OCS	Study

											BOEM 2017-080

U.S.-Canada	Northern	Oil	and	Gas	

Research	Forum	

Final	Report	

																																								 						

US	Department	of	the	Interior

Bureau	of	Ocean	and	Energy	Management

Alaska	OCS	Region
OCS	Study

											BOEM 2017-080

U.S.-Canada Northern Oil and Gas

Research Forum Final Report 

January 2018

Author:

Sierra Fletcher, Principal Investigator

Prepared under BOEM Contract Number M17PX00020

by

Nuka Research and Planning Group, LLC

PO Box 175

Seldovia, AK 99663

			

																																								 						

US	Department	of	the	Interior

Bureau	of	Ocean	and	Energy	Management

Alaska	OCS	Region
iii

DISCLAIMER

Study concept, oversight, and funding were provided by the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau 

of Ocean Energy Management, under Contract Number M17PX00020. This report has been 

technically reviewed by BOEM and it has been approved for publication. The views and 

conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as 

representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government, nor does mention of the trade 

names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

REPORT AVAILABILITY

To download a PDF version of this document, go to the BOEM Data and Information 

Specifications webpage (https://www.boem.gov/ESP-Data-and-Information-Specifications/).

CITATION

Nuka Research and Planning Group, LLC. 2018. 2017 US-Canada Northern Oil and Gas 

Research Forum, Final Report. US Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Alaska OCS Region. OCS Study BOEM 2017-080. Provided to BOEM by 

Nuka Research and Planning Group, LLC, 46 pp, plus Appendices.

ABOUT THE COVER

Cover graphic by Kathleen George.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The following BOEM offices contributed to this document: Alaska OCS Region Directors Office 

and the Alaska Environmental Studies Management Section. We thank Dennis Thurston, BOEM, 

and Filip Petrovic, INAC, for co-chairing the Forum organizing committee. Rick Raymond and 

Jeffrey Brooks provided comments on drafts of this report.
iii

Contents

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms............................................................................................... v

1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1

2 Opening Remarks ............................................................................................................... 1

3 Opening Panel: Science and Informed Decision-making ................................................... 3

4 Panel: Community and Industry Perspectives – Priorities and Research/Monitoring Needs

............................................................................................................................................ 5

5 Lunch Speaker: Paul Decker, State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources ............. 8

6 Environmental Technical Talks.......................................................................................... 9

7 Oil Spill Technical Talks I................................................................................................ 13

8 Panel: Scenario Planning .................................................................................................. 16

9 Panel: Meaningful Engagement of Indigenous Peoples in Oil and Gas Activities Beyond 

Consultation ...................................................................................................................... 18

10 Ice, Ocean, and Air Technical Talks................................................................................. 21

11 Community-driven Research and Monitoring Technical Talks ....................................... 25

12 Lunch Speaker: Brad Chastain, Alaska Gasline Development Corporation .................... 29

13 Biological Observatories and Monitoring Technical Talks.............................................. 30

14 Oil Spill Technical Talks II .............................................................................................. 33

15 Panel: Shared Leadership and Governance: Perspectives from U.S. and Canada............ 36

16 Panel: Role of Regional Studies, Environmental Assessments, and Cumulative Effects 37

17 Science in Area-based Management Technical Talks...................................................... 40

18 Panel: Role of Research in Regulation ............................................................................. 42

19 Concluding Session........................................................................................................... 44

20 Posters............................................................................................................................... 46

21 References......................................................................................................................... 49

Appendix A: Agenda ..................................................................................................................... 50
iii

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

AK LNG Alaska Liquid Natural Gas project

AMBON Arctic Marine Biodiversity Observing Network

ANIMIDA Arctic Nearshore Impact Monitoring in Development Area

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environment

CAMx Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions

CAFF Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (Arctic Council working group)

DBO Distributed Biological Observatory

DOI Department of Interior 

EBM Ecosystem-based Management

EPPR Emergency Prevention, Preparedness, and Response (Arctic Council working group)

ERMA Environmental Response Management Application

iBO integrated Beaufort Observatory

INAC Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada

ISO International Standards Organization

ICC Inuit Circumpolar Council 

LEO Local Environmental Observer

LCC Landscape Conservation Cooperative

MARES Marine Arctic Ecosystem Study

MMIF Mesoscale Model Interface

MPA Marine Protected Area

NIRB Nunavut Impact Review Board

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NRC National Research Council 

NRCan Natural Resources Canada

NSSI North Slope Science Initiative

NWT Northwest Territories

Ohmsett Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental Test Tank

OPP Oceans Protection Plan

OSCIA Oil Spills in Ice-Covered Arctic

OCS Outer Continental Shelf

PAME Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (Arctic Council working group)

PGM photochemical grid model

QIA Qikiqtani Inuit Association

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WRF Weather Research Forecast
1

1 Introduction

The fifth Northern Oil and Gas Research Forum (the Forum) convened at the Dena’ina Center in

Anchorage, Alaska on October 11-13, 2017. Organized by a binational committee from the U.S. and 

Canada, the event included 67 presenters, 4 posters, and 181 total attendees. The Forum was originally 

conceived by Canadian and U.S. colleagues working on an Arctic Council assessment, with the first event 

held in 2008 in Anchorage, AK. Since then, the event has been held in Calgary, AB (2010), Anchorage, 

AK (2012), and Yellowknife, NWT (2014). The U.S. and Canada share a history of oil and gas 

exploration and development in the Beaufort Sea and adjoining coastal areas, including significant 

research in support of their respective environmental assessment and regulatory processes. As noted 

following the first Forum, “This research is important as it enables both governments and industry to 

fulfill their responsibilities to minimize environmental and social impacts while pursuing economic 

development and energy production" (BSES, Inc., 2009).

The 2017 Forum incorporated a wide range of topics related to environmental issues, research methods 

and results, scenario planning, oil spill prevention and response, and community engagement as related to 

actual or potential future oil and gas operations in Alaska and the Canadian North. Participants 

represented federal, state, and local government, indigenous groups, consultant scientists, non-profit 

organizations, industry, and both academic and government researchers.

This final report summarizes the panel presentations, technical sessions, and posters that comprised the 

conference, including recommendations and observations shared in a final discussion at the conclusion of 

the three-day event. The report was developed based on author-provided abstracts, PowerPoint 

presentations, and notes taken during the event. No additional research was conducted to validate the 

content presented.

The Forum agenda is provided in Appendix A. Presentations are available at:

www.boem.gov/uscanada2017.

2 Opening Remarks

Mark Hopkins, Director General of Natural Resources and Environment for Indigenous and Northern 

Affairs Canada (INAC), and Walter Cruikshank, Acting Director of the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management (BOEM), opened the event with greetings from both the Canadian and U.S. Federal 

Governments. Both speakers expressed appreciation for the efforts of the Organizing Committee in 

planning the event and in the time spent by participants to travel to and attend the Forum.

Mark Hopkins, Director General

Natural Resources and Environment

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada

Mr. Hopkins noted that the Canadian Western Arctic/Beaufort Sea region climate is changing faster than 

models had predicted 5-10 years ago. Climate change alters the operating environment for industry; local 

livelihoods; and transportation corridors for people, vessels and wildlife. These changes can raise 

concerns about the potential impacts of new activities on people and the environment, as well as potential 

conflicts of use. This context necessitates inter-disciplinary work across scientific fields and among both 

natural and social scientists. These must also be integrated with indigenous knowledge. New networks for 
2

understanding among these different sectors or groups is critical to making sound decisions in the face of 

inherent uncertainty.

Prime Minister Trudeau and former President Obama issued a Joint Arctic Leaders statement in 2016. 

While the U.S. administration has changed, this document remains a clear statement of Canadian 

domestic policy towards the Arctic.

The Government of Canada is currently focused on growing jobs for the middle class, addressing climate 

change, and reconciling with indigenous peoples in Canada. Smart natural resource development with a

robust regulatory framework can support these goals. Currently, there is a moratorium on offshore oil and 

gas licenses in Canada’s Arctic waters. This policy will be reviewed on a 5-year cycle. INAC is currently 

conducting two Strategic Environmental Assessments in partnership with regional governments and 

organizations. The agency is also developing a new program of community-based monitoring that 

includes funding to indigenous communities and will form a network across the Canadian Arctic.

Walter Cruikshank, Acting Director 

U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Mr. Cruikshank described the importance of energy production from U.S. federal lands to President 

Trump’s energy development priorities. Within the U.S., Alaska is vital to achieving the administration’s 

goals, with a prominent role for the Department of Interior (DOI). Within the Department, the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) manages onshore federal lands, BOEM is responsible for offshore resources, 

and the Bureau of Safety and Environment (BSEE) serves as a sister agency to BOEM, also focused on 

regulating the offshore areas. In April 2017, the President issued an executive order to expand energy 

production from the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), along with ensuring that any such activity is safe and 

environmentally responsible. A new leasing program will be issued by the end of 2019 that considers 

Alaska’s one billion acres of the OCS (including the Chukchi, Beaufort, and Cook Inlet). 

Planning for leasing and other activities requires critical information regarding the Alaska OCS Region. 

The U.S. and Canada have a common history of activities in northern regions, and a long history of 

cooperation on research. BOEM’s Environmental Studies Program has funded $1.1 billion in research 

over the past 40 years, with $500 million in research funding on the Arctic in the last 10 years resulting in 

1000 peer-reviewed publications. Mr. Cruikshank highlighted the Marine Arctic Ecosystem Study

(MARES), which enjoys the participation of the U.S. and Canadian governments, the State of Alaska, 

Tribes, universities, and private partners. 

Scientists should understand the type of information needed by resource managers and decision-makers, 

and how it will be used. Meetings and gatherings such as the 2017 Forum provide valuable opportunities 

for managers and researchers to interact. Traditional knowledge must also be incorporated, and is 

considered critical to BOEM’s work. 

Questions & Discussion

Forum participants posed the following questions and comments to the speakers: 

• When will the next review of Canada’s moratorium on offshore oil and gas operations be? How is 

the review process structured?

Mr. Hopkins: The next review in the 5-year cycle will be in December 2021. At that point, a 

decision will be made to continue the moratorium on offshore exploration or allow it with 

conditions. The review process includes a regional assessment with intensive community 

consultation. It will also consider climate change.
3

• What are the Government of Canada’s overarching means of consultation with indigenous 

peoples regarding resource development in the north?

Mr. Hopkins: The highly consultative regional strategic environmental assessments mentioned 

previously are just one part of the approach. In the three northern territories, there are also land 

claims agreements, land use planning boards, environmental assessment boards, and water 

boards. Those institutions are critical to the effort to institutionalize indigenous control and 

consultation to decision-making processes. 

• What is the status of the U.S. moratorium on offshore oil and gas activity in the Beaufort Sea 

announced in December 2016 (under the previous administration)?

Mr. Cruikshank: When the President announced the change in policy regarding offshore oil and 

gas leases, he left in place the existing marine sanctuaries. However, while there is a current 

challenge in the courts over the change to the previously announced moratorium for the Beaufort 

Sea, there have been no legal decisions that prevent BOEM from proceeding with the lease plan 

as discussed.

• What is the best way to encourage the inter-disciplinary research collaboration? One participant 

observed that in Canada research funding is structured so individual researchers receive smaller 

amounts of money than in the U.S., necessitating more partnerships and collaboration.

Mr. Hopkins noted that this may be an unintended consequence of Canada generally having less 

research funding available than the U.S. The overall trend in scientific funding today is to 

encourage partnerships across disciplines.

3 Opening Panel: Science and Informed Decision-making

Mark Fesmire, Alaska Regional Director of BSEE, chaired this panel. Panelists included: 

• James Kendall, Regional Director, BOEM

• Karen Mouritsen, Alaska State Director, BLM

• Donna Kirkwood, Chief Scientist, Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)

• Scott Gedak, Northwest Territories (NWT) Environmental Studies Management Board

James Kendall, Alaska Regional Director

Bureaus of Ocean Energy Management

Mr. Kendall began by referring to BOEM’s mission statement, “to manage development of U.S. OCS

energy and mineral resources in an environmentally and economically responsible way.” The bureau 

considers people to be a key part of the environment as referenced in the mission statement. BOEM has 

funded almost $500 million in studies in Alaska. From his experience, collaboration among researchers is 

critical when doing inter-disciplinary work, and people in Alaska tend to know each other and forge 

strong working relationships. 

Traditional or indigenous knowledge is also important to BOEM, and is included in BOEM’s 

Environmental Studies Program. BOEM’s study process has built-in feedback loops to incorporate new 

information. An example of integrating western science with traditional/indigenous knowledge, the Cross 

Island Subsistence Bowhead Whale Hunt mapping project included information from hunters, many of 
4

whom agreed to use Geographic Positioning Systems for 10 years to contribute to the study. In another 

example, scientists and traditional knowledge holders designed an Arctic cisco fishery research project 

together using a workshop format. Traditional/indigenous knowledge is also incorporated into BOEM’s

Environmental Impact Assessments for both the Liberty and North Star projects in the Alaskan Arctic.

Mr. Kendall made the point that it is often perceived as difficult to integrate traditional knowledge with 

western science, but ultimately it is necessary to treat the two as comparable knowledge systems in the 

decision-making process.

Karen Mouritsen, Alaska State Director

Bureau of Land Management

Ms. Mouritsen discussed the importance of science in making good decisions. She expressed the need for 

good, sound science but also the need to consult with tribes and native groups to add traditional 

knowledge to decision making as part of regulatory mandates for consultations around the Endangered 

Species Act and the Clean Water Act. A comment from the audience emphasized the importance of 

traditional knowledge and that western scientists have been trained in a certain process and language, but 

traditional knowledge is often not relayed in the same manner. The commenter reiterated that this could 

be a significant hurdle for incorporating traditional knowledge. 

Ms. Mouritsen discussed the BLM science program’s efforts to conduct baseline research and monitoring, 

use data for applied environmental impact research, and monitor impacts on activities to inform adaptive 

management. In Alaska, BLM has certain strategies and investments including baseline ecological 

characterizations, or Rapid Ecoregional Assessments. A North Slope ecological assessment has been 

conducted with information gathered from stakeholders, different state and federal agencies and the Corps 

of Engineers. Other strategies and investments include project-specific studies and monitoring as well as 

collaboration in broad-scale scientific studies including the North Slope Science Initiative (NSSI) and the 

Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) working group of the Arctic Council. 

NSSI was established in 2005. BLM is the facilitator/convener of the initiative to work with partners to 

implement studies that collect and analyze data. Examples of projects they have implemented include air 

quality monitoring/modeling, subsistence monitoring, and watershed hydrology. The project website is 

newly updated and catalogues previous studies conducted by the collaboration. BLM has also worked 

with CAFF to conduct monitoring projects in marine, freshwater, coastal, and terrestrial environments.

They are currently working on developing a coastal strategy for the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring 

Program.

Donna Kirkwood, Chief Scientist

National Resources Canada

Ms. Kirkwood shared her excitement that Canada has recently elected the first minister of Science, which 

has spurred Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) focus on how science can influence not only decisionmaking but also decision-makers at the highest levels of government. 

The North is a critical science frontier. Much of what is learned there can be related elsewhere 

throughout the world. This research is important for circumpolar communities to harness conservation 

opportunities. 

As a government agency, it is important for NRCan to consider: How can we use big data, how can we be 

nimble and diversified, and what planning/resources need to be allocated toward science? NRCan’s role is 

to conduct science that is directly related to the government of Canada’s priorities to ensure that science 

informs public policy. Some of the current areas where science will need to be incorporated include

Artificial Intelligence, the Arctic, climate change, safety, and security. Science is also key to international 
5

collaboration including claims to the extended continental shelf under Article 76 of the United Nations’ 

Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Open science can often act as an enabler to inform both policymakers and the general public. Ms. 

Kirkwood has found that the public wants to know all about the science that informs decisions, so the 

scientific community should ensure findings and data are available and discoverable through multiple 

platforms. Additionally, ensuring clarity in data and findings and replicability is important. 

Ms. Kirkwood offered some advice for using science to inform environmental and regulatory issues. One 

of the primary pieces of advice she offered is collaboration and communication should occur early and 

often with stakeholders and the community. In response to a question, Ms. Kirkwood emphasized that not 

all scientists are natural communicators, so it is important to find someone who can work with them to 

communicate the results of the science. Additionally, science should include cumulative impacts and look 

across a wide spectrum of impacts, including physical sciences, economic analyses, statistics, and social 

sciences. Finally, traditional knowledge should be incorporated within all evidence-based decisionmaking projects. In response to a question, Ms. Kirkwood also identified the need to synthesize 

information to identify gaps in research and knowledge and strategies to address those deficiencies. 

Scott Gedak

Northwest	Territories Environmental	Studies	Management	Board

Mr. Gedak introduced the Environmental Studies Management Board as a unique body to the Northwest 

Territories (NWT) designed to provide information for decision-makers. Citizens and community 

members are among the decision-makers in the NWT: their needs must be met in order to have a 

successful regulatory process. 

The Board’s fund is used to conduct environmental and social studies to look at exploration and 

development of oil and gas and transportation of energy across NWT. Five board members determine 

research priorities and develop annual study programs. Two board members are from government bodies 

of NWT, two are from the oil and gas industry, and one is a public representative. Currently the Board 

relies on industry funding based on the number of hectares in which an industry holds interest. Due to the 

current pause in industry activity, the fund has fallen to $300,000. The limited resources available make it 

critical to coordinate and leverage study programs in NWT. 

The Board uses a combination of open calls for proposals, directed call for proposals, and unsolicited 

proposals to identify research projects. Current priorities of the Board include groundwater in Mackenzie 

valley associated with permafrost and wildlife, especially boreal caribou and potential for wildfires.

4 Panel: Community and Industry Perspectives – Priorities and 

Research/Monitoring Needs

Kasaŋnaaluk Marie N. Greene of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission chaired this panel. The panelists 

were:

• Taqulik Hepa, Director, North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management 

• Michael Macrander, Former Science Team Lead, Shell Exploration & Production 

• Jennifer Lam, Inuvialuit Game Council 

• Paul Barnes, Director, Atlantic Canada and Arctic, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
6

Taqulik Hepa, Director

North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management

Ms. Hepa shared her experiences from her work for the North Slope Borough as well as having grown up 

in the area. Early researchers at the Naval Arctic Research laboratory like Max Brewer and John Kelley 

worked with Harry Brower, Sr. and developed strong relationships. These early researchers used science 

to help the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission set quotas for whales. Their work also led to bowhead 

whale studies, monitoring of the Endicott Causeway and Northstar oil field, and caribou studies at 

Teshepuk Lake. 

Science works if: 

• Objectives are clear, understood, and accepted locally

• Traditional knowledge is used

• Community members are involved and paid

• It does not interfere with subsistence activities, and

• It is communicated before, during, and after a research project.

The North Slope Borough’s first mayor formed an environmental protection office in the 1970s, which 

has evolved into the Department of Wildlife Management. The Department works with hunters and 

state/federal agencies, as well as coordinating with other groups around the circumpolar North. The 

Department takes its direction from a management committee comprised of one member from each 

community in the Borough (and one at-large member). The purpose of each meeting – and the point on 

which the most time is always spent – is to understand the concerns and interests of the communities. 

Even when local values and scientific values are not obviously aligned, Ms. Hepa urges researchers to 

work with the Department to discuss, build relationships, and find the right local experts.

Ms. Hepa urged those interested in conducting research on the North Slope to involve community 

members as early in the project planning process as possible, and to compensate them appropriately. 

Communication should continue after the end of a project, including sharing results. It is also important 

to consider how research activities may disrupt communities; for example, the use of aircraft and its 

impact on wildlife or hunting activities. Ms. Hepa identified some priority studies identified with the 

communities: social science, ecosystems, understanding impacts, mitigation of impacts, and both baseline 

and long-term monitoring.

