OCS Study 

MMS 95-0065 

Alaska OCS Region 

PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1995 

ARCTIC SYNTHESIS MEETING 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Mlnerals Management Servke 

Alaska OCS Regkn 
OCS Study MMS 95-0065 

ALASKA OCS REGION 

PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1995 

ARCTIC SYNTHESIS MEETING 

October 23 to 25, 1995 

Sheraton Anchorage Hotel 

Anchorage, 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. 14-35-0001-30570 

Logistical Support and Report Preparation by: 

MBC Applied Environmental Sciences 

3040 Redhill Avenue 

Costa Mesa, California 92626 

February 1996 
DISCLAIMER 

This report has been reviewed by the Minerals Management Service and approved for 

publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and 

policies of the Service, nor does mention of trade names for commercial products constitute 

endorsement or recommendation for use. 
PROJECT STAFF 

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE 

ALASKA OCS REGION 

Thomas Newbury, Ph.D. 

Meeting Coordinator and Proceedings Editor 

MBC APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 

Kathryn L Mlchell 

Project Manager 

Charles T. Mlchell 

Mamie R. Pavlick 

Rapporteurs 

Phyllis Barton 

Word Processing 

Shane Beck 

Graphics 

SHERATON ANCHORAGE HOTEL 

Dana T. Ecklund 

Peter Brennan 

Audio Visual And Technical Support By: 

IV IMlG VIDEO 

Registration Assistance Provided By: 

Russ and Shirley Seppi 

courtesy of the 

ANCHORAGE CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

OPENING REMARKS ................................................ 13 

Dr. Cleve Cowles, Chief, Environmental Studies Section, MMS, Anchorage 

Judith Gottlieb, Regional Director, MMS, Anchorage 

Cynthia Quarterman, Director, MMS, Washington, DC 

INTRODUCTORY SESSION - Chalr. Jeff Walker, MMS Anchorage, AK 

Northstar Development Project - Teny Obeney .............................. 17 

Kuvlum Unit - Development Options - James Watt ............................ 23 

State of Alaska Leasing Program and Development Unit Responsibilities 

-JamesJ.Hansen ............................................ 33 

Arctic Offshore Production - a Canadian Perspective - Nick Vanderkooy ............ 39 

Arctic Marine Pipelines - David S. McKeehan ................................ 43 

MMS Stakeholder Task Force Effort - Jeff Walker ............................ 57 

SOCIOCULTURAL SESSION - Chalr. Dr. Steve J. Langdon, Dept. of Anthropology, 

University of Alaska Anchorage 

An Overview of North Slope Society: Past and Future - Dr. Steve J. Langdon ........ 59 

History of Whaling by Kaktovik Village - Joseph Kaleak, Whaling Captain, Kaktovik .... 69 

History of Subsistence Whaling by Nuiqsut - Frank Long, Jr., President, 

Nuigsut Whaling Captains Assn. ................................... 73 

The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission and History of Subsistence Whaling 

off Point Banow 'Nuvuk' - Burton Rexford, Chair, Alaska Eskimo Whaling 

Commission (AEWC), Barrow ..................................... 77 

General Discussion .................................................. 82 

Joseph Kaleak, Whaling Captain, Kaktovik 

Frank Long, Jr., President, Nuigsut Whaling Captains Assn 

Burton Rexford, Chair, Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), Barrow 

Thomas Agiak, AEWC Commissioner of Kaktovik 

Thomas Napageak, AEWC Commissioner of Nuigsut 

Overview of Recent Sociocultural Studies in Nuiqsut and Kaktovik, Alaska 

-SverrePedersen ............................................. 87 

BOWHEAD WHALE SESSION - Chaired by: Dr. Thomas Albert, Dept. of Wildlife 

Management, North Slope Borough 

The Bowhead Whale Migration of Fall 1994 - Stephen Treacy and Wmn Horowiiz .... 93 

Tracking the Habits of Bowhead Whales with Satellitemonitored Radio Tags 

- Dr. Bruce Mate .............................................. 101 

Acoustic Effects on Bowhead Whales: Overview - Dr. W. John Richardson .......... 107 

Industrial Sources of Underwater Noise - Dr. Charles R. Greene, Jr. ............... 11 1 

Acoustic Effects on Bowheads during Spring Migration - Dr. W. John Richardson .... 115 

Letter of Authorization for Incidental Take - Ron Morris ........................ 119 

BP's Bowhead Whale Monitoring near the Northstar Development Unit, 

August 1995 - Dr. Christopher J. Herlugson ........................... 125 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

Overview of North Slope Borough Bowhead Whale Research with a few 

Comments about Industrial Activities in the Beaufort Sea Area 

- Dr. Thomas Albert ............................................ 127 

GENERAL BIOLOGY SESSION - Chaired by Lori Quakenbush, Fish and 

Wildlife Sewke, Falrbanks 

Overview of Species that may be Affected by Development within the Arctic 

Alaska OCS Region - Lori Quakenbush .............................. 131 

Summary of Polar Bear Habitat Conservation Strategy and Implications for 

Future Oil and Gas Development - Scott Schliebe ...................... 139 

National Biological Service OCS Environmental Studies Program: 

Research and Monitoring in Arctic Alaska - Lyman Thorsteinson ............ 143 

Preliminary Research on Pacific Walrus to Evaluate Potential Effects of 

Disturbance by OCS Related Oil and Gas Activities in the Chukchi Sea 

-ChadwickV.Jay ............................................. 151 

Using Implanted Satellite Transmitters to Track the Movements of Murres 

and Puffins - Dr. Scott Hatch ..................................... 159 

Population Studies of Murres and Kiiwakes at Cape Lisbume and 

Cape Thompson - David G. Roseneau .............................. 161 

University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute Sponsored Studies in the 

Arctic OCS - Dr. John J. Goering .................................. 173 

Ove~ew of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Ecosystem Approach to 

the Management of Fish and Wildlife - Lany K. Bright ................... 177 

PHYSICAL AND GEOLOGICAL SESSION - Chaired by Dr. Rkhard T. Prentkl, MMS, 

Anchorage 

A Coupled lceocean Model of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas - Dr. Kate S. Hedstrom . . 183 

Trends in Occurrence Rates for Offshore Oil Spills and 

the Beaufort Sea - Dr. Richard T. Prentki ............................ 187 

Analysis and Forecasting of Sea Ice Conditions of the 

Alaskan North Slope - Jeff Andrews ................................ 195 

Modeling and Prediction of Ice Hazards near the OCS Development 

Prospects in the Beaufort Sea - Dr. lgor Appel ........................ 197 

New Arctic NPDES General Permit - Anne Dailey ............................. 203 

APPENDICES 

A Agenda 

B Attendee List 


EXECUTIVE SYNTHESIS 

Based on the Concluding Synthesls Session 

Dr. Cleve Cowles, Conference Chair 

This was Minerals Management Service's (MMS) sixth Information Transfer Meeting. It was 

a little different from previous meetings, so a couple of general concepts for the meeting will be 

described. 

In the past, when MMS had synthesis meetings with a variety of scientific disciplines, the 

challenge was to bring the information into a tentative environmental assessment. Those scientific 

disciplines existed within the context of other knowledge. This other knowledge included that of 

the attendees who were not scientists but who were constituents or stakeholders - sources of 

traditional knowledge. In the past, their knowledge was incorporated into our scientific disciplines. 

One other characteristic of these earlier syntheses was that we had very specific 

scenarios in terms of what we were trying to assess. As you know, MMS is now looking farther 

ahead compared to some of our scenarios in the past, and using industry scenarios without the 

same specifics. 

Further, a synthesis is an aggregation of specialists or disciplinary-information sources 

with a certain amount of information overlap. Perhaps that overlap represents areas of agreement 

about information. The purpose of a meeting such as our synthesis has been to pull those 

disciplinary information sources closer together and to increase those zones of overlap. For 

example, inlilly there were very substantial differences, it is fair to say, in the information that 

came from the industry representatives, the sociocultural scientists, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling 

Commission, and the whalers, and the bowhead whale scientists. A purpose has been to pull 

together -to synthesize the information -and we definitely saw a synthesis of the information! 

Those are some general concepts as to the MMS purposes for this meeting. 

Lastly, several comments were made during the meeting, acknowledging MMS's support 

of studies. MMS would like to similarly acknowledge the other parties who have brought their 

information to the table. There was a broad diversity of participants who were non-MMS and the 

quality of the presentations was excellent. The people who participated might not have received 

a lot of information in return, but they have certainly provided MMS with excellent presentations. 

I am acutely aware of the work that goes into presentations and am thanhl for it. 

Next, the Session Chairs will give their perspectives or summary statements about the 

pertinent conclusions and directions from their sessions. 

Mr. Jeff Walker, Chalr, Introductory Session 

The agenda for the Introductory Session provided industry with an opportunity to address 

where they are headed with the oil and gas activities in the Arctic. We sensed a readiness to 

develop the offshore prospects, including Northstar, Sandpiper, Hammerhead, and Kuvlum 

(Figures 1,2, and 3). The speakers who addressed this more than exceeded our expectations 

in setting the stage for that. Mr. Terry Obeney with BPI Mr. Jim Watt with Union Texas, Mr. Nick 

Vanderkooy with CANMAR, and Mr. David McKeehan with INTEC, did an outstanding job in 
1 

CI 

ti' 

flgure 1. North Slope dl and gar tldd. and mw dlrcovwlee. 
Executive Synthesis 3 

t 

N 

SANDPIPER 

P 

0 

E-Iz- -I KILOMETERS 

Figure 2. Location and shape of Sandpiper Unit and Northstar Unit. 

presenting that there is a new attitude - a new effort by the industry - to bring offshore fields 

on line. 

Mr. Obeney talked about new philosophies and new attitudes within the companies. As 

he stated in his summary of the presentation on the Northstar Development Project, the field was 

discovered by Shell in 1983 and remains undeveloped today because of its location, small size, 

and projected economics of development. It remains, however, one of the best opportunities to 

develop remote offshore oilfield in the Beaufort Sea. A new philosophy regarding marginal 

developments has emerged from work within BP over the past 18 months. BP now believes that 

fields such as Northstar can become commercial opportunities, capable of competing effectively 

with the rest of the world for investment dollars. Further, he pointed out that such developments 

can occur without material impact to the ecosystem and without threats to traditional lifestyles and 

cultures. BP is focusing on Alignment of all the stakeholders, Simplicity in design and project 

execution, willingness and commitment to Change business processes, and application of 

appropriate Technology, new and borrowed. Lastly, he described how these levers can be 
4 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

t 

N 

, ~ERHEADiNIT 

KUVLUM UNIT 

MaWire lslonds - -0 

0 

I. .I-: - --- 1 

0 

r--_~ i I KILOMETERS 

flgure 3. Location and shape of Hammerhead Unlt and Kuvlum Unlt. 

brought to bear on the challenge of developing Northstar and other marginal fields. 

Mr. Watt described similar engineering designs, using the term "leveraged technologies.' 

As he stated in his summary of development options for the Kuvlum Unit, their engineers are 

focusing on low cost marginal development approaches. A study in 1993-1994 focused on the 

use of a permanent bottom-founded production platform structure and a crude transport system 

consisting of a trenched pipeline. The results indicated the proposed production system was 

technically feasible but reserves in the 500-600 million barrel range would be necessary for a 

stand- alone development. Union Texas investigated the application of a subsea development and 

the use of existing drilling structures for developing Kuvlum. These low cost development 

methods and other leveraging technologies could produce fields in the 300 million barrel range. 

Lastly, he pointed out that a joint development, sharing the costs of infrastructure, similar to ETAP 

in the North Sea, could be the most leveraging concept for the eastern Beaufort Sea discoveries. 
Executive Synthesis 5 

Mr. Vanderkooy also talked about looking at new information and applying it to new 

technology, or even new information and applying it to old technology. As he stated in his 

summary of a Canadian perspective on Arctic offshore production, during the past 20 years of 

exploration activities, it has been demonstrated that year-round safe and efficient operations can 

take place in the Arctic offshore environments. He pointed out the significant database of 

expertise and technology that has been developed and that can be applied to production 

scenarios. His conclusion is that offshore development in the Arctic region can be economically 

attractive. His assessment is based on the fact that many changes have taken place especially 

with respect to design ice loads, structural concepts, and operating costs. He concluded that the 

technology is now available to develop a reservoir in the order of 200 to 300 billion barrels 

located in the Beaufort Sea, using marine transportation to ship crude oil either directly to the 

market or via the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). 

Mr. McKeehan talked about the feasibility of laying Arctic pipelines and options for 

development of Northstar. As he stated, initial studies focused on transportation of oil and gas 

out of the Arctic in tankers. These ideas have fallen out of favor now in terms of risk. The focus 

has shifted towards pipelines which have significantly higher reliability. He pointed out that the 

risk to pipelines, of course, is ice scour. The scour depth will determine the depth to which a 

pipeline must be buried below the seabed. The depth must be great enough so that ice keels 

won't contact the pipe when they plow or bulldoze over it. He expects a scour depth of about 3 

m or 10 ft based on the information shoreward from the Northstar Prospect. 

He added that the depth of the trench would range from 3 to 4 m (9 to 12 ft). The main 

expense would be for excavation. A very interesting excavation method appears to be working 

in mid-winter, cutting the ice with trenchers, using a backhoe on the ice to excavate the trench, 

and then laying the pipe into the trench. He described an installation option that is commonly 

referred to as the bottom tow or bottom pull. The pipe is assembled on land or on ice in strings 

that are about two or three thousand feet long. A pull barge is stationed just offshore with large 

winches which are capable of exerting about 400 tons of pull load on a cable. The cable literally 

yanks the pipe off the shore and ice, sliding it along the sea bottom. The next pipeline string 

would be assembled and this process would be repeated. Lastly, he pointed out that it is useful 

to consider what makes the Arctic, from a pipeliner's perspective, different than any other 

conventional area in the world. His answer was: logistics, ice, permafrost, unique soils, and a 

unique sociocultural situation. 

All of these introductory speakers acknowledged that the industry is working to move 

marginal fields onto development, to apply new technologies, to develop alliances and 

partnerships. The tone was set that we, as the agency and the stakeholders, need to look forward 

to the future. We need to be cognizant of development issues and how they relate to 

environmental work, environmental studies, and environmental concerns. 

Dr. Steve Langdon, Chalr, Soclocuttural Session 

There are a couple of comments that I would like to make pursuant to the sociocultural 

and socioeconomic session, relating to one of the points that was made during Mr. Sverre 

Pedersen's presentation. The society on the North Slope is a mixed subsistence and cash-based 

society. Both the subsistence opportunities and the ability to have employment and have cash 

incomes are crucial. Both make possible a good standard of living - it no longer has to be one 

of the most impoverished areas in the nation. 
6 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Also, the population is increasing and especially the immigrant population is increasing. 

Questions about employment are important. This past week, the Alaska Federation of Natives 

entered into a new agreement with the Department of the Interior about the issue of employment 

on the Alyeska Pipeline. If you review the old commitments that were made at the outset of the 

Alyeska Pipeline with regard to the amount of Native hire that was to occur, you'll discover that 

over this period of time, as Alyeska has admitted, they have not come close to the kind of 

employment system that they had promised. Let's get ahead of the curve with offshore oil 

development - recognue that there are some long-term employment and income circumstances, 

and get to work on training and implementing the kind of working relationships that can sustain 

a mixed cash and subsistence society for a growing and expanding population. 

Mr. Frank Long, Whaling Captain, Nulqsut 

I appreciate being part of this very important meeting. I would like to thank MMS for 

inviting several of the whaling captains from the North Slope. All of the issues and topics that 

were discussed are very important and familiar to not only MMS and industry but also to us - 

the subsistence hunters. 

We are very familiar with the area. For instance, when we talked about ice, one thing that 

wasn't mentioned about all of the experiments and studies was that currents move the ice more 

forcefully than the wind. The currents are a very strong force. They can knock down ice ridges, 

like large waves. 

Other people described the development plans for the new Beaufort Sea prospect called 

Northstar. It is important, we know, to have enough oil for everyone. It is also important that we 

learn to work together. We could, as Natives, support industry and the agencies that work on this 

- if they will also support us in our subsistence way of life. # 

I appreciate being here with 'you all' as I know they say in Texas. Again, thank you for 

letting us participate in this meeting. 

Dr. Thomas Albert, Chair, Bowhead Whale Session 

The first point I would like to make is that having a separate Bowhead Whale Session 

illustrates the importance of this animal in the Beaufort Sea. It is not only a very large animal - 

especially if you are trying to cut one up - but also politically and culturally it is very large. This 

does not detract from any of the other animals. If satisfactory protections are given to the 

bowhead whale, most of the other animals can, as I look at it, ride along on the bowheads' 

'coattails,' one way or another. 

The second point is that I want to thank MMS, and, in particular, Dr. Cowles and Dr. 

Newbury, for having the Synthesis meeting in the first place. It is a good idea to bring people 

together and to make as much sense as possible out of conflicting views and lack of data -just 

to try to figure out what we now know and what needs to be studied further. 

The third point is that research on the bowhead whale, as has already been stated, has 

been done by different groups. The major groups of stakeholders who have really contributed 
Executive Synthesis 7 

to this are not only the MMS, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the oil industry, 

but also the Native community through the North Slope Borough (NSB) and the Alaska Eskimo 

Whaling Commission (AEWC). Many groups are helping, but we need to keep one other thing 

in mind; a group that is far away is watching all of this -the International Whaling Commission 

(IWC). They are keeping an eye on what is going on in the Beaufort Sea and the Chukchi Sea. 

Sometimes they perceive industrial activity as representing a threat to this animal; sometimes they 

seem to perceive the threat as becoming significant. If so,>they will probably take steps to reduce 

the subsistence harvest quota to further protect the animal. So, this is one of the reasons that the 

NSB and the AEWC are so vigorous in trying to make sure that industrial activities are conducted 

safely. 

The fourth point seems obvious from the presentations -we are very concerned about 

underwater industrial noise. The major pollutant, from the perspective of the people who live up 

there, is noise. 

The tifth point is that there are two very divergent views about the effects of industrial 

noise, and particularly, the noise from marine seismic exploration. For one view, we have a limited 

series of scientific studies with a few data that were analyzed as best they can be. On the other 

hand, we have the observations of people in three different villages for about tifteen years. Their 

view is the same in all three villages: when there is noise from industry operations and 

particularly, seismic noise, something happens to the whales. Namely, they are just farther 

offshore. This is a clear issue for MMS to help resolve. 

Another point is to remember who are the major stakeholders. The major stakeholders 

are the bowhead whale itself, the people who depend on it, the oil industry, conservation groups, 

and various others. We should remember which stakeholders have been there the longest. That 

doesn't mean that the stakeholders who have shown up recently have no right to be there. It just 

means that out of common decency you shouldn't 'rattle the apple cart" too hard. 

As a whaling captain pointed out, let's try to get the job done; everybody wants the oil, 

so the development stage is going to start. But get it done in a safe way, which is not necessarily 

the most cost effective. We heard a lot about cost effective ways; but when you say it many times, 

it starts to sound like 'cutting comers.' If an accident is going to happen, it will probably occur 

during 'normal' weather, which is extremely bad - not during the time when most photographs 

are taken, which is when the weather is nice. You don't see good weather very often. Response 

to a catastrophe up there is going to be horrendous. So, if you want to do things in a cost 

effective way, you have to remember that the Beaufort Sea is a very unforgiving place. This is one 

reason for the regulatory agencies, and to some extent, the NSB and the State of Alaska, to be 

very concerned; it is their job to enforce good regulations. 

I think that we have had a reasonable overview of the Bowhead Whale Session and other 

relevant information. Some really good research has been done on tagging, noise studies, 

industry monitoring, etc. Operations need to be done in a manner which is 'cost effective* and 

also 'environmentally sound.' And let's not forget all the stakeholders. There are other people 

also who subsist on the bowhead whale. We had a representative from Canada where people 

depend on this animal. They are planning to become more active in hunting this animal for 

subsistence. Also, the Native people in Chukotka (Russia) are going to resume the hunting of this 

animal. 

Overall, I think that it was a good meeting. I thank you again, Drs. Cowles and Newbury, 

for letting me participate. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Ms. Lorf Quakenbush, Chalr, General Biology Sesslon 

I, too, noticed a difference in this meeting from some of the previous meetings, although 

I don't know if my observations are the same as Dr. Cowles. One of the things that I noticed, 

especially in the biology session, is that MMS used to be a Id more active, funding large studies; 

these meetings used to bring together many MMS Principal Investigators who talked about their 

studies. In the General Biology Session of this meeting, we had no presenters show data from 

recent MMSsponsored projects in the Beaufort Sea. The opposite was true, of course, in the 

Bowhead Whale Session - but that wasn't the case in the General Biology Session. 

It appears to me that OCS development in the Arctic is something that will definitely 

occur. Everything that we have heard in this meeting makes it sound like the technology is there 

and the interest is there; we are just talking about a matter of time. My fear is that at the same 

time that we are moving in that direction, we are also downsizing, cutting budgets, and restricting 

the amount of research that is being done - the amount of baseline information that is being 

collected. The situation reminds me of our biggest regret about the Endicott Development Project. 

This is an example of a baseline database with only one year of pre-construction information. This 

relates to what Dr. Albert just said -that it is a very variable ecosystem. One year of data means 

almost nothing to us. We probably have 12 years of data after the causeway construction; but 

when we compare that to our baseline of one year, we don't understand how the ecosystem 

worked before construction, so we can't say what construction has impacted. I guess my fear is 

that we are headed in that same direction with OCS developments. I would advocate that we 

need to consider collecting more baseline information now for the Beaufort Sea development 

areas so that we don't end up in the same situation -trying to collect data simultaneously with 

development. We don't have much lead time now, but this is the time to get started, to gear up, 

and to collect some of that information that we know we are going to need and that we are going 

to regret not having if we wait. 

My specific recommendations would be that MMS should consider long-term studies to 

collect baseline data. There are some examples of things that could be done that would head in 

that direction and that wouldn't necessarily be expensive, new studies - such as syntheses of 

existing studies. One example would be a compilation and synthesis of all fish data that has been 

collected in the Beaufort Sea development areas. 

One of the themes that we heard throughout this meeting is that we need to incorporate 

more Native knowledge and combine it with the science for a better understanding of the region. 

Another specific idea is a baseline on contaminants studies. We have measured high 

levels of cadmium and mercury in some of the marine bird and mammal species. Ms. Anne Dailey 

showed that cadmium and mercury are both components in drilling muds. So, it would be really 

important to get a baseline for those types of metals in the ecosystem now before we have a lot 

of discharges. We will want to know whether we are looking at baseline levels of contaminants 

in these species, or if we are looking at metals that they are picking up because of further 

exploration and development. 

Also, something that we are all concerned about is improvement in the technology of 

cleaning up oil spills in ice-covered environments. It is nd an easy thing to do but there could 

be improvements in that field. Prevention is always a good place to start, and there has been a 

fair amount of work helping to prevent the spills. But we still need to look at spill clean up in icecovered and broken-ice sluations. 
Executive Synthesis 9 

I would also like to add that when regulatory agencies don't have sufficient information 

- information the agencies need to develop stipulations and mitigation to protect fish and wildlife 

and their subsistence uses - the agencies end up having to err on the side of the conservative. 

That is the reason we ask for greater monitoring requirements and for things that appear 

unreasonable M even hostile to development. The more information that we have, the better we 

can regulate. 

Dr. Richard T. Prentkl, Chair, Physical and Geological Sesslon 

One of the major themes has been the importance of interannual variability. It was 

mentioned in people's talks throughout the meeting. There are many things which do not seem 

to change annually, such as basic ocean circulation. But this is partly due to limited observations. 

Simulations of interannual circulation with models are one way to better estimate variability. We 

know the ice changes from year to year. It is not only the amount of ice in the ocean, but where 

it is. We saw this in the two talks on ice forecasting. There is interannual variation, but it cannot 

be detected in a one-year scientific study. Also, you never have a typical year in the Arctic: there 

is no such thing. 

Another point I noticed is that there is concern about aspects of scale. We are talking 

about development at specilic sites which are 'oceanographically' close to shore -within a few 

kilometers from shore. Previously, when we worked with lease sale issues, we were talking about 

entire planning areas and vast distances. The way in which we treated circulation models would 

be entirely different than the way we would look at one development site that is close to shore. 

Oil spill statistics, for example, would have to be modified to adapt them to specific development 

projects, taking into account pipeline length. 

Also, as we get closer to development of small projects, we are concerned about different 

issues. For example, with muds and cuttings discharges, we have a general permit for the entire 

area during exploration, which might mean three or four wells in the same area. However, at a 

production site you are going to have a couple of hundred wells - although maybe there won't 

be any discharges of muds and cuttings. 

Ms. Anne Dailey pointed out that under the current permit that was reissued a year or two 

ago, industry re-injects the drilling muds at Endicott. The discharge is very slight - only domestic 

and sanitary waste. The major discharges are reinjected, including produced waters. This is 

important because water quality issues have been a major emphasis with the public in Alaska 

during the last few years. 

GENERAL COMMEHTS 

Cleve Cowles: In the first session we heard that there is flexibility in engineering design and in 

addressing new economic situations for development. We also heard about the very substantial 

information base regarding the effects of seismic noise on bowhead whales. We tend to study 

the whale and we tend to study the behaviors of whales in relation to noise. However, we heard 

that the effects are stilt a major issue. We assume that the seismic source is a constant. I think 

there are people here that perhaps could discuss this subject. New findings from the satellite 

tagging studies shows that there may be some distinct depths within the ocean that the whales 
10 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

tend to use. Perhaps we need to examine the engineering of seismic equipment, thinking of ways 

that they may be redesigned to minimize the propagation of sound in the depth strata used by 

whales. 

Jack Lentfer: There was a Id of talk about stