280 (220) 7.2 (5.7) 25 (21) 0.60 (0.40) 35 (26) 

Liberty – 1999 to 

2002 Mean (SD) 340 (170) 7.3 (4.1) 34 (15) 0.67 (0.30) 47 (26) 

Note1

 – Field Triplicates were collected at this station. The average value of the triplicates is reported with 

the standard deviation in parentheses. 
3-18

Table 3-5. Table of Concentrations for Selected Organic Parameters and Grain Size in Sediment 

Core Samples. 

Core Station - Year/ 

Depth (cm) Total PAH (g/Kg) TPHC (mg/Kg) Total S/T (g/Kg) Silt+Clay (%) 

Pyrogenic/ 

Petrogenic (ratio) 

1C – 2005 

2 760 13 77 68 0.11 

4 820 14 81 71 0.12 

6 770 13 78 63 0.12 

8 810 13 78 68 0.12 

10 780 14 77 71 0.12 

12 790 14 81 68 0.12 

14 750 13 75 70 0.12 

20 790 14 82 70 0.12 

30 890 15 94 71 0.12 

Mean (SD) 790 (42) 14 (0.78) 80 (5.7) 69 (2.6) 0.12 (0.00) 

2A – 2005 

2 1400 24 64 91 0.08 

4 980 20 66 39 0.08 

6 700 23 79 59 0.07 

8 1060 18 47 63 0.07 

10 1200 20 60 67 0.08 

20 1600 38 160 90 0.10 

30 1400 42 190 92 0.09 

Mean (SD) 1200 (320) 26 (9.5) 95 (56) 72 (20) 0.08 (0.01) 

BP01 – 2005 

2 300 4.8 21 33 0.09 

4 340 4.3 21 31 0.08 

6 320 4.4 20 36 0.09 

8 380 5.0 24 35 0.09 

10 400 6.2 21 52 0.08 

12 340 3.9 13 70 0.09 

Mean (SD) 350 (38) 4.7 (0.80) 20 (3.8) 43 (15) 0.09 (0.00) 

N26 – 2005 

2 590 7.1 44 71 0.10 

4 490 6.4 39 35 0.11 

6 570 7.2 42 39 0.10 

8 850 11 62 58 0.10 

10 780 9.8 56 57 0.10 

Mean (SD) 660 (150) 8.3 (2.1) 49 (9.8) 52 (15) 0.10 (0.00) 

PB1A – 2005 

2 1100 23 85 36 0.07 

4 1300 30 94 91 0.07 

6 1000 18 64 95 0.08 

8 880 16 51 -- 0.08 

10 840 14 56 93 0.08 

Mean (SD) 1000 (180) 20 (6.3) 70 (19) 79 (28) 0.08 (0.00) 
3-19

Table 3-5 (continued). Table of Concentrations for Selected Organic Parameters and Grain Size in 

Sediment Core Samples.

Core Station - Year/ 

Depth (cm) Total PAH (g/Kg) TPHC (mg/Kg) Total S/T (g/Kg) Silt+Clay (%) 

Pyrogenic/ 

Petrogenic (ratio) 

7A – 2006 

2 638 7.3 39 38 .104 

4 808 9.7 50 55 .105 

6 1047 14 73 68 .101 

8 1177 16 75 64 .104 

10 1580 24 115 77 .104 

14 1608 21 118 88 .104 

18 1665 23 125 84 .108 

Mean (SD) 1200 (410) 16 (6.5) 85 (34) 68 (17) 0.10 (0.002) 

7C – 2006 

2 1252 16 75 78 .107 

4 1524 26 86 88 .108 

6 1508 21 87 88 .108 

8 1299 20 85 86 .108 

10 953 13 56 92 .106 

20 1143 16 60 95 .105 

30 1387 27 89 91 .107 

Mean (SD) 1300 (200) 20 (5.0) 77 (13) 88 (5.7) 0.11 (0.001) 

7E – 2006 

2 1423 23 107 77 .086 

4 2946 34 204 67 .071 

6 2155 42 182 53 .091 

8 2108 25 137 58 .086 

10 1780 25 110 74 .102 

14 1096 19 82 47 .102 

18 1625 22 106 67 .108 

30 2016 27 127 84 .107 

Mean (SD) 1900 (560) 27 (7.4) 130 (41) 66 (13) 0.094 (0.013) 

L22 – 2006 

2 467 7.9 36 48 .124 

4 684 13 54 60 .127 

6 692 16 55 65 .130 

8 648 14 55 65 .134 

10 690 13 54 69 .132 

28 713 15 59 64 .131 

Mean (SD) 650 (92) 13 (2.8) 52 (8.3) 62 (7.4) 0.13 (0.004) 

N17 – 2006 

2 922 12.5 54 85 .105 

4 999 14.4 61 89 .115 

6 512 9.2 36 66 .112 

8 552 10.1 37 73 .113 

10 615 10.0 36 76 .107 

30 611 20.1 85 28 .101 

Mean (SD) 700 (200) 13 (4.1) 51 (20) 70 (22) 0.11 (0.005) 
3-20

Table 3-6. Diagnostic Ratios and Parameters of Saturated Hydrocarbons, Polynuclear 

Aromatic Hydrocarbons, and Steranes and Triterpanes 

Parameter Relevance in Environmental Samples

Saturated Hydrocarbons (SHC) 

Isoprenoids The sum of selected branched isoprenoid alkanes including: phytane, pristane, farnesane [1470], 

and unidentified isoprenoids at relative retention indices 1380 and 1650. Isoprenoids are abundant 

in petroleum and are resistant to degradation relative to the corresponding n-alkanes. 

LALK The sum of lower-molecular-weight n-alkanes (n-C9 to n-C20) generally associated with “fresh” 

petroleum inputs. 

TALK The sum of total alkanes, which includes those of biogenic and petrogenic origin (n-C9 to n-C40). 

LALK/TALK Diagnostic alkane compositional ratio used to determine the relative abundance of lower-molecularweight alkanes, which includes those of biogenic origin. 

PHY/PRIS Source of phytane (PHY) is mainly petroleum, whereas pristane (PRIS) is derived from both 

biological matter and oil. In “clean” environmental samples, this ratio is very low and increases as 

oil is added. 

n-C16/(n-C15 +n-C17) 

The ratio of n-alkane hexadecane (n-C16) over pentadecane (n-C15) and heptadecane (n-C17). At 

“background” levels of total hydrocarbons n-C15 and n-C17 can be used as indicators of plankton 

(algal) hydrocarbon inputs. As plankton productivity increases, the ratio decreases. 

CPI 

Carbon Preference Index. Describes the relative amounts of odd- and even-chain alkanes within a 

specific alkane boiling range [CPI = (n-C27+ n-C29+ n-C31)/(n-C26+ n-C28+ n-C30)]. CPI of 2 - 4 

indicates terrestrial plants; as oil additions increase, the CPI is lowered to near 1.0. 

TPHC Total Saturated Hydrocarbons. The sum of the resolved plus unresolved saturated hydrocarbons. 

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)

N/P The naphthalenes (N) to phenanthrenes/anthracenes (P) ratio is diagnostic for inputs of fresh 

petroleum, and as a weathering indicator. Naphthalenes are characteristic of fresh crude oil; the 

ratio decreases with increased weathering. (N= Naphthalene series [C0N + C1N + C2N + C3N + 

C4N]; P= Phenanthrene/Anthracene Series [C0P/A + C1P/A + C2P/A + C3P/A + C4P/A]). 

C2D/C2P Ratio of C2 alkyl dibenzothiophenes (D) and C2 alkyl phenanthrenes (P) is a useful diagnostic 

source ratio for petroleum. 

C3D/C3P Ratio of C3 alkyl dibenzothiophenes (D) and C3 alkyl phenanthrenes (P) is a useful diagnostic 

source ratio for petroleum. 

Perylene A biogenic PAH formed during the early diagenesis in marine and lacustrine sediments; 

may be associated with terrestrial plant source precursors. 

Total PAH The sum of all PAH target analytes; includes 2- through 6-ring parent PAH and C1 - C4 alkylsubstituted PAH. 

Total PAH less 

perylene 

The sum of all PAH target analytes with the exception of perylene. 

Pyrogenic PAH The sum of combustion PAH compounds (4-, 5-, and 6-ring PAH: fluoranthene, pyrene, chrysene, 

benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, benzo[a]pyrene, 

dibenz[a,h]anthracene, benzo[g,h,i]perylene, and indeno[1,2,3,-c,d]pyrene. 

Petrogenic PAH The sum of petrogenic PAH compounds (2-, 3-, and 4-ring PAH: naphthalenes [C0 - C4], 

acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, fluorene [C0 - C3], phenanthrenes [C0 - C4], dibenzothiophenes 

[C0 - C3], chrysenes [C1 - C4], and fluoranthenes/pyrenes [C1 - C3]). 

Pyrogenic/Petrogenic The ratio of pyrogenic PAH compounds to petrogenic PAH compounds is useful for determining the 

relative contribution of pyrogenic and petrogenic hydrocarbons and in differentiating hydrocarbon 

sources. 
3-21

Table 3-6 (continued). Diagnostic Ratios and Parameters of Saturated Hydrocarbons, 

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, and Steranes and Triterpanes 

Parameter Relevance in Environmental Samples

Steranes/Triterpanes (S/T) 

Total S/T The sum of all sterane and triterpane biomarker target analytes. 

T21/T22 The ratio of C31-homohopane (22S) (T21) to C31-homohopane (22R) (T22); useful for 

determining the contribution of recent biogenic material. 

Hopane C30-Hopane (T19), commonly one of the most abundant triterpanes in petroleum. 

Ts/(Ts +Tm) Ratio of C27-trisnorhopane (Ts) to C27-trisnorhopane (Tm); used as a maturity indicator for 

petroleum and also as a source ratio for different crude oils. 

Oleanane/Hopane The ratio of C30-oleanane (T18) to C30-hopane (T19); indicates the relative amounts of 

oleanane, which is a marker of angiosperm (post-Cretaceous) contribution to petroleum 

diagenesis. 

CPI – Carbon Preference Index 

LALK – Low-molecular-weight n-alkanes 

LALK/TALK – LALK:TALK ratio 

PHY/PRIS – Phytane:pristane ratio 

TALK – Total n-alkanes 
3-22

Table 3-7. Average Total Organic Concentrations in Surficial Sediments from ANIMIDA 

Study Area, Alaska Marine Sediments, and Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait Sediments 

Total PAH (g/g) Total PHCg

 (μg/g) Total S/T (g/g)

Concentrations in Alaska 

Marine Sedimentsa 0.016 - 2.4 0.47 - 38 NA

Concentrations in Cook 

Inlet and Shelikof Strait 

Sedimentsb 

0.001 – 1.1 0.9 – 69 0.009 – 0.087

Average (Range) 

Concentrations for 

ANIMIDA Study Area 

Sediment Coresc

0.54 (0.28 – 2.0) 9.0 (3.2 – 31) 0.059 (0.021 – 0.22) 

Average (Range) 

Concentrations for Phase I 

ANIMIDA Study Area 

Surficial Sedimentsd 

0.39 (0.007 – 2.7) 6.6 (0.21 – 50) 0.025 (0.001 – 0.082)

Average (Range) 

Concentrations for Phase II 

ANIMIDA Study Area 

Surficial Sedimentse 

0.49 (0.012 – 2.0) 9.5 (0.44 – 27) 0.049 (0.002 – 0.18)

Average (Range) 

Concentrations for 

cANIMIDA Study Area 

Surficial Sedimentsf

0.46 (0.013 – 1.6) 13 (0.39 – 104) 0.050 (0.002 – 0.66)

Average (Range) 

Concentrations for 

cANIMIDA Study Area 

Sediment Coresf

0.82 (0.30 – 1.6) 15 (3.8 – 42) 0.066 (0.013 – 0.19) 

a Prince William Sound subtidal and Beaufort Sea (Bence et al., 1996; Boehm et al., 1991).

b ENRI - UAA, 1995, Hyland, et al.,1995; KLI, 1996; KLI, 1997; Boehm et al., 2001a. c Brown et al., 2003. 

d Boehm et al. 2001b. 

e

 Brown et al., 2005. 

f

 Results from this study. 

g

 Total PHC concentrations for the ANIMIDA and cANIMIDA studies included saturated hydrocarbons only, 

while Total PHC concentrations for the other studies included saturated and aromatic hydrocarbons. 

NA – not applicable.
3-23

Table 3-8. Table of Concentrations of Selected Metals in BSMP Sediment Samples 

Station 

Al 

(%) 

Ba 

(μg/g) 

Hg 

(μg/g) 

Pb 

(μg/g) 

Cd 

(μg/g) 

BSMP 2004 (2002) 

2A 4.65 (4.71) 503 (512) 0.056 (0.061) 12.8 (12.9) 0.18 (0.17) 

3B 4.37 ( 5.03) 441 (518) 0.061 (0.058) 11.8 (14.1) 0.17 (0.23) 

4A 4.46 (4.28) 447 (535) 0.056 (0.042) 11.7 (11.6) 0.23 (0.31) 

4B 2.07 (2.02) 191 (221) 0.023 (0.016) 5.4 (5.4) 0.19 (0.17) 

4C 1.80 (1.56) 163 (165) 0.011 (0.007) 5.2 (4.1) 0.04 (0.05) 

5H 2.65 (2.85) 245 (313) 0.025 (0.026) 6.9 (8.4) 0.19 (0.14) 

5(0) 3.89 (3.12) 353 (363) 0.052 (0.025) 10.5 (6.1) 0.19 (0.21) 

5(1) 1.46 (1.72) 142 (223) 0.006 (0.006) 5.3 (5.3) 0.03 (0.07) 

5(5) 5.84 (3.47) 668 (357) 0.052 (0.060) 14.7 (8.6) 0.11 (0.13) 

5(10) 2.83 (2.62) 260 (271) 0.029 (0.021) 6.9 (7.3) 0.16 (0.12) 

5A 4.01 (5.42) 441 (538) 0.055 (0.049) 11.6 (11.0) 0.19 (0.19) 

5B 1.28 (1.72) 154 (221) 0.003 (0.008) 4.2 (5.9) 0.05 (0.05) 

5D 3.25 (3.64) 301 (371) 0.036 (0.029) 7.3 (6.9) 0.23 (0.20) 

5E 2.20 (1.65) 182 (203) 0.015 (0.009) 6.5 (5.1) 0.03 (0.06) 

5F 3.61 (4.38) 329 (455) 0.045 (0.043) 8.5 (8.6) 0.21 (0.18) 

2004 Mean 

(SD) 3.72 (2.22) 321 (154) 0.035 (0.020) 8.6 (3.3) 0.15 (0.07) 

BSMP 2005 

1A 3.44 393 0.045 8.7 0.14 

1B 2.60 261 0.016 7.1 0.09 

1C 5.00 538 0.035 11.4 0.11 

1D 3.87 372 0.017 9.7 0.05 

1E 4.56 435 0.036 14.5 0.13 

2A 3.56 398 0.043 9.8 0.17 

2B 2.22 198 0.009 6.0 0.05 

2C 5.52 620 0.047 12.9 0.11 

2D 2.17 204 0.008 6.3 0.06 

2E 1.89 227 0.019 5.6 0.19 

2F 3.03 365 0.031 7.3 0.24 

2G 3.66 432 0.063 12.2 0.43 

2H 3.74 383 0.025 10.4 0.10 

3A 4.83 549 0.052 12.5 0.20 

3B 4.55 520 0.050 11.8 0.17 

4A 3.43 481 0.019 10.6 0.19 

4B 1.98 268 0.020 6.3 0.19 

5(1) 1.98 317 0.011 6.9 0.04 

5(5) 3.75 433 0.037 10.1 0.19 

BP01 2.17 259 0.028 5.2 0.11 

E01 4.89 499 0.059 11.5 0.35 

2005 Mean 

(SD) 3.47 (1.14) 388 (122) 31.9 (16.7) 9.4 (2.8) 0.16 (0.10) 
Table 3-8 (continued). Table of Concentrations of Selected Metals in BSMP Sediment Samples 

3-24

Station 

Al 

(%) 

Ba 

(μg/g) 

Hg 

(μg/g) 

Pb 

(μg/g) 

Cd 

(μg/g) 

BSMP 2006 

4A 3.59 389 0.028 8.9 0.24 

5A 3.06 307 0.026 6.4 0.46 

6A 5.32 511 0.056 12.7 0.28 

6B 5.29 534 0.046 11.6 0.18 

6D 4.92 531 0.041 12.4 0.15 

6F 2.84 333 0.020 5.7 0.10 

6G 3.56 394 0.056 14.7 0.17 

6H 2.73 863 0.013 7.8 0.11 

7A 4.40 732 0.040 11.5 0.16 

7C 6.29 637 0.059 16.0 0.19 

7E 5.59 678 0.066 15.2 0.33 

7G 3.73 665 0.037 11.2 0.15 

5(1) 2.69 332 0.023 8.3 0.14 

5(5) 2.76 310 0.028 6.9 0.16 

BP01 3.60 407 0.035 8.7 0.22 

E01 2.41 256 0.022 6.0 0.13 

2006 Mean 

(SD) 3.92 (1.22) 492 (180) 0.037 (0.016) 10.2 (3.4) 0.20 (0.09) 
3-25

Table 3-9: Table of Concentrations for Selected Metals in Northstar Sediment Samples 

Station Al 

(%) 

Ba 

(μg/g) 

Hg 

(μg/g) 

Pb 

(μg/g) 

Cd 

(μg/g) 

Northstar 2004 (2002) 

N01 1.84 (1.73) 254 (212) 0.010 (0.009) 5.1 (6.5) 0.04 (0.05) 

N02 3.72 (4.51) 421 (501) 0.038 (0.044) 9.1 (13.8) 0.17 (0.13) 

N03 6.30 (5.42) 584 (537) 0.070 (0.055) 16.1 (14.2) 0.22 (0.17) 

N04 4.17 (4.13) 493 (422) 0.058 (0.048) 10.3 (10.3) 0.19 (0.14) 

N05 3.78 (5.78) 483 (578) 0.042 (0.053) 8.6 (12.3) 0.15 (0.18) 

N06 4.59 (4.85) 527 (503) 0.051 (0.046) 11.0 (12.8) 0.19 (0.12) 

N08 5.30 (4.45) 559 (469) 0.056 (0.045) 10.4 (9.3) 0.21 (0.17) 

N09 2.89 (3.71) 314 (402) 0.023 (0.036) 4.5 (7.3) 0.15 (0.16) 

N10 5.50 (4.49) 562 (473) 0.065 (0.046) 12.3 (9.5) 0.22 (0.19) 

N11 1.98 (2.73) 309 (293) 0.012 (0.023) 3.8 (8.9) 0.09 (0.11) 

N12 4.75 (4.86) 506 (478) 0.051 (0.047) 10.9 (10.1) 0.17 (0.21) 

N13 4.83 (5.58) 474 (514) 0.065 (0.061) 9.0 (15.3) 0.26 (0.22) 

N14 4.23 (5.72) 404 (545) 0.049 (0.059) 9.2 (11.6) 0.23 (0.21) 

N15 1.64 (1.65) 406 (302) 0.004 (0.015) 6.5 (6.1) 0.07 (0.11) 

N12 4.75 (4.86) 506 (478) 0.051 (0.047) 10.9 (10.1) 0.17 (0.21) 

N17 6.25 (5.27) 654 (518) 0.063 (0.057) 13.3 (13.8) 0.21 (0.21) 

N21 3.26 (4.43) 379 (423) 0.030 (0.048) 5.3 (11.3) 0.16 (0.21) 

N23 5.66 (4.82) 651 (575) 0.068 (0.047) 15.7 (10.4) 0.31 (0.27) 

2004 Mean (SD) 4.19 (1.43) 471 (113) 0.045 (0.021) 9.6 (3.6) 0.18 (0.07) 

Northstar 2005 

N4 1.91 299 0.016 5.4 0.09 

N5 4.89 558 0.050 12.7 0.23 

N6 2.80 749 0.027 8.9 0.14 

N8 3.54 421 0.032 8.1 0.18 

N11 3.09 425 0.029 9.3 0.13 

N14 2.93 395 0.113 16.5 0.75 

N18 3.33 455 0.039 10.0 0.28 

2005 Mean (SD) 3.21 (0.90) 472 (144) 0.044 (0.032) 10.1 (3.6) 0.26 (0.23) 

Northstar 2006 

N3 5.39 552 0.048 16.0 0.29 

N6 4.76 628 0.054 13.7 0.26 

N11 3.74 411 0.049 9.3 0.23 

N14 1.78 256 0.013 4.3 0.09 

N17 4.86 501 0.056 12.6 0.21 

N27 5.39 546 0.058 14.2 0.25 

N28 4.11 443 0.041 9.9 0.23 

2006 Mean (SD) 4.19 (1.26) 477 (121) 0.046 (0.015) 11.4 (3.9) 0.22 (0.06) 
3-26

Table 3-10. Table of Concentrations of Selected Metals in Liberty Sediment Samples 

Station 

Al 

(%) 

Ba 

(μg/g) 

Hg 

(μg/g) 

Pb 

(μg/g) 

Cd 

(μg/g) 

Liberty 2004 (2002) 

L01 2.16 (2.59) 220 (259) 0.022 (0.021) 4.3 (7.2) 0.10 (0.10) 

L04 3.69 (3.78) 371 (385) 0.048 (0.036) 8.3 (11.6) 0.18 (0.16) 

L06-1 4.86 (4.58) 489 (486) 0.066 (0.044) 9.6 (9.3) 0.23 (0.19) 

L06-2 6.36 683 0.082 13.9 0.23 

L07 5.75 (4.07) 580 (437) 0.097 (0.041) 18.1 (8.0) 0.36 (0.19) 

L08 4.33 (3.43) 612 (534) 0.061 (0.033) 13.7 (7.4) 0.21 (0.17) 

L09 4.51 (2.23) 456 (243) 0.064 (0.019) 15.1 (9.5) 0.19 (0.10) 

2004 Mean (SD) 4.52 (1.37) 487 (157) 0.063 (0.024) 11.8 (4.7) 0.21 (0.08) 

Liberty 2005 

L7 6.30 701 0.097 20.1 0.38 

L8 2.47 397 0.026 7.2 0.12 

L17B 5.96 673 0.047 14.8 0.13 

2005 Mean (SD) 4.90 (2.11) 590 (168) 0.057 (0.036) 14.0 (6.5) 0.21 (0.15) 

Liberty 2006 

L3 4.01 451 0.040 14.2 0.28 

L8 3.66 575 0.032 10.9 0.22 

L19 2.54 268 0.025 6.0 0.21 

L20 2.50 278 0.018 7.2 0.16 

L21 2.04 229 0.004 5.5 0.04 

L22 3.18 317 0.036 12.2 0.17 

2006 Mean (SD) 2.99 (0.76) 368 (143) 0.026 (0.015) 9.3 (3.6) 0.18 (0.08) 
3-27

Table 3-11. Statistical Model Result Summary with Silt + Clay Covariate Performed on data from 36 stations sampled pre-construction and sampled at least once post-construction (includes North

N15; Liberty stations L01, L03, L04, L06, L07, L08, and L09; and BSMP stations 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 5(0), 5(1), 5(5), 5(10), 

Model includes Station as a factor nested within Region and Year as a factor nested within Construction. Silt+clay was in

covariate when the dependant variable was reported as a concentration. Outliers were excluded from the analysis. 

Key Parameter (dependant variable) 

Silt+Clay Covariate Northstar Effect Construction Effect N

R2 for 

model 

p-value 

for model 

Intercept effect p-value effect p-value effect p-value 

LN Total PAH (μg/Kg) 0.848 0.000 4.508 0.022 0.000 -1.917 0.000 -0.067 0.763 LN Total PAH less perylene (μg/Kg) 0.847 0.000 4.409 0.022 0.000 -1.891 0.000 -0.080 0.715 LN Perylene (μg/Kg) 0.859 0.000 2.247 0.021 0.000 -1.592 0.000 0.048 0.237 LN Petrogenic PAH (μg/Kg) 0.848 0.000 4.293 0.022 0.000 -1.807 0.000 -0.092 0.667 LN Pyrogenic PAH (μg/Kg) 0.859 0.000 2.109 0.020 0.000 -1.444 0.000 -0.125 0.499 LN TPHC (mg/Kg) 0.747 0.000 1.044 0.017 0.000 -0.861 0.022 -0.147 0.470 LN LALK (mg/Kg) 0.851 0.000 -1.816 0.018 0.000 -0.839 0.004 0.039 0.801 LN TALK (mg/Kg) 0.824 0.000 -0.456 0.022 0.000 -1.249 0.002 0.001 0.994 LN Isoprenoids (mg/Kg) 0.873 0.000 -2.564 0.012 0.000 -0.455 0.009 -0.141 0.137 LN TOC (%) 0.745 0.000 -1.491 0.018 0.000 -1.345 0.009 -0.094 0.625 N/P 0.414 0.001 0.926 0.595 0.002 -0.225 0.0341 Pyrogenic PAH/ Petrogenic PAH 0.636 0.000 0.101 -0.006 0.463 0.002 0.605 C2D/C2P 0.576 0.000 0.291 0.149 0.000 -0.072 0.000 C3D/C3P 0.520 0.000 0.346 0.237 0.000 -0.054 0.094 LALK/TALK 0.407 0.004 0.191 -0.006 0.906 0.033 0.181 C16/(C15+C17) 0.334 0.067 0.322 -- -- -- -- Pristane/Phytane 0.325 0.110 2.223 -- -- -- -- CPI 0.639 0.000 4.486 -2.393 0.003 0.441 0.312 

Note1 – This result was considered to be not significant when controlling the false discovery rate (Benjamini and Hochberg, 199
3-28

Table 3-12. Statistical Model Result Summary with Perylene Covariate Performed on data from 36 stations sampled pre-construction and sampled at least once post-construction (includes Northstar 

N15; Liberty stations L01, L03, L04, L06, L07, L08, and L09; and BSMP stations 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 5(0), 5(1), 5(5), 5(10), 5A

Model includes Station as a factor nested within Region and Year as a factor nested within Construction. Perylene (log-transfothe model as a covariate. Outliers were excluded from the analysis. 

Key Parameter (dependant variable) 

LN Perylene Covariate Northstar Effect Construction Effect N

R2 for 

model 

p-value 

for model 

Intercept effect p-value effect p-value effect p-value 

LN Total PAH less perylene (μg/Kg) 0.977 0.000 2.156 1.008 0.000 -0.299 0.066 -0.140 0.094 LN Petrogenic PAH (μg/Kg) 0.977 0.000 2.067 0.998 0.000 -0.235 0.143 -0.153 0.065 LN Pyrogenic PAH (μg/Kg) 0.982 0.000 0.108 0.904 0.000 -0.036 0.770 -0.168 0.0101 LN TPHC (mg/Kg) 0.832 0.000 -0.517 0.713 0.000 0.230 0.467 -0.162 0.323 LN LALK (mg/Kg) 0.940 0.000 -3.409 0.734 0.000 0.276 0.144 0.017 0.859 LN TALK (mg/Kg) 0.949 0.000 -2.585 0.961 0.000 0.250 0.256 -0.033 0.771 LN Isoprenoids (mg/Kg) 0.930 0.000 -3.569 0.477 0.000 0.239 0.074 -0.153 0.0281 LN TOC (%) 0.781 0.000 -2.997 0.709 0.000 -0.429 0.382 -0.238 0.165 

Note1 –This result was considered to be not significant when controlling the false discovery rate (Benjamini and Hochberg, 199
3-29

Table 3-13. Summary Data for 2004 for Radionuclides and Aluminum in Surface Sediment 

from the Coastal Beaufort Sea

Sample Excess Pb-210 Ra-226 Cs-137 Al 

Identification (dpm/g) (dpm/g) (dpm/g) (%) 

3A 2004 0.73 1.57 0.082 4.65 

3B 2004 1.54 1.72 0.036 4.37 

4A-1 2004 0.63 1.80 0.075 4.46 

4B 2004 0.59 1.07 <0.01 2.01 

4C 2004 0.17 0.79 <0.01 1.80 

5(0) 2004 1.37 1.44 0.100 3.89 

5(1) 2004 0.00 0.58 <0.01 1.46 

5(5) 2004 1.99 1.58 0.085 5.81 

5(5A) 2004 0.39 1.35 0.044 3.42 

5(10) 2004 0.66 1.33 <0.01 2.83 

5A 2004 1.04 1.47 0.075 4.01 

5B 2004 0.63 0.47 0.010 1.28 

5D 2004 0.48 1.38 0.066 3.25 

5E 2004 0.76 0.68 <0.01 2.20 

5F 2004 0.15 1.27 0.084 3.61 

5H 2004 0.81 1.18 0.038 2.65 

L01 2004 0.21 0.95 0.011 2.16 

L01A 2004 1.41 1.72 0.11 4.65 

L04 2004 1.80 1.32 0.044 3.69 

L06 #1 2004 1.47 1.87 0.13 4.86 

L06 #2 2004 2.02 1.89 0.20 6.36 

L06 #3 2004 2.23 1.88 0.19 6.26 

L07 2004 1.01 1.91 0.16 5.75 

L08 2004 1.59 1.55 0.11 4.33 

L09 2004 1.37 1.52 0.082 4.51 

L17 2004 0.36 1.21 0.035 3.34 

L18 2005 0.19 1.24 0.028 3.16 

N01 2004 0.06 0.70 <0.01 1.84 

N02 2004 0.70 1.62 0.038 3.72 

N03 2004 2.29 1.99 0.11 6.30 

N04 2004 0.39 1.50 0.066 4.17 

N05 2004 1.16 1.47 0.045 3.78 

N06 #1 2004 0.76 1.55 0.057 4.59 

N06 #2 2004 1.25 1.67 0.095 5.58 

N06 #3 2004 1.00 1.58 0.093 5.09 

N08 2004 2.08 1.74 0.13 5.30 

N09 2004 0.05 1.24 0.033 2.89 

N11 2004 0.04 0.89 0.011 1.98 

N12 2004 2.83 1.73 0.19 4.75 

N13 2004 1.56 1.65 0.16 4.83 

N16 2004 0.35 1.51 0.060 4.81 

N18 2004 0.80 1.34 0.056 3.41 

N20 2004 1.55 1.24 0.090 4.88 

N21 2004 0.22 1.47 0.033 3.26 

N23 2004 0.45 1.75 0.12 5.66 
3-30

Table 3-14. Summary Data for 2005 for Radionuclides and Aluminum in Surface Sediment 

from the Coastal Beaufort Sea 

Sample ID Excess Pb-210 Ra-226 Cs-137 Al 

 (dpm/g) (dpm/g) (dpm/g) (%) 

1A 2005 1.03 1.57 0.061 3.44 

1B 2005 0.58 1.04 0.031 2.60 

1C 2005 1.65 1.50 0.066 5.00 

1D 2005 0.81 1.63 0.004 3.87 

1E 2005 1.41 2.06 0.032 4.56 

2A 2005 1.01 1.78 0.053 3.56 

2B 2005 0.44 0.97 <0.01 2.22 

2C 2005 1.80 1.54 0.082 5.52 

2D 2005 0.22 0.82 0.003 2.17 

2E 2005 0.36 1.62 0.009 1.93 

2F 2005 0.32 1.56 0.018 3.03 

2G 2005 2.10 1.80 0.16 3.66 

2H 2005 0.77 1.23 0.060 3.74 

3A 2005 0.82 1.72 0.064 4.83 

3B 2005 1.00 1.66 0.058 4.55 

4A 2005 0.28 1.43 0.019 3.43 

4B 2005 0.43 1.10 0.007 1.98 

5(1) 2005 0.01 0.65 0.008 1.98 

5(5) 2005 0.49 1.38 0.034 3.75 

BP01 2005 0.99 1.41 0.003 2.17 

E01 2005 2.09 1.60 0.12 4.89 

L07 2005 1.73 1.85 0.13 6.30 

L08 2005 0.77 0.93 0.011 2.47 

L17B 2005 1.15 1.36 0.055 5.96 

N04 2005 0.12 1.05 0.012 1.91 

N05 2005 0.15 1.63 0.032 4.89 

N06 2005 0.65 1.07 0.044 2.80 

N08 2005 1.04 1.51 0.015 3.57 

N11 2005 0.87 1.16 0.033 3.08 

N14 2005 2.60 1.60 0.026 3.05 

N18 2005 1.39 1.51 0.043 3.33 
3-31

Table 3-15. Summary Data for 2006 for Radionuclides and Aluminum in Surface Sediment 

from the coastal Beaufort Sea 

Sample ID 

Excess Pb210 

(dpm/g) 

Ra-226 

(dpm/g) 

Cs-137 

(dpm/g) 

Total Pb210 

(dpm/g) 

Al 

(%) 

N03 R1 1.64 1.85 <0.015 3.49 4.99 

N03 R2 1.14 1.77 <0.015 2.91 5.79 

N06 0.35 1.61 <0.015 1.96 4.76 

N11 0.53 1.63 <0.015 2.16 3.74 

N14 0.60 1.03 <0.015 1.63 1.78 

N17 0.17 1.73 <0.015 1.90 4.86 

N27 0.34 1.62 <0.015 1.96 5.39 

N28 1.00 1.48 0.061 2.48 4.11 

West Dock 2.59 1.76 0.064 4.35 4.23 

M01 0.86 0.91 <0.015 1.77 1.85 

L03 0.64 1.8 <0.015 2.44 4.01 

L08 0.67 1.43 0.033 2.10 3.66 

L19 1.12 1.26 <0.015 2.38 2.54 

L20 0.52 1.08 <0.015 1.60 2.50 

L21 0.00 0.78 <0.015 0.78 2.04 

L22 0.82 1.5 <0.015 2.32 3.18 

E01 0.52 1.13 <0.015 1.65 2.41 

E02 0.80 1.65 0.125 2.45 3.90 

SDI-1 1.54 1.39 0.029 2.93 3.84 

BP01 0.85 1.66 0.014 2.51 3.60 

4A 0.24 1.42 <0.015 1.66 3.59 

5A 0.00 1.28 <0.015 1.28 3.06 

6A 1.15 1.75 0.037 2.90 5.32 

6B 1.02 1.37 0.035 2.39 5.29 

6D 0.00 1.41 <0.015 1.41 4.92 

6F 0.45 1.28 <0.015 1.73 2.84 

6G 0.87 1.32 0.035 2.19 3.56 

6H 0.00 1.52 <0.015 1.52 2.73 

7A 0.74 1.47 <0.015 2.21 4.50 

7C 0.00 1.67 <0.015 1.67 6.29 

7E 0.72 1.72 <0.015 2.44 5.59 

7G 0.96 1.3 <0.015 2.26 3.72 

5(1) 0.24 0.96 <0.015 1.20 2.69 

5(5) 0.70 1.22 0.016 1.92 2.76 
3-32

Table 3-16. Summary Data for Total Metals, Total Organic Carbon (TOC), and Grain Size in Sediment Cores Beaufort Sea

Samples Ag (μg/g) Al (%) As (μg/g) Ba (μg/g) Be (μg/g) Cd (μg/g) Co (μg/g) Cr (μg/g

Sediment 

Cores 

2005-2006

Mean ± 

Std. Dev. 

(n = 81)

0.11 

±0.04

4.81 

±1.09

10.3 

±3.6

590 

±152

1.1 

±0.3

0.22 

±0.10

10.3 ±2.45

76.7 

±15.5

Surface 

Sediment 

2005-2006 

Mean ± 

Std. Dev. 

(n = 64)

0.12 

±0.06

3.67 

±1.21

10.3 ±3.9

441 

±151

1.0 

±0.3

 0.20 ±0.12

8.3 

±2.6

60.9 

±20.0

Samples Hg (μg/g) Mn (μg/g) Ni (μg/g) Pb (μg/g) Sb (μg/g) Tl (μg/g) V (μg/g) Zn (μg/g

Sediment 

Cores 

2005-2006 

Mean ± 

Std. Dev. 

(n = 81)

0.048 ±0.016

319 

±83

33.0 

±6.6

12.2 

 ±2.6 

0.58 

±0.13

0.42 

±0.07

101 

±22.4

87.6 

±14.4

Surface 

Sediment 

2005-2006 

Mean ± 

Std. Dev. 

(n = 64)

0.037 

±0.020

315 

±113

26.4 

±8.8

 10.2 

±3.5

0.45 

±0.15

0.32 

±0.12

82.9 

±31.5

68.4 

±23.6
3-33

Table 3-17. Summary Data for Age-Dated Sediment Cores from the Coastal Beaufort Sea 

Year Core Core Length

(cm) 

Water

Depth

(m) 

Depth for

1950 

(cm) 

137Cs sed.

rate 

(cm/yr) 

Excess 210Pb 

sed. rate 

(cm/yr) 

2005 1C 54 22.2 16.5 0.30 unreliable (0.7, r = 0.78*)

2A 52 4.1 10 0.12 unreliable (0.18, r = 0.56) 

BP01 10 6.6 9.5 0.17 unreliable (0.13, r = 0.76)

E01 21 3.7 1 <0.01 unreliable

L17B 30 20.9 6 0.10 unreliable

PB1A 42 3.0 3.5 0.06 0.09 (r = 0.91)

N26 17 23.9 6.5 0.11 0.07 (r = 0.98)

2006 6B 42 5.5 ~2.5 0.05 unreliable

7A 19 2.1 4.5 0.08 unreliable

7C 42 13.8 ? ? unreliable

7E 32 2.7 11.5 0.20 unreliable (0.25, r = 0.59)

L22 36 29.2 1 <0.02 unreliable

N05 14 11.2 1 <0.02 unreliable

N17 46 11.9 1 <0.02 unreliable
3-34 

Figure 3-1. Histograms showing grain size distribution as percent gravel (black bar), 

sand (red bar), silt (green bar) and clay (yellow bar) for sediment samples collected 

during 2004 in the Northstar area. 

GSSC

0

50

100 GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

Northstar 2004

1km

2km

4km

N01

N02

N03

N04 N05 N06 N07 N08 N09

N10

N11

N14

N13

N15

5F

5B

5E

5D

5(5)

5A

5(1)

5(0)

0

50

100

G S Si C

N23
3-35 

Figure 3-2. Histograms showing grain size distribution as percent gravel (black bar), 

sand (red bar), silt (green bar) and clay (yellow bar) for sediment samples collected 

during 2005 in the Northstar area.

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

Northstar 2005

1km

2km

4km

N04 N05 N06 N08

N18

N14

5(5)

5(1)
3-36 

Figure 3-3. Histograms showing grain size distribution as percent gravel (black bar), 

sand (red bar), silt (green bar) and clay (yellow bar) for sediment samples collected 

during 2006 in the Northstar area.

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

Northstar 2006

1km

2km

4km

N03

N28

N06

N17

N27

N11

N14

5(5)

5A

5(1)
3-37 

Figure 3-4. Histograms showing grain size distribution as percent gravel (black bar), 

sand (red bar), silt (green bar) and clay (yellow bar) for sediment samples collected 

during 2004 in the Liberty area. 

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

Liberty Prospect 2004

1km

2km

4km

4C

4A

4B

3A

L01

L04

L06

L07 L08

L09

L17

GSSC

0

50

100

L18
3-38 

Figure 3-5. Histograms showing grain size distribution as percent gravel (black bar), 

sand (red bar), silt (green bar) and clay (yellow bar) for sediment samples collected 

during 2005 in the Liberty area. 

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

Liberty Prospect 2005

1km

2km

4km

3B

4A

4B

3A

BP01

L17B

L07 L08
3-39 

Figure 3-6. Histograms showing grain size distribution as percent gravel (black bar), 

sand (red bar), silt (green bar) and clay (yellow bar) for sediment samples collected 

during 2006 in the Liberty area. 

GSSC

0

50

100 GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

Liberty Prospect 2006

1km

2km

4km

SDI01

BP01

L22

L21

L03

L08

L19

GSSC

0

50

100 L20
3-40 

Figure 3-7. Concentrations of Al versus Silt + Clay for surface sediments from all 

stations sampled during (a) 1999-2002 and (b) 2004-2006.

The line and correlation coefficient (r) are from linear regression calculations. Data from 2004-2006 are 

plotted with prediction interval from the 1999-2002 data. 

Al (%)

02468

Silt + Clay (%)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Y = 17.2X -18.7

r = 0.89

2002 2000 1999 (a)

Al (%)

02468

Silt + Clay (%)

0

20

40

60

80

100

2004

2005

2006

Data plotted with

1999-2002 prediction interval

(b)
3-41 

Figure 3-8. Concentrations of Al versus (a) Fe and (b) V for surface sediments from 

2004-2006.

The lines, equations, correlation coefficients (r) and 99% prediction intervals are from linear 

regression and related statistical calculations. Data from 2004-2006 are plotted with prediction 

interval from the 1999-2002 data. 

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Fe (%)

0

2

4

6

8

2005

2004

2006

For 1999-2002 data

y = 0.49x + 0.18

r = 0.94, n = 196

N14

WDK 6G

L22 6H

(a)

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

V (μg/g)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2005

2004

2006 

y = 24.0 - 1.7

r = 0.98, n = 88

Linear regression line and 99% prediction

interval based on 1999-2002 data

L22

N03

(b)
3-42 

Figure 3-9. Concentrations of Al versus (a) activity of 226Ra and (b) activity of excess 

210Pb for surface sediments from 2004-2006.

The lines, equations, correlation coefficients (r) and 99% prediction intervals on (a) are from linear 

regression and related statistical calculations. 

Al (%)

02468

226Ra (dpm/g)

0

1

2

3

2004

2005

2006

Y = 0.21X + 0.63

 r = 0.80

Surface Sediments

(a)

Al (%)

02468

Excess 210Pb (dpm/g)

0

1

2

3

2004

2005

2006

Surface Sediments

(b)
3-43 

Figure 3-10. Activities of 137Cs versus activities of excess 210Pb for surface sediments 

from 2004-2006.

Excess 210Pb (dpm/g)

0123

137Cs (dpm/g)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

2004

2005

2006

Surface Sediments
3-44 

05

1015202530

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

Depth (cm)

Total PAH (ug/Kg)

TPAH/Silt+Clay

05

1015202530

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Depth (cm)

Perylene (ug/Kg)

05

1015202530

05

10

Depth (cm)

TPHC (m

TPHC/Silt+Clay

05

1015202530

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Depth (cm)

Total ST (ug/Kg)

05

1015202530

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

Depth (cm)

Pyrogenic PAH:Petrogenic PAH (ratio)

05

1015202530

0

10

20

30

40

50

Depth (cm)

Silt+Cla

Figure 3-11. Sediment core profiles for Station 1C – 2005 (dashed line shows depth in sediment tYear 1950). 
3-45 

05

1015202530

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Depth (cm)

Total PAH (ug/Kg)

TPAH/Silt+Clay

05

1015202530

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Depth (cm)

Perylene (ug/Kg)

05

1015202530

0

10

20

30

Depth (cm)

TPHC (m

05

1015202530

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Depth (cm)

Total ST (ug/Kg)

05

1015202530

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

Depth (cm)

Pyrogenic PAH:Petrogenic PAH (ratio)

05

1015202530

0

10

20

30

40

50

Depth (cm)

Silt+C

Figure 3-12. Sediment core profiles for Station 2A – 2005 (dashed line shows depth in sediment tYear 1950). 
3-46 

02468

1012

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

Depth (cm)

Total PAH (ug/Kg)

TPAH/Silt+Clay

02468

1012

05

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Depth (cm)

Perylene (ug/Kg)

02468

1012

02468

Depth (cm)

TPHC (mg/K

TPHC/S

02468

1012

05

10

15

20

25

30

Depth (cm)

Total ST (ug/Kg)

02468

1012

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

Depth (cm)

Pyrogenic PAH:Petrogenic PAH (ratio)

02468

1012

0

10

20

30

40

50

Depth (cm)

Silt+Clay (

Figure 3-13. Sediment core profiles for Station BP01 – 2005 (dashed line shows depth in sedimento Year 1950).
3-47 

02468

10

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

Depth (cm)

Total PAH (ug/Kg)

TPAH/Silt+Clay

02468

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Depth (cm)

Perylene (ug/Kg)

02468

10

05

10

15

Depth (cm)

TPHC (mg/Kg

TPHC/Silt+Clay

02468

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Depth (cm)

Total ST (ug/Kg)

02468

10

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

Depth (cm)

Pyrogenic PAH:Petrogenic PAH (ratio)

02468

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Depth (cm)

Silt+Clay (%)

Figure 3-14. Sediment core profiles for Station N26 – 2005 (dashed line shows depth in sediment to Year 1950).
3-48 

02468

10

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Depth (cm)

Total PAH (ug/Kg)

TPAH/Silt+Clay

02468

10

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Depth (cm)

Perylene (ug/Kg)

02468

10

0

10

20

30

40

Depth (cm)

TPHC (mg/Kg

TPH

02468

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Depth (cm)

Total ST (ug/Kg)

02468

10

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

Depth (cm)

Pyrogenic PAH:Petrogenic PAH (ratio)

02468

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Depth (cm)

Silt+Clay (%

Figure 3-15. Sediment core profiles for Station PB01 – 2005 (dashed line shows depth in sedimento Year 1950). 
3-49 

02468

1012141618

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Depth (cm)

Total PAH (ug/Kg)

TPAH/Silt+Clay

02468

1012141618

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Depth (cm)

Perylene (ug/Kg)

02468

1012141618

05

10

15

20

Depth (cm)

TPHC (mg/

TPHC/Silt+Clay

02468

1012141618

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Depth (cm)

Total ST (ug/Kg)

02468

1012141618

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

Depth (cm)

Pyrogenic PAH:Petrogenic PAH (ratio)

02468

1012141618

0

10

20

30

40

50

Depth (cm)

Silt+Clay (

Figure 3-16. Sediment core profiles for Station 7A – 2006 (dashed line shows depth in sediment tYear 1950).
3-50 

05

101520253035

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

Depth (cm)

Total PAH (ug/Kg)

TPAH/Silt+Clay

05

101520253035

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Depth (cm)

Perylene (ug/Kg)

05

101520253035

05

10

15

Depth (cm)

TPHC (m

05

101520253035

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Depth (cm)

Total ST (ug/Kg)

05

101520253035

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

Depth (cm)

Pyrogenic PAH:Petrogenic PAH (ratio)

05

101520253035

0

20

40

60

Depth (cm)

Silt+Cl

Figure 3-17. Sediment core profiles for Station 7C – 2006 (accurate geochronology could not be 
3-51 

05

101520253035

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Depth (cm)

Total PAH (ug/Kg)

TPAH/Silt+Clay

05

101520253035

0

50

100

150

200

250

Depth (cm)

Perylene (ug/Kg)

05

101520253035

0

10

20

30

40

50

Depth (cm)

TPHC (mg

05

101520253035

0

50

100

150

200

250

Depth (cm)

Total ST (ug/Kg)

05

101520253035

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

Depth (cm)

Pyrogenic PAH:Petrogenic PAH (ratio)

05

101520253035

0

10

20

30

40

Depth (cm)

Silt+Clay 

Figure 3-18. Sediment core profiles for Station 7E – 2006 (dashed line shows depth in sediment tYear 1950).
3-52 

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.00

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Depth (cm)

Total PAH (ug/Kg)

TPAH/Silt+Clay

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.00

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Depth (cm)

Perylene (ug/Kg)

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.00

05

10

15

Depth (cm)

TPHC (mg/K

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.00

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Depth (cm)

Total ST (ug/Kg)

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.00

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

Depth (cm)

Pyrogenic PAH:Petrogenic PAH (ratio)

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.00

0

10

20

30

40

50

Depth (cm)

Silt+Clay (%

Figure 3-19. Sediment core profiles for Station L22 – 2006 (dashed line shows depth in sediment Year 1950).
3-53 

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.00

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Depth (cm)

Total PAH (ug/Kg)

TPAH/Silt+Clay

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.00

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Depth (cm)

Perylene (ug/Kg)

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.00

0

10

20

30

40

Depth (cm)

TPHC (mg

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.00

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Depth (cm)

Total ST (ug/Kg)

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.00

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.11

0.11

0.11

0.11

0.11

0.12

Depth (cm)

Pyrogenic PAH:Petrogenic PAH (ratio)

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.00

0

10

20

30

40

50

Depth (cm)

Silt+Clay (%)

Figure 3-20. Sediment core profiles for Station N17 – 2006 (dashed line shows depth in sediment to Year 1950).
3-54 

Figure 3-21. Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in sediments from 

station L17B sampled during 2005. Dashed line shows depth in sediment that 

corresponds with 1950 based on sediment geochronology. Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Fe/Al

0.0 0.5 1.0

Al and Fe (%)

02468

Fe/Al

Fe

2005 Liberty L17B

Al

1950

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ba/Al

0 100 200

Ba (μg/g)

0 400 800

Ba/Al Ba

L17B

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Pb (μg/g)

0 10 20

Pb/Al

036

Pb/Al Pb

L17B

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Hg (μg/g)

0.00 0.04 0.08

Hg/Al

0.00 0.01 0.02

Hg/Al Hg

L17B

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cd (μg/g)

0.0 0.1 0.2

Cd/Al

0.00 0.03 0.06

Cd/Al Cd

L17B

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Zn (μg/g)

0 40 80 120

Zn/Al

0 20 40

Zn/Al Zn

L17B

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

As (μg/g)

0 5 10 15 20

As/Al

036

As/Al As

L17B

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Mn (μg/g)

0 200 400

Mn/Al

0 50 100

Mn/Al Mn

L17B

1950
3-55 

Figure 3-21 (cont.). Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in 

sediments from station L17B sampled during 2005. Dashed line shows depth in 

sediment that corresponds with 1950 based on sediment geochronology. Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cr (μg/g)

0 25 50 75 100

Cr/Al

0 10 20 30

Cr/Al Cr

2005 Liberty L17B

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cu (μg/g)

0 10 20 30 40

Cu/Al

0 5 10

Cu/Al Cu

L17B

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Co (μg/g)

0 5 10 15

Co/Al

024

Co/Al Co

L17B

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ni (μg/g)

0 20 40

Ni/Al

0 5 10

Ni/Al Ni

L17B

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

V (μg/g)

0 50 100 150

V/Al

0 20 40

V/Al V

L17B

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Tl (μg/g)

0.00 0.25 0.50

Tl/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Tl/Al Tl

L17B

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Sb (μg/g)

0.0 0.5 1.0

Sb/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Sb/Al Sb

L17B

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Be (μg/g)

012

Be/Al

0.0 0.2 0.4

Be/Al Be

L17B

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ag (μg/g)

0.0 0.1 0.2

Ag/Al

0.00 0.05 0.10

Ag/Al Ag

L17B

1950
3-56 

Figure 3-22. Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in sediments from 

station 1C sampled during 2005. Dashed line shows depth in sediment that 

corresponds with 1950 based on sediment geochronology. Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Al and Fe (%)

02468

Fe/Al

0.0 0.5 1.0

Fe Fe/Al

2005 Camden Bay 1C

Al

1950

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ba/Al

0 100 200

Ba (μg/g)

0 500 1000

Ba/Al

Ba

1C

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Pb (μg/g)

0 10 20

Pb/Al

036

Pb/Al Pb

1C

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Hg (μg/g)

0.00 0.04 0.08

Hg/Al

0.00 0.01 0.02

Hg/Al Hg

1C

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cd (μg/g)

0.0 0.1 0.2

Cd/Al

0.00 0.03 0.06

Cd/Al Cd

1C

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Zn (μg/g)

0 40 80 120

Zn/Al

0 20 40

Zn/Al Zn

1C

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

As (μg/g)

0 5 10 15 20

As/Al

036

As/Al As

1C

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Zn/Al

2 4 6 8 12141618

Total Organic Carbon (%)

012

1C

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Mn (μg/g)

0 200 400

Mn/Al

0 50 100

Mn/Al Mn

1C

1950
3-57 

Figure 3-22 (cont.). Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in 

sediments from station 1C sampled during 2005. Dashed line shows depth in 

sediment that corresponds with 1950 based on sediment geochronology. Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cr (μg/g)

0 25 50 75 100

Cr/Al

0 10 20 30

Cr/Al Cr

2005 Camden Bay 1C

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cu (μg/g)

0 20 40

Cu/Al

0 5 10

Cu/Al Cu

1C

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Co (μg/g)

0 5 10 15

Co/Al

024

Co/Al Co

1C

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ni (μg/g)

0 20 40

Ni/Al

0 5 10

Ni/Al Ni

1C

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

V (μg/g)

0 50 100 150

V/Al

0 20 40

V/Al V

1C

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Tl (μg/g)

0.00 0.25 0.50

Tl/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Tl/Al Tl

1C

1950

 Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Sb (μg/g)

0.0 0.5 1.0

Sb/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Sb/Al Sb

1C

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Be (μg/g)

012

Be/Al

0.0 0.2 0.4

Be/Al Be

1C

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ag (μg/g)

0.0 0.1 0.2

Ag/Al

0.00 0.05 0.10

Ag/Al Ag

1C

1950
3-58 

Figure 3-23. Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in sediments from 

station 2A sampled during 2005. Dashed line shows depth in sediment that 

corresponds with 1950 based on sediment geochronology. Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Al and Fe (%)

02468

Fe/Al

0.0 0.5 1.0

Fe/Al Al

2005 Camden Bay 2A

Fe

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ba/Al

0 100 200

Ba (μg/g)

0 400 800

Ba/Al Ba

2A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Pb (μg/g)

0 10 20

Pb/Al

036

Pb/Al Pb

2A

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Hg (μg/g)

0.00 0.04 0.08

Hg/Al

0.00 0.01 0.02

Hg/Al Hg

2A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cd (μg/g)

0.0 0.2 0.4

Cd/Al

0.00 0.05 0.10

Cd/Al Cd

2A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Zn (μg/g)

0 40 80 120

Zn/Al

0 10 20 30 40

Zn/Al Zn

2A

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

As (μg/g)

0 5 10 15 20

As/Al

036

As/Al As

2A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

As/Al

01234

Total Organic Carbon (%)

012

2A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Mn (μg/g)

0 200 400

Mn/Al

0 50 100

Mn/Al Mn

2A

1950

 
3-59 

Figure 3-23 (cont.). Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in 

sediments from station 2A sampled during 2005. Dashed line shows depth in 

sediment that corresponds with 1950 based on sediment geochronology. Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cr (μg/g)

0 25 50 75 100

Cr/Al

0 10 20 30

Cr/Al Cr

2005 Camden Bay 2A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cu (μg/g)

0 10 20 30 40

Cu/Al

0 5 10

Cu/Al Cu

2A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Co (μg/g)

0 5 10 15

Co/Al

024

Co/Al Co

2A

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ni (μg/g)

0 20 40

Ni/Al

0 5 10

Ni/Al Ni

2A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

V (μg/g)

0 50 100 150

V/Al

0 20 40

V/Al V

2A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Tl (μg/g)

0.00 0.25 0.50

Tl/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Tl/Al Tl

2A

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Sb (μg/g)

0.0 0.5 1.0

Sb/Al

0.0 0.2 0.4

Sb/Al Sb

2A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Be (μg/g)

012

Be/Al

0.0 0.2 0.4

Be/Al Be

2A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ag (μg/g)

0.0 0.1 0.2

Ag/Al

0.00 0.05 0.10

Ag/Al Ag

2A

1950
3-60 

Figure 3-24. Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in sediments from 

station BP01 sampled during 2005. Dashed line shows depth in sediment that 

corresponds with 1950 based on sediment geochronology. Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Al and Fe (%)

02468

Fe/Al

0.0 0.5 1.0

Fe Fe/Al

2005 Boulder Patch

 BP01

Al

1950

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ba/Al

0 100 200

Ba (μg/g)

0 200 400

Ba/Al Ba

BP01

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Pb (μg/g)

0 5 10

Pb/Al

036

Pb/Al Pb

BP01

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Hg (μg/g)

0.00 0.03 0.06

Hg/Al

0.00 0.02 0.04

Hg/Al Hg

BP01

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cd (μg/g)

0.0 0.2 0.4

Cd/Al

0.0 0.2

BP01

Cd/Al Cd

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Zn (μg/g)

0 50 100

Zn/Al

0 25 50

BP01

Zn/Al Zn

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

As (μg/g)

0 5 10

As/Al

0246

As/Al As

BP01

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Mn (μg/g)

0 100 200

Mn/Al

0 50 100

Mn/Al Mn

BP01

1950
3-61 

Figure 3-24 (cont.). Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in sediments 

from station BP01 sampled during 2005. Dashed line shows depth in sediment 

that corresponds with 1950 based on sediment geochronology. Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cr (μg/g)

0 25 50

Cr/Al

0 10 20 30

Cr/Al Cr

2005 Boulder Patch

 BP01

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cu (μg/g)

0 5 10 15 20

Cu/Al

048

Cu/Al Cu

BP01

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Co (μg/g)

0246

Co/Al

024

Co/Al Co

BP01

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ni (μg/g)

0 10 20 30

Ni/Al

0 5 10 15

Ni/Al Ni

BP01

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

V (μg/g)

0 25 50 75

V/Al

0 20 40

V/Al V

BP01

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Tl (μg/g)

0.00 0.25 0.50

Tl/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Tl/Al Tl

BP01

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Sb (μg/g)

0.0 0.5 1.0

Sb/Al

0.0 0.2 0.4

Sb/Al Sb

BP01

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Be (μg/g)

0.0 0.5 1.0

Be/Al

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Be/Al Be

BP01

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ag (μg/g)

0.0 0.1 0.2

Ag/Al

0.00 0.05 0.10

Ag/Al Ag

BP01

1950
3-62 

Figure 3-25. Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in sediments from 

station E01 sampled during 2005. Dashed line shows depth in sediment that 

corresponds with 1950 based on sediment geochronology. Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Al and Fe (%)

02468

Fe/Al

0.0 0.5 1.0

Fe Fe/Al

2005 Endicott E01

Al

1950

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ba/Al

0 100 200

Ba (μg/g)

0 200 400 600

Ba/Al Ba

E01

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Pb (μg/g)

0 10 20

Pb/Al

036

Pb/Al Pb

E01

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Hg (μg/g)

0.00 0.04 0.08

Hg/Al

0.00 0.01 0.02

Hg/Al Hg

E01

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cd (μg/g)

0.0 0.2 0.4

Cd/Al

0.00 0.05 0.10

Cd/Al Cd

E01

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Zn (μg/g)

0 40 80 120

Zn/Al

0 20 40

Zn/Al Zn

E01

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

As (μg/g)

0 5 10 15

As/Al

036

As/Al As

E01

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Mn (μg/g)

0 200 400

Mn/Al

0 50 100

Mn/Al Mn

E01

1950
3-63 

Figure 3-25 (cont.). Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in 

sediments from station E01 sampled during 2005. Dashed line shows depth in 

sediment that corresponds with 1950 based on sediment geochronology. Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cr (μg/g)

0 25 50 75 100

Cr/Al

0 10 20 30

Cr/Al Cr

E01

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cu (μg/g)

0 10 20 30

Cu/Al

0 5 10

Cu/Al Cu

E01

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Co (μg/g)

0 5 10 15

Co/Al

024

Co/Al Co

E01

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ni (μg/g)

0 20 40

Ni/Al

0 5 10

Ni/Al Ni

E01

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

V (μg/g)

0 50 100 150

V/Al

0 20 40

V/Al V

E01

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Tl (μg/g)

0.00 0.25 0.50

Tl/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Tl/Al Tl

E01

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Sb (μg/g)

0.0 0.5 1.0

Sb/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Sb/Al Sb

E01

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Be (μg/g)

0.0 0.3 0.6

Be/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Be/Al Be

E01

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ag (μg/g)

0.0 0.1 0.2

Ag/Al

0.00 0.05 0.10

Ag/Al Ag

E01

1950
3-64 

Figure 3-26. Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in sediments from 

station PB1A sampled during 2005. Dashed line shows depth in sediment that 

corresponds with 1950 based on sediment geochronology. Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Al and Fe (%)

02468

Fe/Al

0.0 0.5 1.0

Fe/Al

Fe

2005 Prudhoe Bay

 PB1A

Al

1950

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ba/Al

0 100 200 300

Ba (μg/g)

0 200 400 600

Ba/Al Ba

PB1A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Pb (μg/g)

0 10 20

Pb/Al

036

Pb/Al Pb

PB1A

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Hg (μg/g)

0.00 0.04 0.08

Hg/Al

0.00 0.02 0.04

Hg/Al Hg

PB1A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cd (μg/g)

0.0 0.2 0.4

Cd/Al

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15

Cd/Al Cd

PB1A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Zn (μg/g)

0 40 80 120

Zn/Al

0 20 40 60

Zn/Al Zn

PB1A

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

As (μg/g)

0 5 10 15

As/Al

036

As/Al As

PB1A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Total Organic Carbon (%)

012

Cd/Al

0.0 0.2 0.4

PB1A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Mn (μg/g)

0 200 400

Mn/Al

0 50 100

Mn/Al Mn

PB1A

1950
3-65 

Figure 3-26 (cont.). Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in 

sediments from station PB1A sampled during 2005. Dashed line shows depth in 

sediment that corresponds with 1950 based on sediment geochronology. Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cr (μg/g)

0 25 50 75 100

Cr/Al

0 10 20 30

Cr/Al Cr

2005 Prudhoe Bay

 PB1A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cu (μg/g)

0 10 20 30 40

Cu/Al

0 10 20

Cu/Al Cu

PB1A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Co (μg/g)

0 5 10 15

Co/Al

0246

Co/Al Co

PB1A

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ni (μg/g)

0 20 40

Ni/Al

0 10 20

Ni/Al Ni

PB1A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

V (μg/g)

0 50 100 150

V/Al

0 20 40 60

V/Al V

PB1A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Tl (μg/g)

0.00 0.25 0.50

Tl/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Tl/Al Tl

PB1A

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Sb (μg/g)

0.0 0.5 1.0

Sb/Al

0.0 0.2 0.4

Sb/Al Sb

PB1A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Be (μg/g)

0.0 0.5 1.0

Be/Al

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Be/Al Be

PB1A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ag (μg/g)

0.0 0.1 0.2

Ag/Al

0.00 0.05 0.10

Ag/Al Ag

PB1A

1950
3-66 

Figure 3-27. Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in sediments from 

station N26 sampled during 2005. Dashed line shows depth in sediment that 

corresponds with 1950 based on sediment geochronology. Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Al and Fe (%)

02468

Fe/Al

0.0 0.5 1.0

Fe Al

2005 Northstar N26

Fe/Al

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ba (μg/g)

0 400 800

Ba/Al

0 200 400

Ba/Al Ba

N26

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Pb (μg/g)

0 10 20

Pb/Al

036

Pb/Al Pb

N26

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Hg (μg/g)

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06

Hg/Al

0.00 0.01 0.02

Hg/Al Hg

N26

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cd (μg/g)

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Cd/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Cd/Al Cd

N26

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Zn (μg/g)

0 40 80 120

Zn/Al

0 20 40

Zn/Al Zn

N26

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

As (μg/g)

0 5 10 15

As/Al

036

As/Al As

N26

1950

 

Total Organic Carbon (%)

012

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

TOC/Al

0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2

N26

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Mn (μg/g)

0 200 400 600

Mn/Al

0 100 200

Mn/Al Mn

N26

1950
3-67 

Figure 3-27 (cont.). Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in 

sediments from station N26 sampled during 2005. Dashed line shows depth in 

sediment that corresponds with 1950 based on sediment geochronology. Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cr (μg/g)

0 25 50 75 100

Cr/Al

0 10 20 30

Cr/Al Cr

2005 Northstar N26

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cu (μg/g)

0 10 20 30

Cu/Al

0 5 10

Cu/Al Cu

N26

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Co (μg/g)

0 5 10 15

Co/Al

024

Co/Al Co

N26

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ni (μg/g)

0 20 40

Ni/Al

0 5 10

Ni/Al Ni

N26

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

V (μg/g)

0 50 100 150

V/Al

0 10 20 30 40

V/Al V

N26

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Tl (μg/g)

0.00 0.25 0.50

Tl/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Tl/Al Tl

N26

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Sb (μg/g)

0.0 0.5 1.0

Sb/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Sb/Al Sb

N26

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Be (μg/g)

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

Be/Al

0.0 0.3 0.6

Be/Al Be

N26

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ag (μg/g)

0.0 0.1 0.2

Ag/Al

0.00 0.05 0.10

Ag/Al Ag

N26

1950

 
3-68 

Figure 3-28. Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in sediments from 

station N17 sampled during 2006. Dashed line shows depth in sediment that 

corresponds with 1950 based on sediment geochronology. Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Al and Fe (%)

02468

Fe/Al

0.0 0.5 1.0

Fe Fe/Al

2006 Northstar N17

Al

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Ba/Al

0 200 400

Ba (μg/g)

0 400 800

Ba/Al Ba

N17

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Pb (μg/g)

0 10 20

Pb/Al

036

Pb/Al Pb

N17

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Hg (μg/g)

0.00 0.04 0.08

Hg/Al

0.00 0.02 0.04

Hg/Al Hg

N17

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Cd (μg/g)

0.0 0.2 0.4

Cd/Al

0.0 0.2 0.4

Cd/Al Cd

N17

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Zn (μg/g)

0 40 80 120

Zn/Al

0 40 80

Zn/Al Zn

N17

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

As (μg/g)

0 5 10 15 20

As/Al

0 5 10

As/Al As

N17

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Total Organic Carbon (%)

012

Zn/Al

012

N17

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Mn (μg/g)

0 200 400

Mn/Al

0 100 200

Mn/Al Mn

N17
3-69 

Figure 3-28 (cont.). Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in 

sediments from station N17 sampled during 2006. Dashed line shows depth in 

sediment that corresponds with 1950 based on sediment geochronology. Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Cr (μg/g)

0 25 50 75 100

Cr/Al

0 20 40 60

Cr/Al Cr

2006 Northstar N17

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Cu (μg/g)

0 10 20 30 40

Cu/Al

0 10 20

Cu/Al Cu

N17

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Co (μg/g)

0 5 10 15

Co/Al

036

Co/Al Co

N17

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Ni (μg/g)

0 20 40

Ni/Al

0 10 20

Ni/Al Ni

N17

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

V (μg/g)

0 50 100 150

V/Al

0 20 40 60

V/Al V

N17

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Tl (μg/g)

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Tl/Al

0.0 0.2 0.4

Tl/Al Tl

N17

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Sb (μg/g)

0.0 0.5 1.0

Sb/Al

0.0 0.2 0.4

Sb/Al Sb

N17

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Be (μg/g)

012

Be/Al

0.0 0.5 1.0

Be/Al Be

N17

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Ag (μg/g)

0.0 0.1 0.2

Ag/Al

0.00 0.05 0.10

Ag/Al Ag

N17

1950
3-70 

Figure 3-29. Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in sediments from 

station L22 sampled during 2006. Dashed line shows depth in sediment that 

corresponds with 1950 based on sediment geochronology. Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Al and Fe (%)

02468

Fe/Al

0.0 0.5 1.0

Fe/Al

Fe

2006 Liberty L22

Al

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Ba/Al

0 100 200

Ba (μg/g)

0 400 800

Ba/Al Ba

L22

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Pb (μg/g)

0 10 20

Pb/Al

0246

Pb/Al Pb

L22

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Hg (μg/g)

0.00 0.04 0.08

Hg/Al

0.00 0.01 0.02

Hg/Al Hg

L22

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Cd (μg/g)

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Cd/Al

0.00 0.05 0.10

Cd/Al Cd

L22

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Zn (μg/g)

0 40 80 120

Zn/Al

0 10 20 30

Zn/Al Zn

L22

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

As (μg/g)

0 5 10 15 20

As/Al

036

As/Al As

L22

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Total Organic Carbon (%)

012

Zn/Al

012

L22

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Mn (μg/g)

0 200 400

Mn/Al

0 50 100

Mn/Al Mn

L22

1950
3-71 

Figure 3-29 (cont.). Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in 

sediments from station L22 sampled during 2006. Dashed line shows depth in 

sediment that corresponds with 1950 based on sediment geochronology. Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Cr (μg/g)

0 25 50 75 100

Cr/Al

0 10 20 30

Cr/Al Cr

2006 Liberty L22

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Cu (μg/g)

0 10 20 30 40

Cu/Al

0 5 10

Cu/Al Cu

L22

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Co (μg/g)

0 5 10 15

Co/Al

024

Co/Al Co

L22

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Ni (μg/g)

0 20 40

Ni/Al

0 5 10

Ni/Al Ni

L22

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

V (μg/g)

0 50 100 150

V/Al

0 20 40

V/Al V

L22

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Tl (μg/g)

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Tl/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Tl/Al Tl

L22

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Sb (μg/g)

0.0 0.5 1.0

Sb/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Sb/Al Sb

L22

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Be (μg/g)

012

Be/Al

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Be/Al Be

L22

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Ag (μg/g)

0.0 0.1 0.2

Ag/Al

0.00 0.05 0.10

Ag/Al Ag

L22

1950
3-72 

Figure 3-30. Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in sediments from 

station 7A sampled during 2006. Dashed line shows depth in sediment that 

corresponds with 1950 based on sediment geochronology. Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Al and Fe (%)

02468

Fe/Al

0.0 0.5 1.0

Fe/Al

Fe

2006 Harrison Bay 7A

Al

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ba/Al

0 100 200 300 400

Ba (μg/g)

0 400 800

Ba/Al Ba

7A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Pb (μg/g)

0 10 20

Pb/Al

036

Pb/Al Pb

7A

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Hg (μg/g)

0.00 0.04 0.08

Hg/Al

0.00 0.01 0.02

Hg/Al Hg

7A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cd (μg/g)

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Cd/Al

0.00 0.05 0.10

Cd/Al Cd

7A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Zn (μg/g)

0 40 80 120

Zn/Al

0 20 40

Zn/Al Zn

7A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

As (μg/g)

0 5 10 15 20

As/Al

036

As/Al As

7A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Total Organic Carbon (%)

012

Zn/Al

012

7A

1950

 

MMS Summer 2001

Core P01

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Mn (μg/g)

0 200 400 600

Mn/Al

0 50 100 150

Mn/Al Mn

7A

1950
3-73 

Figure 3-30 (cont.). Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in 

sediments from station 7A sampled during 2006. Dashed line shows depth in 

sediment that corresponds with 1950 based on sediment geochronology. Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cr (μg/g)

0 25 50 75 100

Cr/Al

0 10 20 30

Cr/Al Cr

2006 Harrison Bay 7A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Cu (μg/g)

0 10 20 30 40

Cu/Al

0 5 10

Cu/Al Cu

7A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Co (μg/g)

0 5 10 15

Co/Al

024

Co/Al Co

7A

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ni (μg/g)

0 20 40

Ni/Al

0 5 10

Ni/Al Ni

7A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

V (μg/g)

0 50 100 150

V/Al

0 20 40

V/Al V

7A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Tl (μg/g)

0.00 0.25 0.50

Tl/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Tl/Al Tl

7A

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Sb (μg/g)

0.0 0.5 1.0

Sb/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Sb/Al Sb

7A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Be (μg/g)

012

Be/Al

0.0 0.2 0.4

Be/Al Be

7A

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Ag (μg/g)

0.0 0.1 0.2

Ag/Al

0.00 0.05 0.10

Ag/Al Ag

7A

1950
3-74 

Figure 3-31. Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in sediments from 

station 7C sampled during 2006. Dashed line shows depth in sediment that 

corresponds with 1950 based on sediment geochronology. Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Al and Fe (%)

02468

Fe/Al

0.0 0.5 1.0

Fe/Al

Fe

2006 Harrison Bay 7C

Al

1950?

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Ba/Al

0 200 400

Ba (μg/g)

0 400 800

Ba/Al Ba

7C

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Pb (μg/g)

0 5 10 15 20

Pb/Al

036

Pb/Al Pb

7C

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Hg (μg/g)

0.00 0.04 0.08

Hg/Al

0.00 0.01 0.02

Hg/Al Hg

7C

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Cd (μg/g)

0.0 0.2 0.4

Cd/Al

0.00 0.05 0.10

Cd/Al Cd

7C

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Zn (μg/g)

0 40 80 120

Zn/Al

0 10 20 30 40

Zn/Al Zn

7C

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

As (μg/g)

0 5 10 15 20

As/Al

0246

As/Al As

7C

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Total Organic Carbon (%)

012

Zn/Al

012

7C

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Mn (μg/g)

0 200 400

Mn/Al

0 50 100

Mn/Al Mn

7C
3-75 

Figure 3-31 (cont.). Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in 

sediments from station 7C sampled during 2006. Dashed line shows depth in 

sediment that corresponds with 1950 based on sediment geochronology. Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Cr (μg/g)

0 40 80 120

Cr/Al

0 10 20 30

Cr/Al Cr

2006 Harrsion Bay 7C

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Cu (μg/g)

0 10 20 30 40

Cu/Al

0 5 10

Cu/Al Cu

7C

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Co (μg/g)

0 5 10 15

Co/Al

024

Co/Al Co

7C

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Ni (μg/g)

0 20 40

Ni/Al

0 5 10

Ni/Al Ni

7C

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

V (μg/g)

0 50 100 150

V/Al

0 20 40

V/Al V

7C

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Tl (μg/g)

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Tl/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Tl/Al Tl

7C

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Sb (μg/g)

0.0 0.5 1.0

Sb/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Sb/Al Sb

7C

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Be (μg/g)

012

Be/Al

0.0 0.2 0.4

Be/Al Be

7C

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Ag (μg/g)

0.0 0.1 0.2

Ag/Al

0.00 0.02 0.04

Ag/Al Ag

7C
3-76 

Figure 3-32. Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in sediments from 

station 7E sampled during 2006. Dashed line shows depth in sediment that 

corresponds with 1950 based on sediment geochronology. Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Al and Fe (%)

02468

Fe/Al

0.0 0.5 1.0

Fe/Al

Fe

2006 Harrison Bay 7E

Al

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Ba/Al

0 100 200

Ba (μg/g)

0 300 600 900

Ba/Al Ba

7E

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Pb (μg/g)

0 5 10 15 20

Pb/Al

036

Pb/Al Pb

7E

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Hg (μg/g)

0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12

Hg/Al

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03

Hg/Al Hg

7E

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Cd (μg/g)

0.0 0.2 0.4

Cd/Al

0.00 0.05 0.10

Cd/Al Cd

7E

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Zn (μg/g)

0 40 80 120

Zn/Al

0 20 40

Zn/Al Zn

7E

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

As (μg/g)

0 5 10 15 20 25

As/Al

0246

As/Al As

7E

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Total Organic Carbon (%)

01234

Zn/Al

01234

7E

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Mn (μg/g)

0 200 400 600

Mn/Al

0 50 100 150

Mn/Al Mn

7E

1950
3-77 

Figure 3-32 (cont.). Vertical profiles for metals and metal/Al ratios for in 

sediments from station 7E sampled during 2006. Dashed line shows depth in 

sediment that corresponds with 1950 based on sediment geochronology. Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Cr (μg/g)

0 30 60 90 120

Cr/Al

0 10 20 30

Cr/Al Cr

2006 Harrison Bay 7E

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Cu (μg/g)

0 10 20 30 40

Cu/Al

0 5 10

Cu/Al Cu

7E

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Co (μg/g)

0 5 10 15

Co/Al

024

Co/Al Co

7E

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Ni (μg/g)

0 25 50

Ni/Al

0 5 10

Ni/Al Ni

7E

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

V (μg/g)

0 50 100 150

V/Al

0 20 40

V/Al V

7E

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Tl (μg/g)

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Tl/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Tl/Al Tl

7E

1950

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Sb (μg/g)

0.0 0.5 1.0

Sb/Al

0.0 0.1 0.2

Sb/Al Sb

7E

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Be (μg/g)

012

Be/Al

0.0 0.2 0.4

Be/Al Be

7E

1950

 

Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

Ag (μg/g)

0.0 0.1 0.2

Ag/Al

0.00 0.05 0.10

Ag/Al Ag

7E

1950
3-78 

Figure 3-33. Vertical profiles for activities of 137Cs, total 210Pb, and excess 210Pb 

for sediments core from stations 1C, 2A and BP01 collected during 2005.

2005 Camden Bay 1C

137Cs (dpm/g)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

s = 0.30 cm/year

1950

 

210Pb Activity (dpm/g)

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40 2005 Camden Bay 1C

Total 210Pb

ln excess 210Pb

S = 0.7 cm/y

r = 0.78

2005 Camden Bay 2A

137Cs (dpm/g)

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

s = 0.12 cm/yr 1950

 

210Pb Activity (dpm/g)

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

40

s = 0.18 cm/year

r = 0.56

Total 210Pb

2005 Camden Bay 2A

ln excess 210Pb

2005 Core BP01

137Cs (dpm/g)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

s = 0.16 cm/yr

 

210Pb Activity (dpm/g)

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

4

8

12

s = 0.13 cm/year

r = 0.76 Total 210Pb

ln excess 210Pb

2005 Boulder Patch BP01
3-79 

Figure 3-34. Vertical profiles for activities of 137Cs, total 210Pb, and excess 210Pb 

for sediments core from stations E01, L17B and PB1A collected during 2005.

2005 Endicott E01

137Cs (dpm/g)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

s < 0.01 cm/year 1950?

 

210Pb Activity (dpm/g)

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

2005 Endicott E01

Total 210Pb

ln excess 210Pb

r<0.1

 2005 Liberty L17B

137Cs (dpm/g)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

1950?

 

210Pb Activity (dpm/g)

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

2005 Liberty 17B

Total 210Pb

ln excess 210Pb

2005 Prudhoe Bay PB1A

137Cs (dpm/g)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

s = 0.06 cm/year 1950

 

210Pb Activity (dpm/g)

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

s = 0.06 cm/year

r = 0.99 

2005 Prudhoe Bay PB1A

Total 210Pb

ln excess 210Pb

ln excess 210Pb

s = 0.09 cm/year

r = 0.91 

 
3-80 

Figure 3-35. Vertical profiles for activities of 137Cs, total 210Pb, and excess 210Pb for 

sediments core from station N26 sampled during 2005 and stations 6B and 7A 

collected during 2006.

2005 Core N26

137Cs (dpm/g)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

s = 0.11 cm/yr

1950

 

2005 Northstar N26

210Pb Activity (dpm/g)

-2 -1 0 1 2 3

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

s = 0.07 cm/yr

r = 0.98 Total 210Pb

ln excess 210Pb

2006 Core 6B

137Cs (dpm/g)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

s = 0.05 cm/yr

1950?

 

210Pb Activity (dpm/g) 

-2 -1 0 1 2 3

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15 2006 Harrison Bay 6B

Total 210Pb

ln excess 210Pb

2006 Harrison Bay 7A

137Cs (dpm/g)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

s = 0.08 cm/yr 1950

 

210Pb Activity (dpm/g)

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15 2006 Harrison Bay 7A

Total 210Pb

ln excess 210Pb
3-81 

Figure 3-36. Vertical profiles for activities of 137Cs, total 210Pb, and excess 210Pb for 

sediments core from stations 7E and L22 collected during 2006 and 137Cs for 

stations N05 and N17 sampled during 2006. 

2006 Harrison Bay 7E

137Cs (dpm/g)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

s = 0.21 cm/yr

 

210Pb (dpm/g)

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

2006 Harrison Bay 7E

Total 210Pb

ln excess 210Pb

S = 0.25 cm/yr

r = 0.59

2006 Core L22

137Cs (dpm/g)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

5

10

15

20

s < 0.02 cm/yr

 

210Pb Activity (dpm/g)

-2 -1 0 1 2 3

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

5

10 2006 Liberty L22

Total 210Pb

ln excess 210Pb

2006 Core N05

137Cs (dpm/g)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

2

4

6

8

10

 

2006 Core N17

137Cs (dpm/g)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

2

4

6

8

10

 
4-1

4.0 Discussion 

In this section, the results for sediment grain size, radionuclides, trace metals and organic 

substances from the cANIMIDA study area during 2004-2006 are discussed with respect to 

trends since the 1999-2002 ANIMIDA study (Brown et al., 2004) and possible contamination of 

sediments with metals or organic substances. 

4.1 Surficial Sediments 

4.1.1 Grain Size 

Inter-annual shifts in the texture of surficial sediment have been observed throughout the 

cANIMIDA study area. Large changes in grain size distribution were first observed in the 

ANIMIDA program between 1999 and 2000 (Figure 4-1). For example, during 1999, surficial 

sediment at stations N11, N12, N13 and N14 were essentially all sand and gravel (Figure 4-1). 

In contrast, the 2000 samples from these same stations were dominated by silt and clay (Figure 

4-1). Although the exact mechanism for this shift is not known, the 1999 samples were 

collected after a 6-day storm with winds in excess of 25 knots that may have eroded away finergrained material. No such storms preceded collection of the 2000 samples that probably 

contained finer-grained material carried in by the Kuparuk River during the spring breakup of 

2000. At stations N06 and N10, both close to Northstar Island, the opposite condition was 

observed with much finer-grained particles in the surface layer of sediment during 1999 than 

2000 (Figure 4-1). This shift may have resulted from inputs of coarser material at these stations 

in association with construction of the island. Grain size distribution at the other Northstar 

stations was similar for 1999 and 2000 (Figure 4-1). 

Differences in grain size distribution between the 2000 and 2002 sampling were less than 

observed between 1999 and 2000 (Figures 4-1 and 4-2). During 2002, much less sand was 

found at stations N06, N07, N08 and N09 than during 2000; most likely because fine-grained 

sediment introduced to that area during river runoff had not yet been moved farther offshore. In 

contrast, sand has dominated at stations N01, 5B and N15 from 1999-2002. 

Grain size distribution in 2004 was different at several stations relative to 2002 (Figure 4-2). 

More fine-grained sediment was observed in 2004 at stations 5B, 5D, N02 and N03 relative to 

2002. In contrast, more gravel was collected at station N15 and more sand at station N11 in 

2004 (Figure 4-2). Results for 2005 from the Northstar area (Figure 3-2) show increases in sand 

at most of the stations relative to 2004 with further increases in sand at stations N06, N14 and 

5(5) in the 2006 samples (Figure 3-3). In contrast, marked increases in silt + clay were observed 

at stations N03 and N06 relative to 2004 and/or 2005. Thus, the Northstar area appears have a 

dynamic sedimentary environment, an observation that is consistent with difficulties in finding 

sediment cores with a useful record of sediment geochronology based on attempts at stations 

N02 and N15 (ANIMIDA) and N05 and N17 (cANIMIDA). A reliable geochronology was 

obtained for station N26 (2005); however, this station was located ~15 km northeast of 
4-2

Northstar Island at a water depth of ~24 m relative to depths of ~12 m in the immediate area of 

Northstar Island. 

Previous shifts in grain size in the Liberty area were noted at station L01 where finer-grained 

sediment was collected during 2000 than during 1999 and at stations L08 and L09 where the 

opposite trend was found. Between 1999 and 2004, an increase in the amounts of fine-grained 

sediment has been observed at several stations including 4A, L07, L08 and 3A (Figure 4-3). The 

2005 grain size data for the Liberty area shows increases in the coarser fractions at stations 4A 

and L08 (Figure 3-5). The presence of a gravel (10.4%) and sand fraction (30.5%) at the 

deeper-water station L22 (29.2 m) suggests that ice-rafting may be a significant source of 

sediment to this location (Figure 3-6). 

One key observation from the grain size data is that sediments in many locations throughout the 

cANIMIDA study area are regularly shifting and that the sediment grain sizes found during one 

year may change prior to sampling during a subsequent year. Furthermore, the grain size 

distribution in surface sediments is very patchy from site to site. Thus, techniques that normalize 

sediment chemistry to account for differences in grain size have been used and radionuclide 

measurements have been made to determine that sediment collected during any given year is 

recent and not relict material. 

4.1.2 Organics (Hydrocarbons) 

The hydrocarbon dataset for surficial sediments for 1999 through 2006 is complete and includes 

SHC, PAH, and S/T data. For the 1999 dataset only a subset of samples were analyzed for S/T. 

These data were assessed in part by using a suite of key diagnostic parameters and ratios (Table 

3-7), which are useful in describing hydrocarbon trends in the marine environment (Boehm et 

al., 2001a). Some of the general trends observed in these data for several areas of interest are 

evaluated in this section. These areas include: 1) sources of hydrocarbons, 2) spatial variability, 

or comparisons between stations, 3) temporal variability, or comparisons between years (before 

and after Northstar construction including results of statistical evaluations), and 4) comparisons 

to sediment quality benchmarks or “guidelines.” 

To facilitate the presentation and discussion of the organics data, GC/FID chromatograms from 

the SHC analysis, PAH distribution plots, and triterpane extracted ion chromatogram profiles 

for representative samples throughout the study area were selected and are presented in Figures 

4-4 through 4-12. The samples selected for presentation are as follows: 

 North Slope Crude Oil – composite pipeline sample (Figure 4-4) 

 Northstar Oil – 2002 (Figure 4-5) 

 Colville River sediment - 1999 (Figure 4-6) 

 Canning River sediment – 2002 (Figure 4-7) 

 Station N06 – Northstar sediment – 1999 (Figure 4-8) 

 Station N06 – Northstar sediment – 2000 (Figure 4-9) 

 Station N06 – Northstar sediment – 2002 (Figure 4-10) 

 Station N06 – Northstar sediment – 2004 (Figure 4-11) 

 Station N06 – Northstar sediment – 2005 (Figure 4-12) 
4-3

 Station N06 – Northstar sediment – 2006 (Figure 4-13) 

 Station L08 – Liberty sediment – 1999 (Figure 4-14) 

 Station L08 – Liberty sediment – 2000 (Figure 4-15) 

 Station L08 – Liberty sediment – 2005 (Figure 4-16) 

 Station L08 – Liberty sediment – 2006 (Figure 4-17) 

 Station 3A – BSMP sediment station near Stockton Islands – 1999 (Figure 4-18) 

 Station 3A – BSMP sediment station near Stockton Islands – 2005 (Figure 4-19) 

 Station 2A – BSMP sediment station in West Camden Bay – 2005 (Figure 4-20) 

The Northstar Oil sample was collected on May 6, 2002 from the separator oil line for Well NS08. The North Slope Crude Oil sample was a Valdez Terminal composite crude oil collected in 

March 1989. 

4.1.2.1 Saturated Hydrocarbons 

In general, the surficial sediments (GC/FID chromatograms in Figures 4- 8 through 4-20) 

exhibit a mixture of primarily terrestrial biogenic hydrocarbons and lower levels of petroleum 

hydrocarbons (Figure 4-4 shows a North Slope Crude Oil reference). This assemblage is clearly 

dominated by plant wax normal (i.e., straight-chain) alkanes in the n-C27 through n-C33 carbon 

range. This is further demonstrated by carbon preference index (CPI) values that range from 

two to seven for most samples, which is characteristic of sediments influenced by terrigenous 

plant inputs (Wakeham and Carpenter, 1976; Boehm, 1984). Two sediment samples have CPI 

ratios of less than two (5B [2004] and N15 [2004]). The lower CPI ratios at stations 5B and 

N15 are due to low SHC concentrations (i.e., trace levels), combined with corresponding low 

TOC, which contribute to CPI ratio uncertainty and potential inaccuracy. 

Traces of lower-molecular-weight alkanes (LALK – n-C9 through n-C20 alkanes), indicative of 

a petroleum source, are visible as more minor components relative to the plant wax alkanes in 

the sediment and river samples (Figures 4-6 through 4-20). This characteristic petroleum alkane 

signature in the sediments has been well documented by previous studies in the region (Boehm 

et al., 1987; Steinhauer and Boehm, 1992; Boehm et al., 1990; Brown et al., 2004). In 1999, an 

unresolved complex mixture (UCM) characteristic of diesel fuel hydrocarbon was noted in the 

GC/FID chromatogram for the surface sediment sample collected at station L08. The diesel fuel 

pattern was somewhat weathered, indicating a recent source of diesel fuel contamination at this 

station. Triplicate field replicates collected from L08 in 2000 revealed a similar diesel fuel 

pattern in one of the three of the field replicates and a visible but less pronounced diesel 

signature in the other two replicates. The diesel fuel pattern was identified in the 2005 L08 

sample and was either not present or at trace levels in the L08 samples collected in 2002, 2004 

and 2006. The absence of a similar diesel fuel signature in samples from adjacent stations and 

the 2002, 2004 and 2006 samples suggest a very limited or patchy area of sediment 

contamination. These results warrant continued evaluation and monitoring in future field 

surveys. 
4-4

4.1.2.2 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

The PAH distributions for most of the surficial sediments show that the PAHs are primarily of a 

combined fossil fuel origin (i.e., petroleum and coal) with a biogenic component (perylene), and 

lesser contributions of pyrogenic or combustion-related compounds (e.g., 4-, 5-, and 6-ring 

PAHs). The petrogenic PAHs account for approximately 90 percent of the Total PAH less 

perylene throughout the study area. Perylene was abundant in surficial sediments and the 

regional peat samples, often the most abundant single PAH compound in the overall PAH 

distribution (Figures 4-8 through 4-20). Perylene is a naturally occurring PAH formed during 

early diagenesis in sediments from biological source precursors (Wakeham and Farrington, 

1980; Wakeham et al., 1980). It may also be found in crude oil at very trace concentrations. In 

past studies, perylene was found at comparable concentrations in the BSMP sediments (Boehm 

et al., 1990 and 1991). 

The variations in PAH composition of representative surficial sediments from the region in 

1999, 2000, 2002, and 2004 - 2006 are shown in the PAH distribution plots in Figures 4-6 

through 4-20. For comparison, the PAH distribution plot of a North Slope Crude oil and 

Northstar production oil are shown in Figures 4-4 and 4-5. The PAH distributions are generally 

similar throughout all the regions of the study area and are characterized by the presence of a 

full suite of relatively “unweathered” petroleum PAHs (i.e., naphthalenes > phenanthrenes) 

similar to the PAH distribution seen in the North Slope Crude oil. As noted previously, 

perylene dominates the overall PAH distribution as one of the most abundant individual PAHs 

in the samples. Perylene is found at equal or greater relative abundance in the river sediments 

(Figures 4-6 and 4-7) and peat, which suggests the relationship of the rivers as a source of the 

hydrocarbons in the nearshore sediments, as noted previously for the SHCs. 

Low levels of 4-, 5-, and 6-ring combustion PAHs are also present, but are generally only a 

secondary component of the overall PAH composition in the sediments. The 4-, 5-, and 6-ring 

combustion PAHs are enriched in the river sediments and peat samples relative to the nearshore 

sediments, but are still a minor contributor to the overall PAH composition. 

The PAH distribution in station L08 sediment from 1999, 2000, 2004 and 2005 shows a clear 

increase in the abundance of 2- and 3-ring petroleum PAHs, particularly the naphthalenes, 

relative to the other sediment samples. This further supports the GC/FID evidence of diesel fuel 

contamination at this station. A slight increase in the abundance of the 2- and 3-ring petroleum 

PAHs was also observed in the 2002 and 2006 samples from L08, however, it was not as 

evident as in the previous years. Two samples that were identified as potentially being enriched 

in petroleum hydrocarbons based on SHC results in 1999 (5D and 5E) do not show evidence of 

a corresponding enrichment in PAH or change in PAH distribution in subsequent years. In 2000 

and 2004, the PAH concentration at 5E (260 and 190 ug/Kg, respectively) was comparable to 

the levels in 1999, but the concentration in 2002 was substantially lower at 46 ug/Kg, due to a 

corresponding decrease in fine-grained sediment. At 5D, the PAH concentrations were 

substantially lower in 2000 and 2002 but present at moderate levels in 2004, with no apparent 

change in overall PAH distribution. These results indicate a highly variable sediment substrate 

at stations 5D and 5E. Additionally, the source of hydrocarbon enrichment observed at 5D in 

1999 appears to be depleted in PAH versus SHC, relative to the regional petroleum hydrocarbon 
4-5

background present in other sediments, suggesting an alternate hydrocarbons source in 1999 

(e.g., coal or peat). 

4.1.2.3 Triterpanes 

In general, the triterpane distributions in the sediment samples are indicative of a petroleum 

pattern (Figures 4-6 through 4-20), with varying abundances of a suite of recent organic material 

triterpane markers. For example, a characteristic petroleum triterpane pattern dominated by 

norhopane (T15) and C30-hopane (T19) is shown in Figure 4-4 for the North Slope Crude oil. 

The triterpane distributions for most sediment samples comprise a mixture of these 

characteristic petroleum triterpanes, along with recent organic or biogenic markers such as 

diploptene (the large peaks on left of the T21 and T22 doublet) and other unnamed triterpanes 

(the large peaks which elute prior to T15 and in the 45- to 47-minute range – Peters and 

Moldowan, 1993). The relative abundance of T22 at much greater levels than T21 in some 

samples provides further evidence of substantial recent organic matter inputs to the surficial 

sediments. In general, the surficial sediment samples appear to show a greater abundance of 

these recent organic material or biogenic biomarkers, suggesting a greater terrestrial influence 

(e.g., river runoff) to the sediments. Many of the sediment samples contain trace levels of 

oleanane (T18), indicating the presence of a non-North Slope Crude, post-Cretaceous/Tertiary 

petroleum source; i.e., T18 is absent in bulk North Slope Crude oil (Bence et al., 1996 and 

Figure 4-4) and Northstar Oil (Figure 4-5). The origin of this petroleum signal is unknown, but 

it is likely from regional background inputs. Seep oils from Kavik and Angun may have trace 

oleananes, as part of their biodegraded biomarker signature. The presence of oleanane has also 

been reported in Canadian McKenzie Delta crude oils far to the west of the study area (Banet, 

1995). 

The triterpane distributions of the Colville River sediments (Figure 4-6) and peat have the same 

mixture of recent organic matter and petroleum hydrocarbon patterns as observed in many of the 

sediment samples (for example, station N06 - Figures 4-8 through 4-13). This similarity 

suggests that there is a strong link between Colville River hydrocarbon sources – mostly 

erosional inputs of regional shales, coal, peat, etc. (i.e., natural background) and the sediments. 

However, given the documented current transport regime of East to West in the study area, it is 

likely that rivers to the East, as well as the Colville River also influence the surficial sediments. 

For example, the triterpane distribution of the Canning River sediment collected from the East 

of the region in 2002 (Figure 4-6) is dominated by a suite of recent organic markers with a 

different distribution (specifically the unknown peak at ~52 minutes) which are found in greater 

abundance from some samples in the eastern study area. 

The Kuparuk and Sagavanirktok River sediments contain many of the same recent organic 

matter triterpane markers, but generally have different distributions than the Colville River 

sediments. In particular, the ratio of T21/T22, where T22 is an order of magnitude higher than 

T21, is characteristic of an immature or recent hydrocarbon source, identified in the 2006 

Sagavanirktok peat sample (SAG-01), possibly indicative of coal. This predominant T22 pattern 

is also found in several of the surficial sediment samples - 5(5) [1999 and 2000], and 5(0) 

[2000] near the Sagavanirktok River delta, and N14 [1999, 2002, 2004 - 2006], N20 and N21 
4-6

[2002], 5D [1999, 2000, 2002 and 2004], and 5F [2000, 2002, 2004 and 2005] near the mouth of 

the Kuparuk River – indicating the influence of these rivers to the deposition of surficial 

sediments at these stations. The presence of the predominant T22 pattern at station 5D is of 

particular interest, since the high SHC and PAH concentrations indicate hydrocarbon 

contamination at this station. The observed T22 pattern indicates that coal particles, possibly 

from the Kuparuk River, may be one of the sources of the hydrocarbon enrichment. 

Several surficial sediment samples have distinctly different triterpane distributions. Stations 5E 

[1999, 2000 and 2002], 5B [2000 and 2002], and L08 [1999 and 2005] (Figures 4-14 and 4-16) 

have triterpane distributions more characteristic of a petroleum source, i.e., a predominance of 

hopanes (T15 and T19). In the case of L08, this is not surprising since other organic data 

clearly indicate diesel fuel contamination. However, the abundance of petroleum triterpanes 

also indicates a petroleum product “heavier” than diesel, as triterpanes are typically removed 

from diesel-range fuels during the distillation process. This result suggests that the observed 

petroleum contamination at L08 is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons including diesel and 

heavier hydrocarbons such as heavy fuel oil or crude oil. This could be the result of drilling 

mud/cutting residues from historical adjacent exploratory drilling (i.e., Tern Island), as the 

standard practice at the time allowed disposal of used drill muds on the ice during winter 

drilling. This is further supported by the elevated barium levels (when normalized to Al) 

observed in the sediment from L08 (1999 only). The petroleum triterpanes in the surficial 

sediment at 5B are at trace levels (7.8 ug/Kg Total S/T), whereas the triterpane distribution at 

5E further confirms the presence of low levels of a heavy petroleum hydrocarbon source shown 

by the SHC and PAH results, but the specific origins of these “contaminants” are not known. 

4.1.2.4 Sediment Quality Guidelines 

An established technique of evaluating the significance of the measured sediment hydrocarbons 

to overall ecological risk of the region involves comparisons to sediment quality guidelines or 

benchmarks. Sediment quality guidelines have been developed to assess possible adverse 

biological effects from metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, and PAH. The 

commonly utilized criteria are the Effects Range Low (ERL) and Effects Range Median (ERM) 

presented by Long et al. (1995). The general applications of the guidelines have been to state 

that adverse biological effects are “rarely” observed when PAH levels are less than the ERL, 

“occasionally” observed when contaminants are present at levels between the ERL and ERM, 

and “frequently” observed when concentrations exceed the ERM. 

ERL and ERM values have been developed for 13 individual PAH compounds and three classes 

of PAH (low- and high-molecular-weight PAH, and Total PAH). A comparison of the Total 

PAH from all ANIMIDA and cANIMIDA sediments from the study region in 1999 through 

2006 to the ERL and ERM criteria is shown in Figure 4-21. None of the Total PAH 

concentrations determined in this study exceed the ERL. The mean Total PAH values from 

each study region were generally an order of magnitude lower than the ERL. Similarly, the 

individual PAH concentrations did not exceed the ERL for the individual 13 PAH, which could 

be compared directly. The C1-naphthalenes parameter in this study is reported as the sum of the 

two individual naphthalene isomers – 1-methylnaphthalene and 2-methylnaphthalene. The sum 
4-7

of the C1-naphthalenes value at station 2G in 2005 (109 g/Kg), station 6B in 2006 (123 

g/Kg), and station 7E in 2006 (90 g/Kg) were slightly higher than the ERL value listed for 

the single 2-methylnaphthalene isomer (70 g/Kg). However, the value at this station would be 

less than the ERL using an estimate of 50 percent contribution of 2-methylnaphthalene to the 

C1-naphthalenes parameter. In summary, based on sediment quality criteria, the concentrations 

of PAH found in the study area sediments are not likely to pose ecological risk to marine 

organisms in the area. 

Potential toxicity of the PAHs present in cANIMIDA sediments was further evaluated using a 

more recent methodology; EPA’s Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning 

Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: PAH Mixtures (EPA 

2003, http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/publications/files/PAHESB.pdf). Based on this approach, if 

the sum of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmark Toxic Units (ΣESBTUFCV) for “total 

PAHs” is less than or equal to 1.0, the concentration of the mixture of PAHs in the sediment is 

acceptable for the protection of benthic organisms. ΣESBTUFCV values were calculated for 

each sediment sample (with reported TOC values) with values ranging up to 0.01 to 0.7. The 

ESB approach provides another line of evidence the concentrations of PAH present in the 

cANIMIDA sediments throughout the study area are not likely to pose a risk to benthic 

organisms. 

4.1.2.5 Temporal and Spatial Trends 

In examining the spatial trends (variability between stations), one technique involves examining 

the relationship between the organic parameter of interest and percent silt + clay or TOC 

content. The natural background concentrations of organics will often vary as a function of finegrained sediment (silt + clay) and TOC. Thus, samples enriched in organics from anthropogenic 

sources can be identified by normalizing the target organic parameter and generating a linear 

regression line and prediction interval on a cross-plot. 

This regression plot technique was used effectively for the 1999 (pre-construction) data to 

identify sediments enriched in hydrocarbons and data outliers (Boehm et al., 2001b). For 1999 

data, good linear correlation was established between concentrations of Total PAH less perylene 

and TPHC with silt + clay (R2 = 0.83 and 0.69 respectively – station 5D was determined to be a 

statistical outlier and was not included in the regression calculation). The value Total PAH less 

perylene was used to reduce variability introduced to the Total PAH data by perylene, which 

can vary widely in abundance based on sediment type. Total PAH less perylene has been used 

in other studies in evaluating sediment PAH in Cook Inlet and Alaska (Hyland et al., 1995; 

Boehm et al., 2001a). 

These regressions defined the natural geological/geochemical background. In both PAH and 

TPHC plots the data point for station 5D was well outside the calculated 99 percent prediction 

interval of the regression line indicating that 5D sediment was enriched in Total PAH relative to 

the expected background for the region. As noted previously, station 5D sediments were 

identified as being contaminated with hydrocarbons, although the source of this contamination 

is still unclear (i.e., coal versus petroleum sources). In the TPHC plot samples L08 and 5E were 

found to fall slightly above the upper 99 percent prediction interval. Based on the analytical 
4-8

data, these two samples were also previously identified as being enriched in petroleum 

hydrocarbons. Diesel contamination with possible crude oil was identified in L08 and a heavy 

hydrocarbon product depleted in PAH was identified as a possible source in 5E. 

Overall, these regression techniques provided a sensitive baseline process to measure temporal 

trends of anthropogenic inputs into the system from Northstar, given the radial sampling design 

around the prospect and regional BSMP station coverage. As noted earlier, statistical analyses 

of the 1999 through 2006 data were performed to determine if there were significant differences 

in the measured key diagnostic organic parameters due to the development of Northstar. The 

results of the statistical analyses indicated that the key bulk hydrocarbon parameters (i.e., Total 

PAH, TPHC, pyrogenic PAH, etc.) increased significantly at Northstar in post-1999 sediments 

(Section 3.1.4). The results of the statistical analyses are probably best summarized in a Total 

PAH minus perylene versus silt + clay regression plot for 1999, 2000, 2002, and 2004 - 2006 

Northstar stations (Figure 4-22). In this plot the regression lines and 95% prediction intervals 

do not overlap, indicating a significant increase in PAH at Northstar in 2000, 2002, and 2004 - 

2006 after adjusting for fines (silt + clay). A simple plot of the Total PAH normalized to fines 

clearly shows this trend of increasing PAH concentrations at the Northstar stations in 2000 with 

lower levels in 2002 and 2004 - 2006, but still generally higher than 1999 (Figure 4-23). Station 

N15 in 2002 and 2004 and N11 in 2004 appear to be outliers on this plot due to a very low 

%fines result (4.3%, 0.4%, 2.7%, respectively). The concentration of Total PAH (less perylene) 

at Station N03 in 2004 appears elevated as compared to previous years, however, the 

concentration of perylene at this station is also correspondingly higher indicating the source of 

PAH at this station is from the regional background. 

However, a closer examination of the PAH data show that although Northstar concentrations 

increased post-construction (2000, 2002, and 2004 - 2006 combined), the distribution and 

composition of the PAH remained relatively unchanged. The composition of the sediment 

hydrocarbons at Northstar is best summarized by a comparison of the pyrogenic to petrogenic 

PAH ratios in 1999, 2000, 2002 and 2004 - 2006. A comparison for this ratio for all paired 

Northstar stations (Figure 4-24) reveals no significant difference between years 1999 and 2000 

indicating that there were no incremental additions of anthropogenic hydrocarbons to the 

Northstar area as a result of construction activities in 2000. The pyrogenic to petrogenic PAH 

ratios for Northstar stations in 2002 and 2004 show an increasing trend (Figure 4-24) which then 

decreases in 2005 and 2006. The statistical comparisons of PAH data (Table 3-11) show a 

significant increase in the pyrogenic to petrogenic PAH ratio region-wide for years 2000 

through 2004. A subsequent ANOVA revealed that pyrogenic to petrogenic ratios for Northstar 

2002 and Liberty/BSMP 2002 were not significantly different from each other, but that the 

ratios for Northstar 2004 were significantly greater than Liberty/BSMP 2004 and Northstar 

2002. Also, the Northstar 2004 petrogenic PAH concentrations (with perylene as a covariate) 

were significantly less than Northstar 2002 and Liberty/BSMP 2004 concentrations, while no 

significant differences were noted for pyrogenic PAHs between regions or years. These results 

suggest that the observed shift to a greater relative proportion of pyrogenic hydrocarbons in 

2002 and 2004 could be the result of a subtle increase in pyrogenic PAH; possibly related to 

Northstar area inputs (flaring, boat and vehicle traffic, etc.) However, this shift in inputs is 

clearly variable (as shown by the decreased values in 2005 and 2006) and not currently of 

sufficient magnitude to result in a statistically significant increase in concentrations of PAH 
4-9

parameters. However, the observed potential of such a shift warrants continued sediment 

hydrocarbon monitoring in the area. 

In 2005 and 2006, only eight of the 23 previously sampled Northstar stations were sampled for 

surficial sediments. The differences in the pyrogenic to petrogenic ratio for this subset of 

Northstar stations were evaluated; the 2005 - 2006 pyrogenic to petrogenic ratio was not 

significantly different from 1999 or 2000 ratios but was significantly lower than the 2002 and 

2004 ratios. However, it is uncertain if this reduction in the pyrogenic to petrogenic ratio was 

throughout the Northstar region due to the limited Northstar sampling in 2005 and 2006. 

Another evaluation of the sources of the PAH was performed using a dibenzothiophene to 

phenanthrene source ratio plot, which has been used in similar investigations of PAH sources in 

the environment (Brown and Boehm, 1993; Page et al., 1998; Boehm et al., 2001a). An 

examination of the source plot for all ANIMIDA and cANIMIDA surficial sediments and source 

samples (Figure 4-25) reveals that the source composition of PAH in the Northstar 2000, 2002, 

and 2004 - 2006 sediments is in the same range as the 1999, 2000, 2002, and 2004 - 2006 

BSMP and Liberty stations which are representative of the regional hydrocarbon background. 

In the source ratio plot several of the Northstar 1999 sediments have ratios substantially higher 

than the “regional background” which is likely due to two factors: 1) the very low 

concentrations found at some of the 1999 Northstar stations which introduces variability into the 

ratio and generally results in a ratio increase, and 2) the localized influence of the Kuparuk river 

which has a ratio higher than the “regional background.” 

The Northstar production oil, which was first analyzed in 2002, was found to be relatively low 

in sulfur compounds and had a resulting dibenzothiophene to phenanthrene source ratio similar 

to the “regional background” (Figure 4-25). The other North Slope field crude oils have 

dibenzothiophene to phenanthrene source ratios that are substantially higher and are easily 

distinguished from the background hydrocarbons. This finding limits the use of this evaluation 

technique since the potential contribution of Northstar crude oil could not be determined in the 

case of an accidental release or incremental chronic inputs. However, another source ratio plot 

of the 20S to 20R epimers of steranes and triterpanes (5α,14α,17α-24-methylcholestane 

[S25/S28] versus 17α,21β(H)-30-homohopane [T21/T22]) shown in Figure 4-26, clearly 

differentiates all of the North Slope field crude oils and the Northstar production oil from the 

regional background signature in the surface sediments and river source samples. This ratio, 

which is a relative measure of the petroleum hydrocarbon maturity, relies on the relative 

immaturity of the biomarker compounds in the sediments versus the crude oils and provides 

another tool to evaluate potential additions of anthropogenic hydrocarbons to the region in the 

future. 

The earlier observation that the Northstar 1999 sediments may be depleted in hydrocarbons 

relative to the other sediments is further supported by a Total PAH less perylene versus silt + 

clay regression plot for all the 1999, 2000, 2002, and 2004 - 2006 sediment data. In this plot 

(Figure 4-27) the regression and 95% prediction intervals are shown for all data. The plot 

shows a small cluster Northstar 1999 samples which are below the 95% prediction interval, 

indicating that these samples are significantly lower in PAH versus silt + clay than the overall 

population of sediment samples. This result corroborates the observed trend of lower 
4-10

hydrocarbon levels in Northstar 1999 samples. In addition, as part of the statistical analyses, a 

regression model comparing Northstar 1999 samples to 1999 BSMP and Liberty samples for all 

key parameters (Section 3.1.4), revealed that Northstar 1999 sediments were significantly lower 

in all bulk hydrocarbon parameters (e.g., Total PAH, TPHC, Petrogenic PAH, etc.) than 1999 

BSMP and Liberty sediments. A further regression comparison of the Northstar 2000, 2002 and 

2004 samples versus the BSMP and Liberty 2000, 2002, and 2004 samples resulted in no 

significant difference for all bulk hydrocarbon parameters and most of the diagnostic ratios. 

The results of this analysis are further illustrated by a PAH regression plot (Figure 4-28) which 

shows overlap between the regression lines and 95% prediction intervals (i.e., no significant 

difference) for the Northstar, BSMP, and Liberty sediments for 2004 - 2006. 

As noted previously the initial statistical comparisons revealed that Northstar 1999 sediments 

were significantly lower in all bulk hydrocarbon parameters (e.g., Total PAH, TPHC, Petrogenic 

PAH, etc.) than 1999 BSMP and Liberty sediments which resulted in a positive Northstar and 

Northstar/Construction effect (i.e., a significant increase in these parameters associated with 

Northstar; Table 3-11). However, a subsequent statistical model with perylene as a covariate 

resulted in no significant increases in any of the key diagnostic hydrocarbon parameters due to 

Northstar or Northstar/Construction effects. The use of perylene as a covariate parameter to 

normalize sediment data is particularly effective due to the absence or only trace levels of 

perylene in the anthropogenic sources of hydrocarbons to the region (petroleum and pyrogenic 

hydrocarbons; Figure 4-4 and 4-5), and the relative enrichment of perylene in the regional 

background (river and sediment sources). This relationship is clearly shown in a cross-plot of 

perylene versus PAH (Figure 4-29, R2

 = 0.93) with 95 % prediction intervals to identify outliers. 

As was noted in the statistical analyses using perylene as a covariate, this plot shows no 

significant increase in PAH due to Northstar or Northstar/Construction effects, and six stations 

fall outside the prediction intervals (4A – all years but 2005, L08 in 1999, N11 – two years, 1A 

in 2005, 2G in 2005, N14 in 2005 and 6B in 2006). Sediments from stations N11 and N14 

appear to be slightly enriched in perylene, possibly due to the proximity to the Kuparuk River, 

which contains sediments rich in perylene. Station 1A sediments also appear to be enriched in 

perylene. Station 4A and 2G sediments appear to be somewhat depleted in perylene relative to 

PAH, but show no signs of petroleum contamination. Petroleum hydrocarbon contamination 

was previously identified in Station L08 using other interpretative techniques. The relationship 

of perylene to other hydrocarbons in surface sediments clearly warrants further investigation, 

however, these results indicate that normalization of PAH and other hydrocarbon parameters to 

perylene is another valuable tool capable of identifying anthropogenic hydrocarbons inputs into 

the surface sediments of this dynamic coastal region. 

Based on the results of the data evaluations there are several possible explanations or theories 

for the observed absolute increase in sediment hydrocarbon concentrations in the Northstar area 

after 1999 with no corresponding change in source or composition: 1) the increase could be 

related to deposition of very fine-grained material associated with the gravel used to construct 

Northstar Island and disturbances from the pipeline construction; 2) the ice roads made during 

the Northstar construction may have diverted suspended sediments from the Kuparuk river flow 

during break-up, and enriched the deposition of fine-grained hydrocarbon bearing sediments in 
4-11

the Northstar area; and 3) that the Northstar sediments in 1999 were depleted in fine-grained 

sediment and hydrocarbons during the 1999 sampling period. 

The first two hypotheses would require that the source fine-grained material deposited in the 

Northstar area after 1999 (e.g., Northstar construction gravel and/or Kuparuk river sediment) 

was enriched in PAH and other hydrocarbons relative to the fine-grained material in the existing 

surface sediment. Analyses of the Kuparuk river sediments reveal that the river sediment is not 

enriched in hydrocarbons relative to the Northstar area sediments, and is thus unlikely to 

account for the observed increase. It is possible that the very fine-grained fraction of Northstar 

construction gravel could be enriched in hydrocarbons due to burial and compaction of the 

historic Kuparuk river sediments, which were the source of the gravel (the construction gravel 

was mined from the Kuparuk river delta). However, subsequent analysis of “source material” 

from the Kuparuk river gravel mine (borrow pit) revealed results similar to the previously 

analyzed Kuparuk River sediments. 

The most likely explanation of the three is that the Northstar surface sediments were depleted in 

hydrocarbons in 1999. The organic analyses and resulting statistical comparisons of the 1999, 

2000, 2002, and 2004 Northstar, BSMP and Liberty data, support this explanation. In addition, 

during the 1999 sampling survey, nearly all the Northstar stations were sampled within 24 hours 

after a six-day gale (peak winds in excess of 25 knots). This storm was observed to resuspend 

substantial amounts of surface sediments into the water column (Boehm et al., 2001b) and 

would account for the observed depletion of hydrocarbons in the 1999 Northstar sediments and 

corresponding lower abundance of fine-grained sediment. Regardless of the mechanism for the 

observed increase in hydrocarbon concentrations at Northstar, it is critical to recognize that the 

hydrocarbon assemblage identified at Northstar in 1999, 2000, 2002, and 2004 - 2006 represents 

the natural background (both in composition and concentrations) and are not indicative of 

anthropogenic inputs. However, equally important is the recognition that the monitoring 

techniques and data evaluation approaches used in this study are very sensitive and capable of 

identifying incremental anthropogenic inputs to the system. 

In summary, the hydrocarbon measures do not reveal any detectable contaminant input that can 

be attributed to the Northstar operations, when viewed against the pre-construction levels in the 

sediments and the pre-construction hydrocarbon composition and regional distribution. 

4.1.3 Metals 

Concentrations of Ag, Al, As, Ba, Be, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Mn, Ni, Pb, Sb, Tl, V and Zn in 

sediment from the cANIMIDA study were obtained for surface sediments collected during 

2004, 2005 and 2006. Metal data also are available for sediment cores collected during 2005 and 

2006. The patchwork of metal concentrations described in the Results section can be 

normalized reasonably well by plotting metal values versus concentrations of the major element 

Al. Concentrations of trace metals generally correlate well with concentrations of Al because 

concentrations of both Al and most metals are very low in quartz sand or carbonate shell 

material and much higher in fine-grained aluminosilicates. Aluminum is rarely introduced by 

anthropogenic activities and is present at percent levels in most sediment relative to part per 
4-12

million (ppm) levels for trace metals. Thus, for this study, Al provided a valuable normalization 

tool that incorporated the metal controlling variables of grain size, organic carbon content and 

mineralogy. In the ideal case (e.g., Figure 3-8), a good linear correlation will be observed 

between concentrations of a trace metal and Al. Significant, positive deviations from this linear 

trend, as explained in more detail below, can be used to identify metal contamination. Plots of 

trace metal concentrations versus Al have been used in various forms for many years to identify 

sediment metal contamination (e.g., Bruland et al., 1974; Trefry et al., 1985; Schropp et al., 

1990). 

As a product of the ANIMIDA program, Trefry et al. (2003) used metal data for 1999-2002 

from the coastal Beaufort Sea to produce a series of metal versus Al plots that will be used in 

this report as templates for identifying possible metal contamination or deviations from previous 

observations. A linear regression and a 99% prediction interval were calculated for each of the 

metal versus Al plots using the 1999-2002 data. However, these templates were developed 

without sediments from Camden Bay (the 1 and 2 series of stations) or from Harrison Bay (the 7 

series of stations) or from a deeper water station (L22) because these areas were not sampled 

during the ANIMIDA study (1999-2002). In the paragraphs below, the metals data for 112 

surface sediments studied during the cANIMIDA program (2004-2006) will be evaluated to 

identify possible metal contamination. No large anomalies in metal concentrations on the 

metal/Al plots or high metal values were observed during this study. However, 44 of 1792 metal 

concentrations (~2.5% of the data points) in surface sediments plotted above the upper 

prediction intervals on the respective metal versus Al graphs (Table 4-1). Eleven of these 

anomalies are believed to be due to the presence of a trace amount of a natural metal sulfide 

mineral (stations N14 and N15) as discussed in detail below. A similar anomaly was observed at 

nearby station 5D in 1999 and no explanation for this anomaly was given at that time. An 

additional 16 anomalies were found outside the cANIMIDA study area, either far to the west in 

Harrison Bay or to the east in Camden Bay. Thus, a total of about 17 minor anomalies on the 

metal versus Al graphs (0.9% of data points) were identified in the cANIMIDA area; these 

results also will be discussed in more detail below. In a subsequent section, the metal data will 

be evaluated with respect to possible adverse biological effects. 

A plot of Al versus Cr from the ANIMIDA program (Figure 4-30a) shows the strong positive 

relationship observed for the 1999-2002 data. The good linear fit for Al versus Cr in Figure 4-

30a is consistent with mixing of relatively uniform composition, metal-rich aluminosilicate 

phases with metal-poor sand and shell. Chromium concentrations in natural sediment from the 

ANIMIDA study area are predicted to follow the trend presented in Figure 4-30a. 

Concentrations of Cr for 2004 and 2005 correlated well with Al (r = 0.94) and all of the 2004 

and 2005 data plotted within the 99% prediction interval established previously using the 1999-

2002 data (Figure 4-30b). 

Sediments from five stations (7A, 6H, N03, WD and L22) sampled during 2006 had Cr 

concentrations that plotted above the upper 99% prediction interval on Figure 4-30b with a 

maximum total Cr concentration among these five stations of 89 μg/g at station N03. 

Concentrations of Cr were previously reported to be elevated at station 7A in Harrison Bay 

(Boehm et al., 1990; Trefry et al., 2003) and were elevated throughout the sediment core 

collected during 2006 at station 7A, as described below. Station 6 H was not sampled during 
4-13

1984-1989 or 1999-2006; however, the station is located in a nearshore location in the eastern 

reaches of Harrison Bay that is similar setting to station 7A. Crecelius et al. (1991) noted 

elevated levels of Cr in eastern Harrison Bay (BSMP stations 7A, 7B and 7G) and western 

Camden Bay (BSMP station 2E) with a maximum total Cr value in that study also at 89 μg/g. At 

an extreme, Snyder-Conn et al. (1990) previously found Cr levels as high as 331 μg/g adjacent 

to a mud discharge near Cross Island. This extreme value is most likely due to the presence of a 

chromium lignosulfonate additive in the drilling mud (Snyder-Conn et al., 1990). This additive 

is no longer used in drilling mud mixtures. Thus, the 2006 Cr anomalies may be from relict 

anthropogenic inputs; additional discussion about station 7A follows in the section on sediment 

cores. For reference, the Cr/Al ratio for suspended sediments from the Colville River (Figure 4-

30a) does not support elevated Cr levels in sediment carried into Harrison Bay from upland 

locations. 

Concentrations of Fe also were elevated at stations 6H, N03, WD, and L22 (Figure 3-8), four of 

the same stations where Cr concentrations plotted above the upper prediction interval on Figure 

4-30b. Station L22, at a water depth of 29 m, was most distant from land and in the deepest 

water sampled during either the ANIMIDA or cANIMIDA studies. Based on results for Fe 

(Figure 3-8a), V (Figure 3-8b) and As (Figure 4-31c), the observed Cr enrichment in sediment 

from station L22 is believed to be related to scavenging by fine-grained iron oxides, a natural 

phenomenon. Anomalies for Fe, V and Cr also were found for 2006 station N03 (water depth 

12.3 m, located ~1 km north of Northstar Island) and these anomalies also may be a natural 

phenomenon. The slight Cr enrichment (<10% above upper prediction interval with total Cr of 

84.2 μg/g) in the sample from West Dock (WD) is noteworthy from the perspective of 

recommending resampling in the busy area of West Dock in the future. 

Only one anomalous point was observed on the Ni versus Al plot for 2004-2006 (Figure 4-32a). 

The Ni anomaly was for 2005 station N14. Anomalies also were found for Fe, Hg, Ag, Zn, Cd, 

Pb, Cu, Co and As for 2005 station N14 (Figure 3-8 and 4-32). Station N14, located in 3.7 m of 

water adjacent to the western end of Stump Island, also was sampled in 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004 

and 2006. Small anomalies only for Ag (1999) and Cu (2000) had been previously observed for 

station N14. However, at station 5D, located at a water depth of 1.6 m near the eastern end of 

Stump Island, anomalies for the same 10 metals were identified in one of three samples 

collected in 1999 sample (pre-Northstar development). No anomalies were found at station 5D 

in sediments collected during 2000, 2002 and 2004. 

The absolute values for each of the anomalies for stations N14 (2005) and 5D (1999) were 

calculated by taking the measured metal concentration and subtracting the concentration 

calculated for a given metal using the measured Al concentration with the linear regression 

equations for the 1999-2002 metal versus Al plots. These data are presented in Table 4-2 and 

plotted in Figure 4-33). A strong positive relationship (r = 0.99) was observed between the 

concentrations of excess metals for station N14 versus 5D (Figure 4-33). No anomalies were 

identified for Ba, Be, Cr, Mn, Sb, Tl or V in the sediments from station N14 (2005) or 5D 

(1999). The 10 metals with positive anomalies on the metal versus Al plots for station N14 are 

commonly found to occur together in Fe-rich sulfide minerals (Bendel et al., 1993; Halbach et 

al., 1998). Conversely, the metals with no observed positive anomalies are not commonly found 

in Fe-sulfide deposits (Bendel et al., 1993; Halbach et al., 1998). The excess metal 
4-14

concentrations calculated from the positive metal anomalies on the metal versus Al plots were 

extrapolated to pyrite with average of 45% Fe and the resulting values are in reasonable 

agreement with published values for the various trace metals in pyrite (Table 4-2). Thus, the 

metal anomalies are believed to be due to the presence of a minor amount (1.5-2.5%) of 

naturally occurring iron sulfide in the sediments from stations N14 (2005) and 5D (1999). The 

source of the anomalies for 10 different metals is not believed to be due to a manufactured alloy 

because the levels of impurities are higher than expected in typical Fe, Cu or Zn alloys. At 

present, the observed metal anomalies in 2 out 244 surface sediments collected between 1999 

and 2006 seems to be explained by the presence of minor amounts naturally occurring iron 

sulfides near Stump Island. Sand and gravel islands, like Stump Island, are natural deposition 

sites for heavy minerals such as pyrite. No other similar sites were sampled during the 

cANIMIDA project to replicate this finding. This pyrite observation does challenge users of 

metal versus Al plots to be alert to possible, and most likely occasional, incorporation of some 

naturally occurring mineral in a sediment sample. 

Only the data point for station N14 (2005) was anomalous on the Ni versus Al graph (Figure 4-

32a); however, more than one point was above the upper prediction limit for each of the other 

metals that were enriched at station N14 (2005). For Ag, the sample from station N15 (2004) 

also was enriched (Figure 4-32b). Station N15 is sited in shallow water (2.4 m) adjacent to Egg 

Island, just west of Stump Island. The anomaly for Ag at station N15 (2004) is small relative to 

the anomaly at station N14 (2005). Thus, if the presence of a trace sulfide mineral is responsible 

for the very small Ag anomaly, no detectable anomalies would be found for the other related 

metals. 

A minor anomaly for Hg was observed at station L07 (2004, Figure 3-32c). Small Cu anomalies 

also were observed at station L07 for 2004 and 2005 (Figure 4-31a). Brown et al. (2004) 

reported petroleum contamination at nearby station L08 and suggested that it may be a remnant 

of past drilling in the area. The trace metal anomalies plot at <10% above the upper prediction 

interval and are considered to be consistent with the statistical boundaries of a 99% prediction 

interval. 

A Zn anomaly for the 2004 sample from station N01, located 4 km north of Northstar Island, is 

unique for that location; however, the absolute concentration of Zn at 93.9 μg/g is well below 

typical concentrations of Zn at other locations in the study area (Figure 4-34a). In addition to the 

various anomalies described above, three additional anomalies were found for Cd, one for Pb, 

one for Cu, two for Co and one for As (Table 4-1). During the ANIMIDA study (1999-2002), a 

few minor anomalies in concentrations of Pb and Hg were observed and one data point each for 

Zn, Ag and Be plotted above the respective upper prediction intervals. One anomalous data 

point for Be and none for Sb were found in the 2004-2006 samples. None of these scattered 

points follow any trends that are simple or seem to be of concern at this point. As in the past, 

these anomalies will be followed up during any future sampling. An overview of possible metal 

contamination in the cANIMIDA area will be presented in the Conclusions. 

Barium has been used historically as a sensitive indicator for the presence of petroleum drilling 

mud in sediment because barite (BaSO4) is such a common and major ingredient (e.g., Chow et 

al., 1978). The graph for Al versus Ba for the 2004-2006 data shows 4 of 112 data points as 
4-15

positive anomalies on the Ba versus Al plot (Figure 4-35a). Barium anomalies were previously 

reported for stations 7A and 7G by Trefry et al. (2003) for samples collected in 1989 and are 

consistent with exploratory drilling and drilling residues in the area (Snyder-Conn et al., 1990; 

Crecelius et al., 1991). A detailed record of Ba contamination is described for the sediment core 

from station 7A below. Barium anomalies at stations N06 and 6H also may be due to minor 

remnants of drilling discharges. The largest observed anomaly of 549 μg/g at 2006 station 5H 

[anomaly = 863 μg/g – (2.73% Al (72.9) + 115) = 549 μg/g] is equivalent to a residue of 0.1% 

barite from drilling mud with 53% Ba (Trefry et al., 2007). 

4.1.3.1 Sediment Quality Guidelines 

Various investigators have developed sediment quality guidelines to assess possible adverse 

biological effects from trace metals (e.g., Long et al., 1995; MacDonald et al., 1996; Field et al., 

1999). The guidelines introduced by Long et al. (1995) use an ERL and ERM that are based on 

field, laboratory, and modeling studies conducted in North America that coupled concentrations 

of contaminants in sediment with adverse biological effects. For general use, the guidelines 

have been applied as follows: adverse biological effects are “rarely” observed when metal 

levels are <ERL, “occasionally” observed when contaminants are present at levels between the 

ERL and ERM and “frequently” observed when concentrations are >ERM. 

Six (Ag, As, Cd, Hg, Pb and Zn) of the 16 metals investigated during this study have been 

assigned realistic ERL and ERM concentrations by Long et al. (1995). These guidelines are 

continuingly evolving as demonstrated by the extensive efforts of Field et al. (1999) to validate 

values for Hg, Pb and Zn. Some difficulties still exist with ERL values for Cr, Cu and Ni as the 

values for the ERL (Long et al., 1995) are lower than typical continental crust (Wedepohl, 1995) 

and are thus not discussed here. Overall, the sediment quality data should be used primarily as 

guidelines at this time. No concentrations of any of the six metals exceed their respective values 

for the ERM (Table 4-1). Therefore, adverse biological effects are not expected to be a frequent 

occurrence at any station in the study area as the result of trace metals. Furthermore, no 

concentrations of the six metals from this study in 2004 exceeded the respective values for the 

ERL (Table 4-1) and thus adverse biological effects from these six metals would be rare. 

Early detection of potential environmental problems near industrial sites is a goal at many 

locations around the Earth, including the coastal waters of the western Beaufort Sea. Because 

many trace metals are a ubiquitous part of modern industry, metals in sediment can offer the 

potential for identifying subtle increases in the accumulation of potential pollutants before they 

lead to an adverse environmental consequence. For example, in sediment with an Al 

concentration of 6.0 %, natural Pb levels in the coastal Beaufort Sea are predicted to be 15 ± 6 

μg/g with 99% confidence. As metal levels rise about the upper limit of 21 μg/g, a caution can 

be signaled before sediment Pb concentrations reach one of the lowest effects level (ERL) of 47 

μg/g. Then, additional samples can be collected near this “warm” spot before it develops into a 

“hot” spot. 
4-16

4.2 Sediment Cores 

The summer 2005 - 2006 field sampling programs successfully obtained core samples suitable 

for age dating from nine of ten stations (Figures 2-2 and 2-3). In this section of the report the 

results of the sediment core analyses will be further evaluated for general trends and 

relationships, and comparisons of the pre- and post-development results will be discussed. 

4.2.1 Geochronology 

Previous efforts to reconstruct recent geochronology for coastal sediment from this nearshore 

area of the Beaufort Sea (Weiss and Naidu, 1986; Naidu et al., 2001) have encountered many of 

the same difficulties reported by us in Section 3. Weiss and Naidu (1986) used vertical profiles 

for the activity of total 210Pb to calculate sedimentation rates of 0.6 to 1 cm/year at sites in 

Simpson Lagoon, near our stations 6A and 6G; however, the total activities for 210Pb averaged 

<2 dpm/g with variable texture in each core. In recent work, Naidu et al. (2001) reported no 

excess 210Pb and no detectable 137Cs in a core from Simpson Lagoon. However, Naidu et al. 

(2001) reported excess 210Pb levels of 0.9 to 1.2 dpm/g and 137Cs activities of 0.2 dpm/g at a site 

near our station 3B. Based on inherent difficulties with area sediments, a primary goal of our 

geochronology effort was to collect some sediment that was deposited prior to the onset of 

development during the late 1960s and some sediment that was deposited post-development. 

Our results show sedimentation rates that range from ~0.04 cm/year to ~0.10 cm/year, with 

several sites having little or no net accumulation of sediment during at least the past 50 years. 

At three sites, we identify 3- to 5-cm thick layers of sediment that were deposited since 

development began (approximately 1970). Our overall results are consistent with those of 

Naidu et al. (2001) for the same area. We know from our previous work that the presence of 

fine-grained sediment at a given location can vary from year to year and that the sediments 

along much of the shallow, coastal Beaufort Sea are quite dynamic. 

Additional support for low sedimentation rates at stations P01 and E01 can be developed from 

data for river inputs of sediment. The Sagavanirktok River, the major river carrying sediment 

into this area, is estimated to have an annual sediment load of about 6 x 105

 metric tons. The 

depositional area for this sediment in coastal Beaufort Sea is about 1000 km2 (the approximate 

area bounded by the mainland to the south, the outer islands such as Cross Island to the north, 

and between 147.0° N and 148.5° W) to yield an estimated deposition rate of ~0.04 cm/year 

based on a sediment bulk density of 1.6 g/cm3

 ([0.6 x 1012 g dry sediment/10 x 1012 cm2] x [(1.6 

g wet sediment/cm3)/(2.6 g dry sediment/cm3

)]). As previously noted, however, the coastal 

Beaufort Sea in this area may be net erosional at this time (Reimnitz and Wolf, 1998). 

Despite difficulties in determining sedimentation rates, we now have sediment samples that we 

know pre-date and post-date development. We also have surface sediments from 1989, 1999, 

2000, and 2002 cores that will be used to evaluate any recent trends in deposition of potential 

contaminants. 
4-17

4.2.1.1 Geochronology of Hydrocarbons 

The hydrocarbon dataset for the core sediments from 2005 and 2006 include SHC, PAH, and 

S/T data from ten core samples collected. As noted previously, nine of the cores have reliable 

deposition rates and detailed geochronology. All ten cores were all analyzed for organic 

parameters to further expand our knowledge of the historical record of hydrocarbons in the 

study area. Even though we cannot accurately estimate the historical timeframe of some of 

these sediments, we do know that they primarily represent pre-development (i.e., pre-1970) 

sediment levels and are likely much older. These data are assessed in part by using a suite of key 

diagnostic parameters and ratios (Table 3-6) that are useful in describing hydrocarbon trends in 

the marine environmental (Boehm et al., 2001a; Brown et al., 2002). 

To facilitate the presentation and discussion of the organics data, GC/FID chromatograms from 

the SHC analysis, PAH distribution plots, and triterpane extracted ion chromatogram profiles 

(EICPs) for representative core samples and selected source samples are presented in Figures 4-

4 through 4-7 and Figures 4-36 through 4-39. The samples selected for presentation are as 

follows: 

 North Slope Crude Oil – composite pipeline sample (Figure 4-4) 

 Northstar Oil – 2002 (Figure 4-5) 

 Colville River sediment - 1999 (Figure 4-6) 

 Canning River sediment – 2002 (Figure 4-7) 

 Station N26 (0-2 cm) – Northstar sediment core station - 2005 (Figure 4-36) 

 Station N26 (8-10 cm) – Northstar sediment core station - 2005 (Figure 4-37) 

 Station 1C (0-2 cm) – BSMP sediment core station - 2005 (Figure 4-38) 

 Station 1C (28-30 cm) – BSMP sediment core station - 2005 (Figure 4-39) 

Saturated Hydrocarbons 

In general, the sediments in the core samples (GC/FID chromatograms in Figures 4-36 through 

4-39) exhibit a mixture of primarily terrestrial biogenic hydrocarbons and lower levels of 

petroleum hydrocarbons (Figure 4-4 shows a North Slope Crude Oil for reference). This 

assemblage is clearly dominated by plant wax normal (i.e., straight-chain) alkanes in the n-C27 

through n-C33 carbon range. This is further demonstrated by carbon preference index (CPI) 

values that range from 4.6 to 6.9 for all sediment core samples, which is characteristic of 

sediments influenced by terrigenous plant inputs (Wakeham and Carpenter, 1976; Boehm, 

1984). 

Traces of lower molecular weight alkanes (LALK; n-C9 through n-C20 alkanes), indicative of 

petroleum sources, are visible as more minor components relative to the plant wax alkanes in 

the core sediments and in the Colville River sample for comparison (Figures 4-6 and 4-36 

through 4-39). This natural “background” petroleum alkane signature in the sediments has been 

well documented by previous studies in the region, including earlier ANIMIDA work (Boehm et 

al., 1987; Steinhauer and Boehm, 1992; Boehm et al., 1990; Boehm et al., 2001b; Brown et al., 

2002). 
4-18

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

The PAH distributions for the core sediments show that the PAHs are primarily of a combined 

fossil fuel origin (i.e., petroleum and coal) and lesser contributions of pyrogenic or combustionrelated compounds (e.g., 4-, 5-, and 6-ring PAHs), with a somewhat variable biogenic 

component (perylene). The petrogenic PAHs account for approximately 90 percent of the Total 

PAH less perylene throughout the core samples. Perylene was abundant in the core sediments, 

and often the most abundant single PAH compound in the overall PAH distribution (Figures 4-

36 through 4-39). Perylene is a naturally occurring PAH formed during early diagenesis in 

sediments from biological source precursors (Wakeham and Farrington, 1980; Wakeham et al., 

1980). Perylene has also been shown to increase with depth in sediment cores, as historical 

diagenesis increases (with time) in deeper core sections (Wakeham and Farrington, 1980). It 

may also be found in crude oil at very trace concentrations. Perylene was generally found at 

comparable concentrations in the Northstar and BSMP surficial sediments, but several cores 

show a clear trend in increasing perylene concentrations with depth (e.g., core 7A – Figure 3-

16), likely a product of early diagenesis in the deeper sediments. 

The PAH distributions are generally similar in all the cores at surface and at depth, and are 

characterized by the presence of a full suite of petroleum PAHs similar to the PAH distribution 

seen in the North Slope Crude oil. As noted previously, perylene dominates the overall PAH 

distribution as one of the most abundant individual PAHs in the samples. Perylene is found at 

equal or greater relative abundance in the river sediments and peat (Figure 4-6 and 4-7), which 

supports the relationship of the rivers as a source of the hydrocarbons in the nearshore 

sediments, as noted previously for the SHCs. Low levels of 4-, 5-, and 6-ring combustion PAHs 

are also present, but are generally only a minor component of the overall PAH composition in 

the sediments. 

Triterpanes 

In general, the triterpane distributions in the sediment core samples are indicative of a petroleum 

source (Figures 4-36 through 4-39), with varying abundances of a suite of recent organic 

material triterpane markers. For example, a characteristic petroleum triterpane pattern 

dominated by norhopane (T15) and C30-hopane (T19) is shown in Figure 4-4 for the North 

Slope Crude oil. The triterpane distributions for the core sediment samples are composed of a 

mixture of these characteristic petroleum triterpanes, along with recent organic or biogenic 

markers such as diploptene (the large peak to the right of the T21 and T22 doublet) and other 

unnamed triterpanes. In addition, the relative abundance of T22 at greater levels than T21 in 

most samples provides further evidence of substantial recent organic matter inputs to the 

sediments. 

The triterpane distributions of the Colville River (Figure 4-6), Sagavanirktok River, and 

Kuparuk River sediments have recent organic matter and petroleum hydrocarbon triterpane 

patterns with some similarities to those observed in the sediment samples. This similarity 

suggests that there is a strong link between the river hydrocarbon sources – mostly erosional 

inputs of regional rock (shale) coal, peat, etc. (i.e., natural background) and the sediments over 

time. 
4-19

Comparisons of Hydrocarbons over Time

The key diagnostic organic parameters (Table 3-6) calculated for sediment core sections are 

important in examining the historical trends of hydrocarbons in the sediment record. As 

discussed earlier, reliable geochronology could be established for nine sediment cores 

Comparisons of selected key diagnostic parameters in the form of core profiles (Figures 3-11 

through 3-20), in conjunction with simple statistical treatments, allow an assessment of pre- and 

post-development hydrocarbon trends over time. 

In general, comparisons of the core profiles for key diagnostic organic parameters for all of the 

cores do not show any clear trends that would indicate an increase in petroleum hydrocarbons 

over time. The core profile from stations 7C where geochronology could not be established 

(likely representing a historical pre-development record) is generally uniform and shows little 

variability of the hydrocarbon parameters over time. The cores for which pre- and postdevelopment dates can be established generally show uniform distributions of key parameters 

throughout the cores, with some variability in specific core sections. However the overall 

composition of the three classes of analytes analyzed (SHC, PAH and biomarkers) are all 

similar throughout the cores and are consistent with the regional background hydrocarbon 

sources identified in the surface sediments (Figures 4-36 – 4-39). 

In examining hydrocarbon trends in all of the cores, one useful technique (discussed earlier) 

involves examining the relationship between the organic parameter of interest and TOC content 

or alternatively, the percent silt plus clay or perylene content. The natural background 

concentrations of organics in the study area have been shown to co-vary as a function of 

perylene content. Thus, samples enriched in organics from anthropogenic sources can be 

identified by normalizing the target organic parameter and generating a linear regression line 

and prediction interval on a cross-plot. A plot of all the 2005 and 2006 sediment core data for 

total PAH minus perylene versus perylene is shown in Figure 4-40. In this plot a regression and 

95% prediction intervals are shown for all data, where the regression defines the natural 

geological/geochemical background of all the sediments. The plot shows that most of the core 

samples fall within the 95% prediction intervals, indicating that the 2005 and 2006 core 

sediment samples are generally not different in Total PAH content from the historical natural 

background of the region. 

Another evaluation of the sources of PAH in the core samples was performed using a 

dibenzothiophene-to-phenanthrene source ratio plot, which has been used earlier is this study to 

investigate PAH sources. An examination of the source plot for all the 2001, 2005 and 2006 

core sediments and additional source samples (i.e., field oils, river sediments and peat) is shown 

in Figure 4-41, and reveals that the source compositions of PAH in the core samples are 

generally similar (i.e., the data points cluster together on the plot) with some variability that can 

be attributed to local riverine source influences. For example, data points from core 2A (just 

east of the Canning River delta) tend to cluster below and to the left of the main grouping of 

data points and near the Canning River sediment data. 

Another source ratio plot of the 20S to 20R epimers of steranes and triterpanes (5α,14α,17α-24-

methylcholestane [S25/S28] versus 17α,21β(H)-30-homohopane [T21/T22]) of all the 2001, 

2005 and 2006 core samples and sources samples (Figure 4-42) shows that the core data fall 
4-20

well within the range defined by the cluster of all of the surface sediment samples from the area 

(Figure 4-26). This provides further evidence that the sediment core data are representative of 

the regional hydrocarbon background, and do not indicate any substantial influence from postdevelopment anthropogenic hydrocarbon inputs from the Prudhoe Bay area. 

Overall, the organic analyses of the sediment cores collected during 2005 and 2006 have 

provided an important historical perspective on hydrocarbons in the sediments from the study 

area. The results have shown that the concentrations and sources of hydrocarbons are generally 

uniformly consistent over the past 50 or more years and represent a regional background 

assemblage. For most organic hydrocarbon parameters, there are no significant increases (after 

geochemical normalization) of hydrocarbons in the sedimentary record post oil and gas 

development in the Prudhoe Bay area. 

4.2.1.2 Sediment deposition and the temporal distribution of sediment metals 

The historical record of metal levels in sediments from the cANIMIDA study area was 

developed from 14 cores collected during 2005 and 2006. As in the ANIMIDA program, 

collection of sediment cores suitable for age-dating was complicated by bottom-fast ice, ice 

gouging, low net sediment accumulation rates, low activities of excess 210Pb and 137Cs, and 

storm-induced resuspension and transport of sediments offshore into deeper water. Even when 

coring sites were chosen based on bathymetry (i.e., semi-restricted basins) or surface sediment 

composition (i.e., >90% silt plus clay), only a few cores were viable for establishing a 

geochronology over the past 50 to 100 years using both 137Cs and excess 210Pb. In many 

instances, extremely low levels or no detectable amounts of excess 210Pb (<0.2 dpm/g) or 137Cs 

(<0.02 dpm/g) were found, even in the top 0.5 cm of sediment. Such observations are consistent 

with previous reports that characterize this coastal area as a net erosional environment (Reimnitz 

and Wolf 1998). 

 

As reported earlier, past efforts to reconstruct recent geochronology for coastal sediments from 

this nearshore area of the Beaufort Sea (Weiss and Naidu, 1986; Naidu and others, 2001) have 

encountered many of the same difficulties found during the cANIMIDA study. Based on these 

difficulties with area sediments, a primary goal of the geochronology effort for the cANIMIDA 

study was to collect some representative sediment that was deposited prior to the onset of 

development during the late 1960s and early 1970s and some sediments that were deposited 

post-development. 

Concentrations of trace metals were determined for a total of 81 samples from seven cores 

collected in 2005 (N26, PB1A, L17B, BP01, E01, 1C and 2A) and five cores collected in 2006 

(N17, L22, 7A, 7C and 7E). Some variability in concentrations of metals was observed in each 

core, mainly due to variations in amounts of fine-grained sediment. Forty-seven of 1296 metal 

concentrations (3.6% of the data points) plotted above the upper prediction intervals developed 

for the ANIMIDA study area (Table 4-3). Thirty-five of the 47 data points were for sediments 

collected in Harrison Bay (the 7 series of stations) and 3 of the 47 data points were for station 

2A in Camden Bay. Both Harrison Bay and Camden Bay are not part of the original ANIMIDA 

study area, but were part of the original Beaufort Sea Monitoring Program. The remaining 9 

data points were from five different cores in different sediment layers: (1) station PB1A at 3-3.5 
4-21

cm for Ag, Cd, Cu and Ni, (2) station L17B at 3-3.5 cm for As, (3) station N17 at 28-30 cm for 

As and Hg, (4) station N26 at 16-17 cm for Fe, and (5) station BP01 at 9.5-10 cm for Zn (Table 

4-1 and Figures 4-43 through 4-47). These 9 data points plot relatively close to the upper 

prediction interval and do not reveal any striking anomalies that can be clearly tied to 

anthropogenic sources. The anomalies in the PB1A core from Prudhoe Bay may well be linked 

with a trace sulfide mineral as described previously for the more discernible anomalies at 

stations N14 (2005) and 5D (1999). 

Twenty of the 38 data points from outside the immediate cANIMIDA study area that plotted 

above the upper prediction interval were for Ba, 8 from Camden Bay and 12 from Harrison Bay 

(Table 4-1). The expanded scale graph (Figure 4-48) shows that the highest Ba anomalies in 

Camden Bay were at 19-20 cm for both stations 1C and 2A with generally lower anomalies 

toward the top of each core. Based on the 137Cs data, depths below 17 cm at station 1C and 

below 9 cm at station 2A were deposited prior to 1950 (Figure 3-23). The data for excess 210Pb 

are scattered in each core; however, they support a pre-1950 date for the 19-20 cm sections of 

the cores. At station 2A, but not 1C, the concentration of TOC is >1.5% below 18 cm in the 

core. In the core from station 1C, the TOC is about 0.5% throughout the core (Figures 3-22 and 

3-23). The source of the Ba anomalies is not clear at this time; however, diagenetic 

remobilization, diffusion and reprecipitation of Ba within the sediment column have been 

observed in sediments (e.g., McManus et al., 1994; Torres et al., 1995). Such a process 

complicates the identification of drilling mud residues and requires additionally support for such 

determinations as described below for Harrison Bay. 

In contrast with the observations in Camden Bay, the Ba anomalies in Harrison Bay (Figure 4-

49) are found at depth in the core that can be best explained by the presence of barite residues 

from drilling muds. For example, a vertical profile for the Ba/Al ratio for the sediment core 

from station 7E shows that all 4 samples with significant Ba anomalies are between 2 and 10 cm 

in the 30-cm vertical section of sediment (Figure 4-50). The maximum anomaly of 396 μg/g 

[anomaly = 859 μg/g – (4.77% Al (72.9) + 115) = 396 μg/g] dates to about 1988 ± 2 years 

(Figure 4-50). This anomaly is equivalent to a residue of 0.08% barite from drilling mud with 

53% Ba (Trefry et al., 2007). Drilling activity in the area of Harrison Bay sampled during 2006 

is within the area of western Harrison Bay where drilling occurred in 1985 and 1986. 

Furthermore, samples collected in western Harrison Bay during 1989 had Ba anomalies in the 

top 2 cm of sediment for stations 7A and 7G. The sediment at station G was hard and not 

penetrable for coring in 2006; therefore, cores were collected at stations 7A, 7C and 7E. The 

results for Ba in the core from station 7E (Figure 4-50) suggest that the peak concentration from 

the mid-1980s may have preserved at this site. However, the sediments in the top 6 cm at station 

7E contain high levels of TOC at 2-4%; therefore, a diagenetic explanation for the observed Ba 

profile can not be ruled out. More detailed study of the sediment column is needed to resolve 

natural from anthropogenic layers of Ba-rich sediment. 
4-22

Table 4-1. Sites with metal values for surface sediments above the upper prediction 

interval (UPI) on metal versus aluminum plots and values for Effects Range Low (ERL) 

and Effects Range Median (ERM) from Long et al. (1995) with results from this study.

Metal 

Sites with Values>UPI 

(of n = 112 samples) 

Maximum 

(this study) 

(μg/g) 

ERL 

(μg/g) 

ERM 

(μg/g) 

Maximum 

(this study) 

(μg/g) 

Sites with 

Values>UPI 

and >ERL 

Ag [N14, 2005] 

[N15, 2004] 0.44 1.0 3.7 0.44 None 

As 

2005 (L07) 

2006 (6G, 7G) 

[N14, 2005]

24.9 (8.2)* 70 24.9 

2005 (L07) 

2006 (6G, 

7G)*

Ba 2005 (N06) 

2006 (6H,7A,7G) 863 None None 863 N/A 

Be 2004 (5E) 

[N15, 2005]

3.6 None None 3.6 N/A 

Cd 

2005 (2G) 

2006 (5A,E02) 

[N14, 2005] 

0.77 1.2 9.6 0.77 None 

Co 

2006 (7A,7G) 

[N14, 2005] 13.8 None None 13.8 N/A 

Cr 2006 (6H,7A,N03,WD,L22) 99.6 (81)* 370 99.6 (several)* 

Cu 

2004 and 2005 (L07) 

2006 (WD) 

[N14, 2005] 

46.2 (34)* 270 46.2 Three* 

Fe 

2004 (N12) 

2006(6G,6H,N03,WD,L22) 

[N14, 2005] 

3.7% None None 3.7% N/A 

Hg 2004 (L07)

[N14, 2005] 0.113 0.150 0.710 0.113 None 

Ni [N14, 2005] 45.8 (20.9)* 51.6 45.8 [N14, 2005]* 

Pb 2006(6G)

[N14, 2005] 20.1 46.7 218 20.1 None 

Sb None 0.82 None None 0.82 N/A 

Tl None 0.64 None None 0.64 N/A 

V 2006(N03,L22) 155 None None 155 N/A 

Zn 2005(N01) 

[N14, 2005] 

136 150 410 136 None 
4-23

Table 4-2. Concentrations of excess metal in sediments from stations N14 (2005) and 

5D (1999) with extrapolated values to pyrite (FeS2) and reported values for metals in 

pyrite.

Metal Excess at 

Station N14 

(μg/g) 

Extrapolated 

Concentration 

In FeS2 for N14

(μg/g)* 

Excess at

Station 5D

(μg/g) 

Extrapolated 

Concentration 

In FeS2 for 5D 

(μg/g)* 

Typical Values in 

FeS2 

(μg/g)** 

Hg 0.087 3.4 0.150 9.6 - 

Ag 0.33 13 0.32 21 25-40 

Cd 0.59 23 0.55 35 - 

Co 6.8 270 9.5 610 200-600 

Pb 9.9 390 10.0 640 100-700 

As 15.0 590 16.6 1,070 100-600 

Ni 23.4 920 16.5 1,060 - 

Cu 33.4 1,310 23.5 1,510 1000-10,000 

Zn 44 1,720 26 1,670 1,000-4,000 

Fe 11,500 450,000 7,000 450,000 380,000-480,000

 * Based on 45% Fe in pyrite. 

 ** from Bendel et al. (1993), Halbach et al. (1998) 
4-24

Table 4-3. Sites with metal values for sediment cores above the upper prediction interval 

on metal versus aluminum plots and values for Effects Range Low (ERL) and Effects 

Range Median (ERM) from Long et al. (1995) with results from this study. Asterisks 

point out metals with unreliable values for ERL as explained in text.

Metal 

Sites with Values>UPI 

(of n = 81 samples) 

Maximum 

(this study 

(μg/g) 

ERL 

(μg/g) 

ERM 

(μg/g) 

Maximum 

(this study 

(μg/g) 

Sites with 

Values>UPI and 

>ERL 

Ag 2005, PB1A, 3-3.5 cm 0.23 1.0 3.7 0.44 None 

As 2005 (L17B 3-3.5 cm) 

2006 (7E 4-4.5 cm) 

23.8 (8.2)* 70 24.9 2005 (L07) 

2006 (6G, 7G)

Ba 2005, 1C, 5 of 7 depths 

2005, 2A, 3 of 7 depths 

2006, 7A, 6 of 7 depths 

2006, 7C, 6 of 8 depths 

975 None None 863 N/A 

Be None 1.8 None None 3.6 N/A 

Cd 2005, PB1A 3-3.5 cm 0.40 1.2 9.6 0.77 None 

Co 2006, 7A, 0-0.5cm 

2006, 7E 4-4.5 cm 

15.4 None None 13.8 N/A 

Cr 2006, 7A, 6 of 7 depths 108 (81)* 370 99.6 (several)* 

Cu 2005, PB1A, 3-3.5 cm 

 2006, 7E 0.0.5 cm 

41.9 (34)* 270 46.2 

Fe 2005, N26, 16-17 cm 3.9% None None 3.7% N/A 

Hg 2006, 7E, 3 of 8 depths 0.101 0.150 0.710 0.113 None 

Ni 2005, PB1A, 3-3.5 cm 47.0 (20.9)* 51.6 45.8 

Pb 2006, 7E, 2 of 8 depths 18.1 46.7 218 20.1 None 

Sb 2005, 2A, 3 of 7 depths 1.02 None None 0.82 N/A 

Tl None 0.82 None None 0.64 N/A 

V None 149 None None 155 N/A 

Zn 2005, BP01, 9.5-10 cm 112 150 410 136 None 
4-25 

GSSC

0

50

100 GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

Northstar 2000

1km

2km

4km

N01

N02

N03

N04 N05 N06

N07 N08

N09

N10

N11

N12

N14

N13

N15

5F

5B

5E

5(10)

5D

5(5)

5A

5(1) 5H

5(0)

Figure 4-1. Map identifies sampling sites and histograms show grain size distribution 

as percent gravel (black bar), sand (red bar), silt (green bar) and clay (yellow bar) for 

sediment samples collected during 1999 and 2000. 

Northstar Prospect

5(10)

5F

5A

4km

2km

1km

0.5km

Gwydyr Bay

Spoils Disposal Approx mi ate P pi el ni e Route

N04 N05

N06

N11

N12

N07 N08 N09

N03

N02

N01

N13

N15

N14

N19

N10

GSSC

0

50

100 GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

Northstar 1999

1km

2km

4km

N01

N02

N03

N04 N05 N06

N07 N08

N09

N10

N11

N12

N14

N13

N15

5F

5B

5E

5(10)

5D

5(5)

5A

5(1) 5H

5(0)
4-26 

Figure 4-2. Map identifies sampling sites and histograms show grain size distribution 

as percent gravel (black bar), sand (red bar), silt (green bar) and clay (yellow bar) for 

sediment samples collected during 2004 and 2002. 

GSSC

0

50

100 GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

Northstar 2004

1km

2km

4km

N01

N02

N03

N04 N05 N06 N07 N08 N09

N10

N11

N14

N13

N15

5F

5B

5E

5D

5(5)

5A

5(1)

5(0)

0

50

100

G S Si C

N23

GSSC

0

50

100 GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

Northstar 2002

1km

2km

4km

N01

N02

N03

N04 N05 N06

N07 N08

N09

N10

N11

N12

N14

N13

N15

5F

5B

5E

5(10)

5D

5(5)

5A

5(1) 5H

5(0)

Northstar Prospect

5(10)

5F

5A

4km

2km

1km

0.5km

Gwydyr Bay

Spoils Disposal Approx mi ate P pi el ni e Route

N04 N05

N06

N11

N12

N07 N08 N09

N03

N02

N01

N13

N15

N14

N19

N10

Northstar
4-27 

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

Liberty Prospect 1999

1km

2km

4km

4C

4A

4B

3A

3B

L01

L02

L03

L04 L05

L06 L07 L08

L09

L10

L11

L12

Figure 4-3. Map identifies sampling sites and histograms show grain size distribution 

as percent gravel (black bar), sand (red bar), silt (green bar) and clay (yellow bar) for 

sediment samples collected during 2004 and 1999. 

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

GSSC

0

50

100

Liberty Prospect 2004

1km

2km

4km

4C

4A

4B

3A

L01

L04

L06

L07 L08

L09

L17

GSSC

0

50

100

L18

Liberty Prospect

4B

4A

Boulder Patch Karluk Island

L01

L02

L03

L10

L11

L12

L07 L08 L09 L04 L05 L06
4-28 

Figure 4-4. North Slope Crude Oil – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH distribution 

histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom).

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

55000

60000

Time

Response_

10219911.D\FID2B

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

C0N

C1N

C2N

C3N

C4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0F

C1F

C2F

C3F

C0A

C0P

C1P/A

C2P/A

C3P/A

C4P/A

C0D

C1D

C2D

C3D

FL

PYR

C1F/P

C2F/P

C3F/P

BAA

C0C

C1C

C2C

C3C

C4C

BBF

BKF

BEP

BAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHP

Compounds

Concentration mg/Kg

"BQ06: NORTH SLOPE CRUDE O IL"

PAH

38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

Time-->

Abundance

Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): W1148.D

n-C17 n-C27 T15 T19 T21 T22 
4-29 

Figure 4-5. Northstar Oil – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH distribution histogram 

(middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

55000

Time

Response_

10170214.D\FID1A

02-NOR-01-PHC-O (Northstar Oil)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAA

C0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHIP

Concentration (mg/Kg)

36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

55000

60000

65000

70000

75000

Time-->

Abundance

Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): S6405.D

T22

T21

T19

T15

T12

T11

T10

T9

T4

n-C17 

n-C27 
4-30 

Figure 4-6. Colville River Sediment, Year 1999 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH 

distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

55000

60000

Time

Response_

11089973.D\FID2B

0

5 0

100

150

200

250

C0N

C1N

C2N

C3N

C4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0F

C1F

C2F

C3F

C0A

C0P

C1P/A

C2P/A

C3P/A

C4P/A

C0D

C1D

C2D

C3D

FL

PYR

C1F/P

C2F/P

C3F/P

BAA

C0C

C1C

C2C

C3C

C4C

BBF

BKF

BEP

BAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHP

Compounds

Concentration ug/Kg

"99A4758: 99-C0L-02-PH C-S SEDIM ENT"

PAH

38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

110000

120000

Time-->

Abundance

Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): W1162.D

n-C17 

n-C27 

T15 

T19 

T21 

T22 
4-31 

Figure 4-7. Canning River Sediment, Year 2002 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH 

distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Time

Response_

11040240.D\FID1A

02-CAN-01-PHC-S

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAA

C0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHIP

Concentration (ug/Kg)

n-C17 n-C27 
4-32 

Figure 4-8. Northstar Station 6 Sediment, Year 1999 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH 

distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

Time

Response_

10219930.D\FID1A

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

C0N

C1N

C2N

C3N

C4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0F

C1F

C2F

C3F

C0A

C0P

C1P/A

C2P/A

C3P/A

C4P/A

C0D

C1D

C2D

C3D

FL

PYR

C1F/P

C2F/P

C3F/P

BAA

C0C

C1C

C2C

C3C

C4C

BBF

BKF

BEP

BAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHP

Compounds

Concentration ug/Kg

"99A4740: 99-N06-01-PH C-S SEDIM ENT"

PAH

38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

Time-->

Abundance

Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): W1157.D

n-C17 

n-C27 

T15 

T19 

T21 T22 
4-33 

Figure 4-9. Northstar Station N06 Sediment, Year 2000 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), 

PAH distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Time

Response_

03010122.D\FID1A

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

3 0

3 5

4 0

4 5

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAA

C0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHP

Total PAH ug/Kg

38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

22000

24000

26000

Time-->

Abundance

Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): W5752.D

T22

T21

T19

T18

T15

T12

T10T11

T9 T4

n-C17 

n-C27 
4-34 

Figure 4-10. Northstar Station N06 Sediment, Year 2002 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), 

PAH distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

7500

Time

Response_

11060229.D\FID2B

02-N06-01-PHC-S

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAA

C0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHIP

Concentration (ug/Kg)

36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

55000

60000

65000

70000

75000

80000

85000

90000

Time-->

Abundance

Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): S6574.D

T22

T21

T19

T15

T12

T10T11

T9

T4

n-C17 

n-C27 
4-35 

Figure 4-11. Northstar Station N06 Sediment, Year 2004 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), 

PAH distribution histogram (middle), triterpane Ion chromatogram (bottom). 

Northstar Station 6 - average of three replicates

(04-N06-AVG -PHC-S)

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAAC0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHIP

Concentration (ug/Kg)
4-36 

Figure 4-12. Northstar Station N06 Sediment, Year 2005 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), 

PAH distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

550000

600000

650000

Time

Response_

Signal: N8101.D\FID1A.CH

05-N06-01-PHC-S

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAA

C0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHIP

Concentration (ug/Kg)
4-37 

Figure 4-13. Station N06 Sediment, Year 2006 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH 

distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAAC0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDP...

DAHA

BGHIP

Concentration (ug/Kg)

06-N06-01-PHC-S

n-C17 

n-C27 

T15 

T19 

T21 T22 
4-38 

Figure 4-14. Station L08 Sediment, Year 1999 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH 

distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

7500

8000

Time

Response_

11089967.D\FID2B

99-L08-01-PHC-S : SEDIMENT

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

C0N

C1N

C2N

C3N

C4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0F

C1F

C2F

C3F

C0A

C0P

C1P/A

C2P/A

C3P/A

C4P/A

C0D

C1D

C2D

C3D

FL

PYR

C1F/P

C2F/P

C3F/P

BAA

C0C

C1C

C2C

C3C

C4C

BBF

BKF

BEP

BAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHP

Compounds

PAH Concentration (ug/Kg) .

38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

Time-->

Abundance

Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): S8406.D

n-C17 

n-C27 

T15 T19 

T21 T22 
4-39 

Figure 4-15. Liberty Station L08 (Rep 3) Sediment, Year 2000 – GC/FID chromatogram 

(top), PAH distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Time

Response_

03160128.D\FID1A

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

3 0

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAA

C0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHP

Total PAH ug/Kg

36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

13000

Time-->

Abundance

Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): W5663.D

T22

T21

T19

T18

T15

T12

T11

T10

T9

T4

n-C17 

n-C27 
4-40 

Figure 4-16. Liberty Station L08 Sediment, Year 2005 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), 

PAH distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00 65.00

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

550000

600000

650000

700000

750000

800000

850000

900000

950000

1000000

1050000

1100000

1150000

1200000

1250000

1300000

1350000

Time

Response_

Signal: N8099.D\FID1A.CH

05-L08-01-PHC-S

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAA

C0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHIP

Concentration (ug/Kg)
4-41 

Figure 4-17. Station L08 Sediment, Year 2006 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH 

distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAAC0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDP...

DAHA

BGHIP

Concentration (ug/Kg)

06-L08-01-PHC-S

n-C17 

n-C27 

T15 

T19 

T21 T22 
4-42 

Figure 4-18. Station 3A Sediment, Year 1999 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH 

distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

Time

Response_

11089983.D\FID2B

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

C0N

C1N

C2N

C3N

C4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0F

C1F

C2F

C3F

C0A

C0P

C1P/A

C2P/A

C3P/A

C4P/A

C0D

C1D

C2D

C3D

FL

PYR

C1F/P

C2F/P

C3F/P

BAA

C0C

C1C

C2C

C3C

C4C

BBF

BKF

BEP

BAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHP

Compounds

Concentration ug/Kg

"99A4764: 99-3A-01-PH C-S SEDIM ENT"

PAH

38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Time-->

Abundance

Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): W1161.D

n-C17 

n-C27 

T15 

T19 

T21 

T22 
4-43 

Figure 4-19. Station 3A Sediment, Year 2005 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH 

distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

550000

600000

650000

700000

750000

800000

850000

900000

950000

Time

Response_

Signal: N8315.D\FID1A.CH

05-3A-01-PHC-S

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAA

C0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHIP

Concentration (ug/Kg)
4-44 

Figure 4-20. Station 2A Sediment, Year 2005 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), PAH 

distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00 65.00

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

220000

240000

260000

280000

300000

320000

340000

360000

380000

400000

420000

440000

Time

Response_

Signal: N8331.D\FID1A.CH

05-2A-15-PHC-S-C

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAA

C0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHIP

Concentration (ug/Kg)
4-45 

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

BSMP 

(1999) 

BSMP 

(2000) 

BSMP 

(2002) 

BSMP 

(2004) 

BSMP 

(2005) 

BSMP

(2006)

Liberty

(1999)

Liberty

(2000)

Liberty

(2002)

Liberty

(2004)

Liberty

(2005)

Liberty

(2006)

Northstar

(1999)

Northstar

(2000)

Northstar

(2002)

Northstar

(2004)

Total PAH (ug/Kg) 

ERM 44,000 ug/KgERL 4,022 ug/Kg

Figure 4-21. Comparison of regional minimum, maximum, and mean concentrations by year for totaaromatic hydrocarbon concentrations to sediment quality guidelines effects range-low and effects ra(Long et al., 1995). Note: y-axis is presented on a logarithmic scale. 
4-46 

Figure 4-22. Scatterplot of silt + clay results versus total polynuclear aromatic 

hydrocarbons less perylene for Northstar surficial sediment samples in 1999 through 

2006. 

The lines, Rsq, and 95% mean prediction intervals are from linear regression and related statistical calculations for 

Northstar stations by year. Station N08 from year 2004 was an outlier and was excluded from this graph. 

Silt+Clay(%)

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100

LN Total PAH less perylene (ug/Kg)

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Northstar

2004-2006

2000-2002

1999

N08 
4-47 

Figure 4-23. Total polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (TPAH) less perylene concentrations normalized tthrough 2006 Northstar stations. 
4-48 

Figure 4-24. Pyrogenic:petrogenic ratios of Northstar surficial sediment samples for 1999 through 2006
4-49 

.00.20.40.60.80

1.001.201.401.601.80

.00 .20 .40 .60 .80 1.00 1.20 1.40

C2D/C2P

C3D/C3P

NorthsLiberty BSMP NorthsLiberty BSMP NorthsLiberty BSMP NorthsLiberty BSMP North SNorthsCanninColville Colville KuparuKuparuSag. SSag. P

North Slope Crude Oils

Sag. River Sediments and Peat

Kuparuk River Sediments and Peat

Kuparuk River Sediments 

Colville River 

Sediments and

Canning River Sediments

Northstar Oil

Figure 4-25. Double ratio source plot of C2D/C2P versus C3D/C3P for BSMP, Liberty, Northstar, and Rivsamples for 1999 through 2006. 
4-50 

Figure 4-26. Double ratio source plot of S25/S28 versus T21/T22 for BSMP, Liberty, Northstar, and River 1999 through 2006. 

0.00.51.01.52.02.5

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 

T21/T22

S25/S28

North Slope Crude 

Sag. River Sediments and Peat

Kuparuk Ri ver Sediments and Peat

Colville River Sediments and Peats

Canning River 

Northstar Oil

T21/T22 
4-51 

Figure 4-27. Regression plot of total PAH less perylene verus silt + clay for all 1999 

through 2006 Northstar, Liberty and BSMP sediments. 

The lines, Rsq, and 95% individual prediction intervals are from linear regression. 

Silt+Clay(%)

100806040200-20 120

LN Total PAH (ug/Kg)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Region by Year

Lib/BSMP 2004-2006

Northstar 2004-2006

Lib/BSMP 2000+2002

Northstar 2000+2002

Lib/BSMP 1999

Northstar 1999

Total Population

Rsq = 0.5333 

7G 6B

2A

1E

N14

5B

N08

N03

N08

5D
4-52 

Figure 4-28. Regression plot of LN total PAH less perylene versus silt + clay for all 2004 

through 2006 Northstar, Liberty and BSMP sediments. 

The lines, Rsq, and 95% prediction intervals are from linear regression and related statistical 

calculations. 

Silt+Clay(%)

806040200-20 100 120

LN Total PAH (ug/Kg)

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Region by Year

Lib/BSMP 2004-2006

Northstar 2004-2006

5B

N08
4-53 

Figure 4-29. Regression plot of Total PAH less perylene versus perylene for all 1999 

through 2006 Northstar, Liberty and BSMP sediments. 

The lines, Rsq, and 95% individual prediction intervals are from linear regression. 

LN Perylene + 1 (ug/Kg)

76543210

LN Total PAH less perylene (ug/Kg)

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Region by Year

Lib/BSMP 2004-2006

Northstar 2004-2006

Lib/BSMP 2000+2002

Northstar 2000+2002

Lib/BSMP 1999

Northstar 1999

Total Population

Rsq = 0.9311 

L21

6B 2G N14

1A

4A

N11

4A

4A

N11

L08

4A
4-54 

Figure 4-30. Concentrations of aluminum versus chromium for surface sediment from 

the cANIMIDA study area collected in (a) 1999-2002 and (b) 2004-2006.

Equations are from linear regression calculations and r is the correlation coefficient. Dashed lines show 

the 99% prediction interval. Points marked with large letters are for suspended sediment from the 

Sagavanirktok (S) and Colville (C) Rivers. Data for sites identified on the graphs were not included in the 

regression calculations. Data for 2004-2006 were plotted with the prediction interval from the 1999-2002 

data. 

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Cr (μg/g)

0

50

100

150

Y = 12.4X + 8.1

r = 0.91, n = 191

2002 2001 2000 1999

C

S

(a)

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Cr (μg/g)

0

50

100

150

2004

2005

2006

Y = 12.4X + 8.1

r = 0.91, n = 191

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

6H L22

(b)

WD 7A

N03
4-55 

Figure 4-31. Concentrations of aluminum versus (a) copper, (b) cobalt and (c) arsenic 

for sediment from the cANIMIDA study area collected in 2004-2006.

Equations are from linear regression calculations and r is the correlation coefficient. Dashed lines show 

the 99% prediction interval. Data from 2004-2006 are plotted with prediction interval from 1999-2002 

data. 

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Cu (μg/g)

0

20

40

60

80

2004

2005

2006 Y = 5.8X - 4.6

r = 0.94, n = 196

N14

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

(a)

WD

L07 L07

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Co (μg/g)

0

5

10

15

20

25

2004

2005

2006

y = 1.6x + 1.1

r = 0.85, n = 195

N14

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

7A 7G

(b)

N17

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

As (μg/g)

0

10

20

30

2004

2005

2006 Y = 1.3X + 4.4

r = 0.53, n = 194

N14

L22

(c)

7G

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data
4-56 

Figure 4-32. Concentrations of aluminum versus (a) nickel, (b) silver and (c) mercury 

for sediment from the cANIMIDA study area collected in 2004-2006.

Equations are from linear regression calculations and r is the correlation coefficient. Dashed lines show 

the 99% prediction interval. Data from 2004-2006 are plotted with prediction interval from 1999-2002 

data. 

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Ni (μg/g)

0

20

40

60

2004

2005

2006

Y = 6.4x + 0.99

r = 0.91, n = 196

N14

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

(a)

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Ag (μg/g)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

2004

2005

2006

Y = 0.017X + 0.034

r = 0.57, n = 184

N15

N14

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

(b)

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Hg (μg/g)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

2004

2005

2006 Y = 0.013X- 0.012

r = 0.88, n = 133 

N14

Linear regression equation, line and 99%

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

(c)

L07
4-57 

Figure 4-33. Concentrations of excess metals for sediment from 1999 station 5D 

versus 2005 station N14. 

Concentrations of the excess metals for stations N14 (2005) and 5D (1999) were calculated by taking 

the measured metal concentration and subtracting the concentration calculated for a given metal using 

the measured Al concentration with the linear regression equations for the 1999-2002 metal versus Al 

plots. The dashed line shows the 1:1 correspondence between the data for 1999 Station 5D and 2005 

Station N14. 

2005 Station N14 (μg/g)

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

1999 Station 5D (μg/g)

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

Co

Pb As

Ni

Cu

1:1

Hg

Zn

Ag Cd

Fe

Concentrations of excess metals 

above values calculated from 

respective metal/Al plots

No anomalies for Ba, Be, Cr, Mn, Sb, Tl or V
4-58 

Figure 4-34. Concentrations of aluminum versus (a) zinc, (b) cadmium and (c) lead for 

sediment from the cANIMIDA study area collected in 2004-2006.

Equations are from linear regression calculations and r is the correlation coefficient. Dashed lines show 

the 99% prediction interval. Data from 2004-2006 are plotted with prediction interval from 1999-2002 

data. 

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Zn (μg/g)

0

50

100

150

200

2004

2005

2006

Y = 20.5X - 5.5

r = 0.92, n = 195

N01

N14

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

(a)

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Cd (μg/g)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

2004 

2005

2006

Y = 0.052X + 0.01

r = 0.75, n = 191

N14

5A

(b)

2G

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Pb (μg/g)

0

10

20

30

40

2004

2005

2006

Y = 2.4X - 0.3

r = 0.87, n = 196

N14

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

6G

(c)
4-59 

Figure 4-35. Concentrations of aluminum versus (a) barium, (b) antimony and (c) 

beryllium for sediment from the cANIMIDA study area collected in 2004-2006.

Equations are from linear regression calculations and r is the correlation coefficient. Dashed lines show 

the 99% prediction interval. Data from 2004-2006 are plotted with prediction interval from 1999-2002 

data. 

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Ba (μg/g)

0

300

600

900

1200

2005

2004

2006

Y = 72.9X +115

r = 0.82, n = 192

6H

7G

7A

N06

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

(a)

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Sb (μg/g)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2004

2005

2006 Y = 0.11x + 0.11

r = 0.84, n = 195

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

(b)

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Be (μg/g)

0

1

2

3

4

5

2004

2005

2006

Y = 0.22x + 0.29

r = 0.69

5E

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

(c)
4-60 

Figure 4-36. Sediment Core N26 Interval 0-2 cm, Year 2005 – GC/FID chromatogram 

(top), PAH distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

550000

600000

650000

Time

Response_

Signal: N0147.D\FID2B.CH

0 5 -N 2 6 -0 1 -P H C -S -C

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAAC0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHIP

Concentration (ug/Kg)
4-61 

Figure 4-37. Sediment Core N26 Interval 8-10 cm, Year 2005 – GC/FID chromatogram 

(top), PAH distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

550000

600000

650000

700000

750000

Time

Response_

Signal: N8297.D\FID1A.CH

0 5 -N 2 6 -0 5 -P H C -S -C

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAAC0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHIP

Concentration (ug/Kg)
4-62 

Figure 4-38. Sediment Core 1C Interval 0-2 cm, Year 2005 – GC/FID chromatogram (top), 

PAH distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

550000

600000

650000

700000

750000

800000

850000

900000

950000

1000000

1050000

1100000

Time

Response_

Signal: N0055.D\FID2B.CH

05-1C-01-PHC-S-C

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAAC0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHIP

Concentration (ug/Kg)
4-63 

Figure 4-39. Sediment Core 1C Interval 28-30 cm, Year 2005 – GC/FID chromatogram 

(top), PAH distribution histogram (middle), triterpane ion chromatogram (bottom). 

10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00 65.00

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

550000

600000

650000

700000

750000

800000

850000

Time

Response_

Signal: N0155.D\FID2B.CH

0 5 -1 C -1 5 -P H C -S -C

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

C0NC1NC2NC3NC4N

ACEY

ACE

BIP

C0FC1FC2FC3F

C0AC0P

C1P/AC2P/AC3P/AC4P/A

C0DC1DC2DC3D

FL

PYR

C1F/PC2F/PC3F/P

BAAC0CC1CC2CC3CC4C

BBFBKF

BEPBAP

PER

INDPYR

DAHA

BGHIP

Concentration (ug/Kg)
4-64 

Figure 4-40. Regression plot of Total PAH less perylene versus perylene for all 2005 

through 2006 sediment core samples. 

The lines, Rsq, and 95% individual prediction intervals are from linear regression. 

LN Perylene + 1 (ug/Kg)

3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0

LN Total PAH less perylene (ug/Kg)

8.5

8.0

7.5

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

Pre-1950

Unknown

Post-1950

Total Population

Rsq = 0.8818 

7E-02

N17-15

2A-10
4-65 

.00.20.40.60.80

1.001.201.401.601.80

.00 .20 .40 .60 .80 1.00 1.20 1.40

C2D/C2P

C3D/C3P

North Slope Crude Oils

Sag. River Sediments and Peat

Kuparuk River Sediments and Peat

Kuparuk River Sediments 

Colville River 

Sediments and

Canning River Sediments

Northstar Oil

Figure 4-41. Double ratio source plot of C2D/C2P versus C3D/C3P for 2001, 2005, and 2006 sediment 
4-66 

0.00.51.01.52.02.5

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

T21/T22

S25/S28

SeSeSeNoNoCaCoCoKuKuSaSa

North Slope Crude 

Sag. River Sediments and Peat

Kuparuk River Sediments and Peat

Colville River Sediments and Peats

Canning River 

Northstar Oil

Figure 4-42. Double ratio source plot of S25/S28 versus T21/T22 for 2001, 2005, and 2006 sediment c

T21/T22 
4-67 

Figure 4-43. Concentrations of aluminum versus (a) iron, (b) vanadium and (c) 

beryllium for sediment from the cANIMIDA study area collected in 2004-2006.

Equations are from linear regression calculations and r is the correlation coefficient. Dashed lines show 

the 99% prediction interval. Data from 2004-2006 are plotted with the regression lines and prediction 

intervals from 1999-2002 data. 

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Fe (%)

0

2

4

6

8

2005

2006 y = 0.49x + 0.18

r = 0.94, n = 196

(a)

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

Sediment Cores

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

V (μg/g)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2005

2006

y = 24.0 - 1.7

r = 0.98, n = 88

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

(b)

Sediment Cores

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Be (μg/g)

0

1

2

3

4

2005

2006

Y = 0.22x + 0.29

r = 0.69

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

Sediment Cores
4-68 

Figure 4-44. Concentrations of aluminum versus (a) nickel, (b) copper and (c) cobalt 

for sediment from the cANIMIDA study area collected in 2004-2006.

Equations are from linear regression calculations and r is the correlation coefficient. Dashed lines show 

the 99% prediction interval. Data from 2004-2006 are plotted with the regression lines and prediction 

intervals from 1999-2002 data. 

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Ni (μg/g)

0

20

40

60

2005

2006

Y = 6.4x + 0.99

r = 0.91, n = 196

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

PB1A, 3-3.5 cm

(a)

Sediment Cores

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Cu (μg/g)

0

20

40

60

80

2005

2006

Y = 5.8X - 4.6

r = 0.94, n = 196

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

7E 0-0.5 cm

PB1A, 3-3.5 cm

(b)

Sediment Cores

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Co (μg/g)

0

5

10

15

20

25

2005

2006

y = 1.6x + 1.1

r = 0.85, n = 195

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

(c)

7E, 4-4.5 cm

7A, 0-0.5 cm

Sediment Cores
4-69 

Figure 4-45. Concentrations of aluminum versus (a) zinc, (b) silver and (c) cadmium 

for sediment from the cANIMIDA study area collected in 2004-2006.

Equations are from linear regression calculations and r is the correlation coefficient. Dashed lines show 

the 99% prediction interval. Data from 2004-2006 are plotted with the regression lines and prediction 

intervals from 1999-2002 data. 

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Zn (μg/g)

0

50

100

150

200

2005

2006

Y = 20.5X - 5.5

r = 0.92, n = 195

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

BP01, 9.5-10 cm

(a)

Sediment Cores

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Ag (μg/g)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

2005

2006

Y = 0.017X + 0.034

r = 0.57, n = 184

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

Sediment Cores

(b)

PB1A, 3-3.5 cm

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Cd (μg/g)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

2005

2006 Y = 0.052X + 0.01

Sediment Cores r = 0.75, n = 191

(c)

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

PB1A, 3-3.5 cm
4-70 

Figure 4-46. Concentrations of aluminum versus (a) lead, (b) mercury and (c) arsenic 

for sediment from the cANIMIDA study area collected in 2004-2006.

Equations are from linear regression calculations and r is the correlation coefficient. Dashed lines show 

the 99% prediction interval. Data from 2004-2006 are plotted with the regression lines and prediction 

intervals from 1999-2002 data. 

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Pb (μg/g)

0

10

20

30

40

2005

2006

Y = 2.4X - 0.3

r = 0.87, n = 196

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

Sediment Cores

(a)

7E

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Hg (μg/g)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

2005

2006

Y = 0.013X- 0.012

r = 0.88, n = 133 

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

Sediment Cores

7E

(b)

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

As (μg/g)

0

10

20

30

2005

2006 Y = 1.3X + 4.4

Sediment Cores r = 0.53, n = 194

(c)

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

7E

L17B
4-71 

Figure 4-47. Concentrations of aluminum versus (a) antimony, (b) thallium and (c) 

chromium for sediment from the cANIMIDA study area collected in 2004-2006.

Equations are from linear regression calculations and r is the correlation coefficient. Dashed lines show 

the 99% prediction interval. Data from 2004-2006 are plotted with the regression lines and prediction 

intervals from 1999-2002 data. 

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Sb (μg/g)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2005

2006

Y = 0.11x + 0.11

r = 0.84, n = 195

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

Sediment Cores

(a)

2A

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Tl (μg/g)

0.0

0.5

1.0

2005

2006 Y = 0.090X + 0.054

r = 0.86, n = 196

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

Sediment Cores

(b)

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Cr (μg/g)

0

50

100

150

2005

2006

Y = 12.4X + 8.1

r = 0.91, n = 191

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

Sediment Cores

(c)

7A
4-72 

Figure 4-48. Concentrations of aluminum versus barium for (a) all sediment core 

samples from 2005 and 2006 and (b) 2005 samples that plotted above the upper 

prediction interval. Shaded rectangle in (a) is expanded in (b).

Equation is from linear regression calculations and r is the correlation coefficient. Dashed lines show 

the 99% prediction interval. Data from 2004-2006 are plotted with the regression lines and prediction 

intervals from 1999-2002 data. 

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Ba (μg/g)

0

300

600

900

1200

2005

2006

Y = 72.9X +115

r = 0.82, n = 192

Linear regression line and 99% prediction

 interval based on 1999-2002 data

Sediment Cores

(a)

Al (%)

345678

Ba (μg/g)

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2005 1C, 19-20 cm

1C, 9.5-10 cm

1C, 0-0.5 cm

2A, 19-20 cm

1C, 5-5.5 cm 2A, 9.5-10 cm

L17B, 7-7.5 cm

2A, 0-0.5 cm

1C, 3-3.5 cm

(b)

Sediment Cores
4-73 

Figure 4-49. Concentrations of aluminum versus barium for (a) all sediment core 

samples from 2005 and 2006 and (b) 2006 samples that plotted above the upper 

prediction interval. Shaded rectangle in (a) is expanded in (b).

Equation is from linear regression calculations and r is the correlation coefficient. Dashed lines show 

the 99% prediction interval. Data from 2004-2006 are plotted with the regression lines and prediction 

intervals from 1999-2002 data. 

Al (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Ba (μg/g)

0

300

600

900

1200

2005

2006

Y = 72.9X +115

r = 0.82, n = 192

Linear regression equation, line and 99% 

prediction interval based on 1999-2002 data

Sediment Cores

(a)

Al (%)

345678

Ba (μg/g)

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2006

7A, 4-4.5 cm

7A, 16-17 cm 7A, 6-6.5 cm

7A, 12-13 cm

7A, 8-8.5 cm 7A, 0-0.5 cm

7E, 12-13 cm

7E, 6-6.5 cm

7E, 28-30 cm

7E, 4-4.5 cm

7E, 2-2.5 cm

7E, 6-6.5 cm

(b)

Sediment Cores
4-74 

Figure 4-50. Vertical profile for the Ba/Al ratio in sediments from 2006 station 7E. 

Shaded area shows background Ba/Al ratio (ppm vs. %) for study area. Dashed line shows deepest 

sample with detectable amounts of 137Cs and thus dates to the early 1950s. Date of 1988 with error is 

from 137Cs and excess 210Pb data. 

Ba/Al

100 125 150 175 200

Sediment Depth (cm)

0

10

20

30

Station 7E

1988 ± 2 

1950
5-1

5.0 Recommendations 

Based on the results and interpretations of the sediment samples collected under the ANIMIDA 

program (1999 – 2002) and the cANIMIDA program (2004 - 2006), there are a number of 

recommendations for future work in the study area. 

 Continue to analyze surface sediments for hydrocarbon and metals to monitor potential 

impacts of regional petroleum development activities. However based on our current 

understanding of this dynamic near-shore coastal area, a monitoring interval of 3 to 5 

years is reasonable. However, new offshore or near-shore development activities should 

be considered in any future monitoring efforts. 

 Future sediment monitoring programs should consider including the following elements: 

 Continue to perform focused surface sediment monitoring for hydrocarbons and metals 

in the Northstar Island and West Dock area to assess potential future impacts from 

Northstar production activities. 

 Collect and analyze sediments for hydrocarbons and metals from new Liberty sediment 

stations in the Sagavanirtok River delta area, to augment existing baseline information 

for Liberty and to assess potential impacts from future Liberty development and 

production activities. This recommendation is based the assumption that Liberty 

Prospect will be developed from an alternative “onshore” location at the Endicott 

Satellite Drilling Island. 

 Perform continued surface sediment monitoring for hydrocarbons and metals at the 

wider regional BSMP study area stations (i.e., Cape Halkett to Griffin Point) to develop 

a comprehensive baseline of the area prior to exploration and development activities 

associated with new Beaufort Sea exploration activities (i.e, Camden Bay) and lease 

sales. 

 Collect and analyze additional river sediment samples (e.g., McKenzie River, North East 

Brooks Range Watershed) for metals and hydrocarbons to evaluate other regional 

sediment sources. 

 Analyze additional North Slope field oils and seep oils/source rock/coal samples to 

enhance the differentiation of hydrocarbon sources. 

 Continue to use Double Ratios of S25/S28 versus T21/T22 as a hydrocarbon 

discrimination tool and metal to Al ratios to assess metals inputs to the ANIMIDA study 

area. 

 Analyze surface sediment and cores for radionuclides to better delineate areas of recent 

sediment deposition. 

 Collect and analyze additional offshore sediment cores for hydrocarbons and metals to 

further characterize the historical sediment record in the study area. 
6-1

6.0 References 

Battelle 2004a. Summer 2004 Field Sampling and Logistics Plan. July 22, 2004. 

Battelle 2004b. Summer 2004 Field Survey Report. November 12, 2004. 

Battelle 2005a. Summer 2005 Field Sampling and Logistics Plan. July 22, 2005. 

Battelle 2005b. Summer 2005 Field Survey Report. October 25, 2005. 

Battelle 2006a. Summer 2006 Field Sampling and Logistics Plan. ??, 2005. 

Battelle 2006b. Summer 2006 Field Survey Report. October 26, 2005. 

Banet, Arthur C., Jr., 1995. A comparison of Crude Oil Chemistry on America’s North Slope: 

Chukchi Sea – McKenzie Delta, BLM – Alaska Technical Report No. 16. 

Bence, A.E., K.A. Kvenvolden, and M.S. Kennicutt, II. 1996. Organic Geochemistry Applied to 

Environmental Assessments of Prince William Sound, Alaska, after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. 

Org. Geochem. 24:7-42. January. 

Bendel, V, Y. Fouquet, J-M. Auzende, Y. Lagabrielle, D. Grimaud and T. Urabe. 1993. The 

White Lady hydrothermal field, North Fiji back-arc basin, southwest Pacific. Economic 

Geology. 88:2237-2249. 

Benjamini, Y. and Y. Hochberg. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and 

powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, 

57(1):289-300. 

Boehm, P.D. 1984. Aspects of the saturated hydrocarbon geochemistry of recent sediments in 

the Georges Bank Region. Org. Geochem., 7:11-23. 

Boehm, P.D., E. Crecelius, J.M. Neff, C.E. Tuckfield, and M. Steinhauer. 1987. Final Report on 

Beaufort Sea Monitoring Program: Analysis of Trace Metals and Hydrocarbons from Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS) Activities. Submitted to Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS 

Region, Anchorage, AK. 

Boehm, P.D., L. Le Blanc, J. Trefry, P. Marajh-Whittemore, J. Brown, A. Schutzberg, and A. 

Kick. 1990. Monitoring hydrocarbons and trace metals in Beaufort Sea sediments and 

organisms. Final Report to U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Anchorage, Alaska. 

Boehm, P.D., L. Le Blanc, J. Trefry, P. Marajh-Whittemore, J. Brown, A. Schutzberg, and A. 

Kick. 1991. Beaufort Sea Monitoring Program: Analysis of Trace Metals and Hydrocarbons 

from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Activities. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, Alaska. 
6-2

Boehm, P.D., et al. 2001a. Sediment Quality in Depositional Areas of Shelikof Strait and 

Outermost Cook Inlet. Final Report to U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Anchorage, Alaska. 

Boehm, P.D., et al. 2001b. ANIMIDA Phase I: Arctic Nearshore Monitoring in the 

Development Area - Final Report. OCS Study MMS2001-104, Anchorage, AK: Minerals 

Management Service, U.S. Department of Interior. 

Brown, J.S. and P.D. Boehm. 1993. The Use of Double Ratio Plots of Polynuclear Aromatic 

Hydrocarbon (PAH) Alkyl Homologues for Petroleum Source Identification. In Proceedings, 

1993 International Oil Spill Conference (Prevention, Preparedness, Response). American 

Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC. Pp. 799-804. 

Brown, J.S., J.H. Trefry, L.L. Cook, and P.D. Boehm. 2003. ANIMIDA Task 2: Hydrocarbon 

and Metal Characterization of Sediment Cores in the ANIMIDA Study Area - Special Report. 

OCS Study MMS 2004-023, Anchorage, Alaska: Minerals Management Service, Department of 

Interior. 

Brown, J.S., J.H. Trefry, L.L. Cook, and P.D. Boehm. 2004. ANIMIDA Task 2: Hydrocarbon 

and Metal Characterization of Sediments, Bivalves and Amphipods in the ANIMIDA Study 

Area, Final Report. OCS Study MMS 2004-024, Anchorage, Alaska: Minerals Management 

Service, Department of Interior. 

Bruland, K.W., K. Bertine, M. Koide and E.D. Goldberg. 1974. History of metal pollution in southern 

California coastal zone. Environ. Sci. Technol. 425-432. 

Carsola, A.J. 1954. Recent marine sediments from the Alaskan and Northwest Canadian Arctic. 

Bulletin, American Association of Petroleum Geologists. 38:1552-1586. 

Chow, T. J., Earl, J.L., Reed, J.H., Hansen, N., and Orphan, V. 1978. Barium content of marine 

sediments near drilling sites: a potential pollutant indicator. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 9(4):97-

99. 

Crecelius, E.A., J.H. Trefry, M.S. Steinhauer, and P.D. Boehm. 1991. Trace metals in sediments 

from the inner continental shelf of the western Beaufort Sea. Environmental Geology and Water 

Science. 18: 71-79. 

Field, L.J., MacDonald, D.D., Norton, S.B., Severn, C.G., and Ingersoll, C.G. 1999. Evaluating 

sediment chemistry and toxicity data using logistic regression modeling. Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry. 18(6):1311-1322. 

Folk, R. L. 1974. Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Austin, Texas: Hemphill Publishing Co. 

pp.182. 

Froelich, P. N. 1980. Analysis of organic carbon in marine sediments. Limnology and 

Oceanography. 25:564-572. 
6-3

Halbach, P., N. Blum, U. Munch, W. Pluger, D. Garbe-Schonberg and M. Zimmer. 1998. 

Formation and decay of a modern massive sulfide deposit in the Indian Ocean. Mineralium 

Deposita. 33:302-309. 

Hyland, J.L., J.S. Brown, T.C. Sauer, Jr., S. Tate, and H.J. Tsomides. 1995. Cook Inlet Pilot 

Monitoring Study, Phase I of Design and Implementation of a Prototype Environmental 

Sampling Program for Cook Inlet, Alaska, Final Report. Prepared for Cook Inlet Regional 

Citizens Advisory Council, Kenai, Alaska. March. 

Kang, W.J., J.H. Trefry, T.A. Nelsen and H.R. Wanless. 2000. Direct Atmospheric Inputs 

versus Runoff Fluxes of Mercury to the Lower Everglades and Florida Bay. Environmental 

Science and Technology. 34: 4058-4063. 

Long, E. R., D. D. Macdonald, S.L. Smith, and F.D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of Adverse 

Biological Effects Within Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine 

Sediments. Environ. Management. 19: 81-97. 

MacDonald, D. D., Carr, R. S., Calder, F. D., and Long, E. R. 1996. Development and 

evaluation of sediment quality guidelines for Florida coastal waters. Ecotoxicology. 5:253-278. 

McManuw, J., W.M. Berelson, G.P. Klinkhammer, T.E. Kilgore and D.E. Hammond. 1994. 

Remobilization of barium in continental margin sediments. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta.

58:4899-4907. 

Naidu, A.S., J.J. Goering, J.J. Kelley, and M.I. Venkatesan. 2001. Historical Changes in Trace 

Metals and Hydrocarbons in the Inner Shelf Sediments, Beaufort Sea: Prior and Subsequent to 

Petroleum-related Industrial Developments. Final Report to MMS, OCS Study, MMS 2001-061, 

80 pp. 

Page, D.S., P.D. Boehm, G.S. Douglas, A.E. Bence, W. A. Burns, and P.J. Mankiewicz. 1998. 

Petroleum Sources in the Western Gulf of Alaska/Shelikof Strait Area. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin. 36(12):1004 – 1021. 

Peters, K.E. and J.M Moldowan. 1993. The Biomarker Guide. Interpreting Molecular Fossils in 

Petroleum and Ancient Sediments. Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 

Reimnitz E., and S. C Wolf. 1998. Are north slope surface alluvial fans pre-Holocene relicts? 

United States Geological Survey (USGS) Prof Paper 1605. 

Reimnitz, E., and P.W. Barnes. 1974. Sea ice as a geologic agent on the Beaufort Sea shelf of 

Alaska, pp. 301-353, in: J. C. Reed and J. E. Sater (eds.), The Coast and Shelf of the Beaufort 

Sea, Arctic Institute of North America, 1974. 

Rember, R.D. and Trefry, J.H. 2004. Increased concentrations of dissolved trace metals and 

organic carbon during snowmelt in rivers of the Alaskan Arctic. Geochimica et Cosmochimica 

Acta. 68:477-489. 
6-4

Schropp, S. J., F. G. Lewis, H. L. Windom, et al. 1990. Interpretation of metal concentrations in 

estuarine sediments of Florida using aluminum as a reference element. Estuaries. 13:227-235. 

Snyder-Conn, E., Densmore, D., Moitoret, C., and Stroebele, J. 1990. Persistence of trace metals 

in shallow arctic marine sediments contaminated by drilling effluents. Oil & Chemical 

Pollution.7:225-247. 

Steinhauer, M.S. and P.D. Boehm. 1992. The composition and distribution of saturated and 

aromatic hydrocarbons in nearshore sediments, river sediments, and coastal peat of the Alaskan 

Beaufort Sea: Implications for detecting anthropogenic inputs. Marine Environmental Research. 

33:223-253. 

Torres, M.E., H.J. Brunsack, G. Bohrmann and K.C. Emeis, 1995. Barite fronts in continental 

margin sediments: A new look at barium remobilization in the zone of sulfate reduction and 

formation of heavy barites in diagenetic fronts. Chemical Geology. 127:125-139. 

Trefry J. H., R. D. Rember, R. P. Trocine, and J. S. Brown. 2003. Trace metals in sediments 

near offshore oil exploration and production sites in the Alaskan Arctic. Environmental 

Geology. 45(2):149-160. 

URSGWC (URS Greiner Woodward Clyde). 2001. Liberty Development 2001 Sediment 

Quality Study. Final Report to B.P. Exploration (Alaska), Inc.

URSGWC. 1998. In Support of the Liberty Development Project US Army Corps of Engineers 

Permit Application. Section 103 Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act Dredged 

Material Disposal Site Evaluation. Prepared for BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. 

USAEDA (U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska). 1999. Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

Beaufort Sea Oil and Gas Development/Northstar Project. Volumes I – IV. Appendices A – K. 

Anchorage, Alaska. 

USDOI. 2002. Liberty Development and Production Plan Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. OCS EIS/EA, MMS 2002-0019. Anchorage, Alaska. 

USDOI. 2007. Liberty Development and Production Plan Ultra Extended Reach Drilling from 

Endicott Satellite Drilling Island (SDI). OCS EIS/EA, MMS 2007-0054. Anchorage, Alaska. 

USDOI. 2008. Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas Oil and Gas Lease Sales 209, 212, 

217, and 221, Draft Environmental Impact Statement. OCS EIS/EA, MMS 2008-0055. 

Anchorage, Alaska. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Methods for the Determination of Metals in 

Environmental Samples. Office of Research & Development, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW846, Third Edition. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C., August. 
6-5

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium 

Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: PAH 

Mixtures. EPA-600-R-02-013. Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC 20460 

Wakeham, S.G. and R. Carpenter. 1976. Aliphatic Hydrocarbons in Sediments of Lake 

Washington. Limnol. Oceanogr. 21:711-723. 

Wakeham, S.G. and J.W. Farrington. 1980. Hydrocarbons in Contemporary Aquatic Sediments. 

In: Contaminants and Sediments, Volume 1. Edited by R.A. Baker. pp. 3-27. 

Wakeham, S.G., C. Schaeffiner, and W. Giger. 1980. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in 

Recent Lake Sediments-II, Compounds Derived from Biogenic Precursors During Early 

Diagenesis. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 44(3):415-429. 

Wedepohl, K.H. 1995. The Composition of the Continental Crust. Geochimica et Cosmochimica 

Acta. 59(7):1217-1232. 

Weiss, H.V. and A.S. Naidu. 1986. 210Pb flux in an arctic coastal region. Arctic. 39:59-64. 
The Department of the Interior Mission

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our 

nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water 

resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of 

our national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The 

Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best 

interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The Department also 

has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories 

under U.S. administration. 

The Minerals Management Service Mission 

As a bureau of the Department of the Interior, the Minerals Management Service's (MMS) primary responsibilities 

are to manage the mineral resources located on the Nation's Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), collect revenue from 

the Federal OCS and onshore Federal and Indian lands, and distribute those revenues. 

Moreover, in working to meet its responsibilities, the Offshore Minerals Management Program administers the 

OCS competitive leasing program and oversees the safe and environmentally sound exploration and production of 

our Nation's offshore natural gas, oil and other mineral resources. The MMS Royalty Management Program

meets its responsibilities by ensuring the efficient, timely and accurate collection and disbursement of revenue from 

mineral leasing and production due to Indian tribes and allottees, States and the U.S. Treasury. 

The MMS strives to fulfill its responsibilities through the general guiding principles of: (1) being responsive to the 

public's concerns and interests by maintaining a dialogue with all potentially affected parties and (2) carrying out its 

programs with an emphasis on working to enhance the quality of life for all Americans by lending MMS assistance 

and expertise to economic development and environmental protection.