In addition to having a role in identifying research needs, local villagers can also provide logistical 

support, recommend mitigating measures (to reduce impacts to subsistence or other activities, as in the 

example above), and research methods. As an example, an experienced marine mammal hunter has 

assisted tagging efforts by helping researchers to locate the animals.

Through her work with the Department, Ms. Hepa also sees cases where research projects appear to 

duplicate each other. This can discourage community participation. Instead, the Department would like to 

see resources used more efficiently towards long-term monitoring or cross-disciplinary projects that 

address community concerns. It is also important to separate oil and gas-related impacts from climate 

change. For good science it is necessary to have collaboration, coordination, and trusting and respectful 

relationships.

Michael Macrander, Former Science Team Lead

Shell Exploration and Production

Mr. Macrander observed that different industries have historically played a significant role in Arctic 

research, including hosting naturalists on board early exploratory vessels and whaling ships, the early 
7

exploration of the Northwest passage, mining, and the establishment of military installations. More 

recently, there have been many joint research projects related to oil and gas activity. 

Industry invests in science to better understand the operating environment and ensure that equipment and 

infrastructure are appropriate, comply with permits or regulations, and meet stakeholder expectations. 

Research may take the form of baseline studies, engineering and technological development, and 

monitoring. Over the last 10 years, industry has focused research on ice and weather, integrated 

assessments, onshore environmental studies, and collaborative research. Mr. Macrander referenced a 2015 

report by the National Petroleum Council that identifies research needed to support sustainable and 

responsible oil and gas development in the Arctic. Additionally, in 2014 the National Academies of 

Science released a report entitled, “Arctic and Anthropocene: Emerging Research Questions” which 

identified multiple research initiatives such as ice, weather monitoring and forecasting, oil spill 

prevention and response, ecological environment, and human environment. 

Jennifer Lam, Chair

Inuvialuit Game Council

(presenting in place of John Lucas) 

Ms. Lam described the Inuvialuit Game Council and its role in representing the Inuvialuit people’s 

interests regarding wildlife and wildlife management. The Beaufort Regional Strategic Environmental 

Assessment is a current priority. This process is chaired jointly by the Government of Canada, the 

Inuvialuit Game Council, and the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. The main objective of the Assessment 

is to promote activities and engagement to support evidence-based decision-making within environmental 

conservation efforts. It also includes reviewing the conditions under which the Inuvialuit will – or will not 

– endorse activity in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. 

A 2017 tour of communities identified several key themes which have been incorporated into the 

workplan: (1) meaningful inclusion of traditional knowledge and consultation with knowledge holders; 

(2) invasive species; (3) effect of marine traffic on water quality, key fish species, and marine mammals; 

and (4) relationship between environmental change and the preservation of marine tradition and culture.

They also have developed sociocultural and cumulative indicators studies.

The use of traditional knowledge has been a strong theme for the Council. Integrating traditional 

knowledge within scientific methodologies is challenged by the fact that traditional knowledge has not 

been collected in a systematic way. In particular, there are gaps between traditional knowledge holders 

and scientists regarding the importance of sea ice to communities and the role of the harvest as a cultural 

activity in addition to the nutritional value. To develop the 2018-2019 Work Plan, they have identified the 

following priorities from community consultations: invasive species and ballast water, traditional 

knowledge themes, importance of ice in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, key species assessments, role 

of harvest as a cultural activity, an Inuvialuit place names project, and Inuvialuit harvest study.

Finally, the Council remains concerned about a lack of spill response infrastructure, consultation, and 

information on marine vessel traffic. There is a clear need to improve communication and capacity related 

to the increase in shipping even as offshore oil and gas activity is currently halted under the moratorium.

Ms. Lam also mentioned that there has been a lack of consultation by the Federal government on the 

offshore oil and gas moratorium.

Paul Barnes, Director

Atlantic Canada and Arctic, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

Mr. Barnes discussed the activities that the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers is currently 

undertaking in the Arctic even with the moratorium on offshore oil and gas activity. This includes 

consultation with Beaufort Sea license holders, forming an Arctic policy framework, and potential 
8

regulatory changes under the Canadian Petroleum Resources Act. There is a robust regulatory regime in 

place now and industry opposes any freeze on their activities: this impacts investment as well as research 

and development where the focus has shifted to Norway and Russia despite there being huge potential 

reserves in the Canadian Arctic. It will be important for the 5-year review of Canada’s current 

moratorium to be completed on time and provide clarity to industry and others about what the future 

holds. 

Arctic oil and gas activities bring benefits, including monitoring and data collection, technological 

advances, and modern and resilient infrastructure. Future research and development priorities include: (1) 

improving operations in the Arctic, designing facilities, oil spill response, and transportation networks 

that are suitable for the harsh environment, distance to shore, ice, fog, wind and waves, and icing; (2) 

digitization, including connectivity, advanced sensors, analytics, robotics, and remote control; (3) 

developing cold climate technological solutions and methods to lessen the industry’s climate impacts and 

gain a competitive edge; and (4) cross-sectoral and community collaboration, including digitization and 

automated unmanned vehicles. 

5 Lunch Speaker: Paul Decker, State of Alaska Department of 

Natural Resources

Paul Decker, Division Expert in Resource Evaluation at ADNR, described the Cretaceous Brookian

sequence of the North Slope. From the State’s assessment of this new oil play, there is significant 

“running room” across the North Slope area, as indicated by recently discovered resources both onshore 

and in state waters. The oils found to date are generally “light” oil that will flow well, and relatively 

accessible regarding depth. Based on the tests of flow rate, while this has not been fully evaluated at 

Smith Bay, the rates identified from both the new Willow discovery wells and within the Pikka Unit are 

considered quite robust. At Smith Bay, there is an expectation of at least 2 billion barrels of recoverable 

oil at a rate that could approach 200,000 bbl/day, but this needs to be confirmed with tests. 

These newer areas of focus represent favorable, conventional reservoirs based on the metrics of porosity 

and permeability, indicating that there are still good reservoirs even in the highly explored North Slope 

area.

Overall, the USGS and BOEM estimate undiscovered, technically recoverable, conventional resources 

equal 40 billion bbl of oil and 207 trillion cubic feet of gas (both on and off shore). On-shore alone, 

including state lands, the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, and the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, 

estimates are nearly 16 billion barrels of oil and natural gas liquids. Mr. Decker indicated that it is time to 

update these estimates and he is pleased that the agencies are working on this. An assessment should be 

done next year.

Seismic mapping has been key to understanding these new areas of focus. Much of this information has 

been kept confidential in the past, but Alaska’s new tax credit program included a requirement for 

companies to share the data.
9

6 Environmental Technical Talks

Mark Miller of the NSSI chaired this session. Table 1 identifies the speakers and topics (alphabetical 

order).

Table 1. Environmental Technical Talk Presenters and Titles 

Presenter Presentation Title

John Pearce, U.S. Geological Survey USGS Ecosystems Research to Inform Oil and Gas 

Development and Response of Wildlife in the Arctic

Kerri A. Pratt, University of Michigan Research Related to Ultrafine Particulate Emissions from 

the Prudhoe Bay Field

Todd Sformo, North Slope Borough 

Department of Wildlife Management

Preliminary Results of Application of Oil and Dispersed Oil 

on Drag on Bowhead Whale Baleen

Elizabeth Sharp, Hilcorp Environmental and Social Research in Central Beaufort 

Sea Oil and Gas Fields: Successes and Challenges

Melanie Smith, Audubon Alaska Ecological Atlas of the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort 

Seas

Sheyna Wisdom, Olgoonik Fairweather 

LLC

An Integrated Look at the Alaska Beaufort Sea: Summary 

of the Arctic Nearshore Impact Monitoring in Development 

Area III 2014-2017

Presentations and discussions in this session provided the researchers and opportunity to share 

information about a diverse range of studies focused on the Alaskan Arctic. While most of these focused 

on technical research of some nature (including air emissions from Prudhoe Bay operations, impacts of oil 

in the water column on bowhead whale baleen, and wide-ranging nearshore monitoring of impacts 

associated with development), Audubon Alaska’s effort to compile, align, and share geospatial data on 

the region was also highlighted. An industry perspective was offered on how research priorities are set 

and resources allocated.

Author-provided abstracts are below in the same author order shown in Table 1 (presenter may not be 

lead author).

USGS Ecosystems Research to Inform Oil and Gas Development and Response of Wildlife in the 

Arctic

Pearce, J. M., U.S. Geological Survey Alaska Science Center, jpearce@usgs.gov

Northern communities, industry and natural resource managers need greater certainty about how land and 

wildlife are responding to environmental change and human activities to guide near-term land use 

planning. The USGS is the scientific research agency for the U.S. DOI and provides timely and impartial 

information from across northern Alaska to inform energy development through energy and landscape 

change assessments, while quantifying changes and potential impacts to wildlife and habitats. This talk 

will highlight recent and on-going key studies from the USGS and collaborators based in the National 

Petroleum Reserve – Alaska, the Colville River Delta, Prudhoe Bay and the 1002 Area of the Arctic 

Refuge. These studies provide updated ecosystem information and forecasts of near-term expected 

conditions that allow for comparison of activity alternatives.
10

Atmospheric Particulate Matter from the Prudhoe Bay Oil Field

Pratt1*, K.A., Gunsch1, M.J., Kirpes1, R.M., Kolesar1, K.R., Moffett2, C.E., Barrett2, T.E., and Sheesley2, 

R.J.

1

University of Michigan

2

Baylor University

*

prattka@umich.edu

Atmospheric particulate matter has significant air quality and human health impacts and is therefore 

regulated by the Clean Air Act. In addition, atmospheric particles impact climate by interacting with 

radiation (warming or cooling the air), forming cloud droplet and ice crystals and impacting precipitation, 

and depositing onto surfaces (darkening snow). Unprecedented summertime Arctic sea ice loss is opening 

the region to increasing oil and gas extraction activities and ship traffic, which emit particulate matter and 

precursor gases through combustion. Yet, few measurements of particulate matter emitted from local 

combustion activities have been made in the Arctic. Detailed measurements of the concentrations and 

physical and chemical properties of atmospheric particles were made in August-September 2015 in 

Utqiaġvik (Barrow), AK and within the Prudhoe Bay oil fields at Oliktok Point, AK in August-September 

2016. In particular, a single-particle mass spectrometer was deployed for real-time measurements of the 

size and chemical composition of individual atmospheric particles for source identification. In addition, 

long-term measurements of aerosol size distributions and concentrations at the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Barrow Observatory were examined to compare air mass influence 

from the Arctic Ocean versus Prudhoe Bay to investigate the impacts of petroleum extraction activities. 

Particle sources impacting the North Slope of Alaska and transformations of these particles during 

atmospheric transport will be discussed. 

Preliminary Results of Application of Oil and Dispersed Oil on Drag on Bowhead Whale Baleen

Todd Sformo1*, Gary Shigenaka2, Craig George1, Teri Rowles3, Geof Givens4, Michael Moore5, Tom 

Lanagan5, and Alexander Werth6

1 North Slope Borough/Department of Wildlife Management, Barrow, AK 

2 NOAA/Office of Response and Restoration/Emergency Response Division, Seattle, WA

4 Givens Statistical Solutions, Fort Collins, CO

3 NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service/Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD

5 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA

6 Hampden-Sydney College, Hampden-Sydney, VA

* todd.sformo@north-slope.org

We studied the effects of oil and dispersed oil on the functional characteristics of bowhead whale 

(Balaena mysticetus) baleen at a mesocosm scale at the Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated 

Environmental Test Tank (Ohmsett) facility in Leonardo, NJ. The objective was to measure drag in 

baleen, estimate how it depends on various factors (control), and evaluate how drag changes when North 

Slope crude oil and Corexit 9500A dispersant are introduced (treatment). The principle assumption is that 

oil adhering to baleen plates and fringe “hairs” would increase drag. To secure baleen for movement 

through water at Ohmsett, a lever arm was fabricated at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 

consisting of a baleen clamp, load cell, and pivot. An Omega load cell was used and bridge speeds data 

recorded. Baleen ranged from 1.1 to 2.7 meters in length, having 5 to 30 plates, orientated at 90° and 54°, 

and each sample was run through water from 0.2 to 1.6 knots, although only 54° and 0.6 knots were used 

for treatments. For analysis of the various independent racks of baleen, we calculated frontal area that 

combined plate number, length, and width per rack to create a single variable. For treatments, we applied 

oil and/or oil-dispersant in various ways, including submerging baleen with a crane and applying fresh oil 

to the water surface within a containing hoop. The baleen was then lifted through the oil. For dispersed oil 
11

treatment, Corexit 9500A was premixed with oil and dispensed through a series of underwater 

nozzles. Due to the limited number of available baleen racks and the inability to remove oil and 

dispersant from water in the tank or the baleen itself, we could only apply treatments once, leading to a 

qualitative assessment. The overall results indicate that under various treatments of oil and/or oildispersant the drag does not appear to increase.

Environmental and Social Research in Central Beaufort Sea Oil and Gas Fields: Successes and 

Challenges

Sharp, E.D., Hilcorp Alaska LLC, esharp@hilcorp.com

In November 2014, Hilcorp Alaska, LLC purchased and assumed operatorship of several oil and gas 

fields from BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. including the Milne Point Unit, Northstar Island, Endicott Island 

(and the Endicott Satellite Drilling Island), and the Liberty Development Project. Along with the 

acquisitions came the responsibility to continue supporting and/or executing existing environmental 

research projects from nearshore fish migration studies to monitoring the local annual bowhead whale 

hunt. Hilcorp Alaska, LLC is working with others to assess whether the existing studies are the most 

efficient way for us and the affected public to understand and mitigate the impacts of our operations.

Ecological Atlas of the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas 

Smith, M.A., M.S. Goldman, and E.J Knight, Audubon Alaska, masmith@audubon.org

To inform sustainable management in a time of growing human influence, there is a need to synthesize 

and disseminate spatial information to policy makers, scientists, and the public in a format that is useful 

and accessible. The goal of the Ecological Atlas of the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas was to create a 

comprehensive, trans-boundary atlas that represents the current state of knowledge on subjects ranging 

from physical oceanography to species ecology to human uses. The Ecological Atlas provides a 

cumulative picture of what is happening in the region to better understand ecological patterns through 

spatial data, maps, and written summaries. The Atlas is organized into six topic areas that build, layer by 

layer, the ecological foundation of these three seas: physical setting, biological setting, fish, birds, 

mammals, and human uses. 

Our process involved intensive research and consultation with experts, as well as gathering and analyzing 

the most recent and robust data available. We synthesized data to create more than 100 seamless maps 

that integrate disparate datasets of points, tracks, or polygons into cohesive data layers that visually 

describe a particular process or species’ activity and movements across the three seas. This second edition 

atlas built upon the first edition published in 2010, as well as several subsequent mapping projects to 

identify important marine areas on the Arctic outer continental shelf, recommend ship routing measures in 

the eastern Bering Sea, and delineate globally significant marine Important Bird Areas throughout Alaska. 

We began work on the new atlas in July 2015 and completed it in August 2017.

The atlas was a project by Audubon Alaska, in collaboration with Oceana and somethingaboutmaps. 

Numerous agencies and organizations assisted by providing spatial data, expertise, and review, including 

the BOEM, Kawerak, NOAA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and USGS. The project was funded by the 

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Community engagement focused on the Kawerak region, where a 

robust traditional knowledge spatial dataset was available for mapping walrus, ice seals, and other 

subjects. These data were integrated with science data and were reviewed by Kawerak and Bering Strait 

tribal representatives.

The Ecological Atlas represents a data-rich foundation upon which to understand the complex dynamics 

of the Arctic marine ecosystem. The atlas database will be publically available through the Alaska Ocean 

Observing System, and may be used by the U.S. and Canadian Arctic research communities for 
12

understanding ecological relationships, assessing offshore energy development, oil spill response, vessel 

traffic routing measures, fisheries management, and so on. Future research at Audubon will focus on 

identifying important marine areas from the available data, and assessing development pressures and 

management implications for wildlife and people.

An Integrated Look at the Alaska Beaufort Sea: Summary of the Arctic Nearshore Impact 

Monitoring in Development Area III 2014-2017

Kasper1, J., Dunton2, K., Bluhm3, B., Durell4, G., Trefry5, J., Coon6, C., Wisdom7, S., 

1

University of Alaska Fairbanks, jlkasper@alaska.edu

2

University of Texas at Austin, ken.dunton@utexas.edu

3

Department of Arctic and Marine Biology, UiT - The Arctic University of Norway, bodil.bluhm@uit.no

4

NewFields, gdurell@newfields.com

5

Florida Institute of Technology, jtrefry@fit.edu

6

BOEM, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, catherine.coon@boem.gov

7

Olgoonik Fairweather LLC, Sheyna.wisdom@fairweather.com

The Arctic Nearshore Impact Monitoring in Development Area (ANIMIDA) project phase III (2014-

2017) is the latest in a series of BOEM funded ecosystem studies of the Beaufort Sea designed to describe 

parts of this shelf in terms of its physical oceanography, benthic infauna and epifauna, and contaminant 

foot print (e.g. hydrocarbons, trace metals). In contrast to the Chukchi, the shelf of the Beaufort Sea is 

well known for its strong physical gradients that distinctively influence the distribution of benthic fauna. 

We found infaunal and epifaunal communities were relatively depauperate in species richness and 

abundance/biomass near the 20-m isobath, but the absence of benthic biota was most pronounced in the 

Colville River delta, likely related to a combination of sediment transport, bottom fast ice, scour by deepdraft ice, and extreme temporal and spatial variations in salinity throughout the annual cycle. Deeper shelf 

areas were generally more species rich, but a region of high infaunal diversity and biomass were observed 

north of Barter Island from nearshore to the shelf break, an area historically known for upwelling events. 

Stable carbon and nitrogen isotopic composition of benthic organisms, particulate organic matter and 

zooplankton revealed a mixture of carbon sources available to benthic consumers, consisting mostly of 

phytoplankton, benthic microalgal matter and terrestrial sources. Contaminant concentrations in 

sediments and biota are near background levels throughout most of the Beaufort (with the notable 

exception of higher levels around historic exploratory drilling sites). Fish, amphipods, and clams also 

contained background levels of hydrocarbons. These patterns reflect the very dynamic nature of the 

Beaufort Sea shelf, which is characterized by strong land-ocean interactions that have likely contributed 

to the notable lack of accumulated contaminants despite decades of industrial activity in the region. In 

2015 ANIMIDA scientists also successfully sampled the two newest lines in the Distributed Biological 

Observatory network at 152W and 143W. These two lines represent the first expansions of the Distributed 

Biological Observatory monitoring network that will eventually result in the formation of a circumpolar 

long term monitoring effort to understand ecosystem change due to climate change in polar Arctic 

regions.
13

7 Oil Spill Technical Talks I 

Kristin Ryan of the Division of Spill Prevention and Response, Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation chaired this session. Table 2 identifies the speakers and topics (alphabetical order).

Table 2. Oil Spill Technical Talks I Presenters and Titles 

Presenter Presentation Title

Mark Fesmire, Alaska Region, BSEE Capping Stacks and Containment Systems in the Offshore 

Arctic

Charles Greer, National Research Council

(NRC) Canada

NRC Natural Attenuation Potential for Petroleum 

Hydrocarbons at Sub-zero Temperatures in the Canadian 

Arctic Marine Environment

Ken Lee, Fisheries and Oceans Canada The Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on the 

Behavior and Environmental Impacts of Crude Oil 

Released into Aqueous Environments: Research 

Recommendations and Follow-up Parts I and II

Eric Miller, Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement

Arctic Council Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and 

Response (EPPR) Workgroup Circumpolar Oil Spill 

Response Viability Analysis

Tim Robertson, Nuka Research and 

Planning Group, LLC

U.S. Arctic Oil Spill Response Gap Analysis

Presentations in this session summarized current or completed research and analyses related to an Arctic 

oil spill response. Two of the studies focused on more technical issues (potential for natural attenuation of 

spills in cold climates and the fate and effect of crude oil spills), while the others emphasized more 

operational issues associated with capping stacks/well containment systems and oil spill response in 

Arctic conditions (the latter was considered for both the U.S. Arctic only as well as the entire circumpolar 

Arctic).

Author-provided abstracts are below in the same author order shown in Table 2 (presenter may not be 

lead author).

Capping Stacks and Containment Systems in the Offshore Arctic 

Mark E. Fesmire, PE, JD, Regional Director, Alaska Region, U.S. DOI BSEE, mark.fesmire@bsee.gov

When drilling or planning to drill from a floating drill ship or jack-up in the U.S. Arctic, one of the major 

issues that we have had in the past is the need to plan for an oil spill response in open water or broken ice. 

But the most effective means available to operators to avoid or minimize the need for an oil spill response 

is a successful interdiction near the beginning of a well control event with source control equipment or a 

relief well. Which of these methods or what combination of the methods should be planned for and 

available for use is the subject of much debate among industry, regulators and stake holders.

This presentation attempts to explain what the two major source control processes and the equipment used 

in each. Capping stacks and containment systems will be introduced and explained, and their recent 

historical deployment to the Arctic will be discussed.

Additionally, BSEE will describe an ongoing research project under the Technical Assessment Program

entitled “Suitability of Source Control and Containment Equipment vs. Same Season Relief Well in the 

Alaska OCS Region.” 
14

This study will provide a description of the Alaskan Arctic (OCS) meteorological/oceanography 

(metocean) and operational conditions which, in the event of a loss-of-well-control situation, would: 

preclude the safe deployment of Source Control and Containment Equipment; preclude the operator from 

safely drilling a relief well; allow one method, but preclude the other and; provide historical statistical 

analysis of the Alaskan Arctic OCS drilling season, over the past 5 years, in which metocean and 

operational conditions would support either or both methods.

BSEE’s purpose in commissioning this study was to be able to adequately access the risk associated with 

each type of response and to make risk based decisions on future deployments of source control 

equipment and relief well capabilities.

Natural Attenuation Potential for Petroleum Hydrocarbons at Sub-zero Temperatures in the 

Canadian Arctic Marine Environment 

Greer1*, C.W., Tremblay1, J., Fortin1, N., Elias1, M., Sanschagrin1, S., Wasserscheid1, J., King2, T.L., and 

Lee2, K.

1

National Research Council Canada, Energy, Mining and Environment

2

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

*

Charles.greer@cnrc-nrc.gc.ca

There is a high level of global concern regarding the environmental impacts of oil spills in the Arctic. As 

a result of climate change that has reduced the extent and season of sea-ice cover, as well as municipal 

and industrial growth, the region is more susceptible to accidental releases of crude oil, diesel fuel and 

bunker fuel associated with marine transport of passengers and cargo. Furthermore, significant oil 

reserves are known to exist in the Arctic. Although the transition towards renewable energy is well 

underway, due to the increasing global demand for energy, our dependence on fossil fuels, including 

crude oil will result in support of offshore oil and gas exploration activities over the next few decades. For 

an effective Arctic oil response strategy, having reliable baseline data represents one of the first 

requirements, against which change (impact or recovery) and performance can be measured. Microbes, 

and in particular bacteria, are the first and fastest responders to oil in the natural environment, so a better 

understanding of who’s there and the ecosystem services they provide is critical.

Under a research program designed to evaluate the feasibility of natural attenuation and bioremediation as 

operational oil spill response technologies for the Arctic, a genomics survey of various Arctic marine 

environments has demonstrated that bacteria with the potential to degrade oil hydrocarbons are very 

widespread and active at sub-zero temperatures. This bodes well for the natural attenuation potential of oil 

in the Arctic marine environment. The bacterial populations that became dominant when exposed to crude 

oil with or without chemical dispersant were typical of the natural obligate oil degrading bacteria (mainly 

in the taxonomic orders Alteromonadales and Oceanospirillales) that inhabit most marine environments

and that typically respond to the input of hydrocarbons. The results from laboratory microcosm and 

mesocosm studies demonstrated that these bacteria responded rapidly to the presence of oil products and 

were capable of degrading them at temperatures that are consistent with the Arctic marine environment at

ambient winter temperatures (-1 to -2°C), indicating that temperature was not the main driver of the 

degradation process. The results show that natural attenuation of hydrocarbons in the Arctic marine 

environment is not only feasible but can occur at rates that were previously thought not possible, 

providing us with an important strategic approach to address future oil spills in this environment.
15

The Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on the Behavior and Environmental Impacts of Crude 

Oil Released into Aqueous Environments: Research Recommendations and Follow-up 

Kenneth Lee, National Senior Science Advisor – Oil Spill Research, Preparedness and Response, 

Environment and Biodiversity Science Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, ken.lee@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

The analysis of case studies under the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel, “The Behaviour and 

Environmental Impacts of Crude Oil Released into Aqueous Environments” clearly illustrated that the 

behavior, fate and effects of oil spills in the aquatic environment were highly site-specific. The results of 

the Royal Society of Canada report, as well as the reports of Transport Canada’s Tanker Safety Expert 

Panel and the U.S. National Academies Committee “Responding to Oil Spills in the U.S. Arctic Marine 

Environment” noted that the availability and quality of scientific advice played a key role in oil spill 

preparedness planning, spill response operations, and natural resource damage assessments. 

The Oceans Protection Plan (OPP) is a comprehensive, transformative strategy to build a world-leading 

marine safety system within Canada to protect its marine ecosystems, while enabling inclusive economic 

growth. To enable Canada to compare favourably with some of the best international marine safety 

regimes in the world, a number of projects have been launched under Canada’s OPP to foster: 

• Leading-edge research on oil spill clean-up technologies;

• Enhanced oil spill preparedness and response through area-based planning; 

• A greater role for Indigenous groups in the marine safety regime (training for prevention and 

response operations and shared decision making); and 

• Partnerships and continuous improvements to our understanding of how oil spills behave and 

what impacts they may have, alternative response strategies, how best to mitigate impacts and 

accelerate ecological recovery after an incident.

This presentation provided insights on a proposed OPP initiative with the aim to promote interaction 

among scientists and technical experts from academia, industry and government agencies at a 

national/international level to enhance the level of science-based decision making for oil spill 

preparedness and response operations.

The challenges of spills from the transportation of oil include delayed response due to a combination of 

many factors, lack of pre-spill baseline data, measuring the effectiveness of response strategies, long-term 

stressors from other sources, and post-spill monitoring. It is important to:

• Understand environmental impacts in high-risk or poorly understood areas;

• Improve understanding of effects on aquatic organisms, communities, and ecosystems;

• Have a National Program for Baseline Research and Monitoring;

• Conduct controlled field trials to study behavior and effects;

• Improve effectiveness of oil spill response technology and strategies;

• Improve oil spill prevention and response decision-support systems; and

• Enhance oil spill risk assessments.

The Churchill Marine Observatory is a new research facility for the study, detection, and impact and 

mitigation of oil spills in icy waters.
16

Arctic Council’s Emergency Prevention, Preparedness, and Response (EPPR) Working Group -

Circumpolar Oil Spill Response Viability Analysis

Miller, E.J., EPPR U.S. Delegation representative, U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement, eric.miller@bsee.gov

The Arctic Council’s Emergency Prevention, Preparedness, and Response (EPPR) Working Group 

commissioned the Circumpolar Oil Spill Response Viability Analysis to better understand oil spill 

response options in Arctic conditions – focusing on the marine environment. In Arctic seas, the wind, 

waves, cold, visibility, and sea ice can affect the deployment of oil spill response systems. Consequently, 

concerns have been raised that overall, Arctic conditions may limit response viability. Arctic countryspecific studies have previously borne these concerns and this project studies the issue from a pan-Arctic 

perspective. Co-sponsored through EPPR by Norway, the United States, and the Kingdom of Denmark, 

DNV GL and Nuka Research and Planning Group, LLC worked together to analyze the effects of various 

pan-Arctic metocean conditions on ten different oil spill response systems that globally support response 

strategies for mechanical cleanup, dispersant application, and in-situ burning. This presentation outlined

the focus, execution, and findings from this study.

U.S. Arctic Oil Spill Response Gap Analysis 

Robertson, T.R.,* Higman, B., and Fletcher, S.E., Nuka Research and Planning Group, LLC, 

*timrobertson@nukaresearch.com

Oil spill response operations may be impeded by a wide range of metocean conditions, including wind, 

waves, sea ice, visibility, and darkness. An analytical tool has been developed to estimate how often the 

deployment of different types of response systems may be affected by one or more of these conditions. In 

2013, Nuka Research and Planning Group, LLC analyzed the frequency with which wind, sea state, 

temperature, ice coverage, and visibility may impede or preclude mechanical recovery, in situ burn, and 

dispersant deployment. The analysis used 5 years of observational data for the metocean conditions, 

pairing these with operational limits established through literature review, equipment standards, responder 

tactics, and best professional judgment. Results can be used to test or develop planning assumptions, 

consider tactic selection or potential modifications needed, explore seasonal variations, and inform 

research or development into system improvements. This presentation will emphasize the methodology 

and assumptions necessary to implement an oil spill response gap (or viability) analysis.

8 Panel: Scenario Planning

Jon Skinner of the University of Alaska Anchorage chaired this session. Presenters were:

• Wendy Loya, Coordinator, Arctic Landscape Conservation Cooperative Alaska, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

• Amy Lovecraft, Professor of Political Science, University of Alaska Fairbanks 

• Hajo Eicken, Director, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks

Wendy Loya, Coordinator

Arctic Landscape Conservation Cooperative Alaska, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Ms. Loya spoke about how scenarios are a critical component of Cumulative Effects Analysis, and 

something she has worked on in collaboration with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and NSSI. The 

Arctic Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC) has been trying to bring together fundamental science 

for use by managers since 2009. This collaborative effort has resulted in a conceptual ecosystem model 

that incorporates different scenarios and climate models quantitatively. While the drivers of change are 
17

difficult to predict, the intent of this effort is to incorporate the potential effects of different drivers to 

inform management decisions.

One model under development is the Alaska Thermokarst Model, which models landform transition 

associated with increasing active layers under different climate scenarios. This will inform understanding 

of habitat change and landform stability.

NSSI is studying how factors driving land use change from energy development are related. Similar to the 

drivers of climate change, the drivers of development are complex and uncertain. The Arctic lease map of 

2017 indicates the potential for significant change, but does not clarify what will actually be developed. 

The study considers different scenarios for development within the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, 

mapped over high value caribou habitat. They then quantify the extent of disturbance expected from 

different scenarios based on the proximity of the caribou habitat to the proposed infrastructure under 

different development scenarios. Similarly, different tools can be used to explore options for pipeline 

routing to consider costs and potential impacts. Scenario results can guide monitoring and research 

efforts.

Amy Lovecraft, Professor of Political Science

University of Alaska Fairbanks

Ms. Lovecraft posed the question of what the Arctic will look like in 2050, positing that the only certainty 

is that everyone in the Arctic will have to adapt in some way to changes occurring. Scenarios are a useful 

tool when developing priorities, such as for academic research. A scenario exercise is “a process for 

asking ‘what if?’ that enables risk management for the future.” When done in a participatory manner, 

scenario exercises can draw on a wide range of expertise and experiences from participants. It is 

important to recognize that scenarios are not forecasts, nor are they ideal visions for the future.

Often, changes are studied one at a time, for example by species. In scenario planning, it is necessary to 

think of all of them together. This may encompass the future of permafrost, sea ice, climate generally, 

global politics, and national security among others. 

Scenarios enable organizations to anticipate risk in the context of uncertainty. All predictions are 

inherently uncertain, and when faced with uncertainty we tend to imagine what may happen. A process of 

collaborative and informed imagination enables groups to consider scenarios for action in a way that is 

proactive rather than reactive. This is different from, for example, climate modeling.

The Arctic Council is using scenarios in an international context, but they are also useful down to the 

local level. What do Alaskans think of the possible futures of their communities? What is needed to have 

healthy, sustainable communities in 2040? This is something that can be answered locally, but it is also 

important to capture regional narratives or approaches as the Arctic faces a suite of interconnected 

transformations.

In the context of academic research, those working with science and data may use scenario-based input to 

identify what stakeholders think is important so you can better meet their needs. For example, 

understanding what communities believe is needed for their communities to be healthy can inform how 

effort and resources are spent studying these drivers.

Overall, scenarios help synthesize information from multiple sources to anticipate changes, striving for 

proactive adaptation rather than potentially costly reactive responses to change.
18

Hajo Eiken, Director

International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks

Mr. Eiken described the use of participatory scenarios to guide long-term monitoring efforts in the Arctic.

NSSI has 123 long-term monitoring projects ongoing. A scenario process was used to inform the 

development of priorities among these. Different energy development and resource extraction scenarios 

were developed for 2040 (the project was conducted from 2014-2016). Through three workshops, seven 

major stakeholder groups identified scenarios from low to high levels of development, then considered 

the implications of each and the research and monitoring needs associated with them. The assumptions

underlying the scenarios considered climate change, environmental change, disasters (e.g., oil spills), the 

global oil and gas market, technological developments, infrastructure needs, and socio-political factors. 

All of these are also unpredictable by nature. Assumptions may also change – as of now, there is less 

development activity than was assumed for the “low development” scenario for the Chukchi Sea. 

However, this is changing. NSSI is still considering implications of the work. 

Under the Northern Alaska Scenarios Project, diverse groups identified 21 key factors in determining or 

defining healthy, sustainable communities the future Arctic. Climate change was roughly in the middle of 

this list. A key theme was the decoupling of seasonal cycles of key factors as a major disruption of health 

and well-being. Many concerns related to coastal sea ice, for example. Combining local observations with 

satellite data, it was possible to determine shifts over time in the timing of breakup season as it is defined

by those using the ice. The resulting determination that it has shifted by 2-3 weeks per decade since 1979 

can be then be used to develop scenarios for the future. Overall, scenario planning is intended to help 

communities and others to be proactive in the face of change, rather than reactive changes as they come.

9 Panel: Meaningful Engagement of Indigenous Peoples in Oil and 

Gas Activities Beyond Consultation

Jeffrey Brooks, BOEM, chaired this panel. The panelists were:

• James Stotts, President, Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) Alaska 

• Orville Lind, Native Liaison for the Office of Subsistence Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

• Rosanne D’Orazio, Director, Lands and Resources, Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA)

• Scott Gedak, NWT Environmental Studies Management Board

Mr. Brooks remarked at the start of the session that meaningful engagement is all about perspective: 

changing the way decisions are made to include all points of view. This requires broad frames of 

understanding; bridging gaps; involving community members in projects and plans early on; 

communicating before, during, and after a research project; and empathy and respect throughout.

James Stotts, President

Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) Alaska

Mr. Stotts described the ICC, a 40-year old international Inuit organization with consultative status to the 

United Nation and a permanent participant at the Arctic Council. Its mandate is to represent Inuit at the 

international level.

From a political and cultural perspective, there are three “Arctics”: the Scandinavian, Russian, and North 

American/Greenland (where Inuit is the majority culture). Each of these regions has a different history 

with its indigenous people, resulting in different approaches to meaningful engagement today. Mr. Stotts 

focused his remarks on the North American Arctic.
19

The Arctic Council began a project entitled, “Meaningful Engagement of Indigenous Peoples and 

Communities in Marine Activities” under the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment Workgroup. 

The ICC has been disappointed overall with the level of engagement the Arctic Council has sought with 

the permanent participants. To date, the ICC finds that the project is underfunded with a lack of 

enthusiasm from some countries. It is also not supposed to result in specific recommendations. A 

literature review of references on the topic of meaningful engagement was just completed with many 

identified gaps. Mr. Stotts would like to see a task force created to resolve the issue, but the Arctic 

Council may not be the appropriate venue as it is a consensus-based organization (and agreement may not 

be forthcoming from Russia and other European countries). Some Arctic states assert that their 

relationship to indigenous communities is a strictly domestic issue. There are also competing perspectives 

regarding what “engagement” means. To some, it is free, informed, and prior consent, while to others it 

is just “informing,” which can lead to indigenous people being “Pawns in Politics.” He then repeated 

“Trust, Respect, and Shared Responsibility” three times to emphasize what meaningful engagement 

means to Inuit.

The U.S. and Canada are similar in many ways. Both have similar histories with the Inuit, and in both 

places land or indigenous rights have been negotiated with the settlements including some of the concepts 

of meaningful engagement. Both also have strong language regarding consultation with the Inuit on the 

future of the Arctic. However, the two countries now appear to be on different trajectories regarding 

Arctic oil and gas development. From the ICC perspective, Canadian policy demonstrates a greater 

respect for indigenous peoples than currently seen in the U.S. This is a result of the fact that the 

Government of Canada and the Canadian Inuit have negotiated clear terms and processes around 

engagement. This is something ICC has called for in Alaska for years, but it has not been accomplished to 

date. Instead, it will be necessary to start with the agencies responsible for resource development and 

wildlife management as these are directly related to food security.

Mr. Stotts also noted the tendency for “consultation fatigue” in some communities, especially smaller 

ones.

Orville Lind, Native Liaison for The Office of Subsistence Management

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Mr. Lind started by explaining that subsistence is a way of life, which is not always fully understood. In 

his role at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mr. Lind is the primary contact for subsistence users in 

rural Alaska. While there were few calls when he started, there are now 6-7 per day from people who are 

finding it harder to get the food they need whether that is berries, salmon, or large game. 

Alaska is a large area, with vast areas owned by different agencies and regulations regarding subsistence 

use that change depending on where someone lives or their background.

When striving for meaningful engagement, it is important to spend “village time” and find balance with 

the people. Identify the right people to work with who are both well-respected and can create the 

necessary linkages with other individuals or information. These types of facilitators can help researchers 

prepare for visits and understand how best to connect to the audience for any presentations. It is also 

important not to talk too loudly or quickly, and to avoid acronyms. Communication gaps across cultures 

and languages are common, but it is important to embrace – and encourage other visitors to embrace – the 

constant reminder that “these people live here, we’re just visiting.” Mr. Lind encourages agency officials 

and researchers to learn some words in the local dialect and plan to spend the time it naturally takes to 

overcome cross-cultural gaps in communication and perspectives.
20

Rosanne D’Orazio, Director, Lands and Resources

Qikiqtani Inuit Association

Ms. D’Orazio described the Qikiqtani Inuit Association’s (QIA) role in representing some 15,000 Inuit in 

13 communities on Baffin Island and the high Arctic. Each community is very different. QIA is consulted 

and also consults, reflecting both sides of the table. QIA must balance protection of the environment with 

social, cultural, and economic opportunities. QIA reviews applications for any activities on Inuit-owned 

land (resource exploration, cruise ships, research, etc.), working with representative boards in each 

community. When they support an activity, that support often comes with stipulations about providing 

QIA a compensated role for participating or monitoring outcomes or potential impacts. The types of 

industries present and whether or not a community has previous experience with oil and gas development 

affect people’s familiarity with different issues and their concerns. It is important to identify: (1) with 

whom are you talking? (2) what are their past experiences? and (3) what is their baseline understanding? 

Sometimes it is also difficult for the community members to prioritize their involvement in engagement 

efforts, especially if it is unclear exactly what is being asked.

Engagement in Nunavut is unique because there is a regulatory system in place with established timelines 

for review, input, and engagement. The review timelines are designed to allow for communities to take 

the time they need to understand an issue and provide meaningful input. Time lines are viewed as an

opportunity to engage, not a penalty. Benefits may include employment, training, and joint ventures.

QIA’s work is built on trust and respect. QIA often uses maps when communicating with community 

members. Ms. D’Orazio described QIA’s work to map input from communities using geographic 

information systems to give all information equal weight within QIA’s decisions and actions. It is 

important to include areas that are important to the Inuit as well as to the species on which they depend. 

This information has been used to inform the development of marine protected areas. “True reconciliation 

is rarely, if ever, achieved in a court room.”

A recent Supreme Court decision in Clyde River vs. PGS, Inc. (over seismic testing in Baffin Bay and 

Davis Strait) clarifies what consultation means under Canadian law. These include whether oral hearings 

were offered in the process, if there were other opportunities to provide comment, whether funding is 

provided for community members to participate in the process, and whether there was any documentation 

showing how input from communities was incorporated.

Meaningful engagement should be conducted with the goal of identifying and minimizing impacts to 

people or the environment where possible. Listening is critical to achieving this, but it is also important to 

document the way plans were changed based on input (or other indication that input was taken seriously). 

Inuit should be empowered to make decisions based on traditional knowledge, but this knowledge should 

not be just “thrown in” as a token effort -- it should be directly and transparently used in decision-making.

Scott Gedak

Northwest Territories (NWT) Environmental Studies Management Board

Mr. Gedak remarked that the provisions in place for meaningful engagement are not always met. He also 

called for awareness of the differences between the terms “partnership” and “meaningful engagement.” 

While it may be that one chooses to strive for a true partnership, this goal may be challenged by a lack of 

shared understanding. For example, industry may speak of “risks associated with exploration,” which, to 

them, may mean that their efforts do not yield recoverable resources. They may also be concerned broadly 

with the geopolitical context or uncertainty regarding whether their permit applications will be successful. 

A partnership relationship can also be challenged by the boom/bust nature of the oil and gas industry: it is 

difficult to sustain partnerships when people’s jobs turnover or activities are slowed for economic 

reasons. Companies may also sell assets or trade interests, bringing a whole new company into the 

relationship with the local communities.
21

The NWT operates with a consensus government and has a relatively small population base. This 

eliminates the several degrees of separation that may exist in other places between the concerns within a 

community and the highest levels of government.

It is important that science be developed in conjunction with communities in the NWT. Industry leaders 

have conducted field trips to meet community decision-makers and discuss potential activities that are 

being proposed which may affect those communities. This practice should be repeated, and information 

about resource development activities and potential scenarios made accessible to community members.

Partnerships among industry, communities, and government will all have ups and downs. Mr. Gedak 

characterized the partnership as a “parent-child” relationship with industry as the teenager. Early, honest, 

and on-going dialogue is necessary. A project will not be approved in the NWT if the community is not 

satisfied that there is a chance for meaningful participation, clear benefits to the community, a safe 

working environment, and attention to both community and environmental well-being.

10 Ice, Ocean, and Air Technical Talks

Warren Horowitz of BOEM chaired this session. Table 3 identifies the speakers and topics (alphabetical 

order).

Table 3. Ice, Ocean, and Air Technical Talks Presenters and Titles 

Presenter Presentation Title

Hajo Eicken, University of Alaska 

Fairbanks

Tracking Sea-ice Seasonal Cycle, Dynamics, and Hazards 

Near Point Barrow, Alaska with a Coastal Ice Radar

Darlene Langlois, Canadian Ice Service Sea Ice Trends and Variability

Andrew Metzger, University of Alaska 

Anchorage

Implementing the ISO 19906 Normative

Ralph Morris, Ramboll Environ, BOEM Photochemical Modeling of Oil and Gas Development in 

the Arctic

Paula Fields Simms, Eastern Research 

Group, Inc.

Arctic Air Quality Modeling Assessment Study

Feiyue Wang, Churchill Marine 

Observatory

The Churchill Marine Observatory and the Oil Spills in IceCovered Arctic Waters (OSICA) Network

Presenters in this session shared research updates and findings on a diverse range of scientific studies, 

encompassing sea ice, air quality, and the fate and effect of spilled oil or other contaminants from 

shipping in the Canadian Arctic. Studies of sea ice from the US and Canada were presented, illustrating

examples of the use of different data sources to understand changes in sea ice cycles. Andrew Metzger

focused on more operational issues with a description of the opportunities and challenges associated with 

implementing International Standards Organization (ISO) guidelines for the construction of offshore 

structures in the Arctic.

Author-provided abstracts are presented below in the same order shown in Table 3 (presenter may not be 

lead author).
22

Tracking Sea-ice Seasonal Cycle, Dynamics and Hazards Near Pt. Barrow, AK With a Coastal Ice 

Radar

Eicken1*, H., Mahoney2, A.R., Jones2, J., and Shapiro2, L.H.

1

International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, USA 

2

Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, USA

*

heicken@alaska.edu.

Sea ice is a key component of Arctic coastal and shelf environments: It provides important services to 

people and wildlife, and it represents a major hazard to shipping and hydrocarbon development. Despite 

major technological advances, marine ice hazards remain challenging to track through satellite remote 

sensing, buoys or moored instruments. In order to achieve sufficiently high temporal and spatial 

resolution of ice characteristics and movement relevant in a hazards assessment and emergency response 

context, we have focused on advancing the use of coastal ice radar. 

For more than a decade our group has operated marine shore-based radars at Utqiagvik (formerly Barrow) 

and developed methods to track sea ice movement, deriving velocity and deformation fields and 

identifying hazards. From this work, we have gained insights into major changes in the seasonal cycle of 

coastal Alaska sea ice, as well as an understanding of the extent and drivers of reduced stability of 

nearshore ice. Comparing data for the past decade with pioneering ice radar data collected in the 1970s at 

the same location, we find that within 5-10 km off shore, the number of days during which ice movement 

is observed (as opposed to stationary or landfast ice presence) has increased two- to three-fold for the 

time period November–April. Drawing on current meter mooring data collected within the radar footprint, 

we have derived data on mean along- and off/on-shore ice speed and direction in conjunction with 

information about wind and current velocities. Such data allows for evaluation of potentially anomalous 

ice motion and associated hazards. Examining detailed features in the movement of individual floes or 

velocity-field derived deformation patterns can help provide decision support for applications such as 

emergency response or infrastructure planning and deployment. 

The University of Alaska Fairbanks sea ice radar was installed primarily as a science instrument and data 

from the system has been featured in at least one scientific publication per year for the last decade. 

However, in recent years the near real-time data have been increasingly used by local hunters in Barrow 

as well as by ice analysts at the National Weather Service in Anchorage, Alaska.

Sea Ice Trends and Variability

Langlois1*, D. and Howell2, S.

1

Environment and Climate Change Canada, Canadian Ice Service

2

Environment and Climate Change Canada, Science and Technology Branch 

*

Darlene.Langlois@Canada.ca

Sea ice concentrations and thicknesses in the Western Arctic have undergone dramatic changes in the past 

20 years since records began at the Canadian Ice Service in 1968. Increasing use of satellite and other 

data have allowed improved understanding of the conditions which helps in forecasting for the short, 

seasonal and longer term. 
23

Implementing the ISO 19906 Normative

Andrew Metzger, University of Alaska, 2900 Spirit Drive, Engineering & Industry Building Anchorage, 

AK 99508 United States, atmetzger@alaska.edu

The ISO 19906 - Arctic Offshore Structures document presents guidelines for a reliability-based approach 

to the design of offshore structures subject to demands encountered in an arctic environment. The 

philosophy presented in the standard is consistent with principles of probability theory and is fairly 

straight forward. However, it is up to the user of the document to provide values for environmental 

parameters that affect the structure. The parameters include meteorological, oceanographic, and sea ice 

metrics needed to determine external forces (i.e., actions) on the offshore structures being designed. These 

parameters must also be provided in a probabilistic, or statistical, format in order to calculate limit state 

actions. This presentation reviewed the fundamentals of reliability engineering and demonstrate how 

empirical measurements, collected during field campaigns, may be used to estimate limit state values of 

actions on offshore structures in Arctic conditions.

BOEM Photochemical Modeling of Oil and Gas Development in the Arctic 

Morris1*, R., Stoekensius1, T., Fields Simms2, P., Do2, B. and Crowley3, H.

1

Ramboll Environ, Novato, CA

2

Eastern Research Group, Inc., Sacramento, CA

3

BOEM Alaska OCS Region

*RMorris@ramboll.com

BOEM is assessing air quality impacts from potential offshore oil and gas exploration, development and 

production on the Alaska OCS, as well as those in near-shore state waters, and related onshore activities. 

The BOEM Arctic Air Quality Impact Assessment Modeling Study is being conducted by the team of 

Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Ramboll Environ, Inc. under BOEM Contract M13PC00014. The Study 

included developing a bottom-up emissions inventory of impacting sources located on the North Slope of 

Alaska, evaluating detailed meteorological data sets for use in modeling, conducting far- and near-field 

photochemical and atmospheric dispersion modeling. All modeling protocols and draft reports were 

reviewed by a Science Review Group selected especially for the Study, with expertise in air quality 

analyses, modeling, and emissions.

The BOEM Study assessed the contributions of emissions from potential future oil and gas development 

on the OCS in the Arctic and related offshore (e.g., support vessels) and on-shore (e.g., processing plants) 

sources to air quality and air quality related values in northern Alaska. For the purposes of this analysis, 

the contributions to National Ambient Air Quality Standards, concentration increments, visibility and 

depositions were assessed under a hypothetical future year Full Buildout scenario that represents a 

conservatively-high level of potential OCS oil and gas activities. The CAMx photochemical grid model 

(PGM) was used in this analysis to estimate the mid- and far-field impacts and the AERMOD Gaussian 

plume model was used to estimate the near-source impacts of the offshore oil and gas and related 

emissions. The Weather Research Forecast (WRF) meteorological model was run for 5 year (2009-2013) 

using a 36/12/4 km nested grid structure with the 4-km domain covering northern Alaska and the Arctic 

Sea. The AERMOD near-source (within 50 km) air quality assessment used meteorological inputs derived 

from the 5-years of WRF data through the Mesoscale Model Interface (MMIF) processor, whereas the 

Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx) PGM modeling was conducted for the 2012 

calendar year on the 36/12/4 km modeling domains. The SMOKE emissions model was used to generate 

the hourly gridded speciated emission inputs required by the CAMx PGM. Boundary Conditions BC for 

the outer 36 km domain that stretched into Russia in the west and Canada in the east were obtained from a 

2012 simulation of the GEOS-Chem global chemistry model. CAMx was first run for a 2012 base case 

scenario and the modeling results compared against air quality observations in a model performance 
24

evaluation. CAMx estimated higher PM2.5 than observed with oil and gas visibility impacts exceeding 1 

deciview at coastal areas of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge that was attributable to overstated sea 

salt emissions, which combined with oil and gas NOx emissions to form sodium nitrate PM2.5. An 

improved sea salt emissions algorithm was used with CAMx that produced much better PM2.5 agreement 

with the observations as well as with historical (1997-2009) sodium measurements at Barrow and resulted 

in lower PM2.5 and visibility impacts associated with the oil and gas emissions. CAMx was applied for a 

future year Full Buildout scenario and the results compared against the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards and other thresholds of concern.

Arctic Air Quality Modeling Assessment Study 

Fields Simms1, P.G., Do1, B., Stoeckenius2, T., Morris2, M., and Crowley3, H.

1

Eastern Research Group, Inc., Sacramento, CA

2

Ramboll Environ, Novato, CA

3

BOEM Alaska OCS Region

*Paula.Fields@erg.com

BOEM is assessing air quality impacts from potential offshore oil and gas exploration, development and 

production on the Alaska OCS, as well as those in near-shore state waters, and related onshore activities. 

For this assessment, BOEM is sponsoring the Arctic Air Quality Impact Assessment Modeling Study. 

The Study is being conducted by the team of Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Ramboll Environ, Inc.

under BOEM Contract M13PC00014. The Study began in September 2013 and the final report will be 

completed in early 2018. The Study included developing a bottom-up emissions inventory of impacting 

sources located on the North Slope of Alaska, evaluating detailed meteorological data sets for use in 

modeling, conducting far- and near-field photochemical and atmospheric dispersion modeling, and 

evaluating the current emission exemption thresholds used by BOEM to determine if a source requires 

additional analysis to ensure no adverse impacts to onshore air quality. All modeling protocols and draft 

reports were reviewed by a Science Review Group selected especially for the Study, with expertise in air 

quality analyses, modeling, and emissions.

The emissions inventory provided annual criteria pollutant emissions for offshore and onshore oil/gas 

production, stationary sources located in North Slope communities, on road motor vehicles, nonroad 

equipment, marine vessels and airports for a base year and projections year. The projections year level of 

activity was based on BOEM’s hypothetical Full Buildout scenario covering possible future levels of offshore oil and gas production. Existing meteorological data sets were evaluated for use in dispersion and 

photochemical grid modeling (PGM) in the Study, however, none were found to be appropriate, so an 

optimized simulation of the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model was performed. Local scale, 

or near-field (within approximately 50 km of the source) atmospheric dispersion modeling (ADM) was 

conducted using the WRF- MMIF-AERMOD modeling approach, with 5 years of meteorology from the 

BOEM Arctic WRF dataset. Also, the EET evaluation approach involved modeling “synthetic” offshore 

sources in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas using WRF-MMIF-AERMOD and WRF-MMIF-CALPUFF 

(for synthetic sources places more than 50 km from the state seaward boundary). The PGM was 

conducted using the CAMx with the 2012 BOEM Arctic WRF data sets. Analysis of the PGM results 

focused on evaluating the impacts of new oil and gas sources under the Full Buildout scenario on regional 

concentrations of ozone and PM2.5 and on acid deposition and visibility impacts to Class I and Class II 

areas that are designated as national parks, national preserves, and national wildlife refuges.
25

The Churchill Marine Observatory and the Oil Spills in Ice-Covered Arctic waters (OSICA) 

Network

Wang, F. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, feiyue.wang@umanitoba.ca.

Two new Canadian programs dedicated to the study of spills of oil and other transportation related 

contaminants in Arctic waters will be introduced. The first is the Churchill Marine Observatory that is 

under construction at Port of Churchill, Manitoba, adjacent to North America’s only Arctic deep-water 

port. The core Churchill Marine Observatory infrastructure is comprised of 1) an outdoor Oil-in-Sea-IceMesocosm with two pools, which is designed to simultaneously accommodate contaminated and control 

experiments on various scenarios of oil and related contaminants in ice-covered waters; and 2) the

Environmental Observatory system, which is a network of state-of-the-art sensors and equipment located 

in the Churchill Estuary and along the main shipping corridor across Hudson Bay to Baffin Bay. With a 

total infrastructure funding exceeding $44 million from the Canada Foundation for Innovation, POLAR, 

the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta, and British Columbia, and numerous partners, Churchill Marine 

Observatory is scheduled to become operational in 2018.

Taking advantage of the unprecedented controllability and scalability enabled by Churchill Marine 

Observatory, the second major program is the Oil Spills in Ice-Covered Arctic waters (OSICA) 

Consortium. Founded in March 2017, OSICA is a Canadian-led, multi-sectoral (academia, industry, 

government, communities) consortium with a mandate to improve policy and practices dealing with spills 

of oil and related contaminants in ice-covered Arctic waters by prioritization and communication of 

research and development activities. One of the first initiatives of the OSICA Consortium was to develop 

an OSICA Research Network to be funded by the Natural Sciences Engineering Research Council of 

Canada. A pre-application has been successful and we are now in the process of developing the full 

proposal. 

This presentation described the status and progress of both programs, with an emphasis on identification 

and recruitment of new participants and partners as we develop these programs. 

11 Community-driven Research and Monitoring Technical Talks

Henry Huntington of Huntington Consultants chaired this session. Table 4 identifies the speakers and 

topics (alphabetical order).

Table 4. Community-driven Research and Monitoring Technical Talks Presenters and Titles 

Presenter Presentation Title

Trevor Bell, Memorial University of 

Newfoundland

SmartICE: A Sea-ice Monitoring and Information Service 

for Coastal Communities and Industries

Mike Brubaker, Alaska Native Tribal Health 

Consortium

Local Environmental Observer (LEO) Network – A Citizen 

Observer System for Monitoring Environmental Change

Anna Bryan, Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game

Community Based Marine Mammal Research in Alaska

Rosanne D’Orazio, Lands and Resources, 

QIA

Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit in Decision Making and Inuit Led 

Research

Mark Everett, U.S. Coast Guard District 17 Prevention, Preparedness, and Response for Small 

Communities

Qaiyaan Harcharek, North Slope Borough 

Chris Campbell, BOEM

Traditional Knowledge Implementation: Accessing 

Community Panels of Subject Matter Experts
26

This session focused on research projects and other efforts that included community members in the 

design or implementation, ranging from monitoring sea ice via snow machine to data collection. Two 

sessions focused on indigenous-led decision-making and the incorporation of traditional knowledge. The 

interim results were shared from an Arctic Council survey of community perspectives on their oil spill 

response preparedness.

Author-provided abstracts are presented below in the same order shown in Table 4 (presenter may not be 

lead author).

SmartICE: A Sea-ice Monitoring and Information Service for Coastal Communities and Industries

Bell, T., Geography Department, Memorial University of Newfoundland, tbell@mun.ca

SmartICE (smartice.org) is a northern social enterprise that puts into the hands of communities the 

technology that helps them adapt to unpredictable sea-ice changes, resulting from climate change. Inuit 

knowledge of sea ice has been acquired from millennia of observation and use. But in the last decades this 

traditional knowledge has become less reliable in the face of unprecedented environmental changes. 

SmartICE is the world’s first climate change adaptation tool that integrates on-ice technology, remote 

sensing and Inuit knowledge to generate near real-time information on sea-ice conditions. It maintains a 

network of in situ and mobile sensors that measures and transmits sea-ice thickness data from community 

trails. It also maps sea-ice surface conditions from satellite imagery to inform safe travel choices. It uses 

information technology to generate accessible products that match the needs of community users.

In response to increasing community demand for its services and with the support of the 2016 Arctic 

Inspiration Prize (arcticinspirationprize.ca), SmartICE is expanding across the Arctic through the 

establishment of a northern social enterprise. The choice of a social enterprise business model is 

consistent with Inuit societal values such as caring for the environment and community and being 

innovative and resourceful. It also commits to maximizing social impact and creating positive community 

change, while applying an entrepreneurial approach to the delivery of novel sea-ice information services 

for the public and private sectors. 

The SmartICE information system directly benefits public safety, food security, and health and wellbeing. 

In addition, SmartICE enables and supports economic activities for communities and industries alike. For 

example, winter shipping, ice-based fisheries and tourism, environmental monitoring, and emergency 

response are typically carried out in the landfast ice zone where SmartICE operates. SmartICE services 

reduce risk and improve performance and safety, especially during highly dynamic freeze-up and breakup periods. Through technological innovation and science, SmartICE strives to integrate and augment 

Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (Inuit knowledge and values) about local sea-ice conditions, not replace it, while 

involving Inuit in all aspects of its operation and decision-making.

LEO Network – A Citizen Observer System for Monitoring Environmental Change

Michael Brubaker, Michael Brook, Erica Mitchell, Mary Mullan, Desirae Roehl, and Moses Tcheripanoff 

– The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium 

In Alaska and the Canadian North, people who live and work close to the land are often witness to the 

symptoms of a rapidly changing environment. The LEO Network is an online platform for sharing 

information (photos and text) about unusual environmental events. The purpose is to raise awareness 

about climate and environmental change, to connect people who are sharing knowledge, and finding 

healthy, effective, ways to adapt. 
27

The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium began developing the LEO Network in 2012 to create a 

system for understanding and addressing emerging environmental health threats. Today, the network has 

grown and expanded outside Alaska, developing membership in approximately 500 communities 

globally. The platform is available in all northern national languages, and translation in to First Nation 

languages is in progress. In addition, there are centers for LEO Network growth and implementation in 

Canada (BC, NWT) Mexico and in the Lower 48. 

The network itself is part map, part social media, and part publishing platform. LEO members share 

observations of environmental change based on science, indigenous, and local knowledge using a mobile 

or web-based platform. Observers are then assisted by project administrators, and other network 

members, to connect with subject-matter experts. 

Typical observations describe impacts to the built and natural environment from seasonal change, unusual 

weather, permafrost thaw and erosion. Observations can also roll into standing “projects”. These are topic 

specific groups (e.g. “coastal erosion”) and include additional data sets such as satellite imagery, 

environmental and weather data. The data is applied to identify local, as well as regional, trends with the 

searchable content organized by member, topic area, and community. 

Local impacts of environmental change must first be understood before effective planning can occur. The 

LEO Network assists in describing these impacts, and supports members in identifying effective 

resources. This system is developing into a local and regional surveillance system, providing early 

detection and situation awareness about emerging environmental impacts in Alaska and the circumpolar 

north. Participation by the oil and gas sector could expand the surveillance capacity of LEO Network and 

engage new partners for topic consults, research or other partnerships.

Community Based Marine Mammal Research in Alaska

Bryan, A.

1 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1300 College Road, Fairbanks, Alaska 99701, USA

Anna.Bryan@alaska.gov

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s Arctic Marine Mammal Program conducts marine mammal 

research on ice seals, walruses, bowhead and beluga whales, and polar bears. Alaska Native hunters are 

experts regarding these animals and are valuable partners in all of our research projects. This presentation

provided an overview of our community based projects and collaborative research. 

Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit in Decision-making and Inuit Led Research

Lonsdale, S., and D’Orazio, R.

Qikiqtani Inuit Association, slonsdale@qia.ca 

The Qikiqtani Inuit Association community-based monitoring project is a form of wildlife monitoring 

driven by local hunters recording information on their harvested marine mammals. It was developed in 

response to community concerns that seismic testing would impact people’s food sources. The core of the 

project is a written survey that is filled out with each observation or each harvest of an animal. It is meant 

to track when and where animals are caught and to note general observations on the health of species. 

Over time the baseline data collected will identify areas of wildlife concentrations, track invasive species 

and changes in distribution, and allow for trend analysis. Data collected will feed into local and regional 

advocacy, create awareness on issues identified by locals, strengthen local decision making, can be 

factored into management plans, and be used to influence policy or legislation.
28

Prevention, Preparedness, and Response for Small Communities 

Everett, M.L., United States Coast Guard, Seventeenth District, Mark.Everett@uscg.mil

In June 2015 the Arctic Council’s EPPR working group approved a project to assess the level of 

community awareness of and preparedness for oil spills in the Arctic. The project is co-led by Norway, 

Canada, U.S., and Aleut International Association. The first phase of the project (2015-2017) developed 

a community self-assessment tool that gathered information to better understand community preparedness 

and risk exposure. The survey was distributed to 350 communities ranging from 150 to 15,000 people 

and/or significantly distant (120 miles) from response centers. Community leaders and local emergency

response officials were asked to complete the questionnaire. The outcomes from this phase of the project 

are: greater awareness of risk and preparedness at the local level, and access to best practices; the ability 

for national governments to address misperceptions or lack of awareness; the identification of gaps in 

preparedness relative to risk. Three deliverables were approved by Ministers at the Fairbanks Ministerial 

in May 2017, an interactive map displaying the data from the survey tool, a database of survey responses, 

and a resource guide in the form of a short brochure to share with small communities. The second phase 

of the project – development and production of a series of community-focused educational videos – is 

underway. 

Traditional Knowledge Implementation: Accessing Community Panels of Subject Matter Experts

1

Campbell, C., 2Harcharek, Q and 2Suydam, R. 

1 Environmental Studies Management, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Alaska OCS 

chris.campbell@boem.gov

2

Department of Wildlife Management, North Slope Borough, Utqiaġvik. qaiyaan.harcharek@northslope.org; robert.suydam@north-slope.org.

BOEM’s Environmental Studies Program entered into a cooperative agreement with the North Slope 

Borough Department of Wildlife Management. The primary purpose of this cooperative agreement is to 

better integrate traditional knowledge with scientific research. Traditional knowledge is knowledge based 

on empirical observations passed from one generation to the next regarding key environmental 

information. Integrating traditional knowledge and science will be accomplished through the 

organization of panels of traditional knowledge subject matter experts. The initial focus will be in the 

communities of Utqiaġvik, Nuiqsat, and Kaktovik, Alaska. The development and implementation of 

panels could take a phased approach and involve partnering among the North Slope Borough, BOEM, and 

other appropriate organizations. 

There are two main drivers for this project. (1) We seek to refine and expand the use of traditional 

knowledge in the development and implementation of biological and oceanographic studies, which will 

help in reaching a broader audience across the Arctic to promote the utility of integrating traditional 

knowledge with scientific research. This process will help facilitate discussions about what type of 

research would be beneficial for community members, agencies, and scientists. (2) The project will 

document traditional knowledge that will assist BOEM in meeting its mandated mission of understanding 

baseline conditions and assessing potential effects of offshore oil and gas leasing, exploration, 

development, and production. But perhaps most importantly, the cooperative agreement is responsive to 

repeated requests from the Iñupiat people to be more engaged in scientific research, and to ensure that 

traditional knowledge is more completely used in the design, implementation and interpretation of results 

from research. 

The result of integrating traditional knowledge with science will be an improved approach for specific 

research projects but will also lead to development of best practices, and improved scientific rigor for 
29

future research. The role of the traditional knowledge panels will be to inform proposed research by 

providing a hunter and community perspective based on generations of observation that will potentially 

contribute to identifying new models of the natural world and our relation to it. 

A possible first project for the traditional knowledge panels could be a multi-year near-shore lagoon 

ecology study by Dr. Ken Dunton, funded by the National Science Foundation. Future projects could

include proposed variety of BOEM funded studies, such as: Wave and Hydrodynamic Modeling in the 

Nearshore Beaufort Sea; Arctic Slope Winter Fish, Invertebrates, and Arctic Cod Spawning Survey; or 

Village-based Satellite Tracking of ice seals. Evaluating impacts from aircraft on subsistence species and 

hunters may be another fruitful project for engagement of traditional knowledge panels.

Regardless of the study, the ultimate goals are to expand the incorporation of traditional knowledge into 

North Slope studies that would not typically include traditional knowledge, reach a broader public 

audience within the North Slope Borough, and to further demonstrate the utility of integrating traditional 

knowledge with scientific research as a model for the broader pan-Arctic area.

12 Lunch Speaker: Brad Chastain, Alaska Gasline Development 

Corporation

Brad Chastain explained that the Alaska Legislature founded the Alaska Gasline Development 

Corporation with an independent board of directors appointed by the Governor. The Alaska Liquid 

Natural Gas (AK LNG) project is a “mega mega” project intended to meet both the needs of the state but 

also to export LNG. The latter has already been approved by the Department of Energy. 

A group of industry partners completed the front end, design stage of the AK LNG project prior to Alaska 

taking on the sole leadership role when the companies decided not to proceed. Mr. Chastain described his 

role as ensuring that technical information complied during that process is used to the greatest extent 

possible. This represents a more than $600 million investment into the process to date. Currently, the 

project enjoys strong support in Alaska, including from the Governor, and growing support in 

Washington, DC.

Mr. Chastain described the AK LNG project as comprising three mega projects: a gas treatment plant on 

the North Slope, a pipeline from the North Slope to Cook Inlet (comparable in length and complexity to 

the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, including a subsea portion across Cook Inlet), and a world-class

liquefaction facility in Nikiski. There will also be two large storage tanks and a jetty capable of berthing 

two LNG tankers near the facility.

Simply shipping all the materials needed for these three projects to Alaska will require a massive sea lift 

requiring a temporary material offloading facility. Just one of the 51 modules shipped to Alaska, for 

example, will be 9400 tons. (Most of the modules will be constructed in Asia, with some also from the 

Gulf of Mexico.) The current plan is that ocean going tugs and barges with equipment will clear customs 

in Dutch Harbor, then proceed to Port Clarence to stage and await the opening of sea ice in July before 

moving north to Prudhoe Bay in a group. A formal conflict avoidance agreement will be made with the 

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Association and other arrangements made with appropriate federal agencies.
30

13 Biological Observatories and Monitoring Technical Talks

Catherine Coon of BOEM chaired this session. Table 5 identifies the speakers and topics (alphabetical 

order).

Table 5. Biological Observatories and Monitoring Technical Talks Presenters and Titles 

Presenter Presentation Title

Seth Danielson, University of Alaska 

Fairbanks

AMBON: Arctic Marine Biodiversity Observing Network

Tahzay Jones, National Park Service Development of a Pan-Arctic Coastal Monitoring Program

Sue E. Moore, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Fisheries 

Office of Science and Technology

The Distributed Biological Observatory: An Expanding 

Change Detection Array for the Beaufort Sea and Beyond

Phil Osborne, Golder Associates Integrated Beaufort Observatory

Christian Zimmerman, U.S. Geological 

Survey Alaska Science Center

Circumpolar Assessment of Trends in Arctic Freshwater 

Biodiversity

This session highlighted the work of several ongoing efforts to monitor a range of biological features in 

the U.S. and Canadian Arctic. Presenters focused on marine, coastal, and freshwater ecosystems and the 

use of different methods for both research and on-going management.

Author-provided abstracts are presented in the same order shown in Table 5 (presenter may not be lead 

author).

AMBON: The Arctic Marine Biodiversity Observing Network

Seth Danielson1, Katrin Iken1, Bodil Bluhm2, Eric Collins1, Lee Cooper3, Jacqueline Grebmeier3, Russ 

Hopcroft1, Kathy Kuletz4, Sue Moore5, Franz Mueter1, Kate Stafford6

1

College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, 99775-7220, 

USA

2

Department of Arctic and Marine Biology, UiT - The Arctic University of Norway, P.O. Box 6050 

Langnes, 9037 Tromsø, Norway

3

Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, PO Box 

38, 100 Williams St, Solomons MD 20688, USA 

4

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Rd., Anchorage, AK, 99503, USA

5

Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 7600 

Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115, USA

6

Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, 1013 NE 40th Street, Seattle, WA 98105-6698, 

USA

*

sldanielson@alaska.edu and kbiken@alaska.edu

AMBON is a multi-agency funded endeavor that focuses on marine biodiversity in the Chukchi 

Sea. AMBON takes an end-to-end approach, documenting environmental conditions and the ecosystem's 

biota, from microbes to whales and all in-between. AMBON extends the efforts of prior field programs in 

order to maintain time series observations and place the biodiversity assessments within a broader 

framework of change through time. Here, we present overall patterns in biodiversity and their relations to 

environmental conditions from the first field effort in 2015. Biodiversity and community structure 

distribution across organizational levels was strongly linked to physical parameters. Linkages with water 

mass characteristics were overall strong, as were depth-related and latitudinal patterns. At higher trophic 
31

levels, association with upwelling regions (seabirds) and shoals (walrus) were prominent. A recently 

completed field effort in August 2017 will show if the previously observed patterns are consistent 

between surveys. The eventual goal is to help design a cost-effective and useful marine biodiversity 

monitoring program that is appropriate to longer time scales within a rapidly changing Arctic.

Development of a Pan-Arctic Coastal Monitoring Program

Tahzay Jones, National Park Service, Alaska Region, Coastal Programs Lead and U.S. Co-Lead for 

Coastal Experts Monitoring Group of the Arctic Council Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna 

Working Group 

The Coastal Experts Monitoring Group is an operational team within the Arctic Council’s Conservation 

of Arctic Flora and Fauna working group, Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program. The latter

established four operational teams covering marine, terrestrial, freshwater and coastal systems to develop 

monitoring plans and report on the status of ecosystems across the Arctic. The coastal monitoring plan is 

nearing completion and is the final developmental plan of the four ecosystem groups, bringing together 

elements of all three previous monitoring efforts to complete the ecosystem monitoring plan efforts. The 

coastal monitoring plan divides the Arctic Coast into “coastscapes” which are areas of the circumpolar 

Arctic coast with recurring physiographic attributes where similar terrestrial, marine and freshwater 

processes interact to create a predictable range of habitats that support characteristic populations of 

coastal species. Coastscapes are used in the Coastal Plan to stratify the identification and prioritization of 

key coastal species (Focal Ecosystem Components) for monitoring. The Coastal Experts Monitoring 

Group is currently convening an experts workshop to finalize the functional groups to be monitored, what 

characteristics of those groups will be monitored, and what metrics will be used. Completion of the draft 

plan is anticipated for early 2018.

The Distributed Biological Observatory: An Expanding Change Detection Array for the Beaufort 

Sea and Beyond 

Moore1*, S. E., and Grebmeier2, J.M.

1

NOAA/NMFS OST, Seattle, WA

2

Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland, Solomons, MD *

sue.moore@noaa.gov

In 2009, in response to dramatic seasonal sea ice loss and other physical changes influencing biological 

communities, a Distributed Biological Observatory (DBO) was proposed as a change detection array to 

measure biological responses to physical variability along a latitudinal gradient extending from the 

northern Bering Sea to the Beaufort Sea in the Pacific Arctic sector. In 2010, the Pacific Arctic Group 

initiated a pilot program, focused on standardized sampling in five regions of high productivity and 

biodiversity on the continental shelves of the northern Bering and Chukchi seas. In 2012, the Interagency 

Arctic Research Policy Committee DBO Collaboration Team advanced the observatory from a pilot phase 

to a 10-year implementation phase, which included the: (i) addition of three sampling regions in the 

Beaufort Sea, (ii) goal of linking the DBO to existing community-based observation programs, and (iii) 

development of a plan for a periodic Pacific Arctic Regional Marine Assessment.

The three Beaufort DBO regions comprise a longitudinal array centered on productivity ‘hotspots’ along 

the outer continental shelf and slope, with S-N transects located offshore Cape Halkett (~1520 W), Barter 

Island (~143.60 W) and a SW-NE transect offshore Cape Bathurst (127.7-126.8 W). Each transect is 

comprised of six sampling stations, with long-term oceanographic moorings sited in the Cape Halkett and 

Cape Bathrust regions to provide year-round sampling of the physical environment. Biophysical 

sampling was initiated in all three Beaufort DBO regions in 2015, although only the Cape Halkett transect 

was sampled in 2016 and only the Cape Bathrust region was occupied in 2017. This paucity of sampling, 
32

compared to the DBO regions in the Bering-Chukchi, is due to comparatively few passages of 

international research vessels eastward from Point Barrow into the Beaufort Sea. It is important that 

sampling in the Beaufort DBO regions be continued and enhanced, if possible, as changes to sea ice, 

ocean temperature, salinity and river runoff have been dramatic in the Beaufort Sea over the past decade. 

Notably, bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus), appear to be responding to an altered ecosystem in the 

Alaskan Beaufort Sea, as exemplified by their distribution across much of the shelf and slope during JulyAugust 2016 and 2017. This broad distribution is roughly a month earlier than is typical and is likely 

linked to enhanced feeding opportunities associated with early sea-ice retreat followed by upwellingfavorable winds, in some cases augmented by river discharges in nearshore habitats. Additional sampling 

in Beaufort DBO regions would aid investigation of these biophysical drivers, contribute to ecosystem 

modeling efforts and (potentially) contribute information to issues important to Alaskan coastal 

communities.

The long-term future of the DBO will depend on active involvement of international and national partners 

focused on the common goal of improved pan-Arctic assessments of regional marine ecosystems in an era 

of rapid change. An Atlantic-DBO, comprised of five transect lines, is now being developed in the 

northern Barents Sea and Fram Strait, and DBO lines have been proposed for Baffin Bay. In the U.S., the 

Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee Marine Ecosystem Collaboration Team now has the lead 

for coordinating DBO activities, while internationally the Pacific Arctic Group and the International 

Arctic Science Committee can support the development of the first Pacific Arctic Regional Marine 

Assessment in 2018.

The Integrated Beaufort Observatory

Osborne1*, P., Forest2, A., Melling3, H., Lalande4, C., Meredyk2, S., and Fortier2, M.

1

Golder Associates

2

ArcticNet

3

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

4

Université Laval 

*

Phil_Osborne@golder.com

The integrated Beaufort Observatory (iBO) was developed to maintain key oceanographic time-series and

to integrate datasets collected in the southern Beaufort Sea over the last 30 years. This presentation will 

summarize objectives, drivers, activities and results from the first two years of iBO, a four-year program 

(2015-2018) managed by ArcticNet in partnership with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Golder 

Associates Ltd. and supported by the Environmental Studies Research Fund ESRF and Imperial Oil 

Resources Ventures Limited IORVL. iBO aims to contribute key oceanographic information required for 

decisions on development and regulations in the offshore Canadian Beaufort Sea by extending existing 

time-series measurements and integrating regional understanding of the shelf and slope environment 

through year-round measurements acquired by autonomous instruments on submerged moorings. The 

iBO program will contribute to the development of regional syntheses of ocean circulation, sea ice 

observations and biogeochemical fluxes including: information on the magnitude, duration and return 

period of extreme ice features; ice and ocean datasets to document and interpret inter-annual variability of 

ice circulation, ocean circulation and particulate matter fluxes in relation to various environmental forcing 

factors; data to support the development and evaluation of accurate numerical prediction models for 

operational ocean forecasting and the validation/verification of regional research models for simulating 

ice, seawater and oil spill trajectories.
33

Circumpolar Assessment of Trends in Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity

Culp1,2*, J., Goedkoop3, W., Lento2, J., and Zimmerman4, C.E.

1 Environment and Climate Change Canada, Dept. Biology, Univ. New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, 

Canada

2 Canadian Rivers Institute, Univ. New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada

3 Dept. Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, Swedish Univ. Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden

4 U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, AK, USA

*

joseph.culp@canada.ca

The freshwater group of the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Plan (Arctic Council: Conservation of 

Arctic Flora and Fauna) has begun circumpolar assessments of freshwater flora and fauna to determine 

the state of Arctic freshwaters. This evaluation includes examination of data from both historical 

(paleolimnological data and records from 1800 to 1950) and contemporary time scales (post-1950), as 

well as traditional ecological knowledge of Arctic peoples. We highlight multiple-stressor scenarios that 

act on the biodiversity and biogeochemistry of Arctic freshwaters, and cause change in biological 

communities of lakes and streams. Assessments compare and contrast the regional state of Arctic 

freshwater ecosystems in North America, Iceland, Greenland, Fenno-Scandia, and Russia. In addition, 

circumpolar assessments for specific focal ecosystem components, namely fish, benthic invertebrates, 

benthic algae, macrophytes and plankton, provide novel analyses of how climate change and associated 

environmental drivers affect these biological components. For example, we explore driver-response 

relationships across latitudinal and longitudinal spatial scales to determine whether similar patterns are 

evident throughout the sub-, low-, and high-Arctic. This study represents the first circumpolar assessment 

of trends in Arctic freshwater biodiversity.

14 Oil Spill Technical Talks II

Mark Everett of the U.S. Coast Guard District 17 chaired this session. Table 6 identifies the speakers and 

topics (alphabetical order).

Table 6. Oil Spill Technical Talks II Presenters and Titles 

Presenter Presentation Title

Richard R. Bernhardt, Prevention and 

Emergency Response Program, Alaska 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation

Addressing Public Dispersant Comments with Scientific 

Literature Parts I and II

Suzanne Chang, BSEE Arctic Oil Spill Response Research at BSEE

Amy Merten, National Oceanic 

Atmospheric Administration

International Oil Spill Response Tool: Arctic 

Environmental Response Management Application 

(ERMA)

Steven Pearson, Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement

Arctic Spill Response Database

Louis Poirier, National Research Council 

of Canada

Beaufort Sea Engineering Database

Following the first round of oil spill technical talks, this session focused on a range of topics from the 

technical to the operational. Two very different databases were shared, one on Arctic spill response 

resources (a circumpolar effort of the Arctic Council) and the other on environmental data for engineering 

in the Beaufort Sea. Other presentations covered an approach to sharing information about dispersants
34

with the public, challenges and opportunities associated with the development of the Arctic 

Environmental Response Management Application (ERMA), and a summary of Arctic oil spill response 

research funded by BSEE.

Author-provided abstracts are below in the same author order shown in Table 6 (presenter may not be 

lead author).

Addressing Public Dispersant Comments with Scientific Literature 

Bernhardt, R.R., Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation rick.bernhardt@alaska.gov

Efforts to generate a new oil spill dispersant policy for Alaska culminated in January 2016 when natural 

resource trustees on the Alaska Regional Response Team signed and enacted the Dispersant Use Plan for 

Alaska. The process involved extensive outreach, which generated over 700 public comments, which 

ranged from specific advice to optimize dispersant use to questions about what is known about their 

effectiveness in environmentally relevant arctic conditions. This presentation uses peer-reviewed,

scientific literature to address the most common public questions/concerns about state of dispersant 

science and describes how scientific knowledge can shape effective response policies. 

Arctic Oil Spill Response Research at BSEE 

Chang, S., Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Offshore Regulatory Programs, Oil Spill 

Response Division, Sterling, VA suzanne.chang@bsee.gov

This presentation will provide an update on BSEE's Oil Spill Response Research Program and its research 

projects with an Arctic focus. Activities, updates, and capabilities of Ohmsett in Leonardo, NJ will be 

included. 

The Research Response Branch within the Oil Spill Preparedness Division spent $7.5 million on research 

and development projects in FY16 and anticipates approximately $8.4 million in FY 17. Currently there 

are 39 on-going research projects with three projects under peer review. Research projects funded as part 

of BSEE Oil Spill Response Research Program include areas of mechanical recovery, chemical 

treatments, in-situ burning, remote sensing, and decision making strategies. 

International Oil Spill Response Tool: Arctic Environmental Response Management Application 

(ERMA) 

Merten 1*, A. A., Wright2, R.C., Bruns3, P, and, Holst-Andersen4, J.P. 

1 NOAA’s Office of Response and Restorations, Seattle, WA

2 NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration, Silver Spring, MD

3 Arctic Council Secretariat, Tromsø, Norway

4 Danish Ministry of Defense, Copenhagen, Denmark. 

*Amy.merten@noaa.gov

This presentation will focus on the evolution of Arctic ERMA® as a pan-Arctic common operational 

picture for oil spill preparedness, response and injury assessment. This discussion included interactions 

with Arctic Communities in Alaska and Canada, and will showcase the work of the Arctic Council’s 

EPPR working group. The work will discuss international planning for oil spills that require an 

international response effort, per the Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness 

and Response, a legally binding agreement under the auspices of the Arctic Council. ERMA has been 

used as the common operational picture for US-led international Agreement on Cooperation on Marine 

Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response drill in 2016, and is targeted for use for other international drills 

in the future. Other EPPR projects with geospatial elements will be highlighted, including a project on 
35

small communities’ preparedness capacity, a pan-arctic database on oil spill response assets, and a project 

on the viability of response measures under Arctic conditions. The presentation will highlight joint 

projects with the University of Alaska, Fairbanks and Anchorage, the Alaska Ocean Observing Systems, 

Environment Canada, and the local response communities to demonstrate functionality and data sharing. 

Arctic Spill Response Database

Pearson, S., Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, steven.pearson@bsee.gov

The Arctic Council tasked the EPPR working group to develop a searchable oil spill response database 

and populate it with detailed information on Arctic specific equipment, vessels, dispersant stockpiles and 

application platforms, in-situ burn booms, well containment and cap and flow devices, and other 

resources owned by or regionally available to all member states of the Arctic Council.

Each Arctic country has at its disposal unique, geographically dispersed stockpiles of oil spill response 

vessels, equipment, and supplies. Some of these assets are owned and operated by the country, but in 

many cases assets are owned by cooperatives, for-profit firms, vessel owners, and operators of offshore 

oil and gas facilities. Equipment is described and classified in different ways with the types of locations of 

equipment not well understood by other Arctic states. 

When EPPR approved this project in December 2014, a comprehensive database of available response 

assets in the Arctic did not exist; however, several Arctic States were in the early stages of developing 

their own databases. This project developed a complete database of all internationally available oil spill 

response equipment existing in the specified Arctic regions in a single uniform format which will allow 

for an internationally collaborative and prompt response in the event of an oil spill. Another benefit of this 

inventory will be to identify potential gaps in the cumulative response equipment inventory available, so 

that these areas may be addressed in a proactive manner.

The Beaufort Sea Engineering Database 

Poirier, L. Ocean, Coastal, and River Engineering, National Research Council Canada, 

Louis.Poirier@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca

The National Research Council Canada has developed a framework for an integrated database, the 

Beaufort Sea Engineering Database, and linked to it many Beaufort Sea relevant environmental datasets 

that are of interest to Industry and regulators. The Beaufort Sea Engineering Database forms a basis for 

the storage, query and visualization of all key relevant environmental data for the Beaufort Sea with 

specific applications for the determination of design ice loads for offshore platforms (fixed and floating), 

and offshore marine operations. A database of this type will become a valuable reference for Industry and 

will provide a means of transparency for the regulatory process. The project has been carried out as a 

Joint Industry Project between ConocoPhillips, Imperial Oil, and the Government of Canada (Indigenous 

and Northern Affairs Canada’s Beaufort Regional Environmental Assessment and the National Research 

Council Canada’s Arctic Program). 

The work will illustrate how the database is used to assess the past environmental conditions at a well site 

or licence area. The database includes 84 datasets in 11 different categories. In a demonstration of the 

software, key datasets such as the Canadian Ice Service Regional Ice Charts and the Global Surface 

Summary of the Day from the National Climatic Data Centre are used to assess the changing 

environmental conditions in the Beaufort Sea. Understanding the warming temperatures and thinning ice 

conditions is important to industry partners seeking to operate in the region over the long term as they 

may have a beneficial and/or detrimental impact on various exploration activities.
36

15 Panel: Shared Leadership and Governance: Perspectives from 

U.S. and Canada

Mary Cody, BOEM, chaired this panel. The panelists were:

• Craig Fleener, Arctic Policy Advisor, State of Alaska Office of the Governor

• Dale Nicholson, Regional Director, Ecosystems Management, Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Craig Fleener, Arctic Policy Advisor

State of Alaska, Office of the Governor

Mr. Fleener challenged the audience to re-think the role of government in the North. He contrasted the 

governance approaches of “force” (depending on mandates) and “freedom” (with minimal to no 

involvement). In the past, governance in the North has tended towards the freedom approach, but this has 

resulted in pollution, dangerous working conditions, and other problems that have resulted in a swing to 

the other side of the spectrum.

Governance in Alaska is made more difficult because government at the national level often swings 

sharply between the two sides of the spectrum. Instead, Mr. Fleener emphasizes the importance of subnational governance in Alaska and encourages stronger East-West connections at this level, rather than 

the dominance of the North-South approach. As an example, the Yukon Territory neighbors Alaska, but 

there is no direct dialogue between the two about how they may collaborate to address energy or 

infrastructure issues even though the people and general context are similar. There is a similar need to 

coordinate with Russia. China has proposed a One Belt, One Road project to invest $1 trillion towards 

transportation linkages, including shipping, that would connect 65% of the world’s population. Alaska 

can benefit from this type of initiative, but only if it plans ahead and invests in the necessary 

infrastructure; otherwise an increase in Arctic shipping will mean only greater potential for search and 

rescue missions or oil spills in Alaskan waters. While a direct linkage to Russia, such as the past vision 

for a Bering Strait tunnel, is less critical now, the opportunity to link to the Chinese market is key. Alaska 

could gain significant opportunities, for example, from a rail link including Russia, Alaska, and the 

Northwest Territories. While Alaska would largely serve as a “fly over” area, there would be a demand 

for energy and services along the way that could benefit Alaska.

Due to lack of planning in the past, Alaska has remained largely dependent on resources that are subject 

to boom/bust cycles. When things are going well, planning efforts can naturally stall. Today, the highest 

priority issue is the cost of energy at the consumer level. People in villages currently often need to decide 

between heating their homes and purchasing food or hunting supplies, let alone building or owning 

businesses or otherwise improving their quality of life. The second biggest problem is infrastructure, due 

to the lack of vision in the past and failure to take advantage of the economic gains during boom times. 

Sub-national governments can work together to develop plans for a future that includes a higher quality of 

living for people and the infrastructure necessary to capitalize on opportunities opening up globally. This 

can be achieved without destroying the environment, and can and must be done wisely. 

Questions & Discussion

In response to questions, Mr. Fleener elaborated on the appropriate forum for the vision and coordination 

he encourages. He would like to see a 50-year infrastructure plan developed at the state level that includes 

a rigorous and realistic assessment of the costs of each component. Then a process would be needed to 

identify the options that will bring the greatest gains for the least cost. Regarding regional coordination, 

Alaska has recently rejoined the Northern Forum. Developing a North America-specific strategy within 

the Northern Forum will be important, and in keeping with the East-West approach to coordination.
37

Dale Nicholson, Regional Director

Ecosystems Management of Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Mr. Nicholson discussed that Canada has many programs that impact the North, and that all of the 

programs must be based on sound science. Canada is currently investing more in science and oceans 

management than any time in the past generation. Canada plans to invest $200 million over 5 years, and 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has received $85 million for marine conservation and an Oceans Protection 

Plan. Mr. Nicholson emphasized how important the relationship to indigenous people is with Oceans 

Canada, and explained that it was time to renew a nation-to-nation relationship “based on respect and 

partnership,” and he described that this is a relationship that he would like to put additional focus on in 

the future. 

Canada’s Fisheries Act is 149 years old and is an important piece of legislation that is amended 

periodically. For example, Mr. Nicholson discussed Canada’s marine protected areas (MPA), Tarium 

Niryutait, protected in 2010. The 1,800 square kilometers are now designed to protect belugas and other 

marine species, with another Arctic MPA designated in November 2016 to protect beluga, Bowhead, 

seals, char, and cod. The areas were designated based on Inuvialuit indigenous knowledge of cultural 

importance as well as historical harvesting areas. 

Mr. Nicholson also discussed a similar partnership with Canada’s indigenous population. The Inuvialuit 

Final Agreement was the first comprehensive land claim in Arctic Canada. Originally formalized in 1984, 

its focus was to preserve Inuvialuit values, ensure equal participation in government, and to protect Arctic 

wildlife. These kinds of agreements create governance models to ensure a close working relationship. 

Mr. Nicholson emphasized the importance of using governance models to work closely together. The 

Inuvialuit Final Agreement established a schedule for members of the Fisheries Joint Management 

Committee to meet regularly meet on the management marine areas as members of the Fisheries Joint 

Management Committee. Similarly, the Western Arctic Marine Protected Steering Committee, focuses on 

marine protection based on community interests to ensure meeting the conservation objectives. 

Finally, the Beaufort Sea Partnership, based on the integrated oceans management plan for the Beaufort 

Sea (2009) brings together a wide variety of interests in the Beaufort Sea. There is a regional coordination 

committee that oversees it. With this partnership, the Inuvialuit need to be equal and meaningful 

participants in economy and work together with the Canadian Government to protect the Beaufort Sea. 

These partnerships take time and continual effort to improve, but it’s in the best interest of all parties to 

continue working on them. 

16 Panel: Role of Regional Studies, Environmental Assessments, and 

Cumulative Effects

Sharon Randall of BOEM moderated this session. Presenters included:

• Serena Sweet, Alaska Supervisory Planning and Environmental Coordinator, BLM

• Mark Miller, Deputy Director, NSSI

• Heather Rasmussen, Policy	Advisor, Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB)

• Tim Fullman, Senior Ecologist, The Wilderness Society
38

Serena Sweet, Alaska Supervisory Planning and Environmental Coordinator

Bureau of Land Management

Ms. Sweet described the BLM’s management of more than 72 million acres in Alaska, including the 

National Petroleum Reserve. Oil and gas leasing on these lands includes Cook Inlet, where exploration 

and production began in the 1950s, and the National Petroleum Reserve. Government began exploration 

for oil and gas in the National Petroleum Reserve in the 1940s/1950s, but industry took the lead in the 

1970s/1980s. Lease sales continue today and production at Greater Mooses Tooth #1 is now underway.

BLM conducts two types of assessments: land use plans and project-specific authorizations (with 

associated environmental analyses as appropriate). Ms. Sweet finds data are critical to the decisionmaking process, but in some cases data collected on site or for a project-specific purpose are not useful in 

the long-term. Developing and maintaining a comprehensive set of baseline data is a high priority, and it 

is important that consistent monitoring data – essential to public lands managers – be incorporated over 

time. Ms. Sweet also described Rapid Ecological Assessments, which are done by examining trends over 

broad landscapes with similar eco-features. Data from these are made available to BLM analysts and the 

public.

Ms. Sweet observed that it is difficult and expensive to conduct data collection at remote sites during the 

short summer season, and that BLM must both authorize oil and gas activity while ensuring that vital 

subsistence resources are protected. She also noted that land conveyance from the federal government to 

the state and local tribes continues, causing uncertainty regarding future data collection responsibilities 

and priorities for everyone.

Mark Miller, Deputy Director

North Slope Science Initiative

Mr. Miller discussed the role of research and studies to help synthesize and apply new knowledge and 

make decisions regarding impact avoidance, minimization, mitigation, assessment, and disclosure. He 

observed that knowledge will be used most effectively if it is perceived to be credible, salient, and 

legitimate. For something to be perceived as credible, it must be technically adequate, relevant to the 

decisions being made, and respectful of stakeholders’ sometimes divergent values and beliefs.

It is also important to manage boundaries between knowledge and action in ways that enhance credibility, 

salience, and legitimacy. Convening entities, or “boundary organizations” are sometimes needed to bridge 

groups, bringing together knowledge producers, users, and stakeholders. Overcoming boundaries can 

require translation (ensuring understanding between those with different knowledge systems), 

collaboration (co-producing and applying shared knowledge), and mediation (ensuring different interests 

are applied fairly). Mr. Miller concluded by posing the question of whether such boundary organizations 

exist for northern oil and gas issues?

In response to a question, Mr. Miller commented that identifying cumulative effects can be difficult. He 

gave the example of aircraft disturbance of wildlife/hunting. BLM does not have acoustical engineers in 

most field offices, but the disturbance issue is a frequent concern. What is the appropriate set of experts 

needed to refine the understanding of this undesirable impact, and whether it is strictly a noise issue or if 

the disturbance of wildlife by aircraft is broadly visual, seasonal, or related to species composition? And 

how can those experts be convened with the information they need on the typical short timeline required?

Heather Rasmussen, Policy Advisor

Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB)

Ms. Rasmussen described how the Nunavut Agreement established a requirement for a public government 

and co-management institutions with roles in land and resource management. Each of these was 

established to incorporate representation from Inuit organizations, the Nunvaut government, and the 

Canadian federal government. All of them administer processes with a strong focus on public engagement 
39

and resource management. Development proposals in Nunavut, therefore, must satisfy the requirements 

of a number of different groups depending on their location or the types of impacts that may occur. 

The Strategic Environmental Assessment for Baffin Bay and the Davis Strait will result in a 

recommendation regarding oil and gas activity in these areas. The objectives of the assessment are to 

consider what is possible, what is realistic, potential impacts, cumulative effects, and transboundary 

issues. Currently they are developing a gap analysis of missing information on a range of issues. NIRB

will develop a final report and recommendations in 2019. Results from this two-year process will be used 

by the federal government’s ongoing five-year review of the moratorium on offshore oil and gas activity 

across the Canadian North. The assessment is designed to draw on both traditional and scientific 

knowledge. Through the process, the Board documents the information they collect and makes sure to 

reflect back to the communities how the information they gained from that community was used.

Tim Fullman, Senior Ecologist

The Wilderness Society

Mr. Fullman shared a non-governmental organization perspective. From his background in wildlife 

ecology, he observes that the “best way to protect places is to use science to inform management and 

decision-making.” Regional studies are important, but especially so when sparse resources require species 

to cover large distances to meet their needs. Thus, thinking and planning at regional scales is imperative 

to protecting them, often requiring considerations across jurisdictional or other boundaries.

In Northern Alaska, caribou use areas and subsistence use areas all cross federal, state, and private lands. 

Making decisions within one management unit will only capture part of a much larger environmental 

challenge. Fullman identifies the following challenges related to assessments of environmental impacts of 

different activities:

• Data are not necessarily consistent or at as fine a scale as can be obtained at lower latitudes.

• There are gaps in basic information about species, e.g., where the broad whitefish, an important 

subsistence species, breeds and overwinters, and how much time it spends at sea or in fresh water.

• Data are not always accessible: studies are often local in scale and challenging to scale up to the 

regional perspective needed.

Mr. Fullman praised DOI for convening cumulative effects workshops in Anchorage last year. When 

different parties examine cumulative effects in a collaborative way, this can build respect and 

understanding and facilitate information.

Questions & Discussion

One participant asked what the weaknesses are in the process when it comes to translating information 

into decisions, especially when considering cumulative effects. Ms. Sweet noted that BLM is working on 

changes to their land use planning process, with hope that there are opportunities to consider issues on a 

broader scale and engage stakeholders more in the process. Mr. Miller observed that there is a tremendous 

amount of information available but it is not effectively synthesized, nor is there a clear group with the 

responsibility to do this. Mr. Fullman offered that robust processes must consider scale regionally and 

temporally, and that it is important to ensure as much certainty as possible for all parties (both developers 

and those concerned with potential impacts from development). Robust opportunities for comment are 

also important, and this requires time to create and utilize feedback processes.

Panelists noted that it is important to consider all potential effects of projects – including research efforts 

themselves and not just industrial development.
40

Panelists also noted that datasets take time and resources to develop, and they appreciate why those who 

have done the work may not want to share all of their data openly. However, without the data, it is 

impossible to assess the quality of the data or resulting analyses.

17 Science in Area-based Management Technical Talks

Mark Miller of NSSI chaired this session. Table 7 identifies the speakers and topics (alphabetical order).

Table 7. Science in Area-based Management Technical Talks Presenters and Titles 

Presenter Presentation Title

Thomas Hoggarth, Ecosystems Management, Central 

and Arctic Region, Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Marine Conservation Targets in Canada’s 

Marine Waters

Paul Leonard, Arctic LCC Science-Informed Land Management Tools 

for Arctic Alaska and Canada

Cathy Coon, Environmental Sciences Management, 

BOEM

Arctic Council Ecosystem Approach to 

Management

These three final technical presentations shared different examples of the role of science in area-based 

management, ranging from a focus on the marine environment and Canada to a bi-national effort to the 

Arctic Council’s circumpolar-wide approach to ecosystem management.

Author-provided abstracts are below in the same author order shown in Table 7 (presenter may not be 

lead author).

Marine Conservation Targets in Canada’s Marine Waters: Area-based Management

C. Thomas Hoggarth. Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard

Canadian Center for Inland Waters, 867 Lakeshore Rd. Burlington ON, L7S 1A1

Thomas.Hoggarth@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

In 2010, Canada agreed to marine conservation targets established under the United Nations Convention 

on Biological Diversity to conserve 10 percent of coastal and marine areas by 2020 through effectively 

managed networks of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures (Aichi Target 

11). This commitment was reconfirmed in 2015 by the United Nations General Assembly’s 2030 Agenda 

for Sustainable Development.

In the 2016 Joint Statement on Climate, Energy, and Arctic Leadership, Canada and the United States 

reaffirmed their commitment to meet the global target of 10 percent by 2020 and committed to taking 

concrete steps to surpass these national goals in the coming years. 

To meet the area-based targets and support the Aichi Target 11, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans 

and the Canadian Coast Guard have been leading the establishment of conservation measures in Canada’s 

coastal and marine waters. Conservation measures include, designation of new Marine Protected Areas, 

identifying other effective area-based conservation measures, and development of Marine Protected Area 

Networks which support responsible area-based management and protection of marine resources. The 

approach to achieving the marine conservation targets is guided by three foundational principles: sciencebased decision making, including key information sources such as traditional ecological knowledge 

shared by Indigenous peoples and knowledge shared by the fishing industry and local communities; 

transparency; and, advancing reconciliation with Indigenous groups. 
41

The science-based foundation which forms the basis of these marine conservation efforts includes the 

identification of ecologically and biologically significant areas throughout the Canadian Arctic. 

Identification of ecologically significant species, community properties and a habitat classification 

assessment is also applied in the Western Arctic Bioregion. In the development of Marine Protected 

Areas Networks, additional science-based criteria are incorporated to examine the concepts of 

representativity, connectivity, replicated ecological features and adequate and viable site selection. All of 

the science information is produced in collaboration with relevant experts and co-management partners to 

include traditional knowledge, as well as federal, provincial and territorial representatives via the 

Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat peer-review process.

Science-Informed Land Management Tools for Arctic Alaska and Canada

1

Leonard, P.B., 2Loya, W.M., 2Wilson, R.R. and 3Miller M.E.

1

Office of Science Applications, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Alaska. Paul_Leonard@fws.gov

2

Marine Mammals Management, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska

3

North Slope Science Initiative, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, AK

Warming Arctic ecosystems are undergoing changes from melting permafrost and changes in vegetation. 

At the same time, land management decisions on public land in the Arctic are being revisited for potential 

economic development and transportation access. However, uncertainty about where exactly that 

development might occur and how climate will alter ecosystems makes it difficult to quantify the 

cumulative effects of new development on flora and fauna, including species that are important 

subsistence resources. The Arctic LCC is working with partners to create new and improve existing 

models that describe possible impacts of development and climate change on wildlife. These models will 

account for multiple land allocation scenarios and the spatial uncertainty of development to highlight 

areas that may minimize impacts to multiple taxa. The presentation discussed the utility of using the best 

available science in area-based management and how these science products can help inform managers’ 

consideration of alternative decisions. Early examples from work in the northeastern section of the 

National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska were shared.

Arctic Council Ecosystem Approach to Management and the Development of Arctic Marine 

Protected Areas

Phil Mundy2*, Hein Rune Skjoldal1, Catherine Coon3, and Lauren Wenzel4 

1

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NMFS, Juneau, AK, USA

2

Institute of Marine Research, Norway

3

Bureau of Energy Management, Anchorage, AK, USA

4

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOS, Silver Spring, MD, USA

*

phil.mundy@noaa.gov

The Ecosystem Approach to management also known as Ecosystem-based Management (EBM) has been 

a core principle of the Arctic Council since 2004 (see Arctic Marine Strategic Plans 2004-2014 and 2015-

2025). The Arctic Council working group, Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME), has led 

efforts to develop the Ecosystem Approach within the Arctic Council. PAME established an expert group

in 2007 that became a joint expert group in 2011, serving three additional Arctic Council working groups:

the Arctic Marine Assessment Programme, CAFF and Sustainable Development Working Group. In 

2013, when the foreign ministers of all Arctic States (Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, 

Russia, Sweden, United States) adopted an agreed upon formal definition of EBM, the expert group

developed a framework for its implementation. The Ecosystem Approach implementation framework 

consists of six elements: 1) Identify the geographic extent of the ecosystem; 2) Describe the biological 

and physical components and processes of the ecosystem, 3) Set ecological objectives that define 
42

sustainability of the ecosystem, 4) Assess the current state of the ecosystem, 5) Value the cultural, social 

and economic goods produced by the ecosystem, and 6) Apply 1 – 5 to manage human activities to 

protect and sustain the ecosystem. A series of five EA-EG workshops between 2011 and 2015, as well as 

an international conference (2016), have addressed the process and status of implementation. The 

development of Arctic Marine Protected Area (MPA) networks is an area of Ecosystem Approach

implementation that has seen particularly rapid recent progress under PAME. The MPA Expert Group, 

established by PAME in 2013 has provided the Framework for a Pan-Arctic Marine Protected Areas 

Network. The framework recognizes that individual Arctic countries pursue MPA development based on 

their own authorities and priorities, and that MPA networks can be comprised of "both MPAs and other 

area-based measures that contribute to network objectives.” The MPA Expert Group “Toolbox” (2017) 

developed guidance to assist countries in advancing MPA networks in the Arctic by cataloging of 

examples of diverse existing area-based measures, including different types of MPAs and of “other areabased conservation measures” that contribute to the long-term conservation of important categories of 

Arctic marine biodiversity (e.g. important species and habitats).

18 Panel: Role of Research in Regulation

Cheryl Rosa, U.S. Arctic Research Commission, chaired this panel. The panelists included: 

• James Kendall, Alaska Regional Director of BOEM

• Ryan Barry, Executive Director of NIRB

• Greg Balogh, Anchorage Supervisor of the Protected Resources Division Alaska Regional 

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

James Kendall, Alaska Regional Director

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Mr. Kendall discussed the role that BOEM plays in incorporating science into regulation. Mr. Kendall 

emphasized that when implementing BOEM’s mission to “manage development of the United States 

Outer Continental Shelf energy and mineral resources in and environmentally and economically 

responsible way,” the good days are when “everybody likes me and the second-best days are when 

everyone dislikes me equally.”

Mr. Kendall discussed the BOEM process under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands which includes the 

broad Five-Year Program and may lead to development and production. There are many opportunities for

rigorous public engagement. This entire endeavor can span years. The process is made more complicated 

by the laws that BOEM must follow to implement a the OCS Program: Marine Mammal Protection Act, 

Oil Pollution Act of 1990, National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act, Coastal 

Zone Management Act, Clean Air Act, and Clean Water Act. An important improvement to this process 

is switching from a “science informed bureau” to a “knowledge informed bureau” where traditional 

knowledge is incorporated along with data from scientific studies. 

Mr. Kendall emphasized the importance of applied research, which in the case of oil and gas activities

helps BOEM to predict environmental impacts and monitor for changes over time. This research is 

generated through BOEM’s Environmental Studies Program, where around $500 million has been funded 

for studies over time, and current appropriation funds $12 million per year with an additional $5 million 

in leveraged funds. 
43

When Shell lease operations were beginning, there were a lot of studies happening, including whale 

tagging and monitoring studies to consider what could be impacted by activities on their lease. Mr. 

Kendall discussed a current example of a study that will directly impact regulation. BOEM is conducting 

an Arctic Air Quality Assessment Modeling study to determine whether the existing air quality formulas 

are adequate to use when considering impacts to Arctic air quality. 

Mr. Kendall closed his talk by discussing BOEM’s strategic priorities, which are to advance security 

interests where energy resources are a core component of national security, responsible environmental 

stewardship, and international cooperation. He sees opportunities of efficiency through coordination to 

promote responsible and effective processing of energy-related authorizations, permits, regulations, and 

agreements and sees value in the International cooperation for safety and stewardship and improving the 

economic and living conditions of Arctic citizens. 

Ryan Barry, Executive Director

Nunavut Impact Review Board 

Mr. Barry discussed the unique role that science plays in Impact Assessments within Nunavut. Nunavut is 

a unique environment, with over 2 million square kilometers, but only 0.1% of the population of Canada 

residing there and four official languages being spoken in the region. Nunavut’s government was only 

implemented 20 years ago with the Nunavut Land Claims agreement. This agreement sets up boards, 

which constitute the government of Nunavut, which carry out their respective duties. The NIRB satisfies 

requirements of land use planning, environmental impact assessments, and water and land use licensing. 

Mr. Barry reviewed one of the main tasks of the NIRB, which is to screen project proposals to determine 

whether or not a review by the NIRB is required. NIRB considers environmental, social, and economic 

impacts when determining if a review is required. If it is, the Board recommends the form of the review. 

One primary component the NIRB incorporates is local knowledge. Mr. Barry discussed how there is 

often a lack of scientific studies on Arctic processes, which is where the board turns to traditional 

knowledge as a scientific baseline. Where there is a significant lack of scientific information, Mr. Barry 

explained that the board instead uses the “precautionary principle” where the responsible party must 

prove an effect will not occur, then monitor to ensure that is the case. The monitoring that is implemented 

can then inform other ongoing assessments and yield greater knowledge, which in turn yields better 

projects. 

Mr. Barry then introduced the NIRB’s Strategic Environmental Assessment as an additional tactic to 

increase the amount of scientific data that is available on Nunavut. This assessment collects 

environmental, social, and economic data and allows the Board to be proactive in data collection as 

opposed to reactive. 

Greg Balogh, Anchorage Supervisor

Protected Resources Division Alaska Region National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration

Mr. Balogh discussed the responsibilities that the National Marine Fisheries Service holds with respect to 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which gives the Service responsibility for listed Arctic species 

including Bearded seals, Bowhead whales, North Pacific right whales, Fin whales, Humpback whales, 

and Steller sea lions, as well as sperm, blue, sei, and gray whales. Mr. Balogh emphasized that the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act was established by Congress because people value marine mammals, which 

requires authorizations for “taking” marine mammals. 

Mr. Balogh discussed how there is a substantial amount of information including scientific data required 

to receive a permit authorization. If a “take” of a listed species is likely to occur, the permit must undergo 

an Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation, which will require that the party minimizes take and 
44

authorizes a given level of take for the listed species. Mr. Balogh said one of the biggest factors in 

minimizing take in the Arctic is reducing acoustic harm or harassment, such as sound source verification 

and acoustic modeling. Mr. Balogh posited that often if adequate mitigation measures are conducted 

before the assessment, it may preclude a need for the incidental take permit in the first place. 

Mr. Balogh emphasized that these permit processes are lengthy and often take many years. It’s beneficial 

to expedite the process by beginning consultation early and allowing plenty of time for obtaining permits 

within a project timeline. Once the permit is implemented, the permittee is required to monitor and report 

takes which is then incorporated into additional studies to show how animals respond to specific stressors 

and inform whether mitigation measures are effective. 

19 Concluding Session

Session conclusions consisted of informal remarks from technical session chairs, participants, and 

organizers. (Technical session summaries have been incorporated in the preceding sessions.) Participants 

offered the following general observations and recommendations for future Forums:

General Observations

• This Forum provides a unique and valuable opportunity to strengthen East-West ties in the Arctic, 

rather than the North-South paradigm that naturally arises because Washington, DC and Ottawa 

are located in the South.

• Ongoing Forums provide the chance to sustain or renew relationships among agencies or 

organizations even as staff change over time.

• Although the U.S. and Canada currently have different policies regarding oil and gas exploration 

in the North, there are many overlapping areas of activity related to understanding and assessing 

the impacts of such development.

• NSSI, established under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (based on an existing long-term 

monitoring program), provides a possible focal point for ongoing sharing of information such as 

that exchanged at the Forum. Currently they are challenged by staffing and budget limitations, but 

if NSSI does return to its role of prioritizing research, perhaps Forum results could be more 

formally incorporated.

Forum Structure 

• One participant observed that speakers were required to fit a wealth of subject matter into fairly 

short presentations, and expressed interest in having longer presentations in the future. Other 

participants offered that instead of longer presentations, they would like to have more time for 

discussion to maximize shared learning from the presenters’ varied experiences.

• Forum organizers are encouraged to reach out to agency personnel at the staff level who actually 

write decisions, in addition to the researchers who develop the information. Some of these people 

may also be eager to help with research activities as well.

• Provide opportunity for in-depth discussions on select topics: one participant expressed interest in 

bringing together people who use and manage lands to identify research priorities. (For example: 

is it possible to dig into permafrost without disturbing existing infrastructure?)

Potential Future Topics

• Sustainability of ongoing projects is an important topic, and warrants direct attention in the 

future. This may be approached by combining research efforts to increase efficiencies, or by 

seeking funding from industry (for example, as is being done in the SmartIce program, which 

could sell data on ice thickness to industry operators in the region).
45

• A discussion would be welcome regarding how to bridge the gap between “one-off” scientific 

sampling and sustained monitoring more consistently.

• It would be interesting to follow one scenario from start to finish as an example: from who 

participated; how the research project was conceived, designed, and implemented; and how the 

results were used. 

• There was enthusiasm for having the vast range of research presented in some way compiled or 

shared in a published volume or electronically for future access. This was accompanied by an 

understanding of the associated costs.

• Expand opportunities for critical assessment of projects, rather than short updates on current 

research. 

• Directly address how efforts may be combined to increase efficiency and sustainability.

• Bring together land managers and land users on one topic to discuss research that has been – or 

would be – useful to inform policy decisions in that context.

Meaningful Engagement

• Appreciation was expressed for on-going work to incorporate traditional knowledge and western 

science and expand community-based monitoring; in the past these were spoken of as aspirations 

for the future. Since the first Forum in 2008, there have been significant changes in how western 

science understands traditional knowledge. The two may be used either together or separately.

• Meaningful engagement between researchers and traditional knowledge was a strong theme 

during many of the sessions. This engagement is necessary for successful projects. It requires 

flexibility in research methods or activities. There is no single correct way to approach either the 

research itself or associated engagement activities, as the needs will be unique to different 

communities. Other principles for engagement include:

o Researchers should spend time establishing and then nurturing relationships, including 

visiting communities as frequently as possible. Spending at least 2-3 days without a rigid 

agenda is important at the beginning, as well as actively participating in community 

events or other opportunities to meet people directly. 

o Have a sense of humor and acknowledge mistakes.

o Practice true listening with the goal of understanding, not just thinking about how to 

respond.

o Involve community members in your research, including planning and managing research 

projects.

o Minimize the travel time and costs for those who are willing to participate in your 

project: plan activities in rural communities, not just the central hub. Be flexible with all 

scheduling, and plan to arrive early and leave late.

• Consultation or meaningful engagement can also leave communities or indigenous governing 

organizations strapped for resources. “Consultation fatigue” is real, and if communities do not 

have the capacity to fully engage in the process, it can leave both sides frustrated (especially if 

government makes decisions thinking they have received sufficient input).

• While people may have the best intentions, it is possible that policies, regulations, or programs 

may cause unintended negative impacts in communities. This can make conversations difficult.

There is a need to continue to bridge the gap between science and traditional knowledge in the 

generation of information, and then to determine how that information will inform policies or 

regulations. Sometimes government also lacks understanding of the perspectives of those with 

whom they are seeking to engage in their projects. 

• Compensation is important. Time community members spend engaged in research or consultation 

efforts is time away from family, subsistence activities, or other work. In Nunavut, there is a call 

for a program to fund capacity building in communities to enable people to participate in 

processes. BOEM has in the past paid for an attorney to assist a community in responding to 
46

comments. The National Energy Board (in Canada) has an established funding program. It would 

be important to have transparency up front regarding the ability to leverage funds.

• Sometimes there are limited people in a community who are willing and able to engage in these 

research and consultation processes. This relates both to community size as well as the quality of 

health and level of education of community members.

• There was also recognition that a truly meaningful engagement process is naturally less 

“fatiguing” than one that is not as effective. 

• People in Northern communities want to understand the motivations of those who come to 

conduct research in or around their areas. 

• Funding agencies should require upfront engagement with communities at the proposal stage. 

Currently, funders typically dictate the research topics. Because it costs money, most researchers 

are unable to seek community engagement until their projects have already been designed and 

funded. This makes it more difficult to truly incorporate input received through the engagement 

process.

20 Posters

The following posters were presented during Days 1 and 2 of the Forum (in alphabetical order by lead 

author).

Polar Bear Research to Address Information Needs for the Management of Petroleum Activities 

Along Alaska’s North Slope

Atwood, T.C., Durner, G.M., Rode, K.D., Simac, K.S. and Pagano, A.

U.S. Geological Survey and Alaska Science Center. tatwood@usgs.gov.

In the Arctic Ocean’s southern Beaufort Sea, an advancement of sea ice break-up in summer and freezeup delay in fall has led to a 36 day increase of the open water season since the late 1990s. Historically, 

polar bears (Ursus maritimus) of the southern Beaufort Sea have mostly remained on the sea ice yearround, but recent changes in the extent and phenology of sea ice habitat have coincided with evidence that 

use of terrestrial habitat is increasing. Here, we present the findings of recent studies elucidating the links 

between changes to the sea ice ecosystem, increased use of terrestrial habitat by southern Beaufort Sea

polar bears, and the escalating risk of human-polar bear interactions. The use of land by polar bears 

during summer and fall has increased substantially over the last two decades. Since the 1990s, the 

percentage of radio-tagged polar bears using land increased from ~4% to >20% annually, and the mean 

length of stay on shore has increased by 31 days. While on shore, the distribution of polar bears is 

influenced by the availability of subsistence-harvested bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) remains 

aggregated at Barter and Cross islands. Concomitantly, the frequency of land-based denning in winter has 

also increased and is directly related to the distance that sea ice has retreated from the coast. Humanwildlife conflicts are often clustered in space and time due to the juxtaposition of focal attractors for 

wildlife and areas of human activity. Because factors driving increased land use by polar bears from the 

SB are likely to remain unabated, proactive management of human-polar bear interactions will be needed 

to reduce the future risk of conflict.
47

Estimating Walrus Responses to Vessel Traffic and Oil and Gas activities in the Eastern Chukchi 

Sea

Jay, C.V., Fischbach, A.S.

U.S. Geological Survey, 4210 University Drive, Anchorage, AK, 99508, USA

cjay@usgs.gov

Resource managers need greater certainty about how animals respond to human activities to craft 

regulations that meet wildlife conservation goals, and yet do not place undue burden on resource users. 

An animal’s behavioral and physiological response to human activities can have population-level effects 

through changes in their energy intake and expenditures. Only scant information is available on how 

Pacific walruses respond to human activities in the Arctic, particularly to vessel traffic, seismic surveys, 

and drilling activities in the Chukchi Sea. In a previous study, we used walrus tracking and behavioral 

data from 2008 through 2011 to map monthly walrus foraging areas. These maps have been used by 

regulators to mitigate potential disturbances to walruses in core foraging areas. We are now using these 

data, together with additional tracking data collected from 2012 through 2015, to estimate walrus 

behavioral responses to vessel traffic, and in a subsequent study, to estimate behavioral responses to 

seismic survey and drilling activities. These studies will provide information for improved management 

of oil and gas activities, and are part of a larger research framework that links walrus behavior, 

bioenergetics, and demographic rates.

Advanced Aquatic Ecosystem Mapping Techniques for Large Arctic Domains Using Calibrated 

High-Resolution and Time Series Imagery

Macander, M.J., Frost, G.V., Swingley, C.S., Dissing, D., Wells, A.F., and Seigle, J.C.

ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Services. Fairbanks, Alaska, United States.

mmacander@abrinc.com.

The increasing availability of high-resolution (≤2 m) imagery and ongoing advances in computing power 

and analysis tools raises the prospect of automating aquatic ecosystem mapping at fine spatial scales over 

large study domains. Here we demonstrate an automated mapping approach for a land mass covering a 

study area of ~35,000 km2 on Alaska’s North Slope using calibrated mosaics of high-resolution 

WorldView-2 and GeoEye-1 imagery. A spectral classification approach was used to rapidly map water 

extents across a diverse collection of high-resolution satellite images. GIS modeling was used to 

categorize water polygons into coastal, lake/pond, and stream/river types. Additional analyses allowed 

preliminary splitting based on water depth, salinity, and connectivity. To augment the single-snapshot-intime, high-resolution imagery, a time-series analysis of an extensive collection of cloud-free bimonthly 

Landsat composites (1999–2015) was conducted to characterize seasonal fluctuations in water extents. 

These advanced mapping techniques deliver products which can provide essential information supporting 

a broad range of ecosystem science, land-use planning, and permitting applications in northern Alaska 

and elsewhere in the circumpolar Arctic.

Monitoring Caribou Distribution and Movements near Arctic Development 

Prichard, A.K., Lawhead, B.E., and Welch, J.H. 

ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Services, Fairbanks, Alaska. aprichard@abrinc.com.

Four caribou herds range across Arctic Alaska, constituting important subsistence, sport hunting, and 

tourism resources for multiple stakeholders. The potential impacts of industrial development on caribou 

distribution, movements, population size, and energetics are of concern for these stakeholders, including 

the oil and gas industry. Over the past 35 years, ABR, Inc. has conducted ground-based behavioral 

observations, aerial surveys, and radio-telemetry studies to examine the influence of industrial 

development on caribou distribution and movements in northern Alaska. Early observational studies in 

the oilfields examined the behavioral responses of caribou to infrastructure to assess impacts of linear 
48

infrastructure and associated activities and to identify potential mitigative measures. Long-term 

monitoring conducted through systematic aerial surveys has produced valuable datasets that have been 

used to assess baseline conditions prior to development and to identify potential changes after 

development. As radio collars have improved, we have used satellite and GPS telemetry to understand 

movement patterns of individual caribou and to examine caribou distribution in relation to remotely 

sensed vegetation indices, snowmelt patterns, and digital elevation models. We have also examined bias 

in demographic and movement rates from telemetry data, habitat selection of the Teshekpuk Herd, and 

rates of interchange among neighboring herds. We continue to work collaboratively with agencies and 

industry, combining data and resources from multiple stakeholders, to provide new insights into caribou 

distribution, movements, and behavior near current and proposed developments.

Ecological Impacts of Oil and Gas Infrastructure Access on Alaska’s North Slope 

Sullender, B.K., Audubon Alaska, Anchorage, AK, bsullender@audubon.org.

Oil and gas extraction relies on a transportation network to move people, equipment, and materials. 

Historically, oil fields have been developed using a combination of gravel roads, winter-only ice roads, 

and aircraft. More recent drill sites have demonstrated that it is logistically possible to produce oil from a 

site with no permanent road connection to other infrastructure. Projects currently in the permitting phase 

have also considered aircraft-only access as an alternative approach. Audubon Alaska conducted a 

research synthesis to assess the relative impact of road-based versus roadless development access.

Regardless of the mode of access, roads and aircraft have direct and indirect impacts on wildlife. Direct 

impacts can be broadly classified as disturbance (behavioral change) or displacement (avoidance of a 

previously used area), and indirect impacts include habitat alteration or changes in food abundance. This 

study focuses on a few focal taxa: caribou, geese, loons, eiders, shorebirds, and freshwater fish. Each is 

examined for how road-based and roadless development may impact individuals and populations. 

There is agreement among published research that roads and other linear infrastructure have individuallevel impacts on wildlife such as caribou, with the magnitude of impact dependent on season, individual 

demographics, and a variety of other factors. However, there is little agreement on whether and how these 

individual-level impacts scale up to the population level. For example, the spatial arrangement of 

development may obstruct key habitat such as calving grounds. If infrastructure is constrained to a 

smaller footprint, rather than an expansive network, the same number of drill sites could have a lesser 

ecological impact.

Furthermore, gravel roads cause apparently permanent geophysical changes to the landscape, altering 

permafrost freeze-and-thaw cycles and creating topographic features known as thermokarst. The 

biological implications of thermokarst are not well understood—significant changes in vegetation 

communities may displace preferred forage species, although fine-textured terrain roughness and beaded 

streams provide suitable habitat for some wildlife species.

Alternatively, roadless development typically involves a larger gravel pad to accommodate an airstrip and 

necessary facilities and increased air traffic. The biological impacts of low-flying aircraft are likely to be 

short-term and localized, and can be mitigated with seasonal, geographic, or species-specific flight 

restrictions similar to existing best management practices. Roadless development appears to be the least 

ecologically damaging mode of oil-field access on Alaska’s North Slope. This is due to the short duration 

of aircraft disturbance, the limited additionality of disturbance given already dense aircraft traffic, and 

apparent effectiveness of temporal and spatial mitigation measures.
49

21 References

BGES, Inc. 2009. Proceedings of the Eleventh MMS Information Transfer Meeting. OCS Study MMS 

2009-005. Prepared by BGES, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, AK., 121 pp.
50

Appendix A: Agenda
1

AGENDA

Dena’ina	Convention	Center,	Anchorage,	Alaska

Unless	otherwise	noted,	all	sessions	occur	in	the	Tubughnenq’ Room.

Wednesday, October 11

7:30	am Registration	Opens

8:30	am Welcome

8:40	am Opening	Remarks	by Officials from	the	U.S.	and	Canada

• Mark	Hopkins, Director	General,	Natural	Resources	and	Environment,	Indigenous	and	Northern	Affairs	

Canada

• Walter	Cruickshank,	Acting	Director, Bureau	of	Ocean	Energy	Management	

9:30	am Opening	Panel:	Science-informed	Decision-making

Chair: Mark	Fesmire, Alaska	Regional	Director, Bureau	of	Safety	and	Environmental	Enforcement

• James	Kendall,	Alaska	Regional	Director, Bureau	of	Ocean	Energy	Management	

• Karen	Mouritsen, Alaska	State	Director,	Bureau	of	Land	Management	

• Donna	Kirkwood, Chief	Scientist,	Natural	Resources	Canada

• Scott	Gedak, Northwest	Territories Environmental	Studies	Management	Board

10:30	am	 BREAK

	

10:50	am Panel:	Community	and Industry	Perspectives	– Priorities	and	Research/Monitoring	Needs

Chair: Kasaŋnaaluk	Marie	N.	Greene, Commissioner,	U.S.	Arctic	Research	Commission

• Taqulik	Hepa, Director, North	Slope	Borough	Department	of	Wildlife	Management

• Michael Macrander, Former Science	Team	Lead,	Shell	Exploration	&	Production	

• Jennifer	Lam,	 Inuvialuit	Game	Council

• Paul	Barnes, Director, Atlantic	Canada	and	Arctic, Canadian	Association	of	Petroleum	Producers

11:50	am LUNCH	(provided)

SPEAKER:	Paul	Decker,	State	of	Alaska	Department	of	Natural	Resources,	New	Petroleum	Potential	

on	the	Alaska	North	Slope
2

Wednesday, October 11 (continued)

1:10	pm Concurrent	Technical	Talks

	

Tubughnenq’	Room K’enakatnu	Room

Environmental	Technical	Talks

Chair: Mark	Miller, North	Slope	Science	Initiative

Oil	Spill	Technical	Talks	I

Chair: Kristin	Ryan,	Division	of	Spill	Prevention	and	

Response,	Alaska	Department	of	Environmental	

Conservation

1:10 Todd	Sformo,	North	Slope	Borough	Department	

of Wildlife Management,	Preliminary	Results	of	

Application	of	Oil	and	Dispersed	Oil	on	Drag	on	

Bowhead	Whale	Baleen

1:30 Melanie	Smith,	Audubon	Alaska,	Ecological	

Atlas	of	the	Bering,	Chukchi,	and	Beaufort	Seas

Ken	Lee,	Fisheries	and	Oceans	Canada, The	Royal	

Society	of	Canada	Expert	Panel	on	the	Behaviour	and	

Environmental	Impacts	of	Crude	Oil	Released	into	

Aqueous	Environments: Research Recommendations	

and	Follow-up	Part	I

1:50 John	Pearce,	U.S.	Geological	Survey, USGS	

Ecosystems	Research	to	Inform	Oil	and	Gas	

Development	and	Response	of	Wildlife	in	the	

Arctic

Ken	Lee,	Fisheries	and	Oceans	Canada, The	Royal	

Society	of	Canada	Expert	Panel	on	the	Behaviour	and	

Environmental	Impacts	of	Crude	Oil	Released	into	

Aqueous	Environments:	Research Recommendations	

and	Follow-up	Part	II

2:10 Sheyna	Wisdom, Olgoonik	Fairweather	LLC,	An	

Integrated	Look	at	the	Alaska	Beaufort	Sea:	

summary	of	the	Arctic	Nearshore	Impact	

Monitoring	in	Development	Area	III	2014-2017

Mark	Fesmire,	Alaska	Region,	Bureau	of	Safety	and	

Environmental	Enforcement, Capping	Stacks	and	

Containment	Systems	in	the	Offshore	Arctic

	

2:30	pm	 BREAK

3:00	pm Concurrent	Technical	Talks – continued

Tubughnenq’	Room K’enakatnu	Room

Environmental	Technical	Talks,	continued Oil	Spill	Technical	Talks	I,	continued

3:00 Elizabeth	Sharp,	Hilcorp,	Environmental	and	

Social	Research	in	Central	Beaufort	Sea	Oil	

and	Gas	Fields:	Successes and	Challenges

Charles	Greer,	National	Research	Council	Canada,	

NRC	Natural	Attenuation	Potential	for	Petroleum	

Hydrocarbons	at	Sub-zero	Temperatures	in	the	

Canadian	Arctic	Marine	Environment

3:20 Kerri	A.	Pratt,	University	of	Michigan,	

Research Related to	Ultrafine	Particulate	

Emissions	from	the	Prudhoe	Bay	Field

Tim	Robertson,	Nuka	Research	and Planning	Group,	

LLC, U.S.	Arctic	Oil	Spill	Response	Gap	Analysis

3:40 Eric	Miller,	Bureau	of	Safety	and	Environmental	

Enforcement, Arctic	Council	Emergency	Prevention,	

Preparedness	and	Response	(EPPR)	Workgroup

Circumpolar	Oil	Spill	Response	Viability	Analysis
3

Wednesday, October 11 (continued)

4:00	pm	 Panel:	Scenario	Planning

Chair: Jon	Skinner,	University	of	Alaska	Anchorage

• Wendy	Loya, Coordinator,	Arctic	Landscape	Conservation	Cooperative	Alaska,	U.S.	Fish	and	Wildlife	Service	

• Amy	Lovecraft, Professor	of	Political	Science, University	of	Alaska	Fairbanks	

• Hajo	Eicken, Director, International	Arctic	Research	Center,	University	of	Alaska	Fairbanks

5:00 pm	 POSTER	SESSION	AND	RECEPTION

Thursday, October 12

8:30	am Panel:	Meaningful	Engagement	of	Indigenous	Peoples	in	Oil	and	Gas	Activities	

Beyond	Consultation	- Understanding	Differences,	Trust	and	Respect,	Indigenous	Knowledge

Chair: Jeffrey	Brooks, Bureau	of	Ocean	Energy	Management	Alaska

• James	Stotts, President, Inuit	Circumpolar	Council	Alaska	

• Orville	Lind,	Native	Liaison	for	the	Office	of	Subsistence	Management, U.S.	Fish	and	Wildlife	Service

• Rosanne	D’Orazio, Director,	Lands	and	Resources,	Qikiqtani	Inuit	Association

• Scott	Gedak, Northwest	Territories Environmental	Studies	Management	Board

9:30	am	 Concurrent Technical	Talks

Tubughnenq’	Room K’enakatnu	Room

Ice, Ocean,	and Air Technical	Talks

Chair: Warren	Horowitz, Bureau	of	Ocean	

Energy	Management

Community-driven	Research	and	Monitoring	

Technical	Talks

Chair: Henry	Huntington, Huntington	Consultants

9:30 Andrew	Metzger,	University	of	Alaska	

Anchorage,	Implementing	the	ISO	19906	

Normative

Qaiyaan	Harcharek, North	Slope	Borough

Chris	Campbell, Bureau	of	Ocean	Energy	

Management,	Traditional	Knowledge	Implementation:	

Accessing	Community	Panels	of	Subject	Matter	Experts

9:50 Darlene	Langlois,	Canadian	Ice	Service, Sea	

Ice	Trends	and	Variability

Mike	Brubaker, Alaska	Native	Tribal	Health	

Consortium, LEO	Network	– A	Citizen	Observer	System	

for	Monitoring	Environmental	Change

10:10 Hajo	Eicken,	University	of	Alaska	Fairbanks,	

Tracking	Sea-ice	Seasonal	Cycle,	Dynamics,	and	

Hazards	Near	Point	Barrow,	Alaska	with	a	

Coastal	Ice	Radar

Mark	Everett, U.S.	Coast	Guard	District	17,	

Prevention,	Preparedness,	and	Response	for	Small	

Communities

10:30	am BREAK
4

Thursday, October 12 (continued)

11:00	am	 Concurrent	Technical	Talks – continued

Tubughnenq’	Room K’enakatnu	Room

Ice, Ocean,	and Air Technical	Talks,	

continued

Community-driven	Research	and	Monitoring	

Technical	Talks,	continued

11:00 Feiyue	Wang,	Churchill	Marine	Observatory,	

The	Churchill	Marine	Observatory	and	the	Oil	

Spills	in	Ice-Covered	Arctic	waters	(OSICA)	

Network

Trevor	Bell,	Memorial	University	of	

Newfoundland,	SmartICE:	A	Sea-ice	Monitoring	and	

Information	Service	for	Coastal	Communities	and	

Industries

11:20 Paula	Fields	Simms, Eastern	Research	

Group,	Inc.,	Arctic	Air	Quality	Modeling	

Assessment	Study

Rosanne	D'Orazio,	Lands	and	Resources,	

Qikiqtani	Inuit	Association,	Inuit	Qaujimajatuqangit	

in	Decision	Making	and	Inuit	Led	Research

11:40 Ralph	Morris,	Ramboll	Environ,	BOEM	

Photochemical	Modeling	of	Oil	and	Gas	

Development	in	the	Arctic

Anna	Bryan,	Alaska	Department	of	Fish	and	

Game,	Community	Based	Marine	Mammal	

Research	in	Alaska

12:00	pm LUNCH	(provided)	

SPEAKER:	Brad	Chastain,	Project Services	Manager, Alaska	Gasline	Development	Corporation,

Overview	of	the	Alaska	LNG	Project

1:20	pm	 Concurrent	Technical	Talks	

Tubughnenq’	Room K’enakatnu	Room

1:20 Biological	Observatories	and	Monitoring	

Technical	Talks

Chair: Catherine	Coon, Bureau	of	Ocean	Energy	

Management

Oil	Spill	Technical	Talks	II

Chair: Mark	Everett,	U.S.	Coast	Guard	

District-17

1:20 Richard	Leonard,	National	Ecological	

Observatory	Network,	The	National	Ecological	

Observatory	Network	(NEON):	Data	to	Support	

Natural	Resource	Management

Amy	Merten,	National	Oceanic	and	Atmospheric	

Administration, International	Oil	Spill	Response	

Tool:	Arctic	Environmental	Response	Management	

Application	(ERMA)

1:40 Phil	Osborne,	Golder	Associates,	Integrated	

Beaufort	Observatory

Louis	Poirier, National	Research	Council	of	

Canada,	Beaufort	Sea	Engineering	Database

2:00 Seth	Danielson, University	of	Alaska	Fairbanks,	

AMBON:	 Arctic	Marine	Biodiversity	Observing	

Network	

Suzanne	Chang, Bureau	of	Safety	and	

Environmental	Enforcement, Arctic	Oil	Spill	

Response	Research	at	BSEE

2:20 Tahzay	Jones,	National	Park	Service,	

Development	of	a	Pan-Arctic	Coastal	Monitoring	

Program

Steven	Pearson,	Bureau	of	Safety	and	

Environmental	Enforcement, Arctic	Spill	

Response	Database
5

Thursday, October 12 (continued)

Concurrent	Technical	Talks,	continued

Tubughnenq’	Room K’enakatnu	Room

Biological	Observatories	and	Monitoring	

Technical	Talks, continued

Oil	Spill	Technical	Talks II, continued

2:40 Sue E. Moore, National	Oceanic	and	Atmospheric	

Administration	Fisheries	Office	of	Science	and	

Technology, The	Distributed	Biological	Observatory:	

an	expanding	change	detection	array	for	the	

Beaufort	Sea	and	beyond

Richard	R.	Bernhardt,	Prevention	and	

Emergency	Response	Program,	Alaska	

Department	of	Environmental	Conservation,	

Addressing	Public	Dispersant	Comments	with	

Scientific	Literature	Part	I

3:00 Christian	Zimmerman,	U.S.	Geological	Survey	

Alaska	Science	Center,	Circumpolar	Assessment	of	

Trends	in	Arctic	Freshwater	Biodiversity

Richard	R.	Bernhardt,	Prevention	and	

Emergency	Response	Program, Alaska	

Department	of	Environmental	Conservation,	

Addressing	Public	Dispersant	Comments	with	

Scientific	Literature	Part	II

3:20	pm	 BREAK

4:00	pm Panel:	Shared	Leadership	and	Governance	– Perspectives	from	U.S. and	Canada	

Chair: Mary	Cody,	Bureau	of	Ocean	Energy	Management

• Craig	Fleener, Arctic	Policy	Advisor,	State	of	Alaska	Office	of	the	Governor

• Dale	Nicholson,	Regional	Director, Ecosystems	Management,	Fisheries	and	Oceans	Canada

5:00	pm	 ADJOURN

Friday, October 13

8:30	am	 Panel:	Role	of	Regional	Studies,	Environmental	Assessments	and Cumulative	Effects

Chair: Sharon	Randall,	Chief, Environmental	Assessment, Bureau	of	Ocean	Energy	Management	

• Serena	Sweet, Alaska	Supervisory	Planning & Environmental	Coordinator,	Bureau	of	Land	Management	

• Mark	Miller,	Deputy	Director,	North	Slope	Science	Initiative

• Heather	Rasmussen,	Policy	Advisor, Nunavut	Impact	Review	Board	

• Tim	Fullman,	Senior Ecologist,	The	Wilderness	Society,	Anchorage

9:30 am Science	in	Area-based	Management	Technical	Talks

Chair: Mark	Miller, North	Slope	Science	Initiative

9:30 Thomas	Hoggarth,	Acting	Regional	Director,	Ecosystems	Management,	Central	and	Arctic	Region,	

Fisheries	and	Oceans	Canada,	Marine	Conservation	Targets	in	Canada’s	Marine	Waters

9:50 Paul	Leonard,	Science	Coordinator,	Arctic	Landscape	Conservation	Cooperative, Science-Informed	Land	

Management	Tools	for	Arctic	Alaska	and	Canada

10:10 Cathy	Coon,	Chief,	Environmental	Sciences	Management,	Bureau	of	Ocean	Energy	Management,	Arctic	

Council	Ecosystem	Approach	to	Management
6

Friday, October 13 (continued)

10:30	am	 BREAK

11:00	am	 Panel:	Role	of	Research	in	Regulation

Chair: Cheryl	Rosa, Deputy	Director	U.S.	Arctic	Research	Commission

• James	Kendall, Alaska	Regional	Director, Bureau	of	Ocean	Energy	Management	

• Ryan	Barry, Executive	Director,	Nunavut	Impact	Review	Board

• Greg	Balogh, Anchorage	Supervisor,	Protected	Resources	Division	Alaska	Region	National	Marine	Fisheries	

Service,	National	Oceanic	and	Atmospheric	Administration

12:00	pm	 LUNCH	(on	your	own)

1:20	pm Wrap-up	Panel: What	did	we	learn?	Strategy	for	the	future

• Read	out	from	Panel	and	Session	Chairs	

• Summary	of	2017	Forum	Findings	and	Recommendations

2:00	pm Discussion	with	Audience

2:55	pm Closing	Remarks

3:00	pm Close	of	Forum
Department of the Interior (DOI)

The Department of the Interior protects and manages the Nation's natural 

resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other information about 

those resources; and honors the Nation’s trust responsibilities or special 

commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island 

communities.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)

The mission of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is to manage 

development of U.S. Outer Continental Shelf energy and mineral resources in an 

environmentally and economically responsible way.

BOEM Environmental Studies Program

The mission of the Environmental Studies Program is to provide the information 

needed to predict, assess, and manage impacts from offshore energy and marine 

mineral exploration, development, and production activities on human, marine, 

and coastal environments. The proposal, selection, research, review, 

collaboration, production, and dissemination of each of BOEM’s Environmental 

Studies follows the DOI Code of Scientific and Scholarly Conduct, in support of a 

culture of scientific and professional integrity, as set out in the DOI Departmental 

Manual (305 DM 3).