U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service

Alaska OCS Region

OCS Study

MMS 2003-042

Alaska OCS Region

NINTH INFORMATION TRANSFER MEETING

AND

BARROW INFORMATION UPDATE MEETING

Final Proceedings

March 10, 11, and 12, 2003

Anchorage, Alaska

March 14, 2003

Barrow, Alaska
OCS Study MMS 2003-042

ALASKA OCS REGION

NINTH INFORMATION TRANSFER MEETING

AND

BARROW INFORMATION UPDATE MEETING

Final Proceedings

March 10, 11, and 12, 2003

Anchorage, Alaska

 March 14, 2003

Barrow, Alaska

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service

Alaska OCS Region

949 E. 36th Avenue

Anchorage, Alaska 99508

Under Contract No. 1435-01-02-CT-31150

Prepared by:

MBC Applied Environmental Sciences

3000 Redhill Avenue

Costa Mesa, California 92626

September 2003
-iiDISCLAIMER

This report has been reviewed by the Alaska OCS Region, Minerals Management Service, U. S.

Department of the Interior and approved for publication. The opinions, findings, conclusions, or

recommendations expressed in the report are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the

view of the Minerals Management Service. Mention of trade names for commercial products does not

constitute endorsement or recommendations for use. This report is exempt from review by the

Minerals Management Service Technical Publication Unit and Regional Editor.

REPORT AVAILABILITY

This document is available to the public through:

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, Virginia 22161

FAX: (703) 605-6900

www.ntis.gov

CITATION

Suggested citation:

MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. 2003. Proceedings of the Ninth MMS Information Transfer

Meeting. OCS Study MMS 2003-042. Prepared by MBC Applied Environmental Sciences,

Costa Mesa, CA. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service,

Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, AK. 93 pp. plus attachments.
-iiiTABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION

Cleve Cowles, Ph.D., Chief, Environmental Studies Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Paul Stang, Regional Supervisor, Leasing and Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY

Water and Ice Dynamics in Cook Inlet

Mark Johnson, Andrey Proshutinsky, and Steve Okkonen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Measurements of Temperature, Salinity and Circulation in Cook Inlet, Alaska

Stephen Okkonen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Synthesis and Collection of Meteorological Data in the Near Shore Beaufort Sea

Steve Mackey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

A GIS-based Alaska Sea Ice Atlas

William J. Lee and Orson P. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Nearshore Circulatin onthe Alaskan Beaufort Shelf

Tom Weingartner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Summary of Workshop on Physical Oceanography in the Beaufort Sea

Tom Weingartner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

ARCTIC NEARSHORE IMPACT MONITORING IN DEVELOPMENT AREA

The Minerals Management Service Arctic Nearshore Impact Monitoring in the Development Area

(ANIMIDA) Program: Introduction to a Multi-Year Monitoring Program in the Nearshore

Beaufort Sea*

John Brown and Paul Boehm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

ANIMIDA: Hydrocarbon Chemistry of Sediments and Biota in the Nearshore Beaufort Sea 

John Brown, Paul Boehm, and Linda Cook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

ANIMIDA: Sources, Concentrations, and Dispersion Pathways for Suspended Sediment 

John H. Trefry, Robert P. Trocine and Robert D. Rember . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

ANIMIDA: Partitioning of Potential Contaminants Between Dissolved and Particulate Phases

Robert D. Rember, John H. Trefry and Robert P. Trocine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

ANIMIDA: Linking Water Turbidity and TSS Loading to Kelp Productivity within the Stefansson Sound

Boulder Patch

Ken Dunton, Robert Maffione, and Adrian Burd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

ANIMIDA: Baseline Characterization of Anthropogenic Contaminants in Biota Associated with the Alaska

OCS Liberty and Northstar Oil and Gas Production Units in the Nearshore Beaufort Sea

Robert Spies and Jordan Gold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

FATE AND EFFECTS

A Nowcast/forecast Model for the Beaufort Sea Ice-Ocean-Oil Spill System: Model Development and

Validation

Jia Wang, Meibing Jin, and Bingyi Wu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

The Workshop on Small-scale Sea Ice and Ocean Modeling (SIOM) for Nearshore Beaufort and Chukchi

Seas

Jia Wang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) Classification for the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Coasts

Edward H. Owens and Jacqueline Michel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Petroleum Hydrocarbon Degrading Microbial Communities in Chukchi-Beaufort Sea Sediments

Joan Braddock and Kathleen Gannon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Trace Metals and Hydrocarbons in Sediments of Elson Lagoon (Barrow, Northwest Arctic Alaska) as

Related to Prudhoe Bay Industrial Region*

A. Sathy Naidu, John J. Kelley, John J. Goering, and M. Indira Venkatesan ...................... 35
-ivPage

BIOLOGY

Recently Initiated Coastal Marine Institute Biological/Ecological Studies

Vera Alexander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Modeling Recovery Rates for Avian Populations

James Barry Grand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

PROTECTED SPECIES

Monitoring Beaufort Sea Waterfowl and Marine Birds

Paul Flint, John Reed, Richard Lanctot, and Debbie Lacroix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Importance of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea to King Eiders (Somateria Spectabilis) 

Abby N. Powell, Laura M. Phillips, and Eric J. Taylor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Monitoring the Distribution of Arctic Whales*

Stephen D. Treacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Bowhead Whale Feeding in the Eastern Alaska Beaufort Sea: Upate on Scientific and Traditional

Information*

W. John Richardson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Reference Manual and GIS Geospatial Database of Oil-industry and Other Human Activity (1979-1998) in

the Beaufort Sea

Peter Wainwright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Analysis of Covariance of Human Activities and Sea Ice in Relation to Fall Migrations of Bowhead

Whales

W. John Richardson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Behavior of Ringed Seals and Re-interpretation of Aerial Surveys

Oriana Harding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Detecting Denning Polar Bears with Forward Looking Infra-Red Imagery (FLIR)

S. C. Amstrup, G. Weston-York, T. L. McDonald, R. Nielsen, K. Simac, and G. M. Durner . . . . . . . . . . . 59

The Use of Sea Ice Habitat by Female Polar Bears in the Beaufort Sea*

George M. Durner, Steven C. Amstrup, Ryan Nielson and Trent McDonald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Satellite Tracking of Eastern Chukchi Sea Beluga Whales in the Beaufort Sea and Arctic Ocean

Robert Suydam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

USGS Alaska Tissue Archival Projects: an Update on FY02 Activities

Geoff Weston York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Demography and Behavior of Polar Bears Feeding on Stranded Marine Mammal Carcasses

Susanne Kalxdorff and Kelly Proffitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

SOCIAL SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS

Book/Synthesis of Information on Socioeconomic Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in Alaska

Stephen R. Braund and Jack A. Kruse .................................................... 71

A Description of Potential Impacts of OCS Activities on Bowhead Whale Hunting Activities in the

Beaufort Sea*

John C. Russell and Michael A. Downs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Subsistence Mapping: Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Barrow*

Stephen R. Braund, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

ANIMIDA: Annual Assessment of Subsistence Bowhead Whaling Near Cross Island*

Michael Galginaitis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

The North Slope Economy: 1965 to Present

Patrick Burden and Leah Cuyno . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
-vPage

OTHER

Oil Spills Occurrence in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas Fault-tree Approach

Frank G. Bercha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

MMS North Slope Pipeline GIS

Warren Horowitz, John Eldred, and Doug Ruppert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Seabird Samples as Resources for Marine Environment Assessment**

Deb Rocque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Arctic Cisco**

Craig George . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Bob Fechhelm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Cleve Cowles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of the Alaska OCS Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Figure 2. Beaufort Sea Oil and Gas Leasing Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 3. Northstar Island, looking north, September 2001 ............................................ 6

Figure 4. Cook Inlet Oil and Gas Activity ......................................................... 7

Attachments

I Agendas

Information Transfer Meeting in Anchorage

Information Update Meeting in Barrow

II Attendee Lists

Information Transfer Meeting in Anchorage

Information Update Meeting in Barrow

* Presentation also given at the Barrow Information Update Meeting.

** Presentation only given at the Barrow Information Update Meeting.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

1

INTRODUCTION TO THE MMS INFORMATION TRANSFER MEETING AND

THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM

Cleve Cowles, Ph.D.

Chief, Environmental Studies Program

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 E. 36th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99508

Good Morning. Welcome to the MMS Alaska OCS Region Environmental Study Program’s 9th Information

Transfer Meeting. The Fur Rondy sprint races were canceled and the Iditarod went somewhere else to start this year,

but you can always count on an MMS ITM this time of year. Once again it is a pleasure to see so many familiar faces,

not only of Principal Investigators eager to give their presentations, but also those of you representing diverse agencies

and groups who follow the progress of the Alaska environmental studies.

For those of you don’t know me, my name is Cleve Cowles and I’m Chief of the Environmental Studies Section

for the MMS Alaska OCS Region. As most of you are aware, the essence of the MMS mission is to manage offshore

oil and gas leasing, exploration and development in an environmentally sound and safe manner. The Environmental

Studies Program seeks to support those goals in a variety of ways. Most importantly, we are seeking to obtain and move

quality science in a timely and useful format into MMS decision processes.

The specific goals of this 9th Information Transfer Meeting include:

1. To provide and exchange information obtained by the Environmental Studies Program in Alaska openly.

Particularly to provide an opportunity for Alaska Region Environmental Assessment analysts, and the public,

to refresh familiarity with the progress and results of various studies thereby enhancing use of the information.

2. Sharing and integrating information with that of other agencies, researchers, and the public, particularly that

which is relevant to Outer Continental Shelf decision making.

3. Obtaining additional input from attendees regarding potential study topics or information exchange useful

to MMS decision making.

In the past I have used this introductory moment to talk about the Environmental Studies participatory planning

process, interagency coordination and cooperation, other functions, and accomplishments. Since this is all a matter of

easily accessible record on our web site, in the 8th ITM report released in 2001, and in the interest of time, I will forego

the details today. Suffice it to say that our program has been quite successful in achieving the our goals due to our basic

foundation of staying focused on our mission, seeking to do quality and timely science, and considering and respecting

local communities and their role in the studies process. We also coordinate and cooperate with other programs as much

as possible. 

Currently MMS supports more than 45 ongoing Alaska OCS studies in diverse disciplines, a major portion of

which are cooperatively funded or have in-kind partners. Many of the cooperative studies are co-funded and managed

under the MMS/University of Alaska Fairbanks Coastal Marine Institute which is a multi-year cooperative cost-sharing

agreement designed to obtain the benefits from the world-class scientific expertise available at the UAF. We have a

number of other interagency agreements with other research organizations offering specific capabilities in needed areas.

Additional information has been included in your packet along with the agenda. There’s a summary of

Environmental Studies Program purposes, list of all ongoing studies, list of recent reports, and a form which can be used

to capture your ideas and hypotheses for testing. Please feel free to drop those off at the registration desk for our

consideration.

Each session of the meeting will be co-chaired by at least one or more of the MMS Environmental Studies staff

scientists who will help to introduce speakers and relevancy of topics. They can be identified by their spiffy name tag
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

2

with the “Session Chair” red lettered label. Please feel free to ask both PI’s and our staff any questions you might have,

there will be Q and A periods at the end of the presentations.

There are a few special welcomes I’d like to mention this morning. First, we are very pleased that Dr. Mike

Castellini, UAF, will be representing the MMS Scientific Committee. The MMS Scientific Committee provides our

program with advice on the appropriateness and quality of the scientific activities within the Environmental Studies

Program at regional and national level. 

Also, we will be welcoming Dr. Vera Alexander, Director of the MMS/UAF cooperative Coastal Marine

Institute who will be presenting later today. We appreciate the technical vision Dr. Alexander brings to the CMI steering

committee and the UAF scientists’expertise she encourages. We are entering our 11th year for the CMI and Dr.

Alexander’s leadership has been most helpful.

Mr. Mark Shasby, Chief Biology and Geography of the USGS’ Alaska Science Center is here. The center

provides interagency research capabilities to MMS, and I’d like to acknowledge Biological Resource Division’s

contribution to our knowledge.

Mr. George Valiuis, from our Headquarters Environmental Division, has come all the way from Herndon,

Virginia, thank you for coming George. 

Also I’d like to welcome from the North Slope Borough Todd O’Hara and Robert Suydam, who will be giving

a presentation later. We appreciate your comments and cooperation through a number of CMI cooperative projects,

thank you. 

And now, it is with great pleasure that I introduce Mr. Paul Stang, Regional Supervisor, Alaska MMS Office

of Leasing and Environment who without hesitation agreed to speak about “Alaska OCS Activities and Environmental

Assessment Processes”.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

3

Figure 1. Map of the Alaska OCS Planning Areas.

MMS ALASKA OCS REGION MISSION AND CURRENT MANDATES

Paul Stang

Regional Supervisor, Leasing and Environment

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 E. 36th Avenue

Anchorage, AK 99508

The MMS mission is to manage the mineral resources on the outer Continental Shelf in an environmentally

sound and safe manner and to timely collect, verify, and distribute mineral revenues from federal and Indian lands

(Figure 1).

Under the OCS Lands Act, the MMS is mandated to “preserve, protect, and develop oil and natural gas

resources of the OCS in a manner that is consistent with the need 

a) to make such resources available to meeting the nation’s energy needs as rapidly as possible;

b) to balance orderly energy development with protection of the human, marine, and coastal

environments; and 

c) to ensure the public a fair and equitable return on the resources of the OCS..."
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

4

In striking a balance, we consider, among other things, the very high and still increasing dependence of our National

economy on foreign oil; the importance of Alaska production, approximately 17% of US production; the national

mandates and growing international emphasis on environmental protection; effects on Alaska natives and other residents

along the coast, and concerns about effects of Arctic climate change and cumulative effects.

MMS implements these mandates through:

1) the conduct of environmental and socio-economic studies; 

2) the preparation of lease-sale schedule; 

3) the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements in accordance with National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA); 

4) attention to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA); 

5) conduct of specific lease sales; 

6) timely review and response to industry proposals for exploration or development; and 

7) regulatory and safety role of Field Operations.

The first of these is the foundation for the rest of our mandates. Your role in that is critical. Cleve and his staff

with your help and that of our Scientific Advisory Committee and others have built a solid foundation. 

MMS also coordinates with others such as the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) in their oversight of the National

Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Biological resources Division of US

Geological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine

Fisheries Service, US Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies, as well as state agencies with

responsibility for near shore waters and onshore lands, local municipalities, Cook Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory

Committee (CIRCAC), North Slope Borough (NSB), the boroughs of Cook Inlet, tribes, Native corporations, lessees,

etc . 

MMS stresses public involvement in most all of our processes. We actively solicit participation and give long

lead-times for lease sales, environmental assessments, and approval actions 

Conferences such as this help us achieve that balance.

Pre-lease Considerations in Alaska

The most important use of our environmental and socio-economic studies in the pre-lease process is for

environmental impact statements.

The 5-Year Program, officially the Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program 2002-2007,

proposes lease sales:

Beaufort Sea Sales in 2003, 2005 and 2007

Cook Inlet Sales in 2004 and 2006

Chukchi/Hope Basin Special Interest Sales in 2004 and 2007

Norton Basin Special Interest Sale in 2004

Chukchi/Hope and Norton Planning Areas will be offered for nomination annually 2003-2007 to determine

in companies have interest in specifics parts of these planning areas.

The status of EIS’s is:

Beaufort Sea FEIS was issued 2/03

Cook Inlet Multi-sale DEIS was issued 12/02
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

5

Steps of the 2-year pre-lease process are:

Call, Area ID, Scoping, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Public Hearings, Final Environmental Impact

Statement/PNOS, Final Environmental Impact Statement, FNOS, Sale 

An important outcome of the scoping/EIS process is development of mitigation measures, including lease

stipulations.

Post-lease Considerations in Alaska

Not all information needs can be filled prior to a sale. In the post-lease phase, MMS acquires additional

information for environmental analyses related to development and production in the post-lease phase environmental

analyses. Thus, an increasing number of studies have become more closely related to development schedules and

monitoring and evaluation in addition to those broader studies related to the pre-lease phase. As with the pre-lease phase,

the wide range of environmental conditions from Cook Inlet to the Arctic and planning lead times are accounted for in

the process of formulating new studies for the Annual Studies Plan.

Post-lease activities that raise issues and require environmental data and assessment are:

Geophysical surveys.

Exploration drilling.

Development, construction, and production activity.

Oil transportation, including pipelines and tankers.

Lease termination or expiration (platform abandonment).

An important part of the post-lease phase is enforcement of stipulations on leases, most of which relate to

protection of the environment and/or mitigation of potential environmental effects.

As of February 2003, exploration, artificial-island construction and abandonment, unitization agreements, and

including suspension of leases have occurred on the Alaska OCS. 

In the Beaufort Planning Area, 716 tracts have been leased in eight OCS Lease Sales between 1979 and 1998.

Currently, 42 leases are active (Figure 2). Thirty one exploratory wells have been drilled and 11 were determined to be

producible.

The BP Northstar development project is located about 10 miles north of Prudhoe Bay (Figures 2 and 3). While

the Northstar Island is in State waters, 6 to 7 wells will be on the OCS. The project was approved by the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers in May 1999 and by MMS in September 1999. Construction started in the winter of 2000.

Production started the last day of October 2001. Recoverable reserves are estimated at 158 million barrels of oil, with

peak daily production estimated at 65,000 barrels per day. This is the first production from the Alaska OCS. 

In winter 1998 BPXA proposed development of the Liberty Unit in Foggy Island Bay (Figure 2). It is located

about 6 miles east of the State Endicott Project. Recoverable reserves are estimated at 120 million barrels of oil. In

January 2002, BPXA put the Liberty project on hold, but because the Final Environmental Impact Statement was

essentially complete, MMS issued it a few months later. BP is considering submitting a new development plan for

Liberty later this year.

AEC Oil and Gas (USA), Inc., drilled an exploration well on the McCovey prospect near Cross Island in

December 2002 (Figure 2). The firm plugged and abandoned it in February 2003.

The only other active leases are in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. Cook Inlet Lease Sale 149 was held in June

1997 and generated two leases (Figure 4).
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

6

Figure 2. Beaufort Sea Oil and Gas Leasing Activity.

Figure 3. Northstar Island, looking north, September 2001. Production started November 2001.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

7

Figure 4. Cook Inlet Oil and Gas Activity.

No leases are active from previous lease sales in the Chukchi Sea or Hope Basin portions of the Arctic Subregion, or in the Bering Sea or Gulf of Alaska Subregions (Figure 1)..

Conclusion

In conclusion, I would especially like to welcome those attending from other organizations, the public, and all

the invited speakers. For the invited speakers I wish to express my thanks for your work towards making this meeting

a success. We look forward to your presentations.
PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY

9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

11

WATER AND ICE DYNAMICS IN COOK INLET

Mark Johnson1, Andrey Proshutinsky2, and Steve Okkonen1

1

Institute of Marine Science

University of Alaska

Fairbanks, AK 99775

E-mail: johnson@ims.uaf.edu, okkonen@ims.uaf.edu 2

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Woods Hole, MA 02543

E-mail: aproshutinsky@whoi.edu

Our goal is to investigate the dynamics of the water and ice in Cook Inlet using a high resolution numerical

model, satellite-tracked drifting buoys, and satellite imagery. We focus on mapping the tide rips to understand their

temporal and spatial variability. Drifting buoys are currently under construction and will be deployed in early Spring

and tracked through late Fall. Data will be transmitted to the ARGOS satellite system along with global positioning

system (GPS) data to give highly accurate position information. In the winter, satellite imagery will allow us to track

ice motion to evaluate the rip location. 

We start with the conceptual model that Cook Inlet behaves as a simple fluid with salty fluid on one side and

fresher fluid on the other with the front separating them defining the rip zones. Our working hypothesis is that the

vertical structure of the rips migrates horizontally with the flood and the ebb tides. We also recognize that high

resolution models are needed in order to reproduce tidal currents and surface elevations in Cook Inlet. We are currently

evaluating the existing bathymetry data sets to ensure that our model uses the best available data for Cook Inlet.

The model will begin with tidal forcing and determine how well the rips are simulated. Model results will be

validated by comparing model output to the drifter tracks. Model results will also provide information to predict zones

of significant sediment transport known to exist in many areas of the Cook Inlet floor that may affect placement and

safety of submarine power and telecommunications cables and oil and gas pipelines.

In this presentation we will review some of the historical information from Cook Inlet, present our research

plan, and invite comments from interested stakeholders.

Discussion

Susan Saupe: What kind of resolution will you be able to incorporate into the model using the CODAR technology?

Mark Johnson: The CODAR technology gives surface current velocity. The CODAR system deployed now and will

be removed in the next two months.

Dick Prentki: Where are you getting the bathymetry data from?

Mark Johnson: It's a proprietary data set. We're combining data from sets purchased by UAF and developing new sets

as well.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

12

MEASUREMENTS OF TEMPERATURE, SALINITY AND CIRCULATION

 IN COOK INLET, ALASKA

Stephen Okkonen, Ph.D.

Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska Fairbanks

P.O. Box 1025, Kasilof, AK 99610

(907) 283-3234, E-mail: okkonen@ims.uaf.edu

Temperature and salinity were measured in central and lower Cook Inlet, Alaska during the spring and fall of

2002 to assess seasonal changes in frontal characteristics, improve understanding of variability of the local

density-driven circulation, and to provide measurements for validation of numerical circulation/oil spill trajectory

models. These hydrographic measurements showed that there is a spring-to-fall freshening of ~ 1.5 psu in the lower

inlet and ~ 3 psu in the central inlet. Frontal gradients were also observed to be stronger during the fall than in the

spring. Multiple hydrographic observations along a fixed transect showed that the inclination of the middle rip front

decreased during the flood tide, which had the effect of diminishing the speed and vertical extent of the

southward-flowing baroclinic jet. Also during the flood tide, average temperature decreased ~ 0.5 °C and the average

salinity increased ~ 1.3 psu. 

The spring and fall hydrographic surveys showed that significant freshening of the inlet occurs during the

intervening months. The addition of fresh water to the inlet strengthens the gradients of three main fronts–the west,

middle, and east rip fronts–and promotes southward extension of the west rip beyond the Anchor Point line.

Northward-flowing baroclinic currents occur in association with the west and east rip fronts, whereas a

southward-flowing baroclinic current occurs in association with the middle rip front. The west and east rip currents will

locally augment the barotropic tide during the flood and act in opposition during the ebb. Conversely, the middle rip

current will locally oppose the barotropic tide during the flood and locally augment the barotropic tide during the ebb.

The most significant hydrographic response observed during the transition from flood tide to ebb tide was the

structural change of the middle rip front. During the flood tide, the surface portion of the front migrated eastward (#

2 n mi), whereas the bottom portion of the front migrated westward (# 2 n mi) and shoaled, thereby reducing the overall

inclination and depth of the middle rip front. The baroclinic geostrophic response to this frontal adjustment was a

reduction in the speed and vertical extent of the southward-flowing middle rip jet. Flood-to-ebb variation in the

magnitude of the west rip and east rip baroclinic currents was also observed.

The interaction between the baroclinic currents and barotropic tidal currents result in a local current regime

that is well known to local commercial salmon fisherman. That is, the onset of northward surface flow near the middle

rip front lags the onset of northward surface flow near the eastern beaches in the central inlet and that southward-flowing

surface currents near the middle rip are typically faster than southward-flowing currents near the beach. 

The hydrographic results presented above indicate that temperature and salinity (buoyancy) effects at seasonal

to semidiurnal time scales need to be included in Cook Inlet numerical oil spill trajectory models to improve their

forecasting skill. The large observed changes in salinity between the Drift River/Kenai transects and the Forelands and,

to a lesser extent, between Humpy Point and Ninilchik suggest that additional hydrographic surveys in these locations

would improve understanding of these dynamic subregions.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

13

SYNTHESIS AND COLLECTION OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA

IN THE NEAR SHORE BEAUFORT SEA

Steve Mackey

Hoefler Consulting Group

701 Sesame Street, Suite 200

Anchorage, AK 99503

(907) 563-2137, FAX (907) 563-2164, E-mail: smackey@hoeflernet.com

The goals of this study are to collect new meteorological data from the deployment of meteorological stations

and to collect historical meteorological data from the Beaufort Sea region subject to immediate development. This study

provides a comprehensive time-series of wind data for MMS modelers and researchers for use in their ongoing modeling

of the nearshore Beaufort Sea. Meteorological data are collected at both offshore and nearshore locations to provide data

for MMS models, such as the Coastal Zone Oil Spill Model (COZOIL), the MMS oil weathering model, or the nearshore

circulation model. The project now includes a total of five meteorological monitoring stations. Four new meteorological

stations were established for this study at Badami, Endicott, Northstar, and Milne Point in January 2001. To address

concerns about wind data collected at Northstar, a fifth meteorological station was installed on Cottle Island in August

2002. The observed parameters for this study are wind speed, wind direction, air temperature, barometric pressure,

relative humidity, and solar radiation. All parameters are monitored continuously. Collected data is processed and

downloaded every working day to an Anchorage-based server. The data are then reviewed and posted to a web site that

is available for public access. The web site address is www.resdat.com/mms/. Data collection is now scheduled to

continue through October 2004. This presentation will summarize the first two years of the study (2001 and 2002).

Discussion

George Valiulis: During the open water season, and with regard to the windrose, which way is the predominant wind

direction? It could have important implications to oil spills.

Steve Mackey: In general, these stations exhibit a bi-directional flow. A vector analysis would likely result in a low

average wind speed because wind from the East-Northeast can somewhat cancel out wind from the West-Southwest.

However, we are still analyzing the data and haven’t specifically looked at only the open water periods.

Tom Newbury: The McCovey operation is now abandoned, that is to say the rig is no longer being used. Is it possible

to acquire wind data from there?

Steve Mackey: A weather station was run there by the McCovey operators, we should be receiving that data soon.

Compiling historical wind data requires cooperation with the facilities, that is a lot of negotiations are necessary in order

to use the station.

Jia Wang: What time intervals did you use in recording the data?

Steve Mackey: Hourly averages are being recorded, 8760 hours per year for two years. An exception is barometric

pressure, which is recorded only at the top of the hours. All data are available on the website per hour and the data

capture rate is over 90%.

Unidentified: How were data collected here varies with respect to the Deadhorse data.

Steve Mackey: We got similar data from the wind roses for QA.

Ken Dunton: What are the units for solar radiation? What about calibration?

Steve Mackey: Watts per meter squared. The manufacturer guarantees the calibration for two years.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

14

Steve Treacy: You said offshore winds are less than onshore winds, but when we fly over Barrow we find the opposite

to be true. Can you comment on the difference?

Steve Mackey: That covers outside the immediate range. The area is defined by Northstar and Liberty; Badami is the

only unit that's quite a way inland.

Warren Horowitz: The website, www.resdat.com/mms, is intended for public access. We have provided access to other

researchers so that they may have access to the data for their research needs.

Ed Owens: In 2001 we had a meteorological station in Harrison Bay, on the west side of the Colville Delta. Data were

collected hourly. If you would like the data to compare to your sites, I’m sure it could be available.

Steve Mackey: Yes, we would be interested in obtaining the data, and if Conoco Phillips collected it, I’m sure they

would share it. Conoco Phillips has already provided us with two sets of data.

Mark Savoie: Have you looked at onshore/offshore open water versus the winter time? Minerals Management Service

funded some work that showed onshore winds larger during the winter.

Steve Mackey: No significant conclusions as of yet. There didn't appear to be a drastically different wind speed, we're

putting together graphics showing wind speed on a month to month basis.

A GIS-BASED ALASKA SEA ICE ATLAS

William J. Lee1 and Orson P. Smith2

University of Alaska Anchorage, School of Engineering

3211 Providence Drive

Anchorage, AK 99508

(907) 786-1900, 1

E-mail: 1aswjl3@uaa.alaska.edu; 2 afops@uaa.alaska.edu

A GIS-based atlas of sea ice conditions in the territorial waters of Alaska has been created. It updates

previously printed ice atlases and provides risk analysis information for engineers and resource managers. The Alaska

Sea Ice Atlas includes a comprehensive collection of georeferenced digital historical data on Alaska sea ice and other

environmental factors that bear directly on ice processes and conditions. Historical ice reports of the US National Ice

Center form the foundation of the database of ice conditions. This information is supplemented by ice data from the US

National Weather Service and other sources. The Alaska Sea Ice Atlas incorporates tools for analysis and mapping of

sea ice effects on ships and fixed structures. These products are delivered via a customized implementation of ArcView

GIS and at a public web site that is enhances with ArcIMS map services. There is also an Internet searchable collection

of meteorological data developed from the National Climatic Data Center's first and second order station databases. The

Alaska Sea Ice Atlas is a major improvement in the ability to access and analyze the vast amount of spatial data on sea

ice that is available.

Discussion

Steve Treacy: Have you correlated any of the sea atlas data?

Bill Lee: The Atlas presents ice information that is the product of extensive correlations of multiple ice records by the

U.S. National Ice Center. We transformed National Ice Center weekly summaries for web presentation and statistical

treatment.

Frank Bercha: What did you modify ice data in?
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

15

Bill Lee: Canadian Ice Numeral System. This was designed to be done as a hand written process, but we had

non-navigable regimes and need to develop a way to apply the same thinking to the existing process. The higher the

number the less navigable the regime for a particular class of ship. The quantity and quality is based on Canadian

applications.

NEARSHORE CIRCULATION ON THE ALASKAN BEAUFORT SHELF

Steve Okkonen, Ph.D., and Tom Weingartner , Ph.D.

Institute of Marine Sciences

University of Alaska Fairbanks

Fairbanks, AK 99775

(907) 474-7993, FAX (907) 474-7204, E-mail: weingart@ims.uaf.edu

Presented by Steve Okkonen.

We measured current velocity, temperature, salinity, and transmissivity (a proxy for suspended sediment load)

at hourly intervals for three years at from 3-4 mooring sites in the nearshore region of the Beaufort Sea near Prudhoe

Bay. The primary purpose of the program was to measure under-ice and open water currents for evaluating oil-spill

trajectories and sedimentation risk in this nearshore environment. Mean currents are westward but weak (~2 cm s-1)

and polarized in the along-shore direction. The mean currents vary little in magnitude seasonally, although there are two

distinct seasonal circulation regimes. The open water/loose ice regime lasts from early July through mid-October during

which time the currents are swift, highly variable, and significantly correlated with the alongshore winds. Current speeds

typically exceeded 10 cm-s-1 and maximum currents can exceed 100 cm-s-1. Landfast ice covers the region from

mid-October through the end of June. Mean currents at this time were also feeble (~1 cm-s-1) with current variations

primarily tidal. Less than 1% of the current speeds exceeded 20 cm-s-1 and less than 10% of the current speeds exceeded

10 cm-s-1. Although semi-diurnal tidal variations account for the bulk of the current variations, the largest currents are

associated with subtidal current fluctuations with periods of 4 - 10 days, but are not correlated with local winds. Currents

are horizontally coherent throughout the year over the 35 km separating the moorings. Vertical current shears are weak

beneath the landfast ice, but can be significant during the spring freshet when river plumes spread beneath the ice and

on occasion during the open-water period. Acoustic backscatter suggests that the under-ice plumes are ~1.5 m and salt

conservation budgets suggest that the plume salinity is <5 psu. Vertical salinity gradients can be ~28 psu/m. There are

no significant sources of kinetic energy available for mixing when the landfast ice is present. Substantial offshore

currents (~10 cm/s) are associated with the underice plume. The results suggest that the river plume and its associated

suspended load could be carried at least 20 km offshore during the duration of the spring freshet and prior to the breakup

of the landfast ice. Once the landfast ice melts mixing the plumes can be easily mixed by the winds, although the rapidity

with which this is accomplished depends critically on the wind speed.

The transmissivity data indicates a frequently turbid nearshore environment during the open water season with

re-suspension events occurring during storms. The suspended sediment load diminishes when landfast ice forms, but

there are frequent events during which sediment is either re-suspended or advected from elsewhere through the region.

Under-ice river plumes carry an enormous sediment load as transmissivity values attained minimum values during the

spring freshet in June but before the landfast ice melted. The results suggest that sediments settle rapidly beneath the

landfast ice and then are re-suspended and transported after the ice melts.

Discussion

Ed Owens: What date did the data collection begin?

Steve Okkonen: In mid August of 1999, then we returned in late August 2000, recovered moorings, and redeployed.

The moorings were finally removed in August 2002.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

16

Ken Dunton: Is there movement during the summer coastal-in winter, pulsing is sometimes related to storms-is there

a pulsing effect that goes on during storms?

Steve Okkonen: There are a couple moorings with pressure sensors, but no correlation with pressure per say. But we

suggest looking at a time derivative. In the first year of deployment during ice cover period a net onshore or offshore

flow of 1 cm/s (very slow).

SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP ON PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY IN THE BEAUFORT SEA

Tom Weingartner , Ph.D.

Institute of Marine Sciences

University of Alaska Fairbanks

Fairbanks, AK 99775

(907) 474-7993, FAX (907) 474-7204, E-mail: weingart@ims.uaf.edu

Presented by Steve Okkonen.

This report summarizes the results of a 2.5-day workshop on the physical oceanography of the Alaskan

Beaufort Sea, held in Fairbanks, Alaska in February 2003. The workshop reviewed knowledge of the physical

oceanography of the Beaufort shelf and recommended studies to support Minerals Management Service's mission with

respect to industrial development on this shelf or along the coast. There are fundamental unknowns pertaining to the

ocean and ice circulation, ocean density field, and the forcing mechanisms that influence sea ice and ocean dynamics.

The study recommendations consist of a mix of field (observational) and idealized model studies to improve

understanding of poorly understood physical processes and boundary conditions and to provide data sets necessary for

the proper evaluation of regional pollutant transport models. Critical issues requiring study are the:

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

distribution and deformation fields,

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

3. controls exerted on the circulation and water property fields by the lateral ocean boundaries of the Alaskan

Beaufort Sea: the Chukchi shelf (western boundary), the Canadian Beaufort shelf (eastern boundary), and the

shelfbreak and continental slope (offshore boundary), and

4. shelf/slope bathymetry

These topics affect the time and space scales of the ice and ocean circulation, which have not been

well-resolved in the Beaufort Sea. Consequently, the recommended studies are also designed to delineate the major

scales of spatial and temporal variability.

Discussion

Steve Treacy: Although there was no meteorological station farther out, the conclusion was that winds diminish from

onshore to offshore. An offshore station might generate a totally different result. For instance, we often see a lee effect

on the nearshore areas.

Steve Okkonen: Along the coast winds are relatively high and weaker farther offshore. This applies to large-scale

circulation models. Large climatologies on a very coarse scale underestimate nearshore winds along the coast. Winds

that are relatively higher near the coast are associated with sea breeze or land breeze effects.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

17

Ken Dunton: If you trace the path of Bering Sea water, the nearshore is different than what's going on offshore. In the

future, you might look at signatures to try to determine where some of these water masses are moving. Can you collect

information on water without moorings?

Steve Okkonen: In the nearshore, temperatures are pretty flat, although outside the barrier islands what is happening

is questionable. Mark Savoie has done CTD casts outside the barrier islands.

ARCTIC NEARSHORE IMPACT MONITORING

IN DEVELOPMENT AREA (ANIMIDA)

9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

21

THE MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE ARCTIC NEARSHORE IMPACT MONITORING IN THE

DEVELOPMENT AREA (ANIMIDA) PROGRAM: INTRODUCTION TO 

A MULTI-YEAR MONITORING PROGRAM IN THE NEARSHORE BEAUFORT SEA

John Brown and Paul Boehm, Ph.D.

Battelle, 255 Bear Hill Rd. Waltham, MA 02451 

(781) 895-4862, FAX (781) 895-1506, E-mail: boehmp@battelle.org 

This presentation was also given at the Barrow IUM.

Offshore oil and gas development and production activities have been initiated at Northstar Island and are

proposed for the coming years at a modified Liberty prospect site in the nearshore Beaufort Sea. There is concern about

the long-term effects of these developments, as well as, long-term effects of any development associated with future

offshore lease sales and exploration activities. Historical chemical and physical data have been collected in the region

over several decades. Nevertheless, the sensitivity of the region adjacent to Northstar and Liberty, and the highly

variable and complex environmental conditions, make further monitoring necessary. In response to interagency reviews

of related environmental impact statements (EISs) and development and production plans, the U.S. Department of

Interior, Minerals Management Service (MMS) initiated the ANIMIDA Program as a long-term study for monitoring

potential impacts of the Northstar and Liberty developments. ANIMIDA Phase I was started in June 1999 and included

hydrocarbon and metals chemistry measurements in sediment and tissue samples, as well as acoustic measurements

adjacent to the Northstar and Liberty sites. Phase II of the ANIMIDA Program was initiated in July 2000 and

incorporates seven tasks including hydrocarbon and metal chemistry studies, suspended sediment studies, an assessment

of subsistence whaling at Cross Island, biota contaminant assessment, and a study of the "boulder patch" area. An

overview of the ANIMIDA Program status to date will be presented. 

Discussion from the Barrow IUM

Cleve Cowles: Commented on the involvement of the North Slope Borough in Phase I and extended appreciation for

their help in defining the important issues. Minerals Management Service web site has summary information.

Craig George: You talked about moderate PCB levels in some fish–which species and,– size class; and how do you

define moderate?

John Brown: A total PCB concentration from several hundred parts per billion (ppb) would be considered moderate.

The highest concentrations were in the four horn sculpin (single outlier) and we didn't look at age class. The next highest

was the Arctic cod and most of them were 4.0 to 5.0 cm (total length)-so not large. Next were whitefish and at the

bottom were Arctic cisco and several flounders.

Craig George: Can you put that in perspective compared to the lower 48?

John Brown: Total PCB concentrations in bluefish can be about 5.0 to 10.0 ppm, about 100-500 times higher. As far

as other Alaska fish, few studies have been done on PCBs, except for sculpin, whose levels were low, cisco

concentrations were also low averaging about 1.0 to 3.0 parts per billion (ppb). Levels were about the same range in

other Alaska fishes.

Harry Brower Jr.: Have you made any predictions using these results? Do you need information to make predictions

or has Minerals Management Service made any predictions?

John Brown: Predictions for Northstar thus far haven't caused any discernable measurable increase in contaminants in

the area. In over three years post-construction, there has been no indication of an increased amount of contaminants.

We have sediments with hydrocarbons and metals in them, but the concentrations are of variable levels and they do not

pose a risk to the biota. We're just getting data on fish contaminants now-no conclusions thus far.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

22

Unidentified: Since the settling of the island has there been erosion?

John Brown: We're not looking at erosion.

Todd O'Hara: The Department of Environmental Conservation is regulated by the state and the Army Corps of

Engineers have looked at erosion.

ANIMIDA: HYDROCARBON CHEMISTRY OF SEDIMENTS AND BIOTA

IN THE NEARSHORE BEAUFORT SEA

John Brown1, Paul Boehm, Ph.D.1, and Linda Cook2

1

Battelle, 255 Bear Hill Rd. Waltham, MA 02451, 2 ICF Consulting, Cambridge, MA 02140

(781) 895-4847, FAX (781) 895-1506, E-mail: brownjs@battelle.org 

Hydrocarbon chemistry is one component of the multidisciplinary MMS ANIMIDA Program. The hydrocarbon

chemistry study has focused on sediments and biota (clams and amphipods) from the nearshore Beaufort Sea. During

the 1999 and 2000 summer field seasons surface sediments and biota were collected from stations throughout the study

area, including site specific stations adjacent to the Northstar and Liberty prospects. In the summer of 2001 sediment

core samples were collected from suspected depositional areas to evaluate the historical record of nearshore sediments.

The samples were analyzed for a full suite of hydrocarbons useful in determining petroleum contamination, including:

saturated hydrocarbons, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and chemical biomarkers (steranes and triterpanes).

The hydrocarbon data are being used to develop a monitoring database that can identify potential trends and inputs of

petroleum contamination in the region and the development areas. 

The 1999 hydrocarbon data serve as an important pre-development baseline for the Northstar and Liberty area.

The 1999 results reveal that the area sediments generally contain low levels of naturally occurring background

hydrocarbons, consistent with historical data from 1989 and earlier Beaufort Sea Monitoring Programs. However, there

were two stations where small increases in petroleum hydrocarbons, likely due to anthropogenic inputs, were identified

in the 1999 data set. The hydrocarbon levels in clams and amphipods were very low, and within the range of past

studies. The 2000 data from the study area generally revealed no differences in sediment hydrocarbon concentrations

or composition between the 1999 and 2000 data sets, and very trace levels of hydrocarbons in area biota. However, a

subset of Northstar stations showed an increase in several key hydrocarbon parameters from 1999 to 2000. Detailed

evaluation of the Northstar station data indicated that the observed trend showed no shift to anthropogenic hydrocarbon

inputs, and was likely a function of the depletion of fine-grained sediments (and associated hydrocarbons) in 1999 due

to storm activity, and not due to the development at Northstar Island. The 2001 sediment core results revealed low

sedimentation rates in the study area (~0.1 cm/year to no recent deposition), supporting previous findings that the overall

nearshore study area is a net erosional environment. The data from a subset of sediment cores where deposition rates

can be well established, generally show uniform levels and distributions of background hydrocarbons extending back

some 50 years and greater, with no discernable increases from recent offshore development activities. 

The overall hydrocarbon data set can also be compared to sediment quality guidelines to gain a preliminary

assessment of potential adverse effects to biota. No exceedences of petroleum hydrocarbon sediment quality guidelines

have been noted thus far (1999 through 2001). Preliminary results from the 2002 field season reveal hydrocarbon levels

in sediment and biota within the range of previous years, and no exceedences of sediment quality guidelines. 
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

23

ANIMIDA: SOURCES, CONCENTRATIONS, AND DISPERSION PATHWAYS

FOR SUSPENDED SEDIMENT 

John H. Trefry, Ph.D., Robert P. Trocine and Robert D. Rember, Ph. D.

 Department of Marine & Environmental Systems, Florida Institute of Technology

Melbourne, FL 32901

(321) 674-7305, FAX (321) 674-7212, E-mail: jtrefry@fit.edu

The concentrations and composition of suspended sediment in the coastal Beaufort Sea directly influence

penetration of light in the water column and the transport and fate of potential contaminants. The work described here

was designed to determine the amounts and composition of suspended sediment carried to the Beaufort Sea by local

rivers and to determine the concentrations, composition, distribution patterns and fate of suspended sediment in the

coastal Beaufort Sea, especially in areas influenced by offshore activities. 

The Sagavanirktok, Kuparuk and Colville rivers were sampled intensely during the spring breakup of 2001

and 2002 and again during summer. More than half the annual load of suspended sediment is carried by these rivers in

two to three weeks. For example, concentrations of total suspended solids (TSS) in the Sagavanirktok River increased

within 10 days from ~40 mg/L to 600 mg/L on June 12, 2001, and then decreased to ~30 mg/L by June 18. During late

July and August 2001, concentrations of TSS were ~2 mg/L. For the Sagavanirktok River, we calculate a total annual

sediment transport of ~0.25 million metric tons per year. Previous estimates for the Colville River are 5-10 million

metric tons of sediment per year. These inputs can be compared with ~1.6 million metric tons of sand and gravel used

to construct Northstar Island (800,000 yd3

 x 0.76 m3/yd3 x 2.6 metric tons/m3 = 1.6 million metric tons). 

Suspended sediment carried by rivers during break-up flows out over and under the 2-m thick ice that covers

the Beaufort Sea during June. At the mouth of the Sagavanirktok River, concentrations of TSS averaged ~40 mg/L in

a 2-m thick lens of freshwater immediately under the ice that extended ~20 km offshore. This suspended sediment was

rich in fine-grained aluminosilicates (clays) as shown by levels of Al and other metals. The trapped lens of turbid,

freshwater moves riverine sediment well offshore before being deposited. 

During the brief open-water season, turbidity in the coastal Beaufort Sea is directly related to wind speed and

duration. For example, TSS levels >100 mg/L (turbidity >50 NTU) were observed following a 6-day, >25-knot storm

in 1999 relative to TSS levels as low as ~2 mg/L (1 NTU) in calm waters, sheltered by floating ice. Transects made by

towing a turbidimeter-CTD package around Northstar Island showed uniform levels of turbidity (at ~2.5 NTU in August

2001) just above the pycnocline at a water depth of 1.5 m. The turbidity decreased below the pycnocline to 1.2-1.5 NTU.

No significant deviations in levels of turbidity were observed during 2000 and 2001 along various transects adjacent

to the island at distances as close as 100-500 m. Sedimentation rates in the study area, determined using 137Cs and excess 210Pb techniques, range from ~0.1 cm/yr to no discernible recent deposition. These results support previous conclusions

that the ANIMIDA study area is a net erosional environment with sediment most likely being carried off the shelf into

deeper water.

Discussion

Jia Wang: What are the effects of tide on the sediment?

John Trefry: One of the advantages of the Minerals Management Service vessel 1273 is that it is very slow and we can

travel at tidal speeds. We haven’t seen any differences within our statistical limits to suggest that tides have an important

role.

Jerry Brown: Fifty percent of sediment comes from the rivers? From shoreline erosion? Because according to old USGS

estimates, the amount of sediment entering the Beaufort Sea is seven times as much as discharged through the Colville

River–that is, coastal erosion, retreat along the coastline.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

24

John Trefry: Greater than 50% of the annual input from rivers comes within three weeks, almost all from the rivers,

but I don't know what proportion is coming from erosion of the shoreline.

Jerry Brown: It's probably an order of magnitude more coming from coastal erosion. August floods out of Kuparuk and

Sag rivers show differences in the spring and the suspended sediment load is considerably lower.

John Trefry: That's very fine sediment though, and in many cases the bank material is not very fine grained.

Jerry Brown: It's both.

John Trefry: But nothing like the river suspended sediment.

ANIMIDA: PARTITIONING OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS BETWEEN DISSOLVED

 AND PARTICULATE PHASES

Robert D. Rember, Ph.D., John H. Trefry, Ph.D. and Robert P. Trocine

Department of Marine & Environmental Systems, Florida Institute of Technology 

Melbourne, FL 32901

(321) 674-8848 FAX (321) 674-7212, E-mail: rrember@fit.edu

Concentrations of dissolved and particulate metals in the water column can be sensitive indicators of low levels

of environmental contamination in a coastal setting. The primary pathway for uptake of most contaminants by biota is

ultimately from the water column, at least at some trophic level. In addition, any spills in the area, whether oil, liquid

or solid discharge, will first impact the water column. This component of the ANIMIDA program was designed to

determine concentrations of dissolved metals (As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Pb and Zn) in snow, rivers, under ice, and in the

Beaufort Sea during the open water season. Samples for dissolved metals were collected during the 2000, 2001 and

2002. Concentrations of dissolved metals in river water increased in response to the flushing of dissolved organic carbon

from decaying vegetation associated with soils and surface ponds during the spring floods. Snow samples collected

during June had concentrations of trace metals that were significantly lower (10 to 25 fold) than dissolved levels

observed in the rivers during peak discharge. The riverine discharge of freshwater under the ice (2-3 m thick lens) was

physically separated from the underlying seawater by a thin layer of (freshwater) ice. The discharge of metal-rich river

water was detected 20 km offshore from the Sagavanirktok River. Concentrations of dissolved metals below the turbid

riverine discharge were more typical of concentrations found during the open water period in summer and fall.

Concentrations of dissolved trace metals in the saline waters of the coastal Beaufort Sea are generally lower than found

in the rivers with the following observations: Pb at 4-7 ng/L, Cu at 0.5 μg/L and Ba at 13 μg/L. Concentrations of total

dissolved Hg in the coastal Beaufort Sea are low at about 0.5-0.8 ng/L relative to concentrations of 2.1 to 3.8 ng/L in

the Sagavanirktok River during the spring floods.

The forms of the metals and controls on concentrations of dissolved metals in rivers are important to

understanding subsequent behavior in the saline water of the coastal Beaufort Sea. For example, concentrations of

dissolved and particulate Ba vary directly among the rivers, suggesting that a simple distribution coefficient (Kd) may

be used to explain observed concentrations. When this approach is used for Ba, the fit is good with the Kd for Ba

averaging 2.4 ± 0.5 x 104

 for all the rivers. This trend supports the concept that concentrations of Ba in suspended

sediment regulate concentrations of dissolved Ba. The same approach also has been applied to Pb and Cu; however, the

fit is less consistent, suggesting that other factors, such as complexation with organic matter influences concentrations

of dissolved Pb and Cu.

Discussion

Dick Prentki: You did two years of spring river sampling. Did you find that ice layer between salt and freshwater in

both years or just one?
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

25

Robert Rember: Both years.

Sathy Naidu: How do you define dissolved? How do you explain covariance between dissolved arsenic and salinity?

Robert Rember: Less than 0.4 microns. Arsenic accumulates in seawater because it is very stable in the form of arsenate

in seawater, so it has a long residence time.

ANIMIDA: LINKING WATER TURBIDITY AND TSS LOADING TO KELP PRODUCTIVITY

WITHIN THE STEFANSSON SOUND BOULDER PATCH

Ken Dunton, Ph.D.1, Robert Maffione2, and Adrian Burd3, PI’s

Report Prepared by Craig Aumack1

1 The University of Texas Marine Science Institute, 750 Channel View Drive, Port Aransas, TX 78373

(361) 749-6728, FAX (361) 749-6777, E-mail: dunton@utmsi.utexas.edu

2

 HOBI-Laboratories, 8987 E. Tanque Verde#309-366, Tucson, AZ 85749

(520) 299-2598, FAX (520) 299-2598, E-mail: maffione@hobilabs.com; 3

 Department of Marine Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-3636

(706) 542-1604, FAX (704) 542-5888, E-mail: adrianb@arches.uga.edu

Stefansson Sound, located 20 km northeast of Prudhoe Bay in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, encompasses many

boulders, cobbles, and pebbles collectively known as the Stefansson Sound Boulder Patch. Growth and production of

the Boulder Patch community, largely dominated by the endemic arctic kelp Laminaria solidungula, are regulated

primarily by PAR (photosynthetically active radiation) availability during the summer open-water period. Variation in

underwater PAR, caused by changes in water transparency, can have significant effects on the annual productivity of

the arctic kelp bed community. However, the relationship between PAR and water turbidity (measured in terms of total

suspended solids [TSS]) is poorly understood in Stefansson Sound.

During the 2001-2002 summer periods, the inherent optical properties (IOPs), including absorption and

attenuation, of Stefansson Sound waters were measured in conjunction with suspended sediment concentrations for input

into a radiative transfer equation (RTE). Data input to the RTE provided a TSS concentration specific attenuation

coefficient (K*d) used in conjunction with a productivity model. Using these methods, we were able to estimate the

amount of daily productivity throughout the Boulder Patch based on the known depth and the concentration of

suspended solids in the water column. 

The highest TSS levels (23.0 – 24.2 mg L-1) were measured in near-shore areas during summer 2001 and were

coincident with increased light attenuation (11.4 – 14.0 m-1). Lower TSS concentrations and attenuations were measured

in offshore waters overlying the Boulder Patch community during both summers. Although water column light

attenuation was generally less across Stefansson Sound in summer 2002 compared to 2001, the correlation between

attenuation and TSS was still significant (p < 0.001). 

Using the calculated K*d, we were able to successfully interpolate daily productivity estimates throughout the

Boulder Patch based on the known depth and ambient TSS concentration. Our results clearly demonstrate that TSS

concentrations were clearly more important than other factors (including water depth) in regulating open-water

photosynthetic production by kelp. Highest kelp productivities generally occurred offshore areas characterized lower

TSS concentrations. 

Discussion

Jia Wang: Do you have vertical distributions of growth of productivity?
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

26

Ken Dunton: No, these are benthic plants so all the kelp is on the bottom. The blades are very heavy and lay on the

bottom so they don't deal with that complication of attenuation or different light levels in the water column. But this

same model can be used for phytoplankton

Dick Prentki: Have you seen a decrease in kelp production in the last 25 years?

Ken Dunton: No. Typically, measurements near the coast are always less. In shallow waters, they grow and produce

less whereas offshore areas always seem to be higher. But we haven't seen any long term trends in decreases, which is

good.

BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION OF ANTHROPOGENIC CONTAMINANTS IN BIOTA ASSOCIATED

WITH THE ALASKA OCS LIBERTY AND NORTHSTAR OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION UNITS

 IN THE NEARSHORE BEAUFORT SEA

Robert Spies, PhD. and Jordan Gold

Applied Marine Sciences

4749 Bennett Drive, Suite L, Livermore, CA 94550

(925) 373-7142, FAX (925) 373-7834, E-mail: spies@amarine.com

The bioaccumulation of trace substances, including anthropogenic contaminants was investigated in five

species of fish at a number of sites in and near the North slope oil field developments, including the Liberty and

Northstar Platform areas. The fish were evaluated for whole body concentrations of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons

(PAH), organochlorine compounds (PCBs and pesticides) and trace metals. Two biomarkers of contaminant exposure

were also evaluated: P4501A in liver and gut epithelial cells and bile hydrocarbon metabolites. The fish species were:

Arctic Cisco, Arctic Cod, Four Horn sculpin, broad and humpback whitefish. In general there was evidence for only

slight anthropogenic contamination in some species at some sites. For example, in Four Horn sculpin there were

indications at Stump Island and Bullen Point of PAH uptake and metabolism, low level contamination by some

pesticides, and mercury and arsenic above low regional background levels. A variety of other trends in the data will be

discussed and presented. 

Discussion

Jeff Child: Did you age any fish and consider that in analysis over the course of sites and between species?

Bob Spies: Unfortunately there was no funding available to age fish, but we at least have anadromous size and age

relationships in the literature for humpback whitefish. Those are interesting because most fish we picked up appear to

be one and several years old–not yet reproductive. There's a whole complex movement pattern relating to fish; having

the anadromous fish data to follow up more on that will be quite useful.

Dick Prentki: EPA comparisons show standards and criteria–do you have a prediction of how other fish in the area will

come out in that comparison? Are ours worse or better, the same?

Bob Spies: Fish will have "better" results; PAH concentrations are about 50% of what you'd see on the national average.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Status and Trends report, PAH sediment data taken

from the Beaufort Sea showed again, relatively low concentrations. 

Tom Newbury: I think you picked up on significant site differences in regards to mercury (Hg) in two species. It was

possible because cisco are inshore and sculpin and arctic cod are offshore. It's also possible because sculpin are more

closely associated with the benthos; if it is a benthic/pelagic difference as opposed to an inshore difference then it would

be interesting to follow that further.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

27

Bob Spies: There was also a lot of evidence of year-to-year variability in the sediment at some of these sites. Whether

that will affect the biogeochemistry of Hg and methylation of Hg or not will be interesting to consider.

Maggie Ahmaogak: In one of your conclusions you stated that PCB levels of fish were higher for Bullen Point. Is there

an age difference in fishes with higher concentrations of PCBs; do younger or older fishes have higher concentrations?

Is this something that might be related to the dual line pipe?

Bob Spies: In our ANOVA, we included the weight of fish to see if it explained any PCB differences in concentration.

We did see a difference, which might suggest there's something in that area in terms of source low molecular weight,

but this is published in a broader area by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Trends and Status report.

There was no difference in concentration between younger and older fishes.

FATE AND EFFECTS

9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

31

A NOWCAST/FORECAST MODEL FOR THE BEAUFORT SEA ICE-OCEAN-OILSPILL SYSTEM:

MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION

Jia Wang, Ph.D.1,2, Meibing Jin2, and Bingyi Wu2

1

 International Arctic Research Center-Frontier Research System for Global 

Change, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775-7335

(907) 474-2685, FAX (907) 474-2643, E-mail: jwang@iarc.uaf.edu

2

 Institute of Marine Science/SFOS, University of Alaska Fairbanks

 Fairbanks, AK 99775-7225

This study is to validate a high-resolution coupled ice-ocean model using available observations and to

investigate the fine structure of the ice and ocean motion, and in the near future to provide a precise prediction of

ice-ocean-oil spill system. During the first year of this three-year project, a nested ocean model (3.4km) was set up

(Wang et al. 2002). Numerical experiments were conducted to test the ice-ocean model sensitivity.

To validate the model, we focused on model-data comparison during the second year. We found that the

modeled circulation revealed the observed Beaufort Sea coastal current and the Beaufort Gyre. Vertical temperature and

salinity profile revealed the observed dense water sinking process on shelf areas. The model reproduces reasonable

seasonal cycle in sea-ice concentration, temperature, salinity, water masses, and other variables. The nested model

reproduces mesoscale eddies, consistent with satellite images taken in the same region. Some important processes such

as winter halocline ventilation, dense water formation are well captured in the model. The towed ADCP and CTD data

from JAMSTEC and other investigators are used for the validation. 

During the third year, we implemented the proposed oil spill model to the ice-ocean model to establish a

stand-alone ice-ocean-oil spill modeling system. The trajectory model uses a 3-D random walk model. Numerical

experiments were conducted for the following topics: 1) surface oil spills with water in summer, and with ice in winter,

and 2) coastal dense water formation during winter. The modeling system is ready for a further application to a

nowcast/forecast operational forecast.

Discussion

Dick Prentki: On finer grid resolution for the 500 m model, do you expect to resolve eddies much better with that one?

Jia Wang: If the eddy is really big we see it. Observations show that eddies are 20 km in diameter and this is why we

need to refine the model. Otherwise, you always simulate at larger scale than the observed eddies.

THE WORKSHOP ON SMALL-SCALE SEA ICE AND OCEAN MODELING (SIOM)

FOR NEARSHORE BEAUFORT AND CHUKCHI SEAS

Jia Wang, Ph.D.

International Arctic Research Center-Frontier Research System for Global Change

University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775-7335 

(907) 474-2685, FAX (907) 474-2643, E-mail: jwang@iarc.uaf.edu

The workshop held during August 7-9 2002 at University of Alaska Fairbanks discussed the present status and

future direction of small-scale sea ice and ocean modeling, leading to a working plan for the state-of-the-art sea ice and

ocean modeling. The focus of the workshop was the future ice-ocean modeling and Minerals Management Service
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

32

(MMS) needs in the inshore Beaufort Sea waters, including seasonal land-fast ice. The workshop produced

recommendations on modeling approaches based on the updated advance in small-scale sea ice and ocean modeling.

The workshop had four research themes: sea-ice mechanics modeling, sea-ice dynamics, small-scale and

basin-scale coupled ice-ocean modeling, and sea-ice/ocean observations. There were 32 presentations. Each theme had

a rapporteur to chair the discussions and summarize the recommendations at the end of the workshop. The workshop

produced approaches and recommendations for small-scale ice-ocean modeling over the next 5-10 years, which will

be valuable for the Coastal Marine Institute and MMS missions and International Arctic Research Center-Frontier

Research System for Global Change (IARC-FRSGC) modeling strategies. This workshop also promoted the

collaboration between the US scientists, including those at IARC and Institute of Marine Science of UAF, and the

international community. 

The workshop has produced a working plan for the small-scale ice-ocean modeling over the next 5-10 years.

The summary is as follows:

1. Although viscous-plastic (VP) ice model is generally good for the large-scale climate modeling, the

recommendation is that a VP plus elastic (EVP) ice model would be better to both large-scale and small scale

modeling.

2. Sea ice distribution for ridged ice and rafted ice should be used to better study sea ice of difference types

(multiple categories such as new ice, first year ice, and multi-year ice).

3. Land-fast ice is crucial to the coastal processes. Thus, landfast ice models including scouring and anchoring

processes should be developed. At the same time, parameterization of landfast ice is also necessary.

4. Discontinuous Lagrangian ice models such as granular models should be compared to the continuum models

such as Eulerian models to find out the advantages and disadvantages.

5. As spatial scale becomes less than 10km, satellite observations show sea ice has strong anisotropic property,

while most models used so far are isotropic. Thus, anisotropic models should be developed to better capture

sea ice properties such as sea ice fractures, stresses, ridging, rafting, etc. 

6. Coupled ocean-ice model should consider mixing of ocean tides and surface waves. The coupling of sea ice

stress, convergence/divergence to the ocean should be taken into account. A turbulence closure model should

be implemented in the ocean model.

7. Ocean model resolution has to be eddy resolving to resolve coastal eddies, upwelling/downwelling, dense

water formation, the Arctic halocline ventilation.

8. For climate atmosphere-sea ice-ocean models with grid size larger than 10km, a parameterization of 10km

processes for anisotropic is necessary.

9. Observation of landfast ice and deployment of the land-based CODAR.

Discussion

Cleve Cowles: In the pan-Arctic model, you used a 10-day averaging for your boundary condition. What was the

rationale for that?

Jia Wang: We output the boundary condition to the small model. We can output every 10-step, but it increases our

computation. We have to save these data for the nested high resolution model. 

Frank Bercha: In an Arctic ice dynamics joint experiment carried out in the U.S. in 1980-1990, they considered a lot

of these anisotropies, homogeneities in regional scale ice modeling. The Canadian Beaufort Sea Project carried out by

the Department of the Environment (during early 1980s) considered the forcing effects of surface winds on ice fields

and how the mesoscale interactions result from those.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

33

ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY INDEX (ESI) CLASSIFICATION

FOR THE BEAUFORT SEA AND CHUKCHI SEA COASTS

Edward H. Owens1 and Jacqueline Michel2

1

 Polaris Applied Sciences, Inc., #302, 755 Winslow Way East, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110

(206) 842-2951, E-mail: ehowens@polarisappliedsciences.com

2

 Research Planning, Inc., 1121 Park Street, Columbia, SC 29201

(803) 256-7322, E-mail: jacqui@researchplanning.com

Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) shoreline data are a key component of planning and response for coastal

oil spills. The ESI concept is based on a classification of shoreline types according to a standard ranking scheme that

has been applied throughout the United States. The central part of the North Slope coast had been previously classified

by industry and this data was digitized for use in production of ESI maps for the North Slope. The eastern and western

regions were unclassified and the Chukchi Sea was the last section of shoreline in Alaska that had not been mapped

under previous projects. Therefore, MMS supported completion of the ESI shoreline classification for these areas, to

create a state-wide, consistent dataset. The project objectives were to: (1) classify the unmapped shorelines of the

Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea using the ESI classification scheme; (2) create digital ESI data and incorporate the data

into the MMS Technical Information Management System (TIMS) Coastal and Offshore Resource Information System

(CORIS) data base format; and (3) create video products from the aerial video imagery obtained during the survey. 

The study involved a low-altitude video survey of the coastline to obtain digital video imagery with an audio

commentary that describes the physical character of the shore-zone. This information was then used to create a shoreline

classification data base for parts of the Beaufort Sea and the entire Chukchi Sea. The 2001 VTR survey generated 1000

minutes (~17 hours) of videotape. The total shoreline length Canadian border to Point Hope is 7,100 km and the entire

coast is now covered by this survey combined with a further 10 hours of videotape from a prior (1994) survey between

the Colville and Canning Rivers.

The ESI shoreline classification for the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea coasts involved three “new” shoreline

types: tundra cliffs; peat shorelines; and inundated lowland tundra. These three shore types make up 54 % of the coast

(15.6, 15.5, and 22.8% respectively). 

In addition to use of the ESI data for oil spill planning and response, the information can be applied to: coastal

planning, permitting, and zoning; environmental assessments and impact statements; habitat protection and restoration;

managed area planning and selection; and protected species management.

Discussion

Caryn Smith: In the tundra cliff, did you classify the ice-rich and ice-poor separately or were they all lumped in tundra

cliff? What about the Chukchi Sea coast?

Ed Owens: In the ESI classification, the tundra cliffs are basically the ice-rich tundra cliffs. For the Chukchi, there are

one or two places where it would be classified as ice-rich, but I don't recall ice-rich tundra cliffs on the Chukchi, unless

maybe in the backshore lagoon areas. All tundra cliffs are ice-rich.

Tom Newbury: What's the estimated persistence of oil on the new shoreline types? A decade?

Ed Owens: It's always an estimate, but oil will stay on peat (if in a slurry), which is where oil will most likely persist

for a long time. If cleaned up, it won't stay for a decade. Persistence is always a function of the amount of oil and type

of oil. In this environment, there is sufficient natural microbial action that's going to take place in the attenuation of the

oil. The rate of attenuation is dependent on the amount of oil; if a large surface area is exposed to bacteria it will

attenuate faster than a thick layer of oil. Lowland tundra is the area to worry about. On a scale of 10, they are ranked
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

34

a 10 because they are areas to protect first and foremost. The whole aim of the scheme is to identify the high numbers,

which are the ones that would then be given a higher priority of protection.

Ted Eschenbach: Do you have a table that summarizes what fraction of the coast falls into each of those categories?

Ed Owens: No, the work product is a set of maps and databases and the one thing we didn't do is generate the lengths

of each particular one. If we put this into a GIS, then those numbers are generated by the GIS. If we started to generate

a set of numbers from our original non-GIS shoreline, we would have been creating a number that would have to be

revised, and, when you have to revise, you have to explain why you're revising. As the maps are generated by Minerals

Management Service, the new set of ESI maps eventually comes out. It will be an integral part; so, at the moment no,

but in the future yes.

Jerry Brown: We're working with the International Program for Arctic Coastal Dynamics and we are segmenting the

entire coastline according to a modified classification based on earlier years of experience and we'll have some good

numbers on classification of the Beaufort and Chukchi. It's very important to understand the permafrost dynamics and

associated hazards.

PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON DEGRADING MICROBIAL COMMUNITIES IN

CHUKCHI-BEAUFORT SEA SEDIMENTS

Joan Braddock, Ph.D. and Kathleen Gannon

Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska Fairbanks

Fairbanks, AK 99775-7000

(907) 474-7991, FAX (907) 474-6967, E-mail: ffjfb@uaf.edu

Interest remains high in oil development off the northern coast of Alaska. An important question related to this

development is "what is the fate of oil if a spill or leak occurs?" In the 1970s and 1980s several published studies

examined the populations of hydrocarbon-degrading microorganisms in Arctic Ocean water and sediment. No microbial

studies have been published since that time, despite the fact that extensive development has occurred since then. In 1999

(near Barrow) and 2000 (near Prudhoe Bay) we collected sediment samples from the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas to

estimate the populations of hydrocarbon-degrading microorganisms and to assess their ability to degrade petroleum

hydrocarbon compounds. We found populations of hexadecane (a linear alkane), phenanthrene (a polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbon), and crude oil degraders to be significantly higher in sediments collected offshore of Prudhoe Bay than

those collected offshore of Barrow. However, microscopic direct counts, total viable heterotrophic microorganisms, and

crude oil-degrading microbial populations were similar to those measured in the 1970s despite some methodological

differences in estimating the populations. Thus, it is likely that the difference in populations between the Chukchi Sea

samples and the Beaufort Sea samples is related to factors other than oil development. Interestingly, microscopic direct

counts of microorganisms indicate high populations in these sediments relative to populations measured in more

temperate ocean sediments, such as those in the Gulf of Alaska. We also measured the ability of the microbial

populations to mineralize several model hydrocarbon compounds, including hexadecane and phenanthrene. Sediments

collected from both sites had low mineralization potentials indicating that the microbial populations are not acclimated

to use these substrates. Finally, we have conducted preliminary experiments to determine how some petroleum

hydrocarbons, particularly polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, interact with sediment and how interactions with sediment

might affect the bioavailability of these compounds to microorganisms that degrade them. These data indicate that the

model compound, phenanthrene, rapidly adsorbs to sediments. In experiments where phenanthrene-degrading

microorganisms were added at high populations to sediment/phenanthrene/seawater slurries, the presence of sediment

had little effect on the ability of those organisms to degrade phenanthrene. Experiments that more closely match

conditions occurring in the environment are ongoing. Microbial population and activity data are important in predicting

the fate of oil should a spill occur in this environment. 

Discussion
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

35

Todd O'Hara: Is there an interest to do work in deltas, rivers and lakes to see if biodegradation capacities are

comparable to marine systems where there's less activity in the systems to remove oil?

Joan Braddock: We haven't yet done that but it would be really interesting to make the comparison. We need to get

samples from natural seeps as well; we've done the terrestrial work, but none on freshwater in the Arctic as of yet.

Don Hansen: Did you look at Cape Simpson large oil seeps?

Joan Braddock: No, we need to do that.

Kate Wedemeyer: What temperature were the microbes kept at?

Joan Braddock: We've done nearly everything at 10°F, which is a nice compromise to get experiments done within the

lifetime of a Masters student and not being so far off. It's warmer than natural temperature, but not at room temperature.

We compromise a little bit and do nearly everything at 10°F .

TRACE METALS AND HYDROCARBONS IN SEDIMENTS OF ELSON LAGOON (BARROW,

NORTHWEST ARCTIC ALASKA) AS RELATED TO PRUDHOE BAY INDUSTRIAL REGION

A. Sathy Naidu, Ph.D.1, John J. Kelley, Ph.D.1, John J. Goering, Ph.D.1, 

and M. Indira Venkatesan, Ph.D.,2

1

 Institute of Marine Science

University of Alaska Fairbanks

Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220

(907) 474-7032, FAX (907) 474-7204, E-mail: ffsan@uaf.edu, ffjjk@uaf.edu, ffjjg@uaf.edu 2

 Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics

University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1567

E-mail:indira@ucla.edu

This presentation was also given at the Barrow IUM.

A one-year study (2001-2002) in Elson Lagoon consisted of determining the concentrations of total mercury

(THg) and methylmercury (MeHg) in five van Veen grab gross sediment samples from the lagoon, and a suite of heavy

metals (Cu, Cr, V, Ni, Zn, Sn, As, Cd, Ba, Mn and Pb) in the mud fraction (<62 μm size) of the sediments as well as

from the stratigraphic sections of a gravity core sample. Additionally, hydrocarbons (normal and isoprenoid alkanes,

triterpanes, steranes and PAHs) were analyzed in three of the five gross sediments. The geochronology of the core was

established by the 210Pb- and 137Cs-based methods.

The concentrations levels of all the trace metals in the lagoon are below or similar to those in unpolluted marine

sediments and shales. Encompassing the past 70-83 years, stratigraphic samples show a net significant increase (P

<0.05) up the core in Cr, Mn and Ba accompanied by a down core decrease in THg, and no significant change in the

other metals. The up core increase in the three metals may either suggest that the lagoon is getting contaminated in the

metals, or may be a manifestation of up core stratigraphic changes in lithology and/or organic matter. Further studies

will be required to resolve the two possibilities. At any rate, the concentrations of all the metals are below the thresholds

that are known to cause adverse effect on resident benthic and demersal organisms. The overall molecular compositions

of alkanes and PAHs, which are very similar to those reported in our previous study for sediments of the Colville

Delta-Prudhoe Bay region, are characteristic of biogenic origin and very little petroleum input is reflected by their

composition. Preliminary analyses indicate presence of small amounts of coprostanol, a sewage sterol, and coprostanone,

but no Linear alkylbenzenes, a sewage tracer from household laundry. This suggests that sewage input in the sediments,

if at all present, may not be important. 
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

36

The trace metal data in mud from the urban-impacted Elson Lagoon were compared with those from the

oil-related industrialized region of Colville Delta-Prudhoe Bay. By comparison, the Elson Lagoon muds have

significantly higher concentrations (P <0.05) of V, Cr, Ni and THg, and no significant difference in other metals. A

possibility for the higher concentrations of the four metals in the Elson Lagoon is higher in put of natural or

anthropogenic metals from local sources, and/or local focusing in Elson Lagoon of anthropogenic metal contaminants

derived from Eurasia via long-distance atmospheric transport and subsequent deposition in precipitating snow and rain.

The latter explanation is consistent with the report of Snyder-Conn, Garbarino and associates of relatively higher

concentrations of several metals in snow samples of Elson Lagoon than Colville Delta-Prudhoe Bay region. A lack of

significant (P <0.05) correlations between all the trace metals and clay % in mud either suggests that the sediment

granulometry is not an important factor partitioning the metals, or it is an artifact of the limited samples analyzed. 

In summary, our study indicates that Elson Lagoon, as the Colville Delta-Prudhoe Bay nearshore region of the

North Slope of Alaska, has remained essentially a relatively clean environment, as far as sediment hydrocarbons and

trace metals are concerned, despite the accelerated anthropogenic activities there during the past 30 years. The database

on the Elson Lagoon should be considered baselines for monitoring inorganic and organic chemical contaminants in

the lagoon region, urban-impacted sections of the North Slope of Alaska. These data will be critical for efforts relating

to ecological risk assessment of the study area in context of contaminants inputs.

Discussion from the Barrow IUM

Craig George: In regards to contaminants in the local food, how does this environment compare to others, for example,

California?

Sathy Naidu: This area is significantly lower in contaminants, but it is up to you (local community) to maintain this.

But it still needs to be monitored.

Craig George: Contaminants are everywhere, but they're lower here (Barrow) generally than most places on Earth.

There are positive aspects to clean food and we're fortunate to have some of the best [uncontaminated] food here.

Kristen Bomengen: Have there been similar studies conducted in other parts of the Arctic?

Sathy Naidu: Yes, there have been in Greenland and Scandinavia. Siberia has increased pollutants, but you have to

credit the local community and industry (here) – they have very stringent policies and requirements.

James Patkotak: I commend the industry in development of the Bay, but I'm concerned about how industry affects ocean

in all activities going to the ocean through the delta. Is that affecting our seals and walruses in that area with heavy traces

of metals?

Sathy Naidu: Not with the metals; maybe other contaminants, but not with metals.
BIOLOGY

9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

39

RECENTLY INITIATED COASTAL MARINE INSTITUTE BIOLOGICAL/ECOLOGICAL STUDIES

Vera Alexander, Ph.D.

Coastal Marine Institute

University of Alaska Fairbanks

Fairbanks, AK 99775

E-mail: vera@ims.uaf.edu

Five projects have been recently funded through the University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute. These are

all in their early stages, with, at the most, preliminary results to date. Below is a brief synopsis of the scope of some of

the new studies. 

Role of Grazers in the recolonization of hard-bottom communities in the Boulder Patch. Principal Investigator: Dr.

Brenda Konar. School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, UAF.

This project is studying a kelp and invertebrate community in the Beaufort Sea, known as the Boulder Patch.

It is highly atypical, since most of the bottom in the area is dominated by sand and gravel. There is a need to study the

biologically productive system of this unique environment, in order to ensure its protection. This study is looking at rates

of recolonization of the rocks, and the role of grazing in curtailing recovery rates. Very preliminary results are provided.

Susceptibility of sea ice biota to disturbances in the shallow Beaufort Sea: Phase 1. Biological coupling of sea ice with

the pelagic and benthic realms. Principal Investigators: Drs. Rolf Gradinger and Bodil Bluhm. School of Fisheries and

Ocean Sciences, UAF.

This project is looking at the diversity and biomass of sea ice meiofauna and under-ice fauna in comparison

to planktonic and benthic communities, including: algal biomass in sea ice, water column and sediment, life stages of

those benthic taxa that seem to depend on sea ice to complete their life cycles, and the relevance of sea ice produced

particles for the nutrition of sea ice fauna, zooplankton and benthos based on stable isotope analysis. The project also

will determine the relation between abundance and composition of ice biota and sediment load in the sea. Preliminary

results show a clear evidence for habitat for benthic algae in sea ice, and also that sea ice algae have a distinct isotopic

signature.

King and Common Eider migration past Point Barrow, Alaska. Principal Investigators Lori Quakenbush, School of

Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, UAF and Robert Suydam. North Slope Borough.

The objectives of this study are to estimate passage of King and Common Eiders in spring and fall 2002-2004,

compare 1996 and 2002-2004 estimates for trend, document timing of migrations, document species and sex

composition of migrations and evaluate use of # juveniles returning in fall as index of annual productivity. Only very

preliminary results are available, showing the timing and numbers for the 2002 count.

Breeding biology and habitat use by king eiders (Somateria spectabilis) on the Alaska's North Slope. Principal

Investigators: Abby Powell, Alaska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, UAF and Robert Suydam, North Slope

Borough.

The objectives of this project are to document the timing of nest initiation, nest success and causes of failure,

nest site characteristics, rate and direction of movement of broods and to compare data collected at Teshekpuk and

Kuparuk over two field seasons.

Little is known about the breeding biology of King Eiders (Somateria spectabilis). The western North

American population of King Eiders has declined by more than 50% between 1979 and 1996 for unknown reasons.

Information on the basic breeding biology of King Eiders is needed to understand the impacts of development.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

40

Population structure of Common Eiders nesting on coastal barrier islands adjacent of oil facilities in the Beaufort Sea.

Principal Investigators: Sarah A. Sonsthagen, Institute of Arctic Biology, UAF, Sandra L. Talbot, U.S. Geological

Survey, Alaska Science Center, Kim T. Scribner, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Michigan State University,

Richard B. Lanctot, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Kevin McCracken, Institute of Arctic Biology, UAF.

The objectives of this work is to use microsatellite, nuclear genes and mitochondrial DNA analyses to assess

levels of population subdivision within Common Eiders breeding on the barrier islands in the Beaufort Sea, assess level

of gene flow in Common Eiders breeding throughout Alaska and Canada and determine relatedness of Common Eider

populations in a phylogeographic context. Conclusions to date show that Common Eider populations were historically

subdivided, with recent gene flow via female and male dispersal. Differences in level of population structuring between

maternally and bi-parentally inherited markers suggest that females are exhibiting philopatry and males are dispersing,

Discussion

Craig George: I have a question about ice-based invertebrate systems and water column critters like copepods. We are

seeing that in years of ice retreat (this is unpublished information) the bowheads tend to be heavier and girthier when

we measure them in the fall in the subsistence zone. What is your opinion on the relative contribution of ice-based algal

systems and the water column systems in terms of contributing to the overall biomass of zooplankton in the Eastern

Beaufort Sea?

Vera Alexander: In earlier days I was convinced that the ice system was critical and the most important part with an

estimated 25%, if not more of the total production. Recently it seems more likely that a lot of the production on which

the bowhead whales depend, such as the large population of amphipods found nearshore, are probably water-derived

rather than ice-derived. I don't know whether this is assisted by an earlier retreat of ice or not, but it seems likely that

if it's mixed coastal primary production in the nearshore areas, the lack of ice is help to the pelagic photosynthesis. I

think now that nearshore Arctic ice production may be important seasonally and may be important in providing input

into the benthos. It may be less important in the water column processes, which may be more important for the

bowheads, but this is speculation.

Cleve Cowles: Most of the studies are very new and haven't had a chance yet to achieve their goals. There is a 9th

annual report available from the Coastal Marine Institute (CMI) office in Fairbanks, which summarizes the projects Vera

had reviewed in her talk. Next year in February some of these talks may be presented at the CMI Research Review in

Fairbanks.

MODELING THE RECOVERY RATES OF AVIAN POPULATIONS

James B. Grand, Jennifer Arnold, Dave Koons, and Nitin Yogi

USGS, Alabama Cooperative Fisheries and Wildlife Research Unit, 108 M. White Smith Hall, 

Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849

(334) 844-4796, FAX (334) 887-4509 E-mail: grandjb@auburn.edu

More than twenty species of birds are known to use the near-shore waters of the Beaufort Sea, which makes

them potentially vulnerable to industrial activities associated with offshore oil and gas extraction. Industrial

developments for the extraction of petroleum deposits in offshore areas along the Beaufort Sea coast are an increasingly

important issue for federal and state resource managers in Alaska. New developments are underway in the Prudhoe Bay

area and additional developments are proposed in adjacent areas. Detailed assessments of the potential effects on bird

populations for each project are required before environmental impacts can be objectively determined. Assessments may

take the form of predicted recovery and extinction probabilities and times based on the growth potential of bird

populations. Population recovery is inherently dependent on population growth rate. Populations that are stable or

declining may never recover from perturbation, but those populations with positive or potentially positive growth rates

may be capable of recovery to pre-perturbation levels. Additionally, some species may be susceptible to suppression
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

41

of vital rates, which could prolong recovery times. Conversely, reductions in populations that are near saturation levels

could result in increased rates of population growth and rapid recovery. Furthermore, stochastic effects (e.g.,

environmental variation) can result in variability in vital rates that contribute to population growth and introduce

uncertainty about the likelihood of population recovery regardless of pre-perturbation population trends.

In 2001, the USGS Alaska Biological Science Center (ABSC) and Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife

Research Unit (ALCFWRU) began a research project intended to develop modeling tools that would be useful to

biologists and managers for predicting the recovery and/or extinction of Beaufort Sea waterbird populations following

a catastrophic-mortality event such as an oil spill. Our objectives are to: develop a generalized framework for modeling

the recovery times of avian populations from perturbations; provide a compendium of the published literature pertinent

to selected species of birds found in the region; develop mathematical models that are suitable for estimating recovery

time and associated uncertainties; identify information requirements and gaps for modeling recovery probabilities and

times; and develop a stand-alone, interactive computer program to estimate recovery rates, times, and uncertainties for

selected bird populations in the region.

In October 2001, we hosted a workshop to provide input into this research effort. Participants delivered

presentations on the Beaufort Sea region, available data, and a multitude of approaches for modeling populations and

interpreting implications. Our goal was to provide an open discussion of approaches to population modeling for

conservation and management that could set the stage for the development of modeling tools that would be of use to

resource managers. The workshop participants were in agreement that matrix population models offered the best

alternative to other methods considered. Additionally, studies of short-term (transient) population dynamics appeared

to be a very useful framework for examining effects of catastrophes on populations. One informative type of analysis

would be to compare the effects of perturbation across life-history strategies, thus allowing the development of broad

management recommendations. Finally, due to the lack of data for most species, simple approaches with fewer data

requirements and fewer assumptions should be favored in the development of the modeling tools. We are compiling

literature on 24 species of waterbirds in habiting the region, and approaches to modeling the effects of catastrophic

events on bird populations. The literature review is being compiled in an online database that combines bibliographic

information, electronic copies of each reference, data on vital rates, and general information about the life cycle of each

species. A theoretical paper addressing non-equilibrium population dynamics is in partial draft form and research has

begun on our next manuscript, which will focus on the use of population models in spill-related injury assessment using

Arctic tern and common eider as examples. With the modeling framework beginning to take shape we have established

the mathematical framework for the software and selected a platform for development. At present we are assembling

the available libraries of algorithms that will be used in the program.

Discussion

Tom Newbury: It's difficult to see the cumulative effects of spills for the North Slope, but the cumulative effects from

"disturbance species" (they are opportunistic species) are important to look at because you can predict the effects of

spills. It would also be good to study the recovery of disturbance species. That would influence perhaps to some extent

the species you model. I'm glad to see that you're using the Arctic tern, perhaps not the waterbird most vulnerable to

spills, but they certainly have been affected by opportunistic species. The North Slope is like the Gulf of Mexico in that

it is a production area and difficult to see the cumulative effect of spills there contrasted to places where there's a lot of

tankering like Galveston, Puget Sound, etc. I encourage you to orient your work toward effects of recovery from

opportunistic species on the North Slope.

James Grand: The models we're working with are single species models, but I think to do what you're talking about

would require us to build community-based models and have some ability to look at interactions among species–if I'm

interpreting your comment correctly.

Mike Castellini: In relationship to your discussions in trying to define recovery, you could probably get help from the

EVOS Trustee Council because they've had to come up with legal definitions for recovery for all their species. Also,

several people on the Endangered Species Act recovery team would have definitions.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

42

James Grand: The problem is that definitions of recovery are different between agencies, people, etc. Recovery plans

for a lot of different endangered species and the definition of recovery is different in almost every one of them. A lot

of that depends on trying to meet the needs of Minerals Management Service and Fish and Wildlife Service in terms

of looking at recovery as well.
PROTECTED SPECIES

9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

45

MONITORING BEAUFORT SEA WATERFOWL AND MARINE BIRDS

Paul Flint, Ph.D.1, John Reed1, Richard Lanctot2, and Debbie Lacroix3

1

USGS, Alaska Science Center, 1011 East Tudor Road, MS 701, Anchorage, AK 99503

(907) 786-3531, FAX (907) 786-3636, E-mail: Paul_Flint@usgs.gov 2

 Present Address: USFWS, Migratory Bird Management

1011 East Tudor Road, MS 201, Anchorage, AK 99503 3

 Present address: Centre for Wildlife Ecology, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Way

Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6, Canada

The Alaskan Arctic Coastal Plain is home to the largest oil and natural gas discovery in North America. Recent

expansion of oil and gas development into the near shore waters of the Beaufort Sea has raised concerns that wildlife

using these waters (and the nearby barrier islands) may be at risk to disturbance and oil spills. Of particular concern are

more than one hundred thousand sea ducks and other marine birds that use the Beaufort Sea each summer. Impacts on

sea ducks may be especially important given their recent declines in Alaska and along the Arctic Coastal Plain.

In 2002, we completed the fourth season of a research program designed to assess the breeding ecology of

Pacific Common Eiders (Somateria mollissima v-nigra) and molting ecology of Long-tailed Ducks (Clangula hyemalis)

along the Beaufort Sea Coast of Alaska. Our study area was split into an industrial area slightly west of Prudhoe Bay

(‘Western Area’) and an undeveloped control area 50 miles to the east (‘Eastern Area’).

Nesting effort by Common Eiders has declined each year of the study and was particularly low in 2002 (likely

due to late ice breakup). Hatching success has varied considerably through the course of the study but has always been

below that of Pacific Common Eiders breeding on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. No Common Eider broods tracked

by radio-telemetry were known to fledge. A mark-recapture study of adult female survival has been limited by low

nesting effort and nest survival.

We used radio-telemetry to study movement, habitat use, and feeding activity of molting Long-tailed Ducks.

Analysis of triangulation data shows that, in general, Long-tailed Ducks follow a diurnal pattern of feeding in the

lagoons during the day and roosting along the barrier islands at night. Analysis of larger scale movement data collected

by automated data-logging radio-receivers shows a high degree of movement within and among areas and years.

Weather (esp., wind) is suspected to play an important role in Long-tailed Duck movements, but not in feeding patterns.

We found no support for a negative influence of disturbance on behavior or body condition in Long-tailed

Ducks. They were able to meet the nutritional requirements for maintenance and feather growth from the environment.

It appears that the initial mass loss may be an adaptation allowing re-attainment of flight before primary feather growth

is complete.

Common Eiders and Long-tailed Ducks had lower concentrations of Pb and Hg in their blood than levels

reported from sea ducks in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Accordingly we found no evidence of contaminants that may

be influencing eiders at the population level. However, a die off of Long-tailed Ducks in 2000 was related to an outbreak

of a previously undescribed virus. We conclude that natural variation in movements, conditions and mortality exceeds

any anthropogenic effects.

Discussion

John Richardson: The air gun array used in Simpson Lagoon in 2001 was a small array. Also, because the water was

so shallow, sounds would not propagate as well as in deeper water. Even so, the small array would still produce a strong

sound pulse for any ducks within a reasonable distance so I'm surprised that foraging data don't show more disturbance

reaction than they do. I wondered if you had looked at the any specific measures of foraging that might be more

sensitive than just a percentage of time, such as diving or any other parameters.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

46

Paul Flint: Analysis at that level is ongoing, but we haven't gotten into the details of that yet. But it's very difficult

because we have individuals tagged through time, so the specific samples that are there are relatively small and you have

to control for repeated sampling of specific individuals. Statistically it will be a difficult thing to represent given our

sample size of marked birds within and outside the seismic area. The other thing is that they're not spending a lot of time

foraging. They're losing weight and perhaps they want to lose weight. Foraging is not their dominant activity so we're

trying to detect a significant change in what is a rare activity, which is going to be a difficult thing to demonstrate. I

doubt we're going to be able to detect that in our data at all. We may not be able to quantify foraging behavior to a

greater extent.

John Richardson: Given the negligible amount of data that exists on the reaction of birds to seismic programs, it is good

to see that this project was done, and I hope you can tease out whatever information there is to find.

Paul Flint: We were surprised to a certain extent, given our observations that birds would not have left the area. It's clear

that from earlier telemetry studies, birds move a fair amount to find more optimal conditions. We wouldn't have been

surprised to see the birds move out of the area and see a mass movement out of the area from the west to the east.

Obviously when boats were working birds were displaced from specific locations, but it didn't seem to change their

overall distribution and we didn't see the mass exodus we would have expected.

Robert Suydam: In the common eider section of your talk you mentioned the storm of August 2000, the same year of

the die off of long tail ducks. Is there a relationship in the timing in terms of the storm and the die off? Did the storm

contribute to the prevalence of the virus and the population of the long tail ducks?

Paul Flint: The storm occurred after the die off. After we captured the birds, we attempted to minimize boating activity

so we weren't out on the lagoon on a regular basis. There were several outings when we had to travel to download data

loggers, etc. and started encountering carcasses and saw gulls feeding on dead birds in the lagoon. We started recovering

carcasses and that's where the virus came from. So we didn't recover that many carcasses, but we spent too little time

on the lagoon to give us any probability of detecting those carcasses. The storm event occurred in August essentially

terminating our study, so we lost all of our data recording stations because islands eroded. All common eider broods

were decimated by the storm and we essentially vacated the study area within four to five days of the storm. So all of

our evidence relative to the viral outbreak and the die off was prior to the storm event.

IMPORTANCE OF THE ALASKAN BEAUFORT SEA TO KING EIDERS (SOMATERIA SPECTABILIS)

Abby N. Powell 1, Laura M. Phillips 2, and Eric J. Taylor 3

1

 Alaska Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Research Unit, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK 99775

(907) 474-5505, FAX (907) 474-6716, E-mail: ffanp@uaf.edu 2 Alaska Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Research Unit, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK 99775 

(907) 474-7144, FAX (907) 474-6716, E-mail: fslmp@uaf.edu 3 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Office

The importance of the Beaufort Sea as a spring and fall migratory corridor for hundreds of thousands of sea

ducks (e.g., common, king, and spectacled eiders; long-tailed ducks) and other waterbirds has been well established.

However, the biology of king eiders of the Beaufort Sea is poorly known. Although their population appeared to remain

stable between 1953 and 1976, a recent analysis of migration counts off Point Barrow, Alaska, determined king eiders

declined 56% (3.9% year -1) from approximately 802,556 birds in 1976 to about 350,835 in 1996. Existing data

suggests declines in western arctic-breeding populations of king eiders. While the importance of the Beaufort Sea for

migrating king eiders has been clearly established at Pt. Barrow, little is known about the distribution and timing of

spring and fall migration in other areas of the Beaufort Sea, and the relative importance of the Beaufort Sea for staging

and molt. 
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

47

During molt migration (July-August) and fall migration to wintering areas (August-October), king eiders move

west along the Beaufort Sea coast to areas in Chukchi and Bering Seas. Eiders often follow open leads in ice on

migration, and the routes and timing of migration paths are thought to be strongly influenced by weather and ice

conditions. This study was prompted by the need for more information about king eider use of the Beaufort Sea during

molt migration. Offshore oil leasing in the Beaufort has the potential to lead to mortality of king eiders from collision

with drilling structures or from oil spills, to the disturbance of king eiders from support vehicles and drilling activity,

and to the displacement of king eiders by developing foraging or staging habitat.

During the summer of 2002, we surgically implanted 21 (11 females and 10 males) with satellite transmitters

at the Kuparuk oil field. Satellite transmitters were programmed to transmit signals every 48 hours for 6 hours

throughout fall migration. The best location per 6 hour on cycle was used in this analysis. Molt migration was defined

as late-summer migration to molting areas: these areas were defined as no long-distance movement for a period of three

weeks (when eiders are flightless). Stopover and staging sites are defined as areas where individuals spent >3 days, but

longer movements than would be predicted if molting

Males left the study area between 14 - 27 June, while females dispersed on 1 - 28 July. Males staged 7 to 17

days (mean = 10) and females 9 to 32 days (mean = 20) in the Beaufort Sea prior to migration. Mean water depth for

males in the Beaufort Sea was 11 ± 7 m, and for females 8 ± 5 m. Mean distance to the shore was 17 ± 6 km for males

and 14 ± 3 km for females. Preliminary analysis of location data suggests that Harrison Bay, Smith Point and Tangent

Point are important use areas for King Eiders in the Beaufort Sea. 

Males reached molting areas 22 July through 12 August. Molting areas for males included areas along the

Chukotsk Peninsula, the Kamchatka Peninsula, St. Lawrence Island, and Kuskokwim Bay. Females reached molting

areas 11 August through 18 September. Molting locations were similar to males', but also included areas along the

Alaska Peninsula and Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska.

Future plans include refining analysis of data and implanting 39 additional king eiders during the summer of

2003.

Discussion

Craig George: The males leave very quickly and then go off into the offshore broken ice and then we don't see them

at Barrow for at least two weeks. So are they just hanging out or feeding or what? One suggestion I would have would

be to get some satellite imagery. 

Abby Powell: We don't know. I thought the reason they weren't seen at Barrow was that nobody was looking for them

yet.

Robert Suydam: They're usually seen in mid-July.

Abby Powell: We just don't really know but we'll try to tease that out if we can. We do need better ice coverage.

Craig George: If you could get a Synthetic Aperture Radar scene that would be the best case during that staging period.

Abby Powell: The problem is that we need a lot of different coverages. It's easier to get coverages for males because

they're more clustered in time than females, but the females are out there from August through September and it will

be harder. We'd have to take little snap shots and look at what's happening then.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

48

MONITORING THE DISTRIBUTION OF ARCTIC WHALES

Stephen D. Treacy

Alaska OCS Region, Minerals Management Service

946 East 36th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99508

(907) 271-6603, FAX (907) 271-6805, E-mail: Steve.Treacy@mms.gov

This presentation was also given at the Barrow IUM.

Since 1987, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) Bowhead Whale Aerial Survey Project has used MMS

personnel to monitor the fall migration of bowhead whales across the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Selected goals of the

ongoing program are to: (1) define the annual fall migration of bowhead whales, significant inter-year differences, and

long-term trends in the distance from shore and water depth at which whales migrate; (2) monitor temporal and spatial

trends in the distribution, relative abundance, habitat, and behaviors (especially feeding) of endangered whales in arctic

waters; and (3) provide real-time data to MMS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on the general progress

of the fall migration of bowhead whales across the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, for use in protection of this Endangered

Species.

While some aspects have been updated from time to time, the data recorded have remained remarkably parallel

(especially 1982-2002), thus permitting many one-to-one comparisons between years. Such continuous, long-term,

wide-area, aerial monitoring of a large whale migration is unique. Information from previous surveys continues to be

used by MMS in writing Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Assessments. The data also augment

sample sizes of marine mammals observed by oil-industry monitoring required by NMFS under the Marine Mammal

Protection Act (Incidental Harassment Authorizations). Such site-specific analyses show localized deflections of up to

20 km by bowhead whales near certain types of active seismic exploration.

Using a Geographic Information System, whale sighting rates were calculated as the number of sightings per

km flown for each grid cell (5' latitude by 15' longitude) while on northerly-southerly transect. Visual comparison of

fall sighting rates (1982-2000) showed that in the Central Alaskan Beaufort Sea (142°W. to 155°W. longitudes)

bowheads generally occupied nearshore waters in years of light sea-ice severity, somewhat more offshore waters in

moderate ice years, and were even farther offshore in heavy ice years. While other factors may have localized effects

on site-specific distributions, broad-area distributions of bowhead whale sightings in the central Alaskan Beaufort Sea

were related to overall sea-ice severity.

An index of relative occurrence of behaviors was calculated as the total number of individual whales exhibiting

a particular behavior per transect km for each grid cell. A greater relative occurrence of feeding and/or milling behaviors

of bowhead whales was observed in six of the 20 years (1982-2001) near the mouth of Dease Inlet, Alaska, with similar

relative occurrence of these behaviors observed in four of the six years near Cape Halkett, Alaska. There were nine other

years when feeding and/or milling behaviors were noted on transect but not near Dease Inlet or Cape Halkett. In the

remaining five years, neither feeding nor milling behaviors were observed on transect anywhere in the study area.

Discussion

Brad Smith: In observations west of Barrow, they suggested that the few sightings seemed to be more along the coast

rather than taken off on the broad front that's often described, especially given that there's at least a possibility of some

lease sales to the west. Do you have any thoughts about ever relocating the effort? Maybe possibly out of Barrow to pick

up on waters west of the point?

Steve Treacy: I would suspect that if the Minerals Management Service has some serious leasing in the Chukchi Sea

and a lot of industry response, you might see something like that. Historically, we have a lot of data out of the Chukchi

Sea collected by our predecessors who were on Minerals Management Service contracts (Naval Ocean Systems Center

in San Diego, SEACO, and SAIC ) and those contractors were using the same methodology. We have a lot of data from
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

49

an historical perspective, but in a real-time context, I think it would take actual industry activity to pull us that far west

again.

Craig George: In terms of the initiation of fall migration, for instance this year, we reported that there were bowheads

in mid-August (15th). Do you suspect that those whales migrated across the study area before the surveys began? Or do

you suspect that they were summering in that area?

Steve Treacy: I suspect partially summering. Last year we went up two weeks early to look at whales, but I doubt if

they were early migrators.

Craig George: Wouldn't you need to initiate your transects earlier to determine that?

Steve Treacy: We did last year. Historically, we've focused on the migration. We feel fairly confident that it starts

around first of September, which is why we've gone up there every year at that time and try to be in place and ready to

go. Sometimes it doesn't start until September 10th. The beginning of a migration is a little subjective. It depends on how

you define the start of the migration.

Maggie Ahmaogak: I noticed the distribution of whales was feeding around Barrow and Cape Halkett. Are you just

centering on that area to tell people that is where they are mainly feeding? Or are there some farther to the east like

Camden Bay?

Steve Treacy: No, that's everything we saw, including milling and feeding whales, but again, this is not a dedicated

feeding study.

Maggie Ahmaogak: In this report are you showing the distribution of whales feeding off the coast of this inlet and Cape

Halkett–you didn't show the ones that may have been feeding off Camden Bay or Flaxman Island, but I thought that had

triggered the bowhead feeding study area.

Steve Treacy: I don't think our data would have triggered it, but those are all the feeding whales we saw on our

north-south transects and that's the best set of data we have.

Maggie Ahmaogak: There are bowheads feeding off Camden Bay.

Discussion from the Barrow IUM

Arnold Brower: Where do they go in the west?

Steve Treacy: Once they pass Barrow, they go across the Chukchi Sea and on to Russian waters. Some of our data show

where whales have been seen in the Chukchi. As the ice moves down farther, they stay just ahead of the pack ice.

Arnold Brower: There is no information given for the spring, but we see them from five to ten miles east of Barrow.

Steve Treacy: They're farther north from shore overall, but still close to Barrow and hunted there in the spring. Whales

generally look for leads or thinner ice areas.

Craig George: In surveys in September out of Deadhorse, it has been reported that bowheads were west of Barrow in

August. In terms of migration initiation, maybe you're clipping the front end of the migration.

Steve Treacy: We started ten days earlier this year. From September first is usually sufficient, but now there are more

whales, so we tried starting sooner. There were also August surveys in the early 1980s that did show some sightings

in that month.

John Richardson: Acoustic monitoring around Prudhoe Bay usually shows whales in the last few days of August.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

50

Steve Treacy: Sometimes we don't see them until ten days after September, thus it's a judgment call.

Craig George: There's major feeding off of Barrow.

BOWHEAD WHALE FEEDING IN THE EASTERN ALASKAN BEAUFORT SEA: UPDATE ON

SCIENTIFIC AND TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE

W. John Richardson, Ph.D.

LGL, Ltd. environmental research associates

22 Fisher Street, P.O. Box 280, King City, Ontario, Canada L7B 1A6

(905) 833-1244, FAX (905) 833-1255, E-mail: wjr@lgl.com

This presentation was also given at the Barrow IUM.

The overall objective, as specified by MMS, was as follows: "Based both on traditional knowledge and

scientific studies (existing and new), assess the importance of the eastern part of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea [EAB] as

a feeding area for bowhead whales, including its importance both to individual whales and to the bowhead population."

For many years it has been known that bowheads feed in the EAB near Kaktovik, AK, in late summer and fall. A

1985-86 MMS study concluded that the EAB provided only a small (but variable) part of the annual food requirements

of the bowheads. Local residents and whalers thought that the 1985-86 study underestimated the importance of the EAB

to feeding bowheads. A follow-up study was conducted, mainly in 1998-2000. This included close collaboration with

Native groups, specific efforts to incorporate local and traditional knowledge (LTK) into the planning and interpretation

of the results, and integration of previous data and knowledge with three additional seasons of biological field studies.

There was extensive consultation with Kaktovik hunters, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), North

Slope Borough Dept. of Wildlife Management (NSB-DWM), and a Scientific Review Board (SRB) including both

independent scientists and stakeholder representatives. Kaktovik residents were involved in plan development,

fieldwork, and report review, and Kaktovik hunters allowed sampling of stomach contents and tissues of harvested

whales.

Project participants included the following: LGL Ltd. (zooplankton and bowhead studies; energetic

calculations, integration), Applied Sociocultural Research (local coordination and assembly of LTK), Alaska Dept of

Fish & Game (stomach contents of harvested bowheads), Univ. Alaska Fairbanks (stable isotopes in bowheads and

prey), Dalhousie Univ. (pilot study of fatty acids in bowheads and prey), WEST Inc. (sensitivity analyses), in

consultation with the Kaktovik hunters, AEWC, NSB, and SRB. 

Local and traditional knowledge (LTK) was assembled during meetings and individual discussions with local

hunters and residents, including interactions during fieldwork involving Kaktovik residents. LTK and whaling records

are summarized in the final report; transcripts of individual discussions are also included. LTK relevant to various

technical chapters of the report is brought into each of those chapters.

Field studies of food availability were done using net-sampling and quantitative echosounder surveys of

zooplankton in the EAB during September of 1985-86 and 1998-2000, providing data on geographic and among-year

variation. The sampling was done from a 13-m boat, and included both • broad-scale surveys of the EAB and • specific

sampling around locations where bowheads were observed feeding (and at nearby reference sites without feeding

whales). The average zooplankton biomass available at locations near feeding whales was ~2 g/m3 (wet weight), much

higher than the overall average in the EAB. Copepods were the dominant zooplankton taxon on a biomass basis.

Aircraft-based studies of bowheads during the five field seasons included the following: • Systematic aerial

surveys to assess distribution and numbers (and their variability). • Aerial observations of bowhead behavior to derive

correction factors for whales missed during aerial surveys and to characterize the frequency and nature of feeding. •

Aerial photogrammetry to assess size/age segregation in use of the EAB, and to determine residence times of
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

51

recognizable individual whales. Data from MMS BWASP surveys (1979-2000) were also used; the broader areal and

temporal coverage of BWASP provided important perspective. Bowheads were found to feed for an average of 47%

of their time in the EAB, but average residence times were relatively short (~3.8 d).

Stomach content analyses of whales harvested in fall at Kaktovik, and at more westerly locations in the

Beaufort, showed that the majority had been eating shortly before death. At Kaktovik, 83% of 29 stomachs contained

food, and 39% (7 of 18) had >20 L. Copepods dominated the diet near Kaktovik.

Stable isotope analyses of bowhead tissue continue to suggest that bowheads acquire most of their annual

energy intake from the Bering-Chukchi system, not the eastern and central Beaufort. This conclusion is based on the

small spring-fall differences (and strong Bering-Chukchi signature) in isotopic composition of bowhead tissue, in

comparison with the isotopic composition of potential prey in the Bering-Chukchi vs. eastern Beaufort areas. On the

other hand, bowheads apparently have larger circumferences and more fat when leaving the Beaufort in fall than when

arriving in spring, and they are known to feed for much of the summer in the Canadian Beaufort and during fall

migration across the Alaskan Beaufort.

The most parsimonious (though incomplete) seasonal feeding scenario is this: • Bowheads feed and become

"fatter" in the eastern and central Beaufort during summer and early fall. • They feed even more when in postulated

richer prey concentrations occurring in fall in Bering-Chukchi water in the Barrow, western Chukchi, and perhaps

northern Bering regions. • They feed little if at all in winter, such that they are thinner when they return to Beaufort in

spring than when they left in fall.

In conclusion, the results show that bowhead whales feed commonly when in the EAB in late summer and early

fall. The EAB is, without question, a feeding area for bowhead whales. However, few individuals linger there for more

than a few days, and food availability in that area is not unusually high compared with other regions (e.g., the main

summering range in the Canadian Beaufort Sea, farther east). Subject to many assumptions and approximations, it was

estimated that in an average year, about 2.4% of the annual food requirements for the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort

population may be obtained in the EAB. The best estimates for the five years of study varied from 0.2% to 7.5%.

Despite the uncertainties, it is implausible that the bowhead population consumes more than a few percent of its annual

food requirements in the EAB in an average year. However, the EAB is more important to some individual whales that

linger in the area for longer than the average residence time.

This project has been notable because of its extensive collaboration with Native groups during planning,

conduct, and interpretation. Traditional knowledge was taken into account. The project provided a better understanding

not only of bowhead feeding in the EAB, but also of the annual nutritional needs and feeding cycle. The methods

developed and applied here could be used to assess bowhead feeding elsewhere, providing better comparative data on

the importance of feeding in different areas. The results have been used in MMS's recent Beaufort Sea EIS, and will

be of value for future endangered species consultations. The results will be of use to all those participating in discussions

about the impacts of potential development in the EAB.

Discussion

Steve Treacy: Can you comment on what you now take to be the annual cycle of feeding by bowhead whales all across

their range?

John Richardson: We know that they feeding a little as they travel up the west coast of Alaska in the spring, but it seems

that they do not feed heavily then. Food availability in the spring is quite low and therefore it is not the best time of the

year to feed. We know that they feed extensively in the Canadian Beaufort Sea in the mid and late summer. Summer

feeding was studied in the early-to-mid 1980s. Bowheads feed for a higher percentage of their time in the Canadian

Beaufort Sea during mid-late summer (about 73%) as compared with 47% of their time in the eastern Alaskan Beaufort

Sea during early fall. We know from the stomach contents of whales taken at Barrow in fall, and from observations of

feeding behavior, that the whales in at least some years feed intensively in areas just east of Barrow in the fall. How the

amount of feeding that goes on east of Barrow compares to that in the Kaktovik area is not known. There hasn't been

a detailed feeding study in the area east of Barrow, but stomachs of whales harvested near Barrow in the fall certainly
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

52

indicate that feeding is common and intensive in that area. Many whales migrate across to the northeast coast of Russia’s

Chukotsk Peninsula in the late fall, and feeding has been observed there. Prey availability is probably high in parts of

that areas given that highly-productive Bering Sea water moves north through the Bering Strait to the southwest Chukchi

Sea. Whether feeding occurs at all in the Bering Sea during winter is unknown. In any event, there is feeding across the

Beaufort and Chukchi area for a period of many months. Perhaps there is more feeding in the Chukchi and Barrow areas

combined, mainly in the latter part of the year, than there is in the eastern and central parts of the Beaufort in the summer

and early fall. That hypothesis is the one that is most consistent with the data available at this point.

Brad Smith: Were you able to identify any physical features that might be predictive of where prey concentrate or where

the whales feed?

John Richardson: In the 1985-1986 study we put considerable effort into the physical oceanographic measurements,

but we were not very successful in developing an ability to predict where zooplankton is most concentrated, and

therefore where bowheads feed most intensively. Why zooplankton concentrates in particular areas has not been well

worked out for the eastern Alaska area. In general, the linkages from physical oceanography to zooplankton have not

been very well established in this area. Given the limited results on this topic from the 1985-1986 study, we chose not

to put much effort into physical oceanographic work during the 1998-2000 study. In both projects, all sampling was

from a 43-foot boat, which had limited capabilities for physical oceanographic work. For the 1998-2000 project, we felt

that the limited resources would be better spent on other aspects of the study. 

Lisa Rotterman: With respect to the animals that tended to linger, was there anything noteworthy about them in terms

of their age, reproductive class, sex?

John Richardson: We did not notice anything specific, but sample sizes weren't large enough to be very convincing on

this question. The majority of the animals for which residence times were determined were young because the majority

of data came from close to shore. That is where younger animals (subadults) tend to concentrate.

Mayor George Ahmaogak: I appreciate your work on the bowhead feeding study, especially in light of using traditional

knowledge. For the first time we're seeing an organization like yours conducting a scientific study and from the design

and collection of data taking in the concerns of local traditional groups. That is a giant step forward. Based on what you

said, it's apparent to me that bowhead whales, when migrating from eastern Canadian waters, are feeding as they go

along and in one central area where you did your study. Is this area, based on your conclusions, a designated bowhead

feeding area or not? I ask this question because in our OCS comments in EISs, that study area near Kaktovik ought to

be deferred from Lease Sale 186. And also, looking at Steve Treacy's visual observations of whales feeding right near

Barrow, we're saying these areas ought to be deferred from any leasing activities, but I need to hear what your response

is.

John Richardson: There's no doubt that this is a bowhead feeding area. A more general conclusion is that it is a

bowhead feeding area, but there are lots of other feeding areas across the Beaufort Sea as well as the Chukchi. There

may be places that are less important as feeding areas than this one, but there are probably places in the Beaufort Sea

that are more important. It's not unique–the animals feed in this area and in others.

Mayor George Ahmaogak: The irony is that we're commenting on Lease Sale 186. The results of the scientific evidence

here don't seem to have paid attention to local comments as well as the scientific evidence that supports what we've been

saying all along. The scientific evidence now concurs with what the locals are trying to convey in Washington.

Robert Suydam: The number of whales seen per 100 km surveyed in four to five years seems large. Do you have any

idea if these were large or small whales? From census work in Barrow, we've seen every 3, 4, or 5 years, a peak in the

number of calves. Is there any relationship in terms of a calving year relative to what you're seeing in the eastern

Beaufort? Residence times were based on photo ID work, is that correct? Also, did the six studies rely on recognizing

individual animals?

John Richardson: I can't comment from memory in regards to calving years. Years when peak overall numbers were

seen were mainly the years when high numbers were seen in the outer-shelf and shelf-break area, 40-200 m deep. Years
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

53

with peak numbers were not always the same when shallower water depths were considered. Residence times presented

in the report were averages from six different methods, including not only the photoidentification work but also the

documented speeds at which animals were moving in the area, telemetry studies by other researchers, and “whale-days”

estimates from aerial surveys. There was wide variation in the results obtained from the different methods. The “overall

speed”, telemetry, and “whale-days” methods did not rely on data from resightings of individual animals.

Maggie Ahmaogak: When I was last in Kaktovik, the conclusion portion of the report was not to say exactly what I

just saw because of the number of whales–-Kaktovik is three per year. For the number of whales that were sampled from

their stomachs, that was an inadequate number of whales to use and base a conclusion on, especially now for it to be

cited in the EIS.

John Richardson: A number of concerns were raised at the Kaktovik meeting in January 2002, and we attempted to

address these in the final version of the report. You are correct that the stomach content data from Kaktovik for each

year are from a small number of whales. We would like to have more data, but only a certain number of whales are

landed each year. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game, who did this part of the study, sampled every whale landed

at Kaktovik during 1997 to 2000. They also used all the stomach content data available for Kaktovik from previous

years.

Maggie Ahmaogak: I was alluding to the number of whales that were used given the quota that they had and that your

study had Kaktovik people feeling that this was an important feeding area. Now that this report is being cited in the EIS

for the lease sales for the OCS–remember that the villagers understood that the number of whales to provide such a

conclusion was very inadequate and that further research needed to be done to answer that specific question. That your

conclusions are being used in the EIS makes me very uncomfortable.

John Richardson: One of the important things that the Kaktovik people asked us to do was to change a series of

hypotheses listed in the draft report into questions. Rather than provide a yes/no answer for each of them, we tried to

estimate some measure of feeding that addressed each of those questions. For most of the questions, the answer was that

yes, the Kaktovik area is a feeding area. For example, over three-fourths of the animals caught near Kaktovik had food

in their stomachs. The report describes the utilization of the area rather than just concluding, yes or no, whether it is

an important feeding area.

Craig George: Did you ever estimate the portion of feeding ground relative to the entire feeding area?

John Richardson: No, but when one looks at the map showing the study area as compared with the full area where

bowheads are known to feed, the study area is a small percentage. Part of the problem is that we don't know all the other

places the bowheads feed so we can't really say what percentage of the total feeding area the present study area

constitutes. If they obtain about 2.4% of their annual diet in the study area, that may be roughly in proportion to the size

of the study area relative to the total feeding area.

Unidentified: Residence times for whales was greater than 10 days-the study period was quite short-but you couldn't

have caught whales that were there for two or three weeks, for instance.

John Richardson: It is true that the duration of the study each year was short—not as long as we would have liked it to

be. This could lead to some underestimation of residence times when they are derived from photoidentification data.

However, some of the analyses that have been applied to the residence time question are not very sensitive to the fact

that we weren't there for the whole season—the “stopover duration analysis” method, for example. Travel speeds are

also insensitive. I don't deny that there are uncertainties in the residence time estimates, but I don't think our estimate

of the average residence time was very far off.

Discussion from the Barrow IUM

Steve Treacy: For your ‘local involvement’ slide, what kind of cooperation do you have with the Native groups? As

you know, Minerals Management Service made a large effort to coordinate that.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

54

John Richardson: There was local involvement in the initial planning, the field work, and the review of the draft report.

Before the fieldwork began, there were meetings in Kaktovik, interviews with whaling captains and others in Kaktovik,

and compilation of local and traditional knowledge. We met with the Kaktovik Whaling Captains Association (KWCA)

before and after each field season. We also met with representatives of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission

(AEWC) and North Slope Borough (NSB). The project’s Scientific Review Board (SRB) met before, during and after

the fieldwork, and it included representatives of the KWCA, AEWC, and NSB. Kaktovik residents participated in localboat surveys in August prior to the main field season, and each year a Kaktovik resident was a member of the boat-based

crew that studied zooplankton near Kaktovik. Also, some of scientific field crew were based in Kaktovik, and they

coordinated with the Kaktovik whalers. After the draft report was prepared and discussed with the Scientific Review

Board, it was also discussed at a workshop in Kaktovik.

Craig George: In the early local boat surveys, how many whales were seen?

Michael Galginaitis: One in the last year (2000). For earlier years, a combination of weather, etc., made that effort

ineffective. We also used a hydrophone and during the last year that detected whales twice.

Craig George: To address the importance of residence time, if it had started in early August, how would results change?

Were results skewed by the length of the study period?

John Richardson: I don't think it would have made much difference, partly because the number of whales present in

August on the continental shelf is low. However, the field seasons in 1998-2000 were limited to two weeks to three and

a half weeks of aerial work. It would have been desirable to have had longer study periods, but it was just not possible

during this study. Also, the photoidentification work is limited to certain weather conditions, and that is another limiting

factor. Aside from the short field seasons in 1998-2000, there are other limitations in the estimates of residence times.

If anything, the estimates may actually be too high. 

Craig George: Would that [i.e., the short field seasons] have affected the results?

John Richardson: Not very much, because residence times were not based just on photographic re-identifications. Some

of the resighting analyses were not very sensitive to duration of field season, even though it did not extend for the full

duration of the migration. Also, the estimates based on speeds of travel as observed during behavioral surveys do not

require observations many days apart.

Steve Treacy: Whalers asked us to hold off moving our vessel into the study area until part-way through the

season—they didn't want it east of Kaktovik until after they got two of the three whales in the Kaktovik quota. That's

also a reason why we didn't start work until after the whale migration was underway. For 1998-2000, we do not have

photographic data for the whole season, partly because we couldn't start work until later.

Craig George: The importance of this study is based on five years of work. Some years have had significant feeding,

but perhaps not disproportionate to the area.

John Richardson: Yes, the amount of feeding is variable, with more feeding in some areas and years than others. There

was very little feeding in 2000, and more feeding in the other four years of feeding studies near Kaktovik. Similar

studies have been conducted in the Canadian Beaufort Sea, and those show that feeding is more frequent, and over a

more prolonged period, in the Canadian Beaufort than near Kaktovik. Stomach contents and direct observations indicate

that there may be as much or more feeding east of Barrow as in the Kaktovik area. Feeding has also been observed near

the Russian coast in late fall. The Kaktovik area is a feeding site, but it is apparently not unusual relative to other sites.

Craig George: It's hard to reconcile the isotope data, but how much of the total energy do they get from the eastern

Beaufort Sea (including Canada)? Food has different signatures in different ranges; if [only] 10-26% is from the

Canadian [and eastern Alaskan] Beaufort Sea [, as the isotope data suggest,] then the question is what are they doing

there? If they're filter feeding the entire time, how much food is gained during that period?
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

55

John Richardson: That has been calculated in the report based on the available bowhead and zooplankton data for the

Canadian and eastern Alaskan Beaufort Sea, but there are no data on feeding during the early part of the summer. Also,

there are more analyses that could be done with the available energetics data.

Craig George: Whales of certain size are about two tons lighter in spring than they are in the fall (in spring they're

lighter). They gain a significant amount of weight in summer, indicating a significant amount of feeding.

John Richardson: Yes, they gain some weight while in the Beaufort during the summer based on your measurements

of whales harvested in spring and fall, and on our aerial photographs of whales in spring and fall. From the photos we

can also measure their girths in each season as a function of whale length, and this method also shows that they are

“fatter” in late summer and early fall than in spring. But maybe they gain even more weight later in the fall; by the time

they get to the Bering Sea in the late fall, they may be “fatter” than when they are leaving the Beaufort in the early fall.

That might be expected because zooplankton are believed to be especially abundant in the areas where bowheads feed

near the Russian coast in late fall. This possible weight gain in late fall has not been studied. If much feeding occurs

in late fall in the Chukchi Sea, that could help account for the isotope data showing that most bowhead food comes from

Bering-Chukchi water (possibly including the area just east of Barrow). Most other whales do not feed very much in

the winter. If that is true of bowheads, that might account for them being “thinner” in spring when returning to the

Beaufort than in fall when leaving the Beaufort. 

Arnold Brower: Once we had a gathering in Greenland. They have seen some bowheads.

John Richardson: There is a Davis Strait/Baffin Bay population of bowheads, but there is a gap in the central Canadian

arctic where the two populations don't meet. The population occurring west of Greenland has not recovered from

commercial whaling.

Arnold Brower: I noticed a difference in texture of the blubber. It's pink in color on the blubber when the whales come

back in the fall. Is there a change in their food? The ones in the spring have a smooth texture and taste better.

Waska Williams, Jr.: Have you used satellite tags?

John Richardson: We have not, but other researchers have placed satellite tags and UHF radio tags on some bowheads

in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. Satellite-tagged bowheads have been tracked as far west as the Chukchi Sea. A few UHFtagged bowheads have been followed by aircraft from the Canadian Beaufort Sea into the Alaskan Beaufort. We used

the results from both of those studies to help determine the duration of stay in the eastern Alaskan Beaufort.

John Richardson: We have UHF tags on several whales in the Canadian Beaufort and followed them by airplane across

the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Some Canadian bowheads were tagged and followed to the Chukchi.

Steve Treacy: Six different methodologies were used to determine the residence times.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

56

REFERENCE MANUAL AND GIS GEOSPATIAL DATABASE OF OIL-INDUSTRY AND OTHER

HUMAN ACTIVITY (1979-1998) IN THE BEAUFORT SEA

Peter Wainwright

LGL Limited

9768 Second Street

Sidney, BC, CANADA V8L 3Y8

(250) 656-0127, FAX (250) 655-4761, pwwright@lgl.com

Presented by W. John Richardson.

The objective of this study was to compile detailed information describing the locations, timing, and nature

of oil and gas related and other human activities in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea between 1979-1998. Information obtained

is stored in ArcView shapefiles and a Visual Foxpro database.

An important objective is to compile a spatial and temporal GIS database that can be used to document the

occurrence of seismic survey, drilling, oil and gas support vessel activities, and other activities which may have an effect

on the behavior of marine mammals, especially the bowhead whale. Such an analysis requires an adequate level of

detail. This effort included the search of archives of both public and proprietary documents and data sets. The majority

of the data in the database relate to drilling activity ice management, and seismic survey activity. The main sources for

information were: Common Depth Point (CDP) surveys conducted under Federal OCS permit, geohazard surveys for

Federal OCS wells, USGS geophysical surveys, and daily drilling reports for Alaska Beaufort OCS and State of Alaska

wells.

With the exception of ice management activity, the compiled information on oil and gas activity for the period

1990 to 1998 is relatively complete and considered adequate for the statistical analysis of covariance of factors

potentially affecting bowhead whale behavior. There are significant gaps in the data for the period 1979 to 1989, and

for other human activities during that period.

Due to the inclusion of the CDP seismic survey navigation data, the reports and databases from this study are

considered proprietary. The Alaska Environmental Studies Program (ESP) is working toward the potential release of

volume 1, which contains a summary of the result

ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES AND SEA ICE IN RELATION TO

FALL MIGRATIONS OF BOWHEAD WHALES 

W. John Richardson1, G.W. Miller1, V.D. Moulton1, R.E. Elliott1, and B.F.J. Manly2

1

 LGL Ltd., environmental research associates, 22 Fisher St., POB 280, King City, Ont. L7B 1A6

(905) 833-1244, FAX (905) 833-1255, E-mail: wjr@lgl.com 2

 WEST Inc., 2003 Central Ave., Cheyenne, WY 82001

(307) 634-1756, FAX (307) 637-6981, E-mail: bmanly@west-inc.com

The objective of this study, as defined by MMS, is "...to estimate the relative importance of the effects of

development-related and environmental factors on the distribution and/or density of bowhead whales in the vicinity of

oil- and gas-related developments in the central Beaufort Sea."

The approach involves use of relevant data from several existing sources, including (1) the Human Activities

Database (HAD) for the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, prepared during a previous MMS/LGL project (see summary by P.

Wainwright); (2) MMS's Bowhead Whale Aerial Survey Project (BWASP-see summary by S. Treacy); and (3) various
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

57

site-specific aerial surveys sponsored by industry. Multivariate statistical analyses will be applied to characterize the

probability of sighting bowhead(s) at a given location in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea during late summer and autumn in

relation to:

• proximity of various specific industrial activities;

• proximity of whaling (insofar as this is documented);

• ice conditions;

• spatial and temporal factors such as location, date, distance offshore, depth;

• factors affecting sightability, including sea state, visibility, etc.

Logistic regression (with refinements) will be used.

This project has been planned as a two-phase effort: Phase (1), which is underway in FY2003, includes

planning the analyses and developing the statistical approach, organizing the data from one season, and testing the

statistical approach on one season's data. Phase (2), which is planned for FY2004, will include organizing the data for

additional seasons in the 1990-1998 period, applying the multivariate analyses to the multi-year database, and reporting

and publishing the results. MMS will decide whether to proceed with Phase 2 depending on the outcome of Phase 1,

which is effectively a pilot study.

Discussion

Craig George: Given the uncertainties in the database, it seems that the analysis is going to be messy. It's going to be

difficult to tease out environmental effects from natural changes in whale distribution from industrial effects and it

would warrant a power analysis, but can you give a general idea of how to handle missing data and those sorts of things

to be able to conclude anything?

John Richardson: In the 1990s, not a lot was missing. The limited records of ice breaking are a problem, but we already

know generally where it has occurred and when. We can get some limited information for each day about whether or

not ice breaking was occurring around the drill ships. That information is not in the human activities database right now,

but it will be incorporated. The data on ice breaking are less adequate than we would like, but there is useable

information so it is not a fatal flaw in the overall analysis. Other than that the only concern for the 1990s is the

possibility that there may have been a few seismic surveys in state waters for which records are unavailable. If there

were any surveys of this type, there were very few and they were close to shore (in state waters). Any missing data of

this type would not affect a very large fraction of the time or area, so we're not overly concerned. We would like to use

data from the 1980s because the many additional aerial survey data from that time would, if used, increase the power

of the statistical analysis. However, too much of the human activity in the 1980s is at this point undocumented. The

logistic regression approach we are planning is very flexible in its ability to accommodate different levels of survey

effort. It will be a complicated analysis, but some of the most relevant questions have been studied before. These

questions include as how seismic surveys, drillships, ice, etc., affect whale distribution. We have a good idea of what

to expect from the more comprehensive analyses now planned.

Maggie Ahmaogak: There are too many inadequacies. You're going to have a lot of missing information for years that

are expected to come up with some kind of variance. What major question are you trying to answer with this project?

What kind of time frame does this project have? Is this information geared towards providing more citings to the EIS

for the lease sale?

John Richardson: We are trying to sort out the influences of many different factors that we know or suspect are affecting

bowhead whale occurrence and distribution in various areas. We know that bowheads are affected by natural factors

like ice, seasonal progression, and various industrial activities. In the past, the effects of those factors have been studied

one at a time. However, that type of analysis has limitations because several factors often change from one time to the

next. This makes it very difficult to be sure which factor is causing any change in whale abundance that one might see.

The purpose of the new analysis is to try and look at all these factors together, combining them into one overall analysis

that takes into account the variety of factors that are suspected to affect the bowheads. From the multivariate analysis,

we hope to be able to determine which factors are more and less important in affecting the likelihood that a bowhead
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

58

will be found at a particular location. This will include analyzing the effects in terms of distance from industry, duration

of exposure, etc. Phase I is to be finished by September 2003. Phase II might be completed a year after that if the

Minerals Management Service decides that it is worthwhile to proceed with Phase II after reviewing results from the

initial work.

Charles Monnett: Any report released to the public is citable by anyone. At this point some major issues need to be

resolved over the proprietary nature of the industry databases and how many of them can be released, but MMS is

working through that. Right now this is a very active project, but it is still an uncertain project and the products are

uncertain at this point.

Brad Smith: For the seismic data, is it probable that in those data from the 1980s that they would have the size arrays

and source levels or would you only know that they operated? 

John Richardson: The airgun array characteristics are documented in publicly-available reports for some but not all of

the seismic projects in the 1980s. However, for the kinds of analyses we need to do, data on the characteristics of the

airgun array are less important than just knowing for sure whether or not there was a seismic survey at a particular

nearby location at the time in question. One of the main problems with data concerning seismic surveys in the 1980s

is that we often have records of the locations of the seismic lines, but do not have records of the specific times when

those lines were surveyed. For the planned analyses, it doesn't do much good to know where the seismic survey occurred

if we don't know when each seismic line was surveyed. That is one of the main reasons why data from the 1980s are

not likely to be very useful in the planned analyses. 

BEHAVIOR OF RINGED SEALS AND RE-INTERPRETATION OF AERIAL SURVEYS

 Oriana R. Harding1, Brendan P. Kelly2, Mervi Kunnasranta3

School of Arts and Sciences

 University of Alaska Southeast

11120 Glacier Highway, Juneau, AK 99801 1

(907) 465-6844, FAX (907) 465-6447, E-mail: oriana.harding@uas.alaska.edu 2

(907) 465-6510, FAX (907) 465-6406 E-mail: brendan.kelly@uas.alaska.edu

3

(907) 465-8450, FAX (907) 465-6447, E-mail: mervi.kunnasranta@joensuu.fi

Ringed seals spend much of the year hidden from view in snow caves (lairs) on the shorefast ice of the Arctic

Ocean. Each spring, as the snow melts, seals abandon their snow caves and rest on the surface of the ice. In the past,

aerial surveys have been used to relate seal numbers to ecological variables and industrial activities. Aerial surveys,

however, count an unknown proportion of the population that is visible on the surface of the ice and assumes that the

proportion does not change over time. 

We are testing the implicit assumptions of aerial surveys and investigating how the proportion of visible seals

changes over time and between years. The results will be used in a reanalysis of past ringed seal surveys.

From 1999-2002, we tagged 48 ringed seals (8, 10, 14, 16 respectively) in Prudhoe Bay. During May and June

each year, we recorded hourly the proportion of tagged seals in the water, hidden in snow caves, or visible on the surface

of the ice. The proportion of tagged seals that were visible 1) had a strong diurnal pattern, peaking at 3:00 pm and 2)

was highly variable, changing from as much as 100% to 13% by the next day. Lastly, the timing of lair abandonment

varied greatly from year to year. 

In 2001 and 2002, in conjunction with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, we found that spaceborne Ku-band

scatterometer data were sensitive to snow deterioration and remotely indicated the timing of lair abandonment. We are

continuing to test the utility of scatterometer data and we plan to model the effects of environmental covariates on the

proportion of seals visible. The model will then be used in a reanalysis of previous ringed seal surveys.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

59

Discussion

Steve Amstrup: In picking the timing for aerial surveys it is my understanding that you have to avoid the time after

snow has completely collapsed because then the surface of the ocean becomes gray and/or black. And even if the seals

are hauled on it, they are difficult to see. How do you deal with that in your model?

Oriana Harding: That is correct. There is a time between when snow caves are abandoned and before that real wetness

occurs. There is a better time for surveys, but we won't know that each year unless we can be remotely signaled when

the snow caves are abandoned. However, that would also be difficult because then the survey crews have to be sitting

out there waiting for the melt to occur.

Ted Eschenbach: Would you be able to adjust numbers by observing where you are in the cycle though, so it wouldn't

matter?

Oriana Harding: That might be something we are able to do. I have a sense that when seals are in lairs, on the surface

or in water, it might be more difficult to do that because of that rapid change. Maybe if it happens earlier or later, but

in the transition when seals are abandoning their snow caves it would be very difficult.

DETECTING DENNING POLAR BEARS WITH 

FORWARD LOOKING INFRA-RED IMAGERY (FLIR)

S. C. Amstrup, Ph.D.1, G. Weston-York1, T. L. McDonald2, R. Nielsen2, K. Simac1, and G. M. Durner1

1

 U. S. G. S., Alaska Science Center, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503

(907) 786-3424, FAX (907) 786-3636, E-mail: Steve_Amstrup@usgs.gov 2

 Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc., 2003 Central Avenue, Cheyenne, WY, 82001

Polar bears give birth in snow dens in mid winter, and remain in dens until early spring. Survival and

development of neonates is dependent on the stable environment within the maternal den. Petroleum related activities

currently span approximately 200 km of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea coastal area. New and proposed developments are

expected to dramatically expand the area influenced by petroleum activities. These activities are a potential threat to

polar bears, especially as they might disturb denning females. 

In order to help manage and mitigate potential disruptions of polar bear denning, we tested whether we could

detect heat, rising through the roofs of maternal dens, with forward-looking infrared (FLIR) viewing devices. We tested

detectability of dens by flying transects, over habitats known to hold dens, with FLIR equipped aircraft. We recorded

flight and weather conditions at each observation and tallied whether or not the den was detected. 

Eight previously unknown dens were discovered during searches for 15 dens of radio-collared bears. We

surveyed the 23 dens on 67 occasions (1 to 7 times each). Four dens were never detected (17%), but 3 of those only were

visited under marginal conditions. Nine dens were always detected and 10 dens visited more than once were detected

on some flights and not on others. Conducting survey flights only during conditions favorable for detection should result

in detection rates substantially higher than the 83% we experienced during our tests. For every one degree (C) increase

in Temperature Dew-point spread, the Odds of detecting a den increased 3X. We were 4.8X more likely to detect a den

when airborne moisture (snow, blowing snow, fog etc.) was absent than when it was present, and we were

approximately 28X more likely to detect a den at night than we were after sunrise. Our data suggest some dens never

will be detectable with FLIR. Conversely, we feel FLIR surveys conducted during conditions that maximize odds of

detection will locate most dens most of the time and can be an important management/mitigation tool. 

Discussion
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

60

Mike Williams: Is there any value in trying to put the day after the blizzard into the model to help explain some of that?

Or is there any point in trying to include the day after the blizzard so as to tease out the deterioration of snow from the

surface?

Steve Amstrup: There may be a value in it, but I'm unsure if we have the data recorded in a way that we can make use

of it. In the univariate analysis, the mean wind speed for times we didn't see a den was only 10 knots, but it doesn't take

very much wind to actually create this blowing effect. We must look to see if we can make use of it.

Craig George: We've used FLIR to look at bowheads, specifically to look at the temperature signal coming off the

animal's back instead of the flukes. We couldn't see them at all–they were invisible with the same instrument. We could

see eiders, muskox, but not the whale. I wonder if that was an (this is open water) effect of water vapor screwing up the

signal?

Steve Amstrup: Well, it certainly could. In fact, moisture in the air was a factor that the manufacturers of the instrument

warned us about, so we suspected that it was going to be an important variable. Moisture in the air could have negative

effects on detection. I wonder if the countercurrent blood flow system in whales, when submerged, wouldn't still be in

play if they're just sitting at the surface just breathing. That may have something to do with it.

Craig George: That was the obvious conclusion–that their skin was at ambient temperature, but still, the instrumentation

is very sensitive and you'd think it'd pick something up. Unless they raised their flukes they were absolutely invisible.

Is it worth trying in the spring when the air is drier and there's less water vapor?

Steve Amstrup: I would think that may be useful. The density on sea ice is very difficult to see because in the winter

time, the sea is relatively very hot compared to the air so any cracks, fissures, seal holes, etc. create a mosaic of different

temperatures. But you couldn't be sure if you saw a den because there are so many other targets that looked similar, so

early on we abandoned the idea of trying to use this for looking for sea ice dens. Fortunately most of the dens likely to

be influenced by human activities are on land.

Steve Treacy: Are you aware of any next generation FLIR, or something like it, that will be worth testing as well?

Steve Amstrup: My understanding is that they are continually upgrading these devices. A different kind of sensor array

is available. We tried to test that unit, but it froze up on the first day out. The internal instrumentation froze in -15°F

and it was supposedly good to -40°F.

THE USE OF SEA ICE HABITAT BY FEMALE POLAR BEARS IN THE BEAUFORT SEA

George M. Durner1, Steven C. Amstrup1, Ryan Nielson2 and Trent McDonald2

1

 U. S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center

1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503

(907) 786-3366, FAX (907) 786-3636, E-mail: George_Durner@usgs.gov 2

 Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc., 2003 Central Avenue

Cheyenne, WY 82001

This presentation was also given at the Barrow IUM.

Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) depend on ice-covered seas to satisfy life history requirements. Modern threats

to polar bears include oil spills in the marine environment and changes in ice composition resulting from climate change.

Managers need practical models that explain the distribution of bears in order to assess the impacts of these threats. We

used stepwise procedures to create resource selection models of habitat use for radio-collared female polar bears in the

Beaufort Sea. Sea ice characteristics and ocean depths at known polar bear locations were compared to the same features

at randomly selected locations. Models generated for each of four seasons confirmed complexities of habitat use by polar
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

61

bears and their response to numerous factors. Bears preferred shallow water areas where ice concentrations were > 80

% and different ice types intersected. Variation among seasons was reflected mainly in differential selection of ice

stages, floe sizes, and their interactions. Water depth, total ice concentration and distance to the nearest interface

between different ice types were significant terms in models for most seasons. Variation in ice stage and form also

appeared in three models, and several interaction effects were identified. Habitat selection by polar bears is likely related

to prey abundance and availability. Use of habitats in shallow water possibly reflects higher productivity in those areas.

Habitat use in close proximity to ice edges is probably related to greater access of prey in those habitats.

Discussion from the Barrow IUM

Todd O'Hara: In regards to young ice, could it be that over the year the proportion that is young is changing and that

30 cm, which is most of the young ice, is extremely thin and wouldn't support a polar bear?

George Durner: It may be important habitat to them. Maybe they have a better chance of catching seals there, but they

still need some refuge habitat. Models are complicated because it's not a simple thing what/where polar bears are looking

for. There are a number of variables a polar bear needs to consider.

Craig George: Did that include denning females? Were the free ranging bears all females?

George Durner: Yes.

Harry Brower, Jr.: What percentage were males or females out of the 53 bears tagged? What was the number that would

have been affected by the oil spill?

George Durner: All bears were females because the males' necks are too fat, and we're assuming that the movements

of males are similar to that of the females. To answer your second question, this is a hypothetical oil spill scenario–just

a demonstration. We did do a similar type of analysis based on a separate data set to see how many bears are affected.

But the sole purpose of this study is to show the capabilities of GIS.

Steve Treacy: In the event of a real spill, a lot of changes occur from day to day, hour to hour, but that wouldn't show

up as an overlay. It needs an entire profile along the spill path over about 24 hours to see how many bears would be

affected or how many other animals would be affected or would respond as well.

George Durner: Yes, in the event of a real oil spill, you need a 24 hour survey. The response to a spill may be an

attractant due to curiosity.

Cleve Cowles: Is it reasonable that there were outliers, clusters that weren't explained by ice alone. Maybe other

variables involved in the distribution of polar bears on ice. The resolution of the data is a shortcoming, but gives us an

index of the habitat. Some locations are occurring as a cluster farther offshore than the color shading representing the

average over three. It maybe useful to show annual data.

Craig George: A dead whale stranded could be a polar bear magnet and could mess up selection functions.

John Richardson: Despite the outliers, there seems to be a good match in terms of predictions and where the polar bears

really settle. The data set is independent.

George Durner: It's not the same function. We do have data available prior to 1997, and we use that data in order to

make those assessments. The ice systems in the early 1990s and late 1980s are different than now, so we're curious to

look at that.

Harry Brower, Jr.: If male bears are tagged would that be different?

George Durner: We have very little data on males. We're making a big assumption that females are representative of

males as well. In 1992, we radio collared a female that came within two degrees of the North Pole.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

62

Harry Brower, Jr. Male migrations do occur. They have gone beyond 76°.

Todd O'Hara: Hunters, while spring whaling, notice a higher proportion of male bears in the spring challenging for

whale carcasses.

Steve Treacy: Have you considered subcutaneous tags?

George Durner: In the late 1990s, they provided limited information on movement rates. They require an external

antenna and the technology is prone to mechanical failure.

SATELLITE TRACKING OF EASTERN CHUKCHI SEA BELUGA WHALES 

IN THE BEAUFORT SEA AND ARCTIC OCEAN

Robert Suydam1, Lloyd Lowry2, Kathy Frost2, and Greg O'Corry-Crowe3

1

North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management, Box 69, Barrow, AK 99723

(907) 852-0350, FAX (907) 852-0351, E-mail: Robert.Suydam@north-slope.org 2

1550 Coyote Trail, Fairbanks, AK 99709

(907) 455-6885, E-mail: llowry@eagle.ptialaska.net and kfrost@eagle.ptialaska.net 3

National Marine Fisheries Service, P.O. Box 271, La Jolla, CA 92038

(858) 546-7091, FAX (858) 546-7003, E-mail: greg.o'corry-crowe@noaa.gov

Beluga whales occur in northern and western Alaska and are important for subsistence to many Alaska Native

hunters. Despite this importance little was known about the movements and distribution of belugas from the eastern

Chukchi Sea prior to the initiation of this study. Much was known about the distribution of belugas in coastal waters

during portions of the summer but little was known during the rest of the year. Satellite tagging provides a means to

determine beluga whale distribution and movements outside of coastal summering areas. 

With the assistance of subsistence hunters at Point Lay, Alaska, we live captured and attached satellite tags to

23 belugas between 1998 and 2002. We captured and tagged 12 adult males, 2 adult females, 4 immature males and 5

immature females. Timing of captures was associated with the annual drive hunt that occurs in late June or early July.

Hunters drove belugas from the Chukchi Sea into Kasegaluk Lagoon. Not all of the belugas that are driven into the

lagoon are hunted. Thus the belugas that remain in the shallow lagoon provide an opportunity for capturing and tagging.

We tracked the movements of the whales from capture until the transmitters ceased functioning, from 2 weeks to

approximately 5 months. Movements of the belugas were tracked through NOAA satellites and data were provided

through the ARGOS system. 

The animals we tagged spent much of the summer in the Beaufort Sea and the Arctic Ocean north of the

Beaufort Sea. Male belugas moved the farthest north and east during July and August. Female and immature belugas

tended to stay over the outer continental shelf or near the shelf break but did not use coastal waters. Data were received

from three belugas until December. All three of these belugas passed south through the Chukchi Sea and through Bering

Strait. There were located north of Saint Lawrence Island or west of the Seward Peninsula at the time their tags ceased

transmitting.

Belugas from the eastern Chukchi Sea use much of the Beaufort Sea, the Arctic Ocean north of the Beaufort

Sea, and portions of the northern Chukchi Sea during the late summer. Many of the adult males traveled farther north

than expected and utilized very deep, ice-covered waters. Females and immature animals tended to remain along the

shelf break or close to the break during the summer. The extent of use of the Beaufort Sea was surprising as belugas

occurred throughout the sea with the exception that coastal areas were little used. We do not know why belugas travel

into such deep and ice-covered waters during the summer but they may seek out large schools of cod or other sources

of prey.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

63

Discussion

Don Hansen: What type of ice was in the 90% ice area if not old ice floes? Because the old ice floes have keels on them

and that may have been something they were keying in on.

Robert Suydam: We haven't characterized ice that far north, but without a doubt there is old ice, undoubtedly they did

have to deal with large pans of old ice. They were obviously able to navigate through the ice and find breathing holes.

Don Hansen: I'm not concerned with breathing holes, but keels, places where there may be Arctic cod

productivity–something they may key in on as a source for food. How much do Arctic cod like old versus new ice, or

relatively young first year ice?

Robert Suydam: I have seen video of Arctic cod hanging out in cracks of ice or relatively young, first year ice. There's

no doubt that there are a lot of Arctic cod out there; whether the population is dense enough or if belugas are able to get

them is still up in the air.

Mike Williams: The first year you had all adult males, the second year all males went north, but did the immatures go

north as well? The next year it was all immatures and females so without a male there are you confident that this is just

a year to year phenomenon when going well offshore, or is there some segregation?

Robert Suydam: There is some segregation. The first year we had a small female that basically hung out 40 to 50 miles

north of Barrow, but in 2001 we caught some adult males when they mostly hung out in the shelf break in the western

Beaufort Sea. So I think what's going on is that in 1998-1999 belugas that were driven into the lagoon were the first that

came by. There is traditional and scientific knowledge that the first group of a stock that comes in is essentially a

bachelor herd of belugas. The 1998-1999 hunt consisted almost entirely of males (45 males, 5 males that we captured

and tagged in those two years), in 2001-2002 the hunt happened later in the year, so it probably wasn't the first group

to appear, so breeding females were coming through–probably breeding males and immatures as well. I really think it's

a sexual difference. It's analogous to sperm whales in the Antarctic, where the bachelor herds go much closer to the

poles while the females and young stay closer to the Equator.

Chuck Monnett: It's possible we're overexploiting or nearly overexploiting the patience of hunters, and it may not be

feasible to do this work in the near future. Can you give insight to interactions there and where you might think the best

potential would be to do additional work of this type?

Robert Suydam: As mentioned before, the only reason we were successful is that the hunters were enthusiastic and

interested in movements of the belugas. They've been very tolerant of us scientists since I've been going to Point Lay

in 1990. Most of the work has been collecting biological samples from subsistence animals. So when we started in 1996

people were enthusiastic, but over a few years, people starting to be less enthusiastic about us attaching transmitters to

the belugas. I think it would be possible to go back and tag again (in Point Lay), but a lot of the elders and hunters say

maybe take a break for a while. We have tags on 23 belugas and I don't know if we'll learn much more about the Eastern

Chukchi Sea stock of belugas with the technology that we have now. If we can keep tags on for a year, I'd be

enthusiastic in going back to Point Lay and asking to tag again, but don't think we'll gain much more by tagging right

now. We need to change the tag design or attachment design. There is a new paper out on using belugas as

oceanographers, i.e., attaching CTDs to them and sending that information back through satellites. That may be another

good reason to go back to Point Lay and capture belugas, get oceanographic data there from the Chukchi and Beaufort

Seas. In terms of other places to capture, I don't think there are other places to capture this stock; it would be difficult

unless we knew where this stock was moving at certain times of the year. Other stocks we know about are in Bristol

Bay according to the Beluga Committee at National Marine Fisheries Service and Department of Fish and Game. There's

a possibility of tagging in Russia, and try to get eastern Beaufort sea stock as it comes back by in the fall time. We have

lots of options.

USGS ALASKA TISSUE ARCHIVAL PROJECTS: AN UPDATE ON FY02 ACTIVITIES
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

64

Geoff Weston York

Polar Bear Project/AMMTAP

USGS, Alaska Biological Science Center

1011 East Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503-6199

(907) 786-3928, FAX (907) 786-3636, E-mail: geoff_york@usgs.gov

The banking of environmental specimens under cryogenic conditions for future retrospective analysis has been

recognized for many years as an important part of environmental monitoring programs. Since 1987, the Alaska Marine

Mammal Tissue Archival Project (AMMTAP) has been collecting tissue samples from marine mammals for archival

in the National Biomonitoring Specimen Bank (NBSB) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

in Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA. The USGS, Alaska Biological Science Center (ABSC), the NOAA Fisheries, Office

of Protected Resources (NMFS), and the NIST conduct this partnership project, which began under the Mineral

Management Service (MMS) Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program. MMS remains the primary

client agency for the AMMTAP providing programmatic guidance and review. The purpose of the project is to collect

tissue samples from Alaska marine mammals and to store these specimens under the best conditions so that they can

be analyzed for environmental contaminants and other constituents. A substantial part of the sample collection is from

Arctic species and, since most of the animals sampled are from Alaska Native subsistence harvests, the project relies

on cooperation and collaboration with several Alaska Native organizations and local governmental agencies. 

Although a substantial amount of recent research has been conducted on contaminants in Alaskan marine

mammals, few data exists on colonial seabirds nesting in Alaska. Like marine mammals, seabirds are an important group

of upper trophic level marine organisms with a potential for accumulating lipophilic contaminants and are identified

by MMS as species of interest for monitoring activities. More than 95% of the seabirds breeding in the continental

United States nest at colonies in the Bering and Chukchi seas and Gulf of Alaska (see USFWS 1992). Realizing the

value of colonial seabirds in environmental monitoring and the lack of recent data from Alaskan seabird colonies, the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS-AMNWR), the U.S. Geological

Survey Biological Resources Division (USGS-BRD), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

initiated the Seabird Tissue Archival and Monitoring Project (STAMP) in 1998. The project was designed as a

100-year-long program to monitor long-term trends in environmental quality by collecting eggs at nesting colonies using

standardized protocols, banking the egg contents under conditions that ensure chemical stability during long-term

(decadal) storage, and analyzing subsamples of the stored material to establish baseline levels for persistent

bioaccumulative contaminants (e.g., chlorinated pesticides, PCBs, mercury).

Discussion

Steve Treacy: If other lines of PAH analysis or exposure to petroleum analysis are developed–your program has a very

rigorous collection/transport and storage protocol–would they be able to easily adapt to collecting additional tissues?

Geoff York: Yes, it's quite easy for AMMTAP to adapt. We've been working with National Marine Fisheries Service

and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on formalizing the blood sampling protocol, particularly with

polar bears, which we do quite a bit of live capture with. We're actively looking at blood; bile is of interest, but has a

very quick degradation.

Todd O'Hara: The U.S. Department of Agriculture has new regulations–how is that going to impact this program

because they're obviously worried about terrorist activities and moving fresh biological samples across the country. Is

there going to be something within Alaska where this will be relaxed because this is also going to impact subsistence

user when they move food? The bottom line is that we're going to be regulated and costs are going to go up, and I think

your program will suffer because of the way rural Alaska has been contributing samples that haven't been heavily

regulated–other than having permits in place. But now biological samples in general will be regulated by Homeland

Security and the United States Department of Agriculture is coming up with new strict guidelines as to how we can

move them. Furthermore, because communities are going to use air travel to move samples, I think we'll have a problem

and we need to address this problem.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

65

Geoff York: It sounds like something we'll have to address with our other agency partners like National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, and possibly at the congressional level to seek some sort of in-state exemption, but not

I'm not sure where United States Department of Agriculture is headed.

Cleve Cowles: Can you characterize the proportions of the collection of Cook Inlet versus the Arctic and your recent

efforts for collections in Cook Inlet?

Geoff York: In general, 80% of the samples collected by AMMTAP are from Arctic regions, primarily related back

to OCS interests in the Beaufort Sea, historically in the Chukchi and maybe Chukchi in the future. Sampling has been

sporadic in Cook Inlet with belugas in part because of the decrease take. We are working with new partnerships and

folks associated with Chugachmiut, Southern Cook Inlet, Nonwalak(?) to look at Steller sea lion and harbor seal

sampling and working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to increase sea otter sampling 2003-04.

Todd O'Hara: From the North Slope Borough perspective, the archive great. But when you talk about oil spills, those

probably aren't the appropriate tissues. So when they were forced to do PAH analyses on these tissues, these weren't

surprising results. Getting back to adapting a program to an issue, if you look at oil spills, tissues such as GI, mouth,

lungs, skin, epidermis are important, but liver although very good at metabolizing hydrocarbons, unfortunately is not

the place to focus on. It would make more sense to adapt the program to become more of a spill response perspective

as opposed to a biomagnification one. The sampling strategy should probably change, as blubber and liver don't always

work.

Craig George: Are you saying that these archive samples aren't useful for any DNA analysis?

Geoff York: Not at all. Bowhead liver tissue samples were deemed too degraded for DNA adduct analysis, which takes

3-12 hours to get samples from the animal and that's too long of a time period. Other samples, like ringed seal, were very

high quality and they were useful for that analysis. So it looks like the smaller animals–species that we can access more

quickly–and some other animals will be useful for adduct DNA analysis. Other animals with no exposure to PAHs don't

take as long to extract and get tissue from.

Todd O'Hara: In regards to adducts, some carcinogens and chemicals are reactive and bind DNA. When you isolate

DNA you look for the adducts because that's a monitor of exposure, but DNA is also a target for toxicity so it's a good

thing to look at how suitable tissues are for DNA adducts. Actually the macromolecules attach to DNA and of course,

that's bad for DNA.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

66

DEMOGRAPHY AND BEHAVIOR OF POLAR BEARS FEEDING ON 

STRANDED MARINE MAMMAL CARCASSES

Susanne Kalxdorff and Kelly Proffitt

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management, 

1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503

(907) 786-3800, FAX (907) 786-3816

E-mail: susi_kalxdorff@fws.gov and kelly_proffitt@fws.gov

Polar bears spend most of their time on drifting pack ice and feed primarily on ringed seals (Phoca hispida)

and bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus) (Stirling and Archibald 1977; Smith 1980). In Alaska, polar bears have also

been observed feeding on stranded marine mammal carcasses during fall months while traveling along the coast and

barrier islands of the Beaufort, Chukchi, and Bering seas (U.S., Fish and Wildlife Service 1995, Kalxdorff 1997).

Marine mammal carcasses may be an important food source for polar bears, particularly if polar bears are nutritionally

stressed.

An increase in polar bear numbers occurring along coastal areas, as well as more protracted use of the coastline

and barrier islands of the Beaufort Sea has been noted in recent years (Amstrup 2000). The near shore environment is

an area that is subject to increasing oil and gas development and other anthropogenic activities. Recent estimates of

mortality of polar bears due to potential oil spilled from off shore developments (Liberty Draft EIS) suggest that oil may

occur on or near barrier islands and coastal areas where polar bears aggregate.

In 2001, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) funded a study to increase understanding of foraging and

carcass utilization patterns of polar bears using the near shore environment. The objectives of this study are to: 1)

determine the number, age/sex composition, behavior, and habitat use of polar bears using bowhead whale carcasses

at Barter and Cross Islands during fall months; and 2) determine the magnitude of interchange of polar bears between

Barter Island and Cross Island during fall months. This information will be used by MMS in pre-lease sale

environmental assessments and other planning activities.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in cooperation with the North Slope Borough, Alaska Nanuuq

Commission, and the Native villages of Kaktovik and Nuiqsut, conducted field work during September 11-25, 2002

on Cross Island and September 3-29, 2002 on Barter Island. A combination of scan, continuous, and focal sampling

methods were used to record data. Preliminary results indicate a presence of 9-13 polar bears at Cross Island and 43-53

polar bears at Barter Island during the respective study periods. The majority of animals observed were adults (including

adult males, females without cubs, and unknowns). In addition, at Barter Island, over 25% of the animals observed were

adult females accompanied by first and second year cubs. Overall, polar bears spent the majority of their time inactive

during day and feeding at night at both study areas. At Barter Island, polar bears frequently swam from Bernard Spit

(an off shore barrier island) to the carcass site, and also frequently entered water between feeding bouts. Polar bear

interchange between the study sites was not successfully determined. A final report will be prepared following field

work currently planned for fall 2003. 

Discussion

Robert Suydam: Do you have any data to indicate whether the same bears are coming back year after year to the same

sites? Do they know that these are good places to eat from year to year? Have you explored the use of Platform Terminal

Transmitter (PTT) tags for the polar bears? The range for detecting PTT tags is much greater now. Are there any plans

to start putting PTT tags in polar bears so you can scan bears that show up?

Susi Kalxdorff: This is the first year of the study, so hopefully we'll be able to address whether bears recurrently visit

whale carcass sites after next year. We are planning on working with the USGS Biological Resources Division (BRD)

to movement information for the collared bears that we saw are Barter Island (they can wear collars up to three years).

When you look at other places like Canada and Churchill, there is definitely a learned behavior to come back to feeding
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

67

places like the Churchill dump. In that case managers knew they were getting repeat visitors and that those bears taught

their offspring to feed at the dump. The use of PTT tags is still in the development phase. The BRD is actively pursuing

that, but the funding is not yet available.

Taqulik Hepa: Are you documenting human and bear interactions at the carcass sites? Because it is a concern in Barrow

and we had to deal with a large number of bears over the last year.

Susi Kalxdorff: Yes, it's not necessarily a specific objective of this study, but it is something that is of interest to us and

we were collecting information opportunistically on that in Kaktovik and Nuiqsut as well. We have started to develop

a database to house those data. We are interested in working with the community to develop safety guidelines or a bear

management plan so nobody gets hurt.

Craig George: Have you considered doing some energetic modeling to try and estimate what the contribution of whale

carcasses is to the total energetic needs (annual energetic need) of bears?

Susi Kalxdorff: No, we haven't done that yet. What our Canadian colleagues have recommended is that we start

recording what specifically polar bears are feeding on (meat vs. blubber; younger bears need protein for growth whereas

adult bears probably eat blubber). Geoff York and Todd O’Hara have a student that will be doing some energetic work

this fall, but USFWS has not done an energetics model as of yet. We're just trying to characterize bears that are present

at the feeding sites. 

Craig George: Are females selecting den sites near carcasses disproportionately to other habitats-what's causing the

clustering of denning?

Susi Kalxdorff: Not that I'm aware of. I'm not aware of clustering of denning around Kaktovik or Cross Island, but there

appears to be a trend of increased use of the coast in the fall. There's been more terrestrial denning in the last decade

as compared to earlier times; that might be because these females have figured out they can get fat on the carcasses prior

to denning.

Jim Lima: You mentioned traditional knowledge as an objective to incorporate in next year's study. Is there any way

to determine changes in the pattern of hunting and taking as causing the aggregations at these bones piles. Something

that's changed through anthropogenic interactions that might be causing this phenomenon or are bears coming in from

the ice for some other reason?

Susi Kalxdorff: That is something we want to look at through Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK). Some of the

questions to ask residents are, "have you seen changes in the number of bears," "have you seen bears feeding in other

locations besides this," "how long have you been hunting," "where did you hunt before," "are there other areas bears

use," etc. Hopefully we'll see if there is some change over time from this more historical perspective they can provide.

Todd O'Hara: There will be a feeding ecology project in cooperation with USGS, which is going to be an assessment

of trophic level and location of where animals are sampled and will look at their contaminant profiles. We think

chemically we can determine the significance of carcass scavenging versus preying on higher trophic animals, and a

component is to look at fatty acids and some energetics. Of interest to the US Fish and Wildlife and USGS is an

assessment of the nutrient value of bowhead carcasses. They may be of less nutritive value if it deteriorates over time

and has a potential to introduce pathogens to the bear. Maybe sampling carcass piles over time to see how nutritive value

might deteriorate would be useful. If it were a landfill we'd be concerned about the health of the bears more, but it does

have some similarities if they become too dependent on it.

Susi Kalxdorff: That's a good point.

Geoff York: Are we seeing repeat bears? We did do an analysis looking at collared animals; we have about 60 animals

with collars on right now. Over the past four years we drew activity circles of maybe five miles from known whale

carcass sites and came up with a list of about 20 animals over four years that had been in the vicinity of the bone piles.

Only four of the 20 had been repeats and only one had repeated every year and that bear is about 33 years old this year.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

68

It's unclear, but it doesn't look like there's a learned behavior yet-no evidence of learned behavior of returning to bone

piles, but hopefully we can get that information with collared animals. And to address the denning question, again, there

is no evidence from collared animals that there's any change in denning location based on the location of the bone pile

sites. There were actually no collared animals in the area of Barter Island this year at all. Lastly, what might have

changed over the years? One thing that USGS thinks is happening is the general increase in polar bear population since

sport hunting stopped. That might be allowing animals to return to shore that were historically there, but were hunted

out.

Taqulik Hepa: Another factor why bears are there is because they're stranded. I know for the past two years that has

been the case in Barrow. 

Susi Kalxdorff: We know from village residents and other workers on the Slope that the farther off shore ice is during

the fall months, the more bears tend to be on shore.

Charles Monnett: From a Minerals Management Service perspective, it is interesting that the bears are spending a lot

of time in and out of the water. From a perspective of someone trying to analyze the effect of an oil spill, spending time

on land is not as risky as if the bears are spending a lot of time in the water. There are also carcasses we see occasionally

when flying polar bear surveys so one question is, what will you be able to tell about the general problem away from

the two deposition sites where hunting is going on and also, what about the management implications? It sounded like

the bears were swimming across to the bone pile. Is a recommendation for a relocation of the Kaktovik bone pile a sort

of thing the might come out of this?

Susi Kalxdorff: They're complex issues and the situation varies among sites, i.e., Barrow, Cross Island, and Kaktovik.

At Kaktovik, people are very invested in polar bears, e.g., one of the major activities is to watch bears at bone piles. I

think there would be considerable opposition to moving the bone pile away from Kaktovik, even to Bernard Spit.

Kaktovik is not as likely to be affected by an oil spill from existing facilities. A place like Cross Island is more likely

to be affected by an offshore oil spill. We talked about moving the carcasses, but some problems exist. You have to wait

until the ice is set up enough to get the carcass out far enough from land, but the current may bring them back to a less

desirable place than they were originally deposited. We don't have an answer to that yet.

Craig George: Just an observation-all ursids have this behavior of congregating around super abundant food sources,

but I've been keeping notes on these aggregations of dead marine mammals (bowheads, etc.) and it seems to be from

your presentation that there's a limit of 30 to 50 animals in an aggregation within a 300 to 400 m perimeter. There are

definitely bears scattered outside that, but that's a very common aggregation number (30-50), 50 being quite high around

stranded bowheads and gray whales. There might be some sort of interesting behavioral things going on there.

Steve Treacy: Do you have anything to say about investigator safety?

Susi Kalxdorff: When you're working around the clock among large numbers of bears, safety is a big issue. The

USFWS has made every effort to employ experienced people and ensure that they have the appropriate training,

especially at Cross Island, which is a very remote location. The field crew at Cross Island also benefited from the

presence of Nuiqsut whalers and the use of a whaler’s cabin, which was “bear proofed” using an electric fence/alarm,

as well as bear boards (nails protruding from the cabin to prevent bear entry).
SOCIAL SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS

9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

71

BOOK/SYNTHESIS OF INFORMATION ON SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS 

OF OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES IN ALASKA

Stephen R. Braund1 and Jack A. Kruse, Ph.D.2

1

Stephen R. Braund & Associates P.O. Box 1480 Anchorage, AK 99510

(907) 276-8222, FAX (907) 276-6117, E-mail: srba@alaska.net 2

Professor Emeritus of Public Policy Institute of Social & Economic Research 

University of Alaska Anchorage

(413) 367-2240; FAX (413) 367-0092, E-mail: afjak@uaa.alaska.edu

The impetus and funding for this book came from the Minerals Management Service (MMS). In 1976, the U.S.

Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management initiated a Social and Economic Studies Program (SESP) to help

assess the potential effects of offshore oil development in Alaska. Since 1973, the Alaska OCS Region of the MMS has

supported a socioeconomic component in its Environmental Studies Program that has resulted in the publication of 163

Technical Reports and nine Special Reports at a cost of over $19 million. These reports are often lengthy, use different

methodological approaches, and have different study objectives. MMS is sponsoring a synthesis of its socioeconomic

studies with the objective to produce a single-volume, scientific reference book that synthesizes selected Alaska social

and economic research findings in a series of peer-reviewed chapters. One of the goals of this book is to make accessible

this major body of research that has informed numerous environmental impact statements prepared in connection with

the MMS Alaska offshore leasing program.

The book begins with an 1) introductory chapter that includes a brief review of the history of social science

research in Alaska, making the point that the SESP program has been one of the largest contributors to the body of social

science research in the state. The introduction then describes how the SESP was initially organized, and how it evolved

over its 25 year-plus existence. The following independently authored eight chapters include: 2) Context: Petroleum

Development in Alaska; 3) Petroleum and the Alaska Economy; 4) Regional and Community Economic Effects; 5)

Sociocultural Synthesis; 6) An Overview of Subsistence in Alaska, 7) Subsistence and Oil Development on Alaska's

North Slope; 8) Long-Term Consequences of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill on Subsistence Uses of Fish and Wildlife; and

9) Community Impacts of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: A Review, Synthesis and Elaboration of Research Findings.

Chapter 10, Summary and Conclusions: Toward Effective Future Social and Economic Research Contributions to

Management of Oil and Gas Activities On the Alaska OCS, is a collaboration of all the book's authors and editors.

Discussion

Tom Newbury: I suggest that when the book is published you find a way to include a CD-ROM of the book. We did

that with an EIS; with real complex documents it's a real benefit. It allows the reader to search on a particular person's

name, particular subject, on a technical report or date. And rather publishing it separately from the book, include it with

the book. 

Taylor Brelsford: Earlier on when you identified the search criteria, you had a separate category at the bottom regarding

traditional ecological knowledge that somehow it fell out, did you treat it separately? The question is in regards to the

"transmission of cultural values and knowledge;" where did it fall? More generally, how is the theme of the growing

importance of traditional knowledge developed through the course of the chapters? Is it nested within subsistence use

patterns? It may be something you end up looking at for future research.

Stephen Braund: We tried to incorporate it because we didn't want to lose it, but there wasn't a lot of it. 

Cleve Cowles: As a development in the peer reviewed literature, traditional knowledge is definitely a newer entity. For

example, in recent years there are a few new articles in Arctic. But in relation to the socioeconomic studies program,

there's been a linkage over the long haul. I think that distinction would be helpful to make if we have a part of the book

that addresses that. 
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

72

You made a comment early on that there appears to be shortage of articles, peer-reviewed articles, in the literature in

relation to the number of reports that were generated. From my experience with this kind of project in other disciplines

where that hasn't been the case, I feel that the mix of practitioners that have been involved with the program was roughly

the same. There might be a hypothesis that an academic researcher would publish more than a private firm might. In

other projects you see incentives in both sectors to publish broadly and prolifically. I'm wondering if you can comment

on what you think the mechanisms are that are affecting publication in the social sciences in this particular arena if

Alaska is a unique arena. Is there something different that hasn't provided the incentives that the social science

community needs to publish?

Stephen Braund: I can only speak from personal experience. I've been a consulting anthropologist for 26 years. I've

worked in 130 communities and have a lot of reports and some sitting on my shelf that are Xeroxes that I've done–I've

never had time. I don't know what the incentive is other than what you have now and in the next project I'll report on

after the next talk. One of the contract requirements was a peer-reviewed article. That's an incentive because it's there

in the contract. You haven't had a lot of academics doing a lot of the Social and Economic Studies Program reports, and

the ones that do tend to publish because they live in that environment and know that peer review is how you get it out

there and they're right. But, I don't think the contractors and consultant types have just had the time to do it. I know I

haven't. I've had things from the 1980s that belong in print; we've quantified cultural and subsistence need for bowhead

whales and there's probably no one in this room that has a clue how we did that, but we said the need is not 18 it's 48,

or 56, but how can you quantify cultural need? That should be in the peer-reviewed literature so someone can look at

it, take a shot at it, or at least know how it was done. It sits on my shelf and gathers dust because I'm just too busy. From

your perspective I would put what you're doing, "peer-reviewed article" at the bottom and you at least know that these

things will be out there. It was a lot of good work, I was very impressed. Having lived through twenty-some years of

that program and had contracts–and contract work is not that easy–it was pretty impressive. I think most of the authors

went through that all came out and said that this was a pretty impressive program, these 170-something reports. So the

next question is to get this published, I don't know. But you're in the right direction–you're requiring it in your contracts.

Cleve Cowles: Well, we have for quite some time. I guess I feel like there's some distinction here that's different.

Brad Smith: I probably don't think like an anthropologist or economist, but I was wondering, is there anything that you

see in the book or in the chapters that would relate back or look at things from a national perspective (maybe other

Minerals Management Service studies for other regions of the United States) that would help us understand some of

the other issues that are associated with this that might have to do with disproportionate costs, social costs, etc. on

communities in Alaska? Maybe you have some thoughts or recommendations on coastal impact assistance that type or

provide advocacy for some of these affected communities, or maybe something about the environmental justice or

demographics related to that issue. 

Stephen Braund: Am I hearing disproportionate effects in rural areas relative to national benefits somewhere else?

Brad Smith: Yes, that theme and also whether or not we can compare/contrast what's going on in Alaska to the Gulf

of Mexico.

Stephen Braund: What's been pointed out is the uniqueness of the Alaskan community. It's not really easily comparable,

it's somewhat unique. I think that's been the focus of the program. Here's where effects are going to be and that's why

it's been primarily in these coastal rural areas and talking about what they may be. And in terms of national scheme, I

noted that it was quite interesting that the whole program started in Beaufort Sea in late 1970s with oil, and in 1848 is

when the Yankee whalers went through the Bering Strait into the Chukchi Sea into the Beaufort Sea and they were going

for national oil for the streetlights in Boston. And here you are 150 years later and you have the same dynamic going

on for oil as 150 years ago and now oil and bowheads, which is one of the biggest issues up there. So it really has come

full circle. I wrote about that in the chapter.

Craig George: Do you offer any advice on how to apply this research in terms of developing oil and gas in the least

disruptive way possible for these borough communities that take the brunt of developmental effects?
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

73

Stephen Braund: I think maybe in the last chapter we can offer a way in assessing effects that may be insightful and

informative. I think maybe out of this we can make a way of thinking about those impacts that would be readily

available to a larger audience that could then think about oil and gas effects and how it might trickle down to the

community and I'm thinking specifically of subsistence and land use and harvest.

Craig George: What about mitigation?

Stephen Braund: To me that's a negotiation between an agency and developer.

A DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF OCS ACTIVITIES 

ON BOWHEAD WHALE HUNTING ACTIVITIES IN THE BEAUFORT SEA

John C. Russell, Ph.D. and Michael A. Downs, Ph.D.

EDAW, Inc.

1429 Kettner Blvd., Suite 620, San Diego, CA 92101

(530) 621-1633, FAX (530) 621-8179, E-mail: jcr@adams-russell.com, downsm@edaw.com

This presentation was also given at the Barrow IUM.

Subsistence hunting for marine mammals and especially bowhead whales has a long history as an organizing

element of Iñupiat social, cultural, religious, and economic life. Archaeological evidence shows that Iñupiat dwellings

were sometimes made with whale ribs and other skeletal parts. Whales were prominent in religious beliefs, practices,

and symbols; and, sharing of whale products among kinsmen and other Iñupiat defined and reinforced social bonds.

Muktuk, whale meat, and other whale products also provided an essential source of protein and fat that Iñupiat believed

essential for their diet and health. 

When European and American whalers entered the Arctic they employed Natives as whalers and exposed them

to new whaling technologies. Post-contact, whaling has remained essential to modern Iñupiat values and lifestyles: the

Barrow High School mascot is the "Whalers;" employers allow time off for whaling crew members to hunt; Nalukataq

and related whaling ceremonies are important cultural events; and, muktuk and other whale products have cultural,

economic, and health-values for community members.

Oil development activities in the late sixties and early 1970's resulted in new change agents affecting Iñupiat

communities: new sociopolitical institutions emerged; settlement and residence patterns began to change; transportation

technologies such as snow machines became more available as did wage employment with the newly formed North

Slope Borough. Modernization of Iñupiat communities accelerated with exposure to these and other change agents.

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil activities were perceived to present unique threats and consequences, including ones

specific to whaling. Iñupiats expressed concern that OCS oil development activities could deflect whale migration father

off-shore, contribute to whale skittishness, and otherwise adversely affect whale behavior. These types of concerns are

perceived to have negative influences on whale hunting; and, any threats to whale hunting also affect other aspects of

community and personal life connected to whaling. 

Using multiple data sources, this project examines Iñupiat assessments of the influences of development on

participation in traditional activities, especially whale hunting and its related sociocultural components. A focus is to

identify Iñupiat assessments of OCS activities as a particular type of development threat or opportunity; and, the

perceived affects of OCS activities on whale hunting and related traditional activities. In addition to observational

(ethnographic) and secondary source data, three surveys are being administered (whaling captains, randomly selected

households, and high school juniors and seniors) to examine variation in these assessment among and within three North

Slope communities (Barrow, Kaktovik, and Nuiqsut) and one "control" community in western Alaska. The data should

assist communities to identify and plan for sociocultural problems related to ongoing development in the Arctic.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

74

Discussion

Jim Lima: I noticed you are surveying high school juniors and seniors. If they're under the age of 18 are there any

special procedures you have to go through like getting parents' or guardians' permission? Anything like that? 

Mike Galganaitis: Yes, we need parental consent for any high school contacts. There's a procedure set up so that that

will be obtained before any high school students are approached.

Steve Treacy: Just as a point of reference, I was going to recommend consideration of a study we did in 1995. A focus

sheet in your packet mentions this study, a seismic synthesis report that we did. We talked with whaling captains in

Barrow and brought in whaling captains from other villages, and went over a lot of their concerns, e.g., how whales may

be moving farther offshore. Anyway, there may be some literature like this here and there that, while not developed as

part of the Technical Report series, might be helpful to you as well.

Brad Smith: National Marine Fisheries Service is often asked to issue small take authorizations under the Marine

Mammal Protection Act for the incidental harassment of marine mammals including bowhead whales during oil and

gas exploration and other activities. One of the conditions for us to issue those authorizations is that work and

harassment cannot have anything more than a minor impact on the availability of the marine mammal for subsistence

uses. I think we're still struggling with what that means, but certainly locally we're going to be very broad in the context

of that clause in that not only would the activities that scare an animal away from a traditional hunting area be

unacceptable, but also in activities that may just result in people not (...inaudible). This type of information will be very

useful in how we handle that constraint and our issuance of small take permits. I noted that your title deals with potential

effects, parts of this will be a retrospective look as well. There's probably some data from North Slope Borough. Do you

have anything akin to a peer review process within the affected communities to where if one citizen offers an opinion

about whether the whale meat has been tainted they can discern a taste difference that would last ten years. I'm just

interested in how you would deal with those and be able to put those into something similar to a peer reviewed concept,

if you'd have to hear that comment repeatedly before it would become part of your study.

Michael Downs: Thank you. As far as community review process, there is a built in community review process for the

reports and there will be opportunity for that type of input.

Taqulik Hepa: If you're planning on doing the survey this spring and summer, just to let you know that in the three

communities that you mentioned there have been recent surveys done within past year, I think the people in communities

are feeling a cumulative impact from people coming into the communities and doing surveys and from what I remember

of your survey it was pretty lengthy. In order to get more success in interviews, you might consider giving them some

type of compensation. 

Michael Downs: Yes, there will be compensation for respondents, which is part of the design. As far as the timing of

surveys, what's going to be taking place in the spring and fall is more of the ethnographic work, the key person will go

talk to people in the communities–not the survey itself. The earliest we can do the survey is when Office of Management

and Budget approval comes, but when we actually do it, we will work closely with the Borough to make sure that the

timing is appropriate for the communities involved. We're cognizant of not overburdening people and Minerals

Management Service has clearly recognized the value of providing people with compensation for their time.

Discussion from the Barrow IUM

Mike Downs: This study is designed as a one point in time study looking backwards at changes. Everything is changing

at once–whaling is also changing and it's very complex. There is great value in doing a study in a later point in time.

Unidentified: Is the survey available to the public?

Mike Downs: Yes.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

75

Todd O'Hara: It's a good design; my question is in regards to your control or reference site. I do more than would

recommend that you select more than one reference site–one in the Borough and one outside–because if the environment

changes at the reference site, then you have a lousy control so you have two reference sites in case of environmental

change.

Arnold Brower: How are the scientists going to assess changes over time?

Mike Downs: We will ask captains and elders regarding changes over time. Everything is changing at once so there

is value in doing a similar study in the future.

Taqulik Hepa: Are there separate studies for high school students?

Mike Downs: The information is very specific in terms of historical data, but more detailed information is not

appropriate for high school students. We'll have a representative sample of juniors and seniors who are only native and

that might be active in whaling. In Barrow, that's about 100%.

Arnold Brower: How are you going to sample the public? What about households? Random sampling?

Mike Downs: We will sample randomly and then try to increase the sample if that's not enough, in order to encompass

more people, if not enough elders. We'll do random household surveys. Typically, we have criteria in screening, but

that does not mean that the same criteria will be the same for the next household.

SUBSISTENCE MAPPING: NUIQSUT, KAKTOVIK, AND BARROW

Stephen R. Braund,1 Taqulik Hepa,2 John Craighead George,2 Harry Brower Jr.,2

Sharon Rudolph,3 Scot McQueen,4 Dr. Jack A. Kruse,5 and Dr. Jeffrey C. Johnson6

1

Stephen R. Braund & Associates P.O. Box 1480 Anchorage, AK 99510

(907) 276-8222, FAX (907) 276-6117, E-mail: srba@alaska.net 2

North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management Box 69 Barrow, AK 99723

(907) 852-0350 3

 Encompass Data & Mapping 518 W. 19th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99503

(907) 563-8558 E-Mail: encompass@gci.net 4

ESRI-Northwest 606 Columbia St. NW Suite 300, Olympia, WA 98501-1099

(360) 754-4727 ext. 8947 E-Mail: smcqueen@esri.com 5

Institute of Social & Economic Research University of Alaska Anchorage

(413) 367-2240; FAX (413) 367-0092, E-mail: afjak@uaa.alaska.edu 6

Institute for Coastal & Marine Resources and Department of Sociology East Carolina University, Greenville, NC

27858-4353 (252) 328-1753 E-Mail: johnsonje@mail.ecu.edu

This presentation was also given at the Barrow IUM.

The purpose of this project is to develop and implement a GIS mapping system to describe Barrow, Nuiqsut,

and Kaktovik subsistence hunting and fishing activities. The focus is on the collection and description of contemporary

subsistence patterns while accommodating the incorporation of past and future subsistence data to enable the analysis

of changes in patterns over time. A sample of hunters in each community will be systematically selected using social

networking methods. Contemporary subsistence hunting and harvest patterns are to be collected for selected species

including bowhead whales, ringed seals, caribou, Arctic cisco, Broad whitefish, Arctic char, and various species of

edible birds (empirically determined to be significant subsistence food resource). In addition, the project will document

camps and travel routes. This presentation discusses the status of this project.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

76

The results of this project will be used in MMS's evaluation of potential effects of OCS exploration and

development in the Beaufort Sea OCS region as needed for future Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact

Statement analyses. Empirically based and methodologically documented subsistence information on the locations of

subsistence activities is a necessary element in those assessments. Furthermore, an effective GIS system could facilitate

monitoring of subsistence patterns over time and assist in identifying mitigation measures.

Discussion

Susi Kalxdorff: What is the process that will be used to select your key informants? 

Stephen Braund: In Barrow, we'll rely on social networking. The North Slope Borough Wildlife Department is working

with us. You develop a huge list of every person you could talk to. And then you go by the seven species and get people

for each species. Then go to each of those persons and ask them to network, to tell you everybody else. So you have

a laundry list of the universe, of everyone you can talk to. And then it's, “how do you start focusing that list?” Actually

I read Jeff Johnson's book when I proposed this, and he had all kinds of mathematical ways–you look at the linkages

back and identify the different nodes, and quantify it. In Nuiqsut and Kaktovik it's not going to be as complex. We have

a list of 18 people: the tribal council said, “Here are the people you need to talk to for this area or for these species.”

There are only 293 people in the community so it won't be that hard. We're moving slowly on this project, but there's

a lot of activity going on in these communities so we're not moving really fast to jump in the field. And as we try to

coordinate, we're going to have a meeting with the Borough and try to coordinate our study and the one Dr. Downs is

doing. You can imagine these are small communities.

Craig George: What sort of time depth do you think you can get for Nuiqsut?

Stephen Braund: We're not doing time depths; we're doing most recent season and most recent hunt other than going

back to existing information. We're talking with Alaska Department of Fish and Game Subsistence Division in

Fairbanks. We're trying to get everything they've done on mapping subsistence in Nuiqsut and Kaktovik, which is

considerable over the years and will probably be at a community level. So I'm not sure what we'll get, but it will give

us some time depth into the 1980s.

Craig George: So that wasn't really a study objective, to look at changes through time?

Stephen Braund: Secondarily, it was. The focus really was to start to develop a GIS and get contemporary, current

information. I think if we can, we will. We're trying to bring in all that material from the 1980s, which is from Barrow.

We're trying to get it all from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Subsistence and that will allow me or anyone

else with these data to look at it and look at changes over time.

Cleve Cowles: One editorial suggestion: in one of your first transparencies you mentioned the Minerals Management

Service mandate. I think that probably it's a different perspective as to why we're doing this study; I don't think it will

go down well with your average hunter on the street. Our primary purpose is to use the information for evaluating

potential offshore oil and gas development. I really think in a study like this, it'll be important to start off on the right

foot, and "mandate" doesn't do it for me! One other thought on the time comparisons: if you do that, how will you

separate out the potential relationships of changing distributions of wildlife populations to changes in harvest patterns?

Stephen Braund: I'm not sure we'll even have in this GIS the changes in wildlife distributions. This is a beginning to

get in one place the subsistence mapped information and collect one set of time series. In hindsight the strength of the

1986-1988 subsistence study pegged those three years in Barrow and Wainwright. We didn't go there and try to say for

specific years, “Where have you ever hunted or gone” because now you have 5,700 records for Barrow of harvest

locations.

Cleve Cowles: So it's not that you'd be making comparisons but you would be cautioning the interpretations of those

comparisons.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

77

Stephen Braund: For sure. In fact, the danger of this map stuff–and I see the maps of what we did in the 1980s for

Minerals Management Service in the current Bureau of Land Management/National Petroleum Reserve EIS reports and

I groan because they're just kind of snap shots. They're lifted out and they're set in there and they say "harvest areas"

and they're not.

Taqulik Hepa: As a next step or a future project we may want to consider making a radio collar for hunters to see the

areas that they cover just to go and harvest one research. With our Subsistence Harvest Documentation Project we're

looking at the specific location of where the animal was actually harvested. But when you're interviewing the hunters

you get more information about the areas they had to cover just to catch the wolf or the wolverine. It's taking a lot more

effort and time for people to actually harvest a bowhead whale or a caribou or whatever it may be. That's just a

suggestion.

Discussion from the Barrow IUM

Todd O'Hara: You have information from 1937 to 2001, but not every year?

Stephen Braund: Yes. 

Craig George: The map could be broken down by species (in reference to amend the “spaghetti map”, which showed

travel routes of whaling captains).

Stephen Braund: That map represents that year, that point in time and that species.

Taqulik Hepa: How was the map generated?

Stephen Braund: The map was hand drawn and digitized.

Arnold Brower: Are there any changes in locations of the species, especially the Arctic char?

Stephen Braund: Both species are on the list; we have that information from the 1980s, but haven't collected the current

data. We can tailor the surveys.

ANIMIDA: ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF SUBSISTENCE BOWHEAD WHALING 

NEAR CROSS ISLAND 

Michael Galginaitis

Applied Sociocultural Research

Box 101352, Anchorage AK 99510-1352

(907) 272-6811, FAX (907) 222-6023, E-mail: msgalginaitis@gci.net

This presentation was also given at the Barrow IUM.

This study, funded by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) has as its broad objective the description of

subsistence whaling as currently conducted near Cross Island by residents of Nuiqsut. This effort is designed to measure

basic descriptive parameters of Cross Island whaling so that observed changes (if any) can be analyzed in relation to

such factors as oil and gas activities, weather and ice conditions, or other variables. Special attention is devoted to

geospatial information through the sharing of GIS information by participating whaling crews. Project reports are only

for the purposes of reporting information collected, with no analysis of the information either as a self-contained

database or in conjunction with the many pertinent external databases. As a second broad objective, the project is

designed as a collaborative effort of MMS and its contractor, Applied Sociocultural Research (ASR), the subsistence

whalers from Nuiqsut, and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC). Beyond the goal of two years of
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

78

descriptive information, it is planned that the project will develop a system for collecting such information that local

whalers themselves can adopt, adapt, and maintain.

Three methods of information collection are employed - systematic observations, collection of daily vessel

location information from handheld GPS units, and whalers' self-reports and perceptions. Most information is recorded

on daily boat report forms. Pertinent measures are: 

• Number of crews actively whaling (observation)

• Size and composition of crews, and fluctuation over the whaling season (observation)

• Number of whales harvested (observation, self-report)

• Days spent whaling, and days prevented from whaling (weather, equipment failure or repair, etc.) (observation,

self-report)

• Days suitable for whaling when whaling did not occur (observation, self-report)

• Subsistence activities occurring other than whaling (self-report, observation)

• Location of whale sightings and whale harvest (GPS, self-report)

• Location of whale searching (GPS, self-report)

• Local weather and ice conditions (observation, self-report)

• Bowhead whale behavior in the Cross Island area, and indicated differences from past experience (self-report)

• Changes in access or other issues related to the whale hunt, such as increased effort for the same (or reduced)

harvest, increased risk, increased cost (self-report)

In 2002, three crews from Nuiqsut whaled from Cross Island. At least two boats went whaling on 12 to 14

different days. Whalers were on Cross Island a total of 24 days (counting day of arrival and day of departure). Weather

prevented whaling on 3 to 5 days, three days were devoted to butchering a whale taken the day before, and two days

were devoted to travel. Information for two days is uncertain. Four whales were harvested, and one was struck and lost.

Two of the harvested whales sank when killed, and were recovered later as "stinkers." The report and attached daily

vessel trip forms present information on crew size (2 to 6 per boat per day, most commonly 3 to 5) and daily trip

characteristics (duration, GPS track, marked points, self-report of significant sightings and other perceptions). The report

also summarizes Nuiqsut whalers' observations and perceptions on how whale behavior in 2002 was different from that

of other years, and the implications of those differences for subsistence whaling.

Discussion

Susi Kalxdorff: For the two years you were out did you notice a difference in the timing of the hunt between 2001 and

2002? It was my impression that the hunt in 2002 was earlier than normal. Or from what you can assess, is the hunting

occurring, relatively speaking, around the same time?

Mike Galginaitis: It's hard to talk about because, as with Kaktovik, the norm in people's minds is around Labor Day

in September, but then you get people anxious to go out and depending on conditions–if whales are sighted, weather

is good–people are going to want to go. My own impression is that for 2001-2002–if you take those dynamics into

account–it is probably fairly typical. People will go when ready, when whales are out there. As you can see, at the end

of September, you're running into conditions where you might be shut out. And in fact, in 2001, Nuiqsut essentially left

the whale on the table because they didn't want to get caught out there in bad conditions or in a worse case scenario,

in conditions where they'd have to leave their boats because they couldn't get back. So I think ideally, people would like

to get out there as soon as possible; what they're running up against there is they don't want get out when it's too warm

either. Otherwise, you run into problems when butchering your whale because you're stuck with this whale with the

muktuk and if it's too warm, it's going to deteriorate before you can put it away adequately. So a short answer to

summarize the long one is no. I think probably all things considered, both these years were not untypical in terms of

timing.

Frank Bercha: What would be the limit to weather conditions that you would go whaling?

Mike Galginaitis: Again that's an interesting question because it's contingent on the circumstances. If it's early in the

whaling season, people are going to want a pretty calm day–five mph wind or less. Wind tends to be the determining
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

79

factor because that determines what the sea conditions are going to be. However, if it's late in the season and you need

to get some whales and you know there are whales out there, some Cross Island whalers will be willing to go out in

maybe 15 mph winds, though they realize it's not optimal and maybe not prudent. It depends on the situation. It also

depends on if you're just looking for a whale that you've already killed and sunk, you'll go out in more marginal

conditions than if you're going out to look for whales to strike. It's harder to strike a whale in marginal conditions than

it is to actually see them and find one that is dead. I guess ideally, whalers say they want to go out in winds that are five

mph or less. In practical terms it depends on a number of other contingencies and sometimes they'll go out in weather

you'd think is pretty marginal.

Craig George: We just completed some analysis on just that in a paper we submitted to a volume on whale hunting.

It's really interesting that in the spring at Barrow for instance, whaling success is almost entirely dependent on wind

direction. That's because leads need to be maintained, but it can be fairly high velocity-up to 20 knots-because you're

in the lee of the ice. But a westerly wind shuts everything down there, essentially no whales were caught over a 20-year

period with westerly winds. But in the fall, wind direction isn't the key variable–it's wind speed. Almost always when

the wind is down is when whales are caught. So you can model fairly accurately when whales will be taken based on

weather data. Now there are some exceptions like you've said. If you go out and it's calm, and kill a whale and then the

winds pick up, that can be a life-threatening situation. Are you planning on doing whaling in association with

environmental variables, ice density?

Mike Galginaitis: Right now, this project is data collection only. In terms of what may be funded for analysis, I certainly

would not be adverse to that whether it's Minerals Management Service sponsorship or somebody else. But that's to be

developed yet. Certainly that kind of analysis is what they're heading towards.

Taqulik Hepa: In relation to the discussion right now, I know in Barrow, whalers consider a number of different factors.

It's weather–whalers in Barrow won't start whaling until temperatures are cooler. And they also consider the size class

of the whale so they wait until the later part of the season so they can get the preferred size class–the smaller whales.

And I'm not sure if the Kaktovik and Nuiqsut people take that into consideration when they decide to go out hunting.

Mike Galginaitis: Well I would say that size is definitely a consideration for Nuiqsut. Though, there is clearly some

difference in opinion as to what the threshold between what small and large is for different captains and crews. The first

whale was, even by Nuiqsut standards, probably a little small, 20 or low 20s (feet) in length. The first stink whale was

40 or 45 feet probably. Forty or 45 feet for Nuiqsut is a big whale; they definitely don't want anything bigger than that.

Ideal size, I've been told, is maybe high 20s, 30, maybe 35 feet. So there is consideration. But also if it's late in the

season and they need a whale, they're not going to be picky about what size it is.

Craig George: In Barrow, in recent years in particular, they have chosen to wait later, even into October to initiate

whaling. Size function is a function of date at Barrow and this is something I don't think we quite understand yet. In late

August and early September, there are essentially only huge whales. Essentially they're going to get very large animals.

Then these sub-adults come through around the 20th of September and by the end of the hunting season in Barrow, there

are very few large adults. So they can select the size class they want by timing. But in the feeding report, in your chapter

with Kosky, that pattern is not evident nearly as much, but it might be because it's a feeding area where you have

multiple size classes there at one time. I don't know, frankly, but it is quite different to the west.

Mike Galginaitis: Yes, and well especially for Cross Island and Nuiqsut, because it's not a village-based whaling

operation as it were. They also have the constraint of the time available for the humans to be out there whaling, which

is another constraint on their choice. Now for Kaktovik, because it is village-based, I'm not familiar enough with the

migration patterns to know if maybe the pattern in Barrow hasn't developed at that point–at an earlier stage in migration–

or if it's a feeding area factor. I have no clue on that.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

80

Discussion from the Barrow IUM

Unidentified: Are changes in the activities attributable to Northstar?

Mike Galginaitis: Not demonstrably. Are changes due to OCS activity in general? They travel farther and there are

fewer whales. But I had not heard anything regarding Northstar.

THE NORTH SLOPE ECONOMY: 1965 TO PRESENT

Patrick Burden and Leah Cuyno, Ph.D.

Northern Economics, Inc., 880 H Street, Suite 210, Anchorage, AK 99501

(907) 274-5600, Fax (907) 274-5601, E-Mail: Patrick.Burden@norecon.com

Information from this study will be useful to MMS in assessing potential economic impacts of OCS

development activity on the North Slope and its residents. In general, this study will provide a region-wide perspective

of the long-term changes in the North Slope economy against which to gauge the potential effects of proposed OCS

activity.

The North Slope Economy: 1965 to Present study offers an historical perspective on the evolution of the North

Slope economy. The study explores the structural changes that had significant economic, institutional, and social impacts

on the region. These structural changes are reviewed according to:

• Revenue and expenditure patterns of the North Slope Borough (NSB) and the local governments.

Incorporation as a Borough allowed the new regional government to rise above years of neglect and isolation and

to address overwhelming public needs. The Borough began to levy property taxes on oil and gas facilities, which

started a new era of economic growth and development, providing both physical and economic infrastructure. Tax

laws also provided the incentive for NSB to maximize debt; from 1985 to 2000 debt servicing on the average

accounted for 40% of total Borough expenditures (the largest expense item). The declining property tax revenues

are causing significant budgetary challenges, leading to reductions in the scale of capital projects and local services.

• The changes in employment and economic activities of the region, and the transformation from subsistence

economies to a more cash-based economy.

The discovery of oil in Prudhoe Bay, the inception of the NSB in 1972, and the formation of the regional and

village corporations changed the structure of the North Slope economy. Prior to 1968, employment opportunities

in the region were very limited and the North Slope villages could only afford limited local government. The

average monthly employment in 1968 was recorded at about 600 jobs; in 2001 it was recorded at over 7,000 jobs

(ADOLWD). Economic activities in the region have been primarily driven by activities in the oilfields, the

construction sector, and the public sector (particularly by the NSB).

• Role of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC) and the other village for-profit corporations in the economy.

ASRC and the eight village corporations have been a significant economic force in the region, providing jobs to

residents and opportunities to be involved in all sectors of the economy (i.e. construction, oilfield activities, retail,

services sectors, etc.). Since 1973, the Corporation has increased its revenues at an average rate of 39 percent per

year. In 2001, ASRC's revenues amounted to $1.1 billion. These corporations are vehicles to channel Native assets

and capital toward productive investments on behalf of their shareholders. While they are required by law to make

good faith efforts at earning financial returns for their shareholders, they also put emphasis on hiring their

shareholders, providing for educational needs of their shareholders and children, and are also involved in political

and social issues.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

81

• Individual and household economic response to changes.

The substantial expansion of public facilities and services that has occurred in North Slope communities over the

past twenty-five years has significantly improved the quality of village life. Basic amenities, such as public water

and sanitation facilities, have been upgraded, and improvements in educational facilities have resulted in a dramatic

increase in the educational level of the North Slope Iñupiat. While long-standing income inequalities between

Iñupiat and non-Iñupiat households continue, income increases among Iñupiat households appear to be fairly evenly

distributed. To some extent, the income increases experienced by North Slope households have been offset by the

high cost of living. Surveys indicate that subsistence resources continue to be of economic and cultural importance

to residents, although the adoption of modern technology has raised the cost of participating in subsistence

activities. While North Slope residents generally agree that the overall quality of life in their communities has

improved, they continue to express concern about the social effects of rapid economic development in the region.

Discussion

Dee Williams: You've shown the importance of the regional and village corporations. I'm wondering if you have more

data to share or to speak about or whether you even collected data on shareholder status in the North Slope with regard

to those distinctive corporations and whether you can report any significant changes in the proportionality of shareholder

status among the local population.

Leah Cuyno: I believe we got information from the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. Unfortunately I don't have the

details here with me. We have some draft reports that are available at our office, you can give me a call and I could

probably give you some more details. We're still in the preliminary stages and we also need to validate some of data.

I think we expect to have data from three corporations (Arctic Slope Regional Corp., Ukpeagvik Iñupiat Corp. and one

other); with respect to the other corporations, we'll interview some managers and see what we can get.

Dick Prentki: I'm curious about the settlement going from 2,000 to 7,000 residents. Is that a lot of back immigration?

Leah Cuyno: I think the task for the report alluded to people going back to the North Slope; there were three

communities that were abandoned and were later resettled after the 1970s with the advent of more jobs. There was some

evidence of reinflux of residents.

Frank Bercha: I think you've done a great job of showing the effects of transient gross income; but as far as quality of

life, gross income is only one of the indicators. Do you have any quantitative data on the other indicators of quality of

life like disposable income, education, medical care and so forth?

Leah Cuyno: Yes, we do have more information on quality of life indicators; unfortunately I can't put everything in,

but we do have some educational levels and some major public services that are available, like water, sewer that are now

available that weren't before.

OTHER PRESENTATIONS

9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

85

OIL SPILL OCCURRENCE IN THE BEAUFORT AND CHUKCHI SEAS

FAULT TREE APPROACH

Frank G. Bercha, Ph.D., P.Eng. 

Bercha Group

2926 Parkdale Blvd., NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 3S9

(403) 270-2221, FAX (403) 270-2014, E-mail: bgroup@berchagroup.com

In order to plan for future offshore developments in the Arctic, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals

Management Service, needs to predict oil spill occurrences and their characteristics for realistic development scenarios

over the next half century. The development of such a capability and its application to answer questions such as the

following are described in this presentation:

• What are realistic offshore oil and gas development and production scenarios over the next 50 years in the region?

Production volumes, numbers of wells, subsea pipeline length and diameter, and location?

• What is the frequency of oil spills and its size, temporal, and spatial distribution?

• What is the distribution of spills among facilities-well drilling, production wells and platforms, and subsea

pipelines? How does it vary with location and water depth? 

• How would the spills from similar facilities located in temperate regions compare to those of the Arctic facilities?

Better or worse? 

• What is the accuracy of the predictions?

The capability to predict oil spills in the Arctic offshore was based on the application of fault tree methods to model

Arctic influences on known and expected types of accidental spill occurrences. Such Arctic spill characterizations were

then applied to each of the production and development scenarios to generate future spill estimates together with their

characteristics as indicated in the above questions. Accuracy was assessed using distributed inputs and conducting the

computations using a Monte Carlo method. 

Discussion

Tom Newbury: You made a distinction between wells and platforms and I wonder if you meant a well without a

platform (isolated well head) or a well on the platform as a source of spills.

Frank Bercha: Platform spills are simply non-well spills and the only well spills we considered were blowouts. So

whether wells were on or off platforms, the only spillage from wells either for drilling, exploration, delineation or during

production were the blowouts. Platform spills are production equipment spills, etc.

Jim Craig: In the absence of any historical data or much historical data in the Arctic, how did you come up with those

Arctic risk factors? You showed how calculations worked, but you didn't show where you came up with the numbers.

As a corollary to that, it seems like there are a lot of time factors involved in that estimation, e.g., corrosion would be

an ongoing thing, ice gouging would be a seasonal thing, and third party anchor drags would be a very, very rare event

I would think in most of these areas.

Frank Bercha: Let's start with ice gouging. We used some published work primarily from the Northstar Project to get

some of the parameters and frequencies (obviously they were the annual frequencies, freq/km*yr). Things like corrosion

- the Gulf of Mexico database covers a period of about 20 years, so it's the average annual rate for corrosion. We're not

saying it's going to happen in the first year or the last year, it's just over that period there are so many breaks, as they

were in the original database. But we modified them as described in the report to account for things like smart pigging,
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

86

better technology and so on. Those would be some technological factors included, but time was not explicitly factored

in because we are looking at roughly the same period as that of the database.

Craig George: We need to go a step further and make cost benefit decisions based on the results of the risk estimates.

In that regard, one of the criticisms that the Borough had when we reviewed some of the risk modeling was how to

clearly state variability in the EISs (generally point estimates were made) and we would like to see some of the analyses

that you've done here reflected more clearly in the EISs for managers to make decisions on. In that regard, how would

you do this analysis and allow variation on historic spill frequency data? Can you give us an idea of how you might

approach that?

Frank Bercha: Yes, it's relatively simple actually. There are two primary sources of variability in the historical data:

one is the frequency per year and the other is spill volume in each spill size class. We would analyze the history and

create a distribution of annual spill frequency variations that gives us a distribution of annual spill frequency per

kilometer year or per platform year. The second source of variation is in the database, is the distribution of spilled

volume in each category. We've only used the mean value of the distribution, Then you'd put these distributions

(frequency and volume of spill) into the model and could either remove the Arctic effect distributions just to see what

the impact of the historical data distributions is, or include both of them. The model is capable of doing that with some

modifications.

Craig George: It seems like we had a little trouble with how you take professional judgement and quantify it and put

confidence intervals on it and that's something we should continue to investigate and come up with something everyone's

comfortable with. It's a sensible approach, but must be done in a way that everyone signs off on it and agrees with the

methodologies.

Frank Bercha: I agree with that. We should not belittle the definition of those Arctic unique effect inputs; all of these

are large studies in themselves. In the case of ice gouging, we had the benefit of millions of dollars worth of work. This

was not the case for other effects such as upheaval, buckling; I’d be happy to receive and use any better data than this.

MMS NORTH SLOPE PIPELINE GIS

Warren Horowitz1, John Eldred2, and Doug Ruppert3

1

 Alaska OCS Region, Minerals Management Service, 949 E. 36th Avenue

Anchorage, AK 99508, (907) 271-6554, FAX (907) 271-6507, E-mail:Warren.Horowitz@mms.gov 2

 Michael Baker Jr, Inc, 4601 Business Park Blvd., Suite 42, Anchorage, AK 99503

(907) 273-1600, FAX (907) 273-1699, E-mail: jeldred@mbakercorp.com 3

 Resource Data Inc., 1205 East International Airport Rd., Suite 100, Anchorage, AK 99518

(907) 563-8100, FAX (907) 561-0159, E-mail: doug@resdat.com

The MMS has primarily used the historical spill record on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) as an indicator

of future spill occurrence rates. In future environmental impact assessments, the MMS intends to calculate spill rate

occurrences based on Regional considerations, such as North Slope production and pipeline experience. The OCS spill

record does not include pipeline spill data on State land or waters, which is the predominate oil producing areas on the

North Slope. Previous studies collected spill data, but did not collect pipeline attribute data to enable an evaluation of

the usefulness of pipeline length as a predictor or co-predictor for spillage rates. This project is intended to construct

a database of that information, using the format of the MMS Technical Information Management System, to be used

to determine that usefulness. 

The project will be executed in two phases. Phase I is intended to inventory the data type, quantity, quality and

source of the spatial and attribute data for the pipeline segments for common carrier and gathering lines for the North

Slope, Beaufort Sea, and Trans Alaska Pipeline systems. In addition, Phase I will obtain data use authorization from

the owners, determine the data configuration, build a prototype database and submit a plan including cost and schedule.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

87

If Phase I is successfully completed, then Phase II will consist of data gathering and construction of a spatial database

containing the attribute data.

The project is currently nearing the close of Phase I, the investigation and scoping phase. Required data has

been identified and contacts have been made with all data owners. Data sharing agreements are currently being

formulated. A prototype database has been built with attribute fields established. It is anticipated that Phase I will be

completed by the end of March.

Discussion

Dick Prentki: One of the advantages of this work that we see in Minerals Management Service is if you want to look

at North Slope spill statistics, in terms of pipeline length by year, you need to know how much pipeline was built per

year, and you can't just look at a map and pull those off because multiple pipelines are on the same road on the maps.

This is one reason why we're doing this study. How do the pipeline owners feel about this – does this look like

something that will be useful to them?

John Eldred: It's a mixture of all. Some say that it's valuable, some say it's redundant for them. It really depends on who

you talk to. As far as the GIS part of it, the historical way to relate spills in that–a mixture there too, as you would

expect.

Ted Eschenbach: Are you gathering data on things like if the pipeline segments are pigable, last date they were pigged,

have they added cathodic protection or any other kinds of maintenance issues?

John Eldred: In the attribute database is whether the pipelines have the cathodic protection, the design basis. We do

not have plans to collect pigging data though. At least that's not right now in the scope to collect owner frequency of

pigging data and results.

Ted Eschenbach: I would encourage you if at all possible to add whether or not they consider it pigable.

John Eldred: OK. I guess I misstated. The database will contain whether the line is pigable, whether it has pig receivers,

etc. but it won't actually contain pig data, like smart pig runs, frequency of intervals, etc.

Frank Bercha: What percentage of the pipeline length in your database or ultimate database is already covered by the

United States Department of Transportation statistics for transmission lines?

John Eldred: I'm guessing now, but of the common carrying lines versus the gathering lines probably, 10% - less than

that maybe. There's a tremendous amount of gathering lines in the field versus the DOT. 

Doug Ruppert: There are 14 controlled DOT lines including TAPS. So the miles on that is probably 100 miles carrier.

And gathering lines, I think 1,000 miles of line. At least 1,000, maybe 2,000.

Unidentified: Who permitted these pipelines. Do they have to apply for a permit? It seems like DOT and/or the state

ought to have some information that you can verify. Your purpose of going to the companies is to get more data than

is available?

John Eldred: It's two fold. One is to get more detailed-things like in that 50 attribute list, there are a lot of data that aren't

in the public. We would like to get specific longitude and latitude information in order to build the database very

accurately. One of the scenarios of the four is where the owners don't see the value in sharing a lot of the information

so we go to the public and start digging through records to find construction permits and get what data we can. In that

case, we end up with a much more limited attribute field than what we're shooting at in that first case. One of the nice

things about going through the owners is that they have a lot of the information built in to a database format, which

saves a lot of time and effort.

Craig George: Could you comment on the applicability of this database for estimating subsea pipe failure?
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

88

Caryn Smith: The purpose of this is for the onshore spills for the cumulative case. So that's the purpose of collecting

the pipeline mileage for the Alaska onshore North Slope pipeline spill rate.

SEABIRD SAMPLES AS RESOURCES FOR MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Deborah A. Rocque and Kevin Winker

Dept. of Biology and Wildlife

University of Alaska Fairbanks, 211 Irving, Fairbanks, AK 99775

(907) 474-6727, FAX (907) 474-5469, E-mail: ftdar@uaf.edu

The presence and accumulation of persistent contaminants at high latitudes from long-range transport is an

emerging environmental issue. Atmospheric transport has been identified as the source of pollutants in several arctic

ecosystems and has the potential to severely impact high-latitude populations. Elevated levels of contaminants in

Aleutian Island avifauna have been documented on several islands, but the great distance from potential industrial

sources and the region's complex military history has confounded identification of contaminant origins. We sampled

bird species (cormorants and sandpipers) across the natural longitudinal transect of the Aleutian Archipelago to test three

hypotheses of contaminant sources: (1) long-range transport, (2) point sources, and (3) migratory prey. Stable isotopes

were used to confirm trophic and non-migratory status in cormorants. Carbon was distinct among islands, enabling us

to link cormorants to local island food webs and rule out transfer through migratory prey as a contaminant source. We

detected patterns in some PCB congeners and mercury that indicate abandoned military installations as likely local point

sources. The long-range transport hypothesis was supported by significant west-to-east declines in contaminant

concentrations for the majority of detected organochlorines and trace metals. Although relatively low at present,

concentrations are likely to increase in Aleutian fauna as Asian industrialization increases and emitted contaminants are

atmospherically transported into the region, necessitating the continued monitoring of this unique ecosystem.

Discussion from the Barrow IUM

Steve Treacy: Sathy (Naidu) showed data that contamination increased from west to east, the source possibly coming

from Russia. In regards to the Aleutians, what's the source of that contamination?

Deb Rocque: Seasonal inputs of contaminants in the winter, low-pressure storms going west to east. That shows for

the Aleutians annually, but Asia is the source of pollutants for the Aleutian Islands. Combustion is a big deal and

whatever industry uses. It's hard to pinpoint one industry. The use of pesticides is also a factor.

Sathy Naidu: How do you normalize the carbon isotope analysis?

Deb Rocque: Carbon and Nitrogen are not correlated to this; we used a lipid covariate in the analysis.

Sathy Naidu: What is the half-life of DDE?

Deb Rocque: I don't know.

Cleve Cowles: If a hunter found a specimen, how could he help you or contribute to the museum? How can the public

help?

Deb Rocque: If there's no date and location when people contribute, then the specimen is useless. But if you find a bird,

make sure there's a date, your name, and a location to match. We prefer fresh kills, but we will accept all sorts of

conditions.

James Patkotak: Can you explain the increased contaminants in the western Aleutian Islands and the currents that bring

up the contaminants towards the North Slope?
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

89

Deb Rocque: The atmosphere and sea current act as sources of contaminants in the North Slope, but they are more

likely from Asia or Russia.

Dee Williams: What kind of expectations do you have for mortality? Is there an accumulation correlated with the age

of the birds?

Deb Rocque: Generally if an animal is high in one contaminant, then they'll be high in others as well. It depends on the

stresses an individual goes through. While concentrations don't seem like they may be a concern, they may be after all

due to stress and high levels of chemicals-there may be a synergistic effect-but this has not been investigated closely

yet. We didn't age the birds.

Harry Brower Jr.: Have you made any predictions using your results?

Deb Rocque: Overall, the contaminant load has not shown to affect the health of the bird, but an interesting factor to

look at is retention in fat tissue. There may be a bird that's high in contaminants but low in fat. Maybe the contaminants

are in other tissues. We looked at methyl mercury (MeHg) stored in fat, either metabolized and excreted or accumulated.

It's hard to answer.

ARCTIC CISCO IN THE MID-BEAUFORT SEA AND COLVILLE RIVER FISHERIES

J. Craig George

North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management

P.O. Box 69 Barrow, AK 99723

(907) 852-0350 Fax: (907) 852-0351

In recent years, Nuiqsut residents have complained about poor catches of arctic cisco (Qaaktaq) in the Colville

River Delta. Concerns from Native fishermen and resource agencies about impacts to the arctic cisco date to the late

1970s and mid-1980s when the West Dock and Endicott causeways were constructed. A tremendous amount of research

to address industry effects was conducted the mid-Beaufort area from the late 1970s to present. Fyke nets, or fish traps

that are used for research, sampled between the Mackenzie River area and the Colville River as part of these studies.

Considerable data were gathered and the biology of key fish species (including: least cisco, arctic cisco, broad whitefish,

Dolly Varden) was examined in detail. 

Regarding arctic cisco, the current understanding is that possibly all successful spawning for this species takes place

in the Mackenzie River drainages. The life history pattern is as follows: the young-of-the-year move down the

Mackenzie River in the spring, they become 'entrained' in the wind-driven currents along the Beaufort coast, and

depending on the strength of those currents, drift to the west. If the east winds are consistent and sufficiently strong,

the young fish will make it to the Colville River. If not, they do not make it there. This model was sufficiently consistent

that researchers could reasonably predict when the young-of-the-year (YOY) would arrive at different net sites along

the Beaufort coast; based solely on wind speed and direction. 

Once the YOY arctic cisco become established in the Prudhoe area and they grow to catchable size (in a 3" net)

in 5 to 7 seven years. Their growth rates are variable so they are not necessarily caught at one specific age. In fact, there

is some evidence that in the "heavy" recruitment years there are some density-dependent effects that slow fish growth

(i.e., if there are many fish in the Colville they do not grow as fast). 

In catch data for the Helmericks commercial fishery and at Nuiqsut, there is great annual variability. Researchers

believe that this variability is explained mostly by good recruitment years and poor recruitment years but also by the

salinity of the Colville Delta and other factors such as Mackenzie recruitment. Variation in the abundance of

young-of-the-year arctic cisco caught in Prudhoe in fish traps also demonstrates the variable nature of the recruitment.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

90

Dr. Larry Moulton found that fyke net (fish traps) catches at specific stations can be used to predict the following

year's catch in the Colville. Dr. Benny Gallaway noted that YOY catches translate to potential catch in Nuiqsut many

years later but density-dependent survival can "muddy" these long-range predictions. 

An examination of all the YOY recruitment data since the early 1980s, shows that there was variable but

'consistent' recruitment through the 1980s, peaking in summer 1990. From 1991 to 2002, YOY recruitment has been

spotty and there are several year classes were essentially absent. The thinking is that these gaps are now reflected in the

low catches in Nuiqsut. 

Previous work on arctic cisco was mainly associated with permit requirements for the Endicott and West Dock

causeways. The NSB Scientific Advisory Committee reviewed a large amount of data and reports. Their review

suggested that the key concerns regarding: (a) whether certain fish species could migrate around the Endicott causeway,

and (b) whether the causeway caused major detrimental habitat effects, were satisfactorily answered. Using accepted

fisheries research techniques, major effects were not noted, however, minor delays and changes in water quality did

occur. Therefore, the Endicott causeway (and likely the West Dock causeway) likely does not block arctic cisco

recruitment into the Colville. 

Fisheries models predicted that the arctic cisco catches should have increased in fall 2002 at Nuiqsut. Catches were

higher than 2001 but were not considered acceptable by village fishermen. Dr. Moulton pointed out that this could be

partly explained by recent fall flooding bringing more fresh water into the Colville Delta. Arctic cisco prefer brackish

water for overwintering so the fresh water may have 'pushed' the fish into the Delta front and away from the traditional

fishing areas. There is evidence from the summer 2002 fish studies, that a "large" size class of YOY arctic cisco will

be available for the 2003 fall fishery at Nuiqsut. The 2003 catch levels in 2003 will be critical in determining if: (a)

current fisheries models are useful for predicting catches, or (b) if other factors are now driving arctic cisco abundance

in the Colville River. Other factors include: recruitment changes in the Mackenzie River, more fresh water in the

Colville Delta, mortality from unknown sources, unknown industry effects (e.g., near Prudhoe Bay), and changes in

arctic weather patterns that may have affected along-shore transport. 

Discussion from the Barrow IUM

Chuck Mitchell: Were they catching the same size class?

Craig George: The same net was used so they were always catching the same size class. They hit the fishery when they

are five to six years old; there seems to be a decadal cycle.

Chuck Mitchell: It follows a similar decadal pattern as what we see in southern California.

Craig George: They should have shown that long-term pattern. We expect that the catch will increase soon if we are

right about the decadal pattern.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

91

STATUS OF THE ARCTIC CISCO POPULATION IN THE CENTRAL ALASKAN BEAUFORT SEA

Robert G. Fechhelm, Ph.D.

LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc.

1101 E. 76th Avenue, Suite B

Anchorage, AK 99518

(907) 562-3339

For over two decades BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc. has conducted summer fish monitoring programs in the

coastal water of the Beaufort Sea near Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. The goal of these studies is to monitor the health and status

of regional fish stocks that are important to local subsistence and commercial fisheries. Fish are collected using fyke

nets, which are life-capture entrapment devices. Fyke netting is conducted on a continuous basis from about late June

through August of each year. Information collected over the years probably represents one of the largest continuous

databases ever compiled on Arctic fishes anywhere in the world. One species of particular interest is the Arctic cisco

(Coregonus autumnalis).

Arctic cisco spend each winter in freshwater river systems, but they disperse out into coastal waters during

summer to feed. One of the unique features of the central Alaskan population is that in some years large numbers of

newly hatched fish, or young-of-the-year (YOY), are collected in the nets, while in other years very few are caught. In

years in which there are large numbers of YOY, they typically appear in the nets very suddenly in mid to late August.

Over the years, a rather consistent pattern has been observed. Summers in which large numbers of YOY are caught are

characterized by strong persistent east winds. Summers in which few YOY are caught are characterized by weak east

winds or west winds. This correlation between wind and the arrival, or recruitment, of YOY Arctic cisco has led to the

"Canadian Recruitment" hypothesis first put forth by Gallaway et al. (1983). Under this hypothesis, many of the Arctic

cisco found in the central Alaska Beaufort Sea are believed to originate from spawning grounds in the Mackenzie River

system of Canada. In spring, YOY are flushed downriver. In summers with strong and persistent east winds, many YOY

are transported westward to Alaska by wind-driven coastal currents. Once in Alaska they take up residence in some of

the larger river systems like the Colville. They remain in the Colville River until the onset of sexual maturity beginning

at about age 7, at which point they migrate back to the Mackenzie River to spawn.

The correlation between summer wind patterns and the abundance of different year classes in Alaska that is

regularly observed in the fyke net studies can also be observed in the Colville River fisheries. Comparisons between

commercial catches dating back into the late 1970s with summer wind patterns also show a strong correlation. Year

classes that strongly contribute to the fishery were spawned in years characterized by strong easterly winds during

summer. Year classes that have been absent in, or have weakly contributed to, the fishery were spawned in years

characterized by weak east to west winds. 

Two decades of analysis indicate that in summers characterized by weak east to west winds, few YOY Arctic

cisco are recruited into Alaskan waters. These missing year classes will subsequently be absent from the Colville River

subsistence and commercial fisheries some 5 to 8 years later when they would normally have grown to a size that would

make them susceptible to gill nets. 

The summers of 2000 and 2001 were characterized by weak easterly and westerly winds. There was no

recruitment of YOY Arctic cisco into the Prudhoe Bay region in either year. These missing year classes should

negatively affect the Colville River fishery beginning in about 2006-2007 and lasting through 2009-2010.

Discussion from the Barrow IUM

Waska Williams, Jr.: Won't there always be a fluctuation? You can't always blame industry.

Bob Fechhelm: If there is recruitment, the population is staying healthy. Some do well, some don't. The 1985 year class

was strong and then declined after that.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

92

Emma Mongoyak: The fish were squishy in the nets; they looked unhealthy. 

Bob Fechhelm: I don't know. Overwintering may be a factor; in 1997 they may have done well because they have

access to an overwinter area.

Todd O'Hara: If you find unhealthy fish, a state fish pathologist can analyze the problem. They will find that mechanism

rather than funding a research study.

MMS STUDY PLANS FOR ARCTIC CISCO 

Cleve Cowles, Ph.D.

Chief, Environmental Studies

Alaska OCS Region, Minerals Management Service

949 E. 36th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99508

MMS study plans for Arctic cisco include a workshop on the Variability in Abundance of Arctic Cisco in the

Colville River and a study on Beaufort Sea Anadromous Fish Overwintering Habitat

The purpose of the Variability in Abundance of Arctic Cisco in the Colville River workshop is to gather

individuals with traditional and scientific knowledge about Arctic cisco abundance and fishing success, stock

exploitation, long-term climate related changes, fisheries modeling and Arctic cisco genetics to identify factors that

might contribute to observed variation in Arctic cisco abundance and to recommend a study design for further scientific

inquiry.

The MMS Alaska OCS Region is interested in use of scientific methods, remote sensing sources, local and

traditional knowledge to update our understanding of overwintering habitat in the Beaufort Sea. The Beaufort Sea

Anadromous Fish Overwintering Habitat study is envisioned to be a 2 1/2 year effort that shall review scientific, local

and traditional knowledge on overwintering locations, focus additional scientific attention on potential synthetic aperture

radar (SAR) and other remote sensing techniques for identifying habitat, and verify conclusions from remote sensing

methods with field work to detect fish presence or absence and the characteristics of the identified habitats. The study

shall emphasize close coordination between the project's scientists, local subsistence fishers, local organizations, and

MMS in its execution. Study information is essential for identifying potential effects of offshore development in the

Beaufort Sea through environmental impact analysis.

The purpose of this study is to collect scientific, local, and traditional knowledge about anadromous fish

overwintering habitats that could be affected by oil spills or ice roads constructed to support offshore oil and gas

development. The habitats that anadromous fish use for overwintering may include rivers and lakes that serve as water

sources for ice roads and nearshore estuarine areas. The information from this study is needed to support environmental

assessments, Environmental Impact Statements, and other pre- and post-leasing decision documents related to Federal

offshore gas and oil leasing in the Beaufort Sea.

Discussion from the Barrow IUM

Harry Brower, Jr.: In monitoring Nuiqsut in the fall, do you know of timing changes? Now we are seeing more rain

coming down, increasing the depth in the river. Can you use that in predictions associated with low recruitment or

movement into the river? Or are they not coming into the river?

Cleve Cowles: That could be another factor. We're not making any predictions right now, but we will take that into

consideration in future studies. Rain is likely an influence for fishes in the river.
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

93

Craig George: Whoever does the analyses might want to consider an adjustment for the late season flooding because

it changes the catch rates.

Harry Brower: Will patterns continue to affect river systems in terms of tidal movements? Salt in water is more

preferred for the fish.

Cleve Cowles: That might be a recommendation.

Vera: Because of the Alpine berm, bigger fish aren't coming. Are the fish smaller due to the vibrations occurring at

Alpine? Possibly it's the water temperature difference around the causeway. There's one area where it's warmer on one

side and colder on another side. Have they fixed that? They have gone as far as fixing the temperature of the water-it

should be equal on both sides.

Cleve Cowles: There is information out there on industry studies that might explain that. We have industry data. 

Bob Fechhelm: The only change I noticed is the second causeway (the West Dock), which was mitigated in 1995. In

1996, as soon as they put in a 200 m breach, the humpback whitefish extended their distribution far to the east.

Unidentified: Bigger fish haven't arrived or aren't coming through.

Craig George: The bigger fish might not be hitting the nets until next fall. The villagers were wondering about the

causeways, whether the young make it over and more recently, over the installation of a pipeline under the river, which

is a concern. There's been more development and people are wondering if that affects fish catches. Some other theories

like storms, which form berms, and ice across the delta. If the roads are grounded, it makes a dam preventing the fish

from coming in. You can model the flow volume to calculate flood and river flow.

Steve Treacy: There will be a workshop to discuss all of these possibilities.

Sathy Naidu: Is there a time series on river flow? There are so many environmental parameters.

Craig George: USGS can model this and have gauges and a fair amount of information on river flow. They take

temperature and salinity measurements.

ATTACHMENT I - AGENDAS

1

Minerals Management Service (MMS) – Alaska Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Region

9th Information Transfer Meeting (ITM): March 10-12, 2003

Sheraton Anchorage Hotel

AGENDA

Monday, March 10, 2003

8:00 am Registration

8:45 am Minerals Management Service Introduction

Welcome to the ITM and the Alaska Environmental Studies Program

Cleve Cowles, Ph.D, Chief, Environmental Studies Section, Minerals Management Service, Alaska Outer

Continental Shelf (OCS) Region

Alaska OCS Region Activities and Environmental Assessment Processes

Mr. Paul Stang, Regional Supervisor for Leasing and Environment, MMS, Alaska OCS Region

Questions and Answers of MMS speakers

Physical Oceanography

9:15 am Water and Ice Dynamics in Cook Inlet 

Mark Johnson, Ph.D., School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) 

Measurements of Temperature, Salinity, and Circulation in Cook Inlet, Alaska 

Steve Okkonen, Ph.D., Institute of Marine Sciences, UAF

9:45 am Break

10:00 am Synthesis and Collection of Meteorological Data in the Near Shore Beaufort Sea

Steve Mackey, Hoefler Consulting Group 

10:30 am Alaska Sea Ice Atlas

Orson Smith, Ph.D. and William J. Lee, UAA School of Engineering

11:00 am Beaufort Nearshore Under-Ice Currrents

Tom Weingartner, Ph.D., Institute of Marine Science, UAF, Presented by Steve Okkonen, Ph.D.

11:30 am Summary of Workshop on Physical Oceanography in the Beaufort Sea

Tom Weingartner, Ph.D., Institute of Marine Science, UAF, Presented by Steve Okkonen, Ph.D.

11:45 am Lunch

Arctic Nearshore Impact Monitoring in Development Area (ANIMIDA)

1:00 pm ANIMIDA Introduction

Paul Boehm, Ph.D., Battelle, Coastal Resources and Ecosystems Management

1:15 pm ANIMIDA Subtopic: Hydrocarbon and Metal Characterization of Sediments, Bivalves and Amphipods

Mr. John Brown , Battelle, Coastal Resources and Ecosystems Management

1:45 pm ANIMIDA Subtopic: Sources, Concentrations, and Dispersion Pathways for Suspended Sediment

John Trefry, Ph.D., Division of Marine and Environmental Systems, Oceanography Program, Florida

Institute of Technology

2:15 pm ANIMIDA Subtopic: Partitioning of Potential Contaminants Between Dissolved and Particulate

Phases

Robert Rember, Ph.D., Division of Marine and Environmental Systems, Oceanography Program, Florida

Institute of Technology
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

2

2:45 pm ANIMIDA Subtopic: Monitoring in the Boulder Patch

Ken Dunton, Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin, Marine Science Institute

3:15 pm Break

3:30 pm ANIMIDA Subtopic: Baseline Characterization of Anthropogenic Contaminants in Biota

Bob Spies, Ph.D., Applied Marine Sciences

* ANIMIDA Subtopic: Annual Assessment of Subsistence Whaling Near Cross Island

(*For presentation time see Social Science and Economics discipline section on day 3)

Fate and Effects

4:00 pm A Nowcast/Forecast Model for the Beaufort Sea Ice-Ocean-Oil Spill System

Jia Wang, Ph.D., International Arctic Research Center, Frontier Research System for Global Change, UAF

4:30 pm Workshop on Sea Ice Circulation/Interaction Modeling for Nearshore Beaufort and Chukchi Sea

Jia Wang, Ph.D., International Arctic Research Center, Frontier Research System for Global Change, UAF

4:45 pm End of Day One

Tuesday, March 11, 2003 

Fate And Effects (continued)

8:00 am Registration

8:30 am Environmental Sensitivity Index Shoreline Classification in the Arctic

Ed Owens, Polaris Applied Sciences, Inc.

9:00 am Petroleum Hydrocarbon Degrading Communities in Beaufort Sea Sediments

Joan Braddock, Ph.D., Institute of Arctic Biology, UAF

9:30 am Trace Metals and Hydrocarbons in Sediments of Elson Lagoon (Barrow, Northwest Arctic Alaska) as

Related to Prudhoe Bay Industrial Region

Sathy Naidu, Ph.D., Institute of Marine Science, UAF and M. Indira Venkatesan, Ph.D., Institute of

Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University of California at Los Angeles

10:00 am Break

Biology

10:15 am Recently Initiated Coastal Marine Institute Biological/Ecological Studies:

• Role of Grazers on the Recolonization of Hard-Bottom Communities in the Alaska Beaufort

• Susceptibility of Sea Ice Biota to Disturbances in the Shallow Beaufort Sea, Phase I: Biological

Coupling of Sea Ice with Pelagic and Benthic Realms

• King and Common Eider Migrations Past Point Barrow

• Population Structure of Common Eiders Nesting on Coastal Barrier Islands Adjacent to Oil

Facilities in the Beaufort Sea

• Breeding Biology and Habitat Use of King Eiders on the Coastal Plain of Northern Alaska 

Vera Alexander, Ph.D., Director, Coastal Marine Institute, UAF

10:45 am Modeling Recovery Rates for Avian Populations

James Barry Grand, Ph.D., Alabama Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, Auburn University

Protected Species

11:15 am Monitoring Beaufort Sea Waterfowl and Marine Birds

Paul Flint, Ph.D., U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Biological Resources Division

11:45 am Lunch
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

3

1:00 pm Use of the Beaufort Sea by King Eiders

Abby Powell, Ph.D., Institute of Arctic Biology, UAF

1:30 pm Monitoring the Distribution of Arctic Whales

Mr. Steve Treacy, MMS, Alaska

2:00 pm Bowhead Whale Feeding in the Eastern Alaskan Beaufort Sea: Update of Scientific and Traditional

Information

John Richardson, Ph.D., LGL Ltd., Environmental Research Associates

2:30 pm Reference Manual and GIS Overlays of Oil-Industry and Other Human Activity (1979-1998) in the

Beaufort Sea 

Mr. Peter Wainwright, LGL Ltd., Presented by W. John Richardson

Analysis of Covariance of Human Activities and Sea Ice in Relation to Fall Migrations of Bowhead

Whales

W. John Richardson, Ph.D., LGL Ltd.

3:00 pm Break

3:15 pm Correction Factor for Ringed Seal Surveys in Northern Alaska and Timing and Re-interpretation of

Ringed Seal Surveys

Oriana Harding, Juneau Center, School of Fisheries and Ocean Science, University of Alaska Southeast

3:45 pm Polar Bear Den Surveys

Steve Amstrup, Ph.D., USGS, Biological Resources Division, 

4:15 pm Use of Sea Ice Habitat by Polar Bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea

George M. Durner (and Steve Amstrup, Ph.D.), USGS, Biological Resources Division

4:45 pm End of Day Two

Wednesday, March 12, 2003

Protected Species (continued)

7:30 am Registration

8:00 am Satellite Tracking of Eastern Chukchi Sea Beluga Whales in the Beaufort Sea and Arctic Ocean

Robert Suydam, Ph.D., North Slope Borough, Department of Wildlife Management

8:30 am Alaska Marine Mammal Tissue Archival Project: Website Development

Geoff York, USGS, Biological Resources Division

9:00 am Demography and Behavior of Polar Bears Feeding on Stranded Marine Mammal Carcasses

Ms. Susi Kalxdorff, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

9:30 am Break

Social Science and Economics

9:45 am Publication of a Book/Synthesis on the Socioeconomic Effects of Oil and Gas Industry Activity on the

Alaska OCS

Mr. Stephen R. Braund, Stephen R. Braund & Associates

10:15 am Quantitative Description of Potential Impacts of OCS Activities on Bowhead Whale Hunting and

Subsistence Activities in the Beaufort Sea

Michael Downs, Ph.D., and John Russell, Ph.D., EDAW, Inc.

10:45 am Subsistence Mapping at Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, Barrow, and Wainwright: Past and Present Comparison

Mr. Stephen R. Braund, Stephen R. Braund & Associates
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

4

11:15 am Arctic Nearshore Impact Monitoring in Development Area (ANIMIDA) Subtopic: Annual Assessment

of Subsistence Whaling Near Cross Island (see day 1 for other ANIMIDA subtopics)

Mr. Michael Galginaitis, Applied Sociocultural Research

11:45 am North Slope Borough Economy, 1965 to Present

Mr. Pat Burden and Leah Cuyno, Ph.D., Northern Economics Inc.

12:15 pm Lunch

Other

1:30 pm Fault-Tree Approach to Alternative Oil Spill Occurrence Estimators for the Beaufort/ Chukchi Sea

OCS

Frank Bercha, Ph.D., Bercha Group

2:00 pm Beaufort Sea and North Slope Pipeline GIS Database

Mr. John Eldred, Michael Baker, Jr. Inc.

2:30 pm End of meeting
5

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

Information Update Meeting - Iñupiat Heritage Center, Barrow, Alaska

Agenda 

Friday, March 14, 2003

8:00 am Registration

8:15 am Introduction

Cleve Cowles, Ph.D., Chief, Environmental Studies Section, MMS, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, Alaska

Mr. J. Craig George, Wildlife Biologist, Department of Wildlife Management, North Slope Borough

8:30 am Trace Metals and Hydrocarbons in Sediments of Elson Lagoon (Barrow, Northwest Arctic Alaska) as

Related to Prudhoe Bay Industrial Region

Sathy Naidu, Ph.D., Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska

9:00 am Arctic Nearshore Impact Monitoring in Development Area (ANIMIDA) – Overview of a Multi-Year

Monitoring Program in the Nearshore Beaufort Sea

Mr. John Brown, Coastal Resources and Environmental Management, Waltham, Massachusetts

9:30 am Seabird Samples as Resources for Marine Environmental Assessment

Ms. Deb Rocque, University of Alaska Fairbanks Museum, Fairbanks, Alaska

10:00 am Break

10:15 am Seabird Samples as Resources for Marine Environmental Assessment

Ms. Deb Rocque, University of Alaska Fairbanks Museum, Fairbanks, Alaska

10:45 am Qaaktaq (Arctic Cisco)

Harvest Trends: Mr. J. Craig George, Wildlife Biologist, NSB, Department of Wildlife Management

Population Status: Robert Fechhelm, Ph.D., LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc.

MMS Study Plans: Cleve Cowles, Ph.D., Chief, Environmental Studies Section, MMS, Alaska OCS Region,

Anchorage, Alaska

11:15 am Use of Sea Ice Habitat by Polar Bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea

George M. Durner and Steven Amstrup, Ph.D., U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division,

Anchorage, Alaska

11:45 am Lunch

1:15 pm A Description of Potential Impacts of OCS Activities on Bowhead Whale Hunting and Subsistence

Activities in the Beaufort Sea

Michael Downs, Ph.D. and John Russell, Ph.D., EDAW, Inc, San Diego, California

1:45 pm Subsistence Mapping at Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, Barrow, and Wainwright: Past and Present Comparison

Mr. Stephen R. Braund, Stephen R. Braund & Associates, Anchorage, Alaska 

2:15 pm ANIMIDA Subtopic: Annual Assessment of Subsistence Whaling Near Cross Island

Mr. Michael Galginaitis, Applied Sociocultural Research, Anchorage, Alaska

2:45 pm Break

3:00 pm Bowhead Whale Feeding in the Eastern Alaskan Beaufort Sea: Update of Scientific and Traditional

Information

W. John Richardson, Ph.D., LGL Ltd., environmental research associates, King City, Ontario, Canada

3:30 pm Monitoring the Distribution of Arctic Whales

Mr. Steve Treacy, MMS, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, Alaska

4:00 pm General Question and Answer Period

4:30 pm End of Meeting

ATTACHMENT I I -ATTENDEE LISTS

1

9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting Attendee List

Mayor George Ahmaogak Sr.

North Slope Borough

P.O. Box 65

Barrow, AK 99723

(907) 852-0200, FAX (907) 852-0337

Maggie Ahmaogak

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission

P.O. Box 570

Barrow, AK 99723

(907) 852-2392, FAX (907) 852-2303

aewc@barrow.com

Vera Alexander, Ph.D.

Director

Coastal Marine Institute

University of Alaska Fairbanks

Fairbanks, AK 99775

(907) 474-6824

vera@sfos.uaf.edu

Steven Amstrup, Ph.D.

Biological Resources Division

USGS

1011 E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503

(907) 786-3424, FAX (907) 786-3636

steven_amstrup@usgs.gov

Kim Anthony

ITM Assistant

MBC Applied Environmental Sciences

3000 Redhill Ave.

Costa Mesa, CA 92626

(714) 850-4830, FAX (714) 850-4840

kanthony@mbcnet.net

Jennifer Arnold

Alabama Cooperative Fisheries & Wildlife Research Unit

Auburn University

108 Wanye Smith Hall

Auburn, AL 36849

(334) 844-1023

arnoljl@auburn.edu

Alan Benneit

National Park Service

2525 Gambel

Anchorage, AK 99503

(907) 257-2628

Alan_Benneit@nps.gov

Frank G. Bercha, Ph.D.

Bercha International 

2926 Parkdale Blvd., N.W.

Calgary, Alberta, CANADA T2N 3S9

(403) 270-2221, FAX (403) 270-2014

berchaf@berchagroup.com

Catherine Berg

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

605 West 4th Ave., Rm. G-61

Anchorage, AK 99501

(907) 271-1630, FAX (907) 271-2786

catherine_berg@fws.gov

Paul Boehm, Ph.D.

Coastal Resources and Environmental Management

Battelle

255 Bear Hill Road

Waltham, MA 02451

(781) 895-4862, FAX (781) 895-1506

boehmp@battelle.org

Katie Boland

NOAA

1333 West 25th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99501

(907) 271-2373

kateb467@hotmail.com

Mark Boland

NOAA

222 West 7th Ave. #43

Anchorage, AK 99501

(907) 271-2373

mark.j.boland@noaa.gov

Joan Braddock, Ph.D.

Institute of Arctic Biology

University of Alaska

Fairbanks, AK 99775-7000

(907) 474-7991, FAX (907) 474-6716

ffjfb@uaf.edu

Stephen R. Braund

Stephen R. Braund and Associates

P.O. Box 1480

Anchorage, AK 99510

(907) 276-8222, FAX (907) 276-6117

srba@alaska.net

Taylor Bradsford

Bureau of Land Management - Alaska

222 West 7th Ave., Suite 13

Anchorage, AK 99513

(907) 271-5806, FAX (907) 271-5479

Jerry Brown

P.O. Box 7

Woods Hole, MA 025443

(508) 457-4982

jerrybrown@igc.org

John Brown

Coastal Resources and Environmental Management

Battelle

255 Bear Hill Road

Waltham, MA 02451

(781) 895-4847, FAX (781) 895-1506

brownjs@battelle.org
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

2

Pat Burden

Northern Economics, Inc.

880 H Street, Suite 210

Anchorage, AK 99501

(907) 274-5600, FAX (907) 274-5601

patrickb@norecon.com

Michael Castellini, Ph.D.

Director, Institute of Marine Science

Professor, Marine Biology

University of Alaska Fairbanks

Fairbanks, AK 9975

(907) 474-6825, Fax (907) 474-7204

mikec@ims.uaf.edu

Jeff Childs

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 East 36th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

Susan Childs

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 East 36th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

Cleve Cowles, Ph.D.

Chief Environmental Studies

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 East 36th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

Jim Craig

Minerals Management Service

946 East 36th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

(907) 271-6541, FAX (907) 271-6565

james.craig@mms.gov

Debbie Cranswick

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 East 36th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

Leah Cuyno, Ph.D.

Northern Economics, Inc.

880 H Street, Suite 210

Anchorage, AK 99501

(907) 274-5600, FAX (907) 274-5601

leahc@norecon.com

Dirk V. Derksen

U.S. Geological Survey

1011 East Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503

(907) 786-3531

dirk_derksen@usgs.gov

Mike Downs, Ph.D.

EDAW, Inc.

1420 Kettner Blvd., Suite 620

San Diego, CA 92101

(619) 233-1454, FAX (619) 233-0952

downsm@edaw.com

Ken Dunton, Ph.D.

Marine Science Institute

University of Texas at Austin

750 Channel View Drive

Port Aransas, TX 78373

(361) 749-6744, FAX (361) 749-6777

dunton@utmsi.utexas.edu

George M. Durner

USGS Biological Resources Division

Alaska Biological Science Center

1011 E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503

(970) 786-3366, FAX (907) 786-3636

George_Durner@usgs.gov

Terra Duvall

ITM Assistant

MBC Applied Environmental Sciences

3000 Redhill Ave.

Costa Mesa, CA 92626

(714) 850-4830, FAX (714) 850-4840

tduvall@mbcnet.net

John Eldred

Michael Baker, Jr., Inc.

4601 Business Park Blvd., Suite 42

Anchorage, AK 99503

(907) 273-1600, FAX (907) 273-1699

jeldred@mbakercopr.com

Ted Eschenbach

TGE Consulting

4376 Rendezvous Circle

Anchorage, AK 99504

(907) 333-7817

eschenbach@alaska.net

Enrique Fernandez

LYNX Enterprises, Inc.

1029 West 3rd Ave., Suite 400

Anchorage, AK 99501

(907) 277-4611, FAX (907) 277-4717

efernandez@lynxalaska.com

Paul L. Flint, Ph.D.

Biological Resources Division

US Geological Survey

1011 E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503

(907) 786-3531, FAX (907) 786-3636 check numbers

paul_flint@usgs.gov
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

3

Dale W. Funk

LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc.

1101 East 76th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

(907) 562-3339, FAX (907) 562-7223

dfunk@lgl.com

Michael Galginaitis

Applied Sociocultural Research

P.O. Box 101352

Anchorage, AK 99510-1352

(907) 272-6811, FAX (907)222-6023

msgalginaitis@gci.net

J. Craig George

Department of Wildlife Management

North Slope Borough

P.O. Box 69

Barrow, AK 99723

(907) 852-0350

Jordan Gold

Applied Marine Sciences

4749 Bennett Dr., Suite L

Livermore, CA 94551

(925) 373-7142, FAX (925) 373-7834

gold@amarine.com

James Barry Grand, Ph.D.

Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

Auburn University

331 Funchess Hall

Auburn, AL 36849

(334) 844-9237,FAX (334) 844-4796

bgrand@acesag.auburn.edu

Don Hansen

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 East 36th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

Oriana Harding

Biology Program

University of Alaska Southeast

Juneau, AK

Jim Haynes

P.O. Box 100984

Anchorage, AK 99510

(907) 561-3123

jhaynes204@aol.com

Taqulik Hepa

North Slope Borough

P.O. Box 69

Barrow, AK 99723

(907) 852-0350, FAX (907) 852-0351

aqulik.hepa@north-slope.org

Tim Holder

ITM Coordinator

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 East 36th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

Greg Horner

Ecology & Environment, Inc.

840 K Street, Suite 100

Anchorage, AK 99501

(907) 257-5000 x222, FAX (907) 257-5007

ghorner@ene.com

Warren Horowitz

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 East 36th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

Joel Hubbard

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 East 36th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

Mark Jen

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

222 West 7th Ave., #19

Anchorage, AK 99513

(907) 271-3411, FAX (907) 271-3424

jen.mark@epa.gov

Mark Johnson, Ph.D.

School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences

University of Alaska Fairbanks

P.O. Box 757220

Fairbanks, AK 99775

(907) 474-6933

johnson@ims.uaf.edu

Susi Kalxdorff

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1011 E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503

(907) 786-3828, FAX (907) 786-3816

Susi_Kalxdorff@fws.gov

Fred King

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 East 36th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

Vivian Kinnaird

Ecology and Environment, Inc.

840 K Street, Suite 100

Anchorage, AK 99501

(907) 257-5000, Fax (907) 257-5007

vkinnaird@ene.com
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

4

Kaye Laughlin

DGC/ Joint Pipeline Office

411 W. 4th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99501

(907) 257-1351, FAX (907) 272-3829

klaughli@jpo.doi.gov

Gary Lawley

Kinnetic Labs, Inc.

403 West 8th

Anchorage, Ak 99508

(907) 276-6178

glawley@kinneticlabs.com

William J. Lee, Ph.D.

School of Engineering

University of Alaska Anchorage

3200 Providence Drive

Anchorage, AK 99508-8054

(907) 786-1106

aswjl3@uaa.alaska.edu

Jim Lima

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 East 36th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

Tom Lohman

North Slope Borough

4011 Winchester Logs

Anchorage, AK 99507

(907) 349-2606

tomlohman2@aol.com

Stephen C. Lombard

LYNX Enterprises

1029 West 3rd Ave., Suite 400

Anchorage, AK 99501

(907) 277-4611, FAX (907) 277-4717

slombard@lynxalaska.com

Steve Mackey

Hoefler Consulting Group

701 Sesame Street, Suite 200

Anchorage, AK 99503

(907) 563-2129, FAX (907) 563-2164

smackey@hoeflernet.com

Barbara Mahoney

National Marine Fisheries Service

222 West 7th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99501

(907) 271-3448

barbara.mohoney@noaa.gov

David Mass

Circumpolar Research Association

8931 Winchester St.

Anchorage, AK

907-274-1329

afdcm@uaa.alaska.edu

Tim Mayers

Kinnetic Labs, Inc.

403 West 8th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

(907) 276-6178, FAX (907) 278-6881

tmayers@kinneticlabs.com

Chuck Mitchell

President

MBC Applied Environmental Sciences

3000 Redhill Ave.

Costa Mesa, CA 92626

(714) 850-4830, FAX (714) 850-4840

cmitchell@mbcnet.net

Kathy Mitchell

ITM Coordinator

MBC Applied Environmental Sciences

3000 Redhill Ave.

Costa Mesa, CA 92626

(714) 850-4830, FAX (714) 850-4840

kmitchell@mbcnet.net

Chuck Monnett, Ph.D.

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 East 36th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

Phil Mundy, Ph.D.

Gulf of Alaska Ecosystem Monitoring and Research

Program

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council

441 W. 5th Avenue, Suite 500

Anchorage, AK 99501-2340

(907) 278-8u012, FAX (970) 276-71778

phil_mundy@oilspill.state.ak.us

Sathy Naidu, Ph.D.

Institute of Marine Science

University of Alaska Fairbanks

P.O. Box 757220

Fairbanks, AK 99775

(907) 474-7032, FAX (907) 474-7204

ffsan@uaf.edu

Kristen Nelson

Petroleum News Alaska

2613 McRae Rd.

Anchorage, AK 99501

(907) 248-3622, FAX (907) 248-3437

nelson@gci.net

Tom Newbury, Ph.D.

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 East 36th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

Dick Newman

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 East 36th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

5

Harry Noyes

PNNL Pacific NW L6

P.O. Box 999

Richland, WA 99352

(509) 528-5918, FAX (303) 216-2588

harry.noyes@pnl.gov

David Nyland

351 E. International Airport Rd.

Anchorage, AK 99518

(907) 550-3542

physics@mtaonline.net

Todd O’Hara

ANIMIDA SRB

P.O. Box 412

Barrow, AK 99723

(907) 852-0350, FAX (907) 852-0351

Rex A. Okakok, Sr.

Planning Department

North Slope Borough

P.O. Box 69

Barrow, AK 99723

(907) 852-0320, FAX (907) 852-0322

rex.okakok@north-slope.org

Steve Okkonen, Ph.D.

Institute of Marine Science

University of Alaska Fairbanks

P.O. Box 1025

Kasilof, AK 99610

(907) 283-3234

okkonen@alaska.net

Ed Owens, Ph.D.

Polaris Applied Sciences, Inc.

755 Winslow Way East, Suite 302

Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-2483

(206) 842-2951, FAX (907) 842-2861

EOwensocc@aol.com

Bob Pawlowski

Thales Geosolutions

911 West 8th Ave. #308

Anchorage, AK 99501

(907)258-1799, FAX (907) 258-3422

bob.pawlowski@thales-geosolutions.com

Michael Pederson

Inuit Circumpolar Conference - Alaska

401 East Northern Lights, #203

Anchorage, AK 99502

(907) 274-9058, FAX (907) 274-3861

kanison@gci.net

Margaret Petersen

Alaska Science Center

U.S. Geological Survey

1011 E. Tudor Rd.

Anchorage, AK 99503

(907) 786-3530, FAX (907) 786-3636

margaret_petersen@usgs.gov

Darla Pindell

US Bureau of Land Management

222 West 7th Ave. #13

Anchorage, AK 99513

(907) 271-4397, FAX (907) 646-5014

darla_pindell@blm.gov

Abby Powell, Ph.D.

Institute of Arctic Biology

University of Alaska Fairbanks

P.O. Box 757000

Fairbanks, AK 99775-7000

(907) 474-5505, FAX (907) 474-6716

ffanp@uaf.edu

Dick Prentki, Ph.D.

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 East 36th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

Robert Rember, Ph.D.

Florida Institute of Technology

Division of Marine & Environmental Systems

150 W. University Blvd.

Melbourne, FL 32903

(321) 674-8848, FAX (321) 674-7212

rrember@fit.edu

W. John Richardson, Ph.D.

LGL Ltd. environmental research associates

22 Fisher Street, P.O. Box 280

King City, Ontario, CANADA L7B 1A6

(905) 833-1244, FAX (05) 833-1255

wjr@lgl.com

Lisa Rotterman

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 East 36th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

Doug Ruppert

Resource Data, Inc.

1205 East International Airport Rd.

Anchorage, AK 

(907) 710-4128, FAX (907) 561-0159

doug@resdata.com

Susan Saupe

Cook Inlet RCAC

910 Highland Ave.

Keuae, AK 99601

(907) 283-7222

saupe@circac.org

Mark Savoie

Kinnetic Laboratories, Inc.

403 West 8th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99501

(907) 276-6178, FAX (907) 278-6881

msavoie@kinneticlabs.com
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

6

Bernard Shanks

USGS, Western Regional Office

909 First Ave., Suite 800

Seattle, WA 98104

(206) 220-4600, FAX (206) 220-4624

bernard_shanks@usgs,gov

Mark B. Shasby

USGS, Alaska Science Center

4230 University Dr.

Anchorage, AK 99508

(907) 786-7022, FAX (907) 786-7036

shasby@usgs.gov

David Shaw

University of Alaska Fairbanks

Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220

ffdgs@uaf.edu

Brad Smith

NOAA/NMFS

222 W. 7th Ave., P.O. Box 43

Anchorage, AK 99513

(907) 271-5006, FAX (907) 271-3030

brad.smith@noaa.gov

Caryn Smith

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 East 36th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

Orson Smith, Ph.D.

School of Engineering

University of Alaska Anchorage

3211 Providence Drive

Anchorage, AK 99508-8054

(907) 786-1910, FAX (907) 786-1079

afops@uaa.alaska.edu

Dianne Soderlund

Environmental Protection Agency

222 West 7th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99513

(907) 271-3425

soderlund.dianne@epa.gov

Bob Spies, Ph.D.

Applied Marine Sciences

4749 Bennett Drive, Suite L

Livermore, CA 94550

(925) 373-7142, FAX (925) 373-7834

spies@amarine.com

Paul Stang

Regional Supervisor for Leasing and Environment

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 East 36th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

Robert Suydam,Ph.D.

Dept. of Wildlife Management

North Slope Borough

P.O. Box 69

Barrow, AK 99723

(907) 852-0350, FAX (907) 852-0351

Robert.Suydam@north-slope.org

Marvin N. Swink

LYNX Enterprises, Inc.

1029 West 3rd Ave., Suite 400

Anchorage, AK 99504

(907) 277-4611, FAX (907) 277-4717

mswinkjr@lynxalaska.com

Stephen D. Treacy

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 E. 36th Avenue

Anchorage, AK 99508

(907) 271-6603, FAX (907) 271-6507

steve.treacy@mms.gov

John Trefry, Ph.D.

Florida Institute of Technology

Division of Marine & Environmental Systems

150 W. University Blvd.,

Melbourne, FL 32901

(321) 674-7305, FAX (321) 674-7212

jtrefry@fit.edu

Arlon R. Tussing

APU Institute of the North

935 West 3rd Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99501

(206) 275-0655

tussing@mindspring.com

George Valiulis

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 East 36th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

M. Indira Venkatesan, Ph.D.

Institute of Geophysics & Planetary Physics 

UCLA

3845 Slichter Hall, Box 951567

Los Angeles, CA 90095

(310) 206-2561, FAX (310) 206-3051

indira@ucla.edu

Jia Wang, Ph.D.

International Arctic Research Center

Frontier Research System for Global Change

University of Alaska

930 Koyukuk Drive, IARC Bldg., Room 408F

Fairbanks, AK 99775-7335

(907) 474-2685, FAX (907) 474-2643

jwang@iarc.uaf.edu
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

7

Kate Wedemeyer

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 East 36th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

John Whitney

NOAA Hazmat

510 L St., #100

Anchorage, AK 99501

(907) 271-3593

john.whitney@noaa.gov

Dee Williams, Ph.D.

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 East 36th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

Mike Williams

LGL Alaska

1101 East 76th

Anchorage, AK 99508

(907) 562-3339

mwilliams@lgl.com

Bill Wilson

North Pacific Fishery Management Council

605 West 4th, Suite 305

Anchorage, AK 99501

(907) 271-2809

bill.wilson@noaa.gov

David Woodson

U.S. Geological Survey BRD

909 1st Ave., Suite 800

Seattle, WA 98104

(206) 220 4618, FAX (206) 220-4624

david.woodson@usgs.gov

Geoff York

USGS Biological Resources Division

1011 E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503

(907) 786-3928, FAX (907) 786-3636

Geoff_York@usgs.gov

MMS OCS Barrow Information Update Meeting

Attendee List

Kim Anthony

IUM Assistant

MBC Applied Environmental Sciences

3000 Redhill Ave.

Costa Mesa, CA 92626

(714) 850-4830, FAX (714) 850-4840

kanthony@mbcnet.net

Kristen Bomengen

Law Department

North Slope Borough

P.O. Box 69

Barrow, AK 99723

(907) 852-0300, FAX (907) 852-5678

kristen.bomengen@north-slope.org

Stephen R. Braund

Stephen R. Braund and Associates

P.O. Box 1480

Anchorage, AK 99510

(907) 276-8222, FAX (907) 276-6117

srba@alaska.net

Arnold Brower

Barrow, AK 99723

Harry Brower, Jr.

Barrow, AK 99723

John Brown

Coastal Resources and Environmental Management

Battelle

255 Bear Hill Road

Waltham, MA 02451

(781) 895-4847, FAX (781) 895-1506

brownjs@battelle.org

Geoff Carroll

Alaska Department of Fish and Game

P.O. Box 1012

Barrow, AK 99723

(907) 852-3464, FAX (907) 852-3465

geoff_carroll@fishgame.state.ak.us

Cleve Cowles, Ph.D.

Chief Environmental Studies

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 East 36th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

Jason C. Crist

Planning GIS

North Slope Borough

P.O. Box 69

Barrow, AK 99723

(907) 852-0333, FAX (907) 852-0322

jason.crist@north-slope.org

Reanne Tupaaq Crist

Planning

North Slope Borough

P.O. Box 69

Barrow, AK 99723

(907) 852-0320, FAX (907) 852-0322

tupaaq.crist@north-slope.org
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

8

Mike Downs, Ph.D.

EDAW, Inc.

1420 Kettner Blvd., Suite 620

San Diego, CA 92101

(619) 233-1454, FAX (619) 233-0952

downsm@edaw.com

George Durner

U.S. Geological Survey

1011 E. Tudor Rd.

Anchorage, AK 99503

(907) 786-3366, FAX (907) 786-3636

george_durner@usgs.gov

Terra Duvall

IUM Assistant

MBC Applied Environmental Sciences

3000 Redhill Ave.

Costa Mesa, CA 92626

(714) 850-4830, FAX (714) 850-4840

tduvall@mbcnet.net

Paula Earp

Department of Wildlife Management

North Slope Borough

P.O. Box 69

Barrow, AK 99723

(907) 852-0350, FAX (907) 852-0351

paula.earp@north-slope.org

Robert Fechhelm, Ph.D

LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc.

1101 E. 76th Avenue, Suite B

Anchorage, AK 99518

(907) 562-3339

Rita Frantz

Department of Wildlife Management

North Slope Borough

P.O. Box 69

Barrow, AK 99723

(907) 852-0350, FAX (907) 852-0351

rita.frantz@north-slope.org

Michael Galginaitis

Applied Sociocultural Research

P.O. Box 101352

Anchorage, AK 99510-1352

(907) 272-6811, FAX (907)222-6023

msgalginaitis@gci.net

J. Craig George

Department of Wildlife Management

North Slope Borough

P.O. Box 69

Barrow, AK 99723

(907) 852-0350

Cyd Hanns

Department of Wildlife Management

North Slope Borough

P.O. Box 69

Barrow, AK 99723

(907) 852-0350, FAX (907) 852-0351

cyd.hanns@north-slope.org

Taqulik Hepa

Department of Wildlife Management

North Slope Borough

P.O. Box 69

Barrow, AK 99723

(907) 852-0350, FAX (907) 852-0351

taqulik.hepa@north-slope.org

Anne Jensen

UIC Science

P.O. Box 577

Barrow, AK 99723

(907) 852-3020, FAX (907) 852-2632

anne.jensen@uicscience.org

Chuck Mitchell

President

MBC Applied Environmental Sciences

3000 Redhill Ave.

Costa Mesa, CA 92626

(714) 850-4830, FAX (714) 850-4840

cmitchell@mbcnet.net

Kathy Mitchell

IUM Coordinator

MBC Applied Environmental Sciences

3000 Redhill Ave.

Costa Mesa, CA 92626

(714) 850-4830, FAX (714) 850-4840

kmitchell@mbcnet.net

Sathy Naidu, Ph.D.

Institute of Marine Science

University of Alaska Fairbanks

P.O. Box 757220

Fairbanks, AK 99775

(907) 474-7032, FAX (907) 474-7204

ffsan@uaf.edu

James Patkotak

Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope

P.O. Box 934

Barrow, AK 99723

(907) 852-4066, FAX (907) 852-4068

jcasnrd@barrow.com

David K. Pausanna, Sr.

Nuiqsut Whaling Captains Association

P.O. Box 14

Nuiqsut, AK 99789

(907) 480-7887

W. John Richardson, Ph.D.

LGL Ltd. environmental research associates

22 Fisher Street, P.O. Box 280

King City, Ontario, CANADA L7B 1A6

(905) 833-1244, FAX (05) 833-1255

wjr@lgl.com

Deb Rocque

Dept. of Biology and Wildlife

University of Alaska Fairbanks, 211 Irving, 

Fairbanks, AK 99775

(907) 474-6727, FAX (907) 474-5469, E-mail:

ftdar@uaf.edu
9th MMS AOCS Information Transfer Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting Proceedings

9

Stephen D. Treacy

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 E. 36th Avenue

Anchorage, AK 99508

(907) 271-6603, FAX (907) 271-6507

steve.treacy@mms.gov

Dee Williams, Ph.D.

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 East 36th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99508

Waska A. Williams, Jr.

North Slope Borough Planning/Permitting

P.O. Box 69

Barrow, AK 99723

(907) 892-0440, FAX (907) 852-5991

waska.williams@north-slope.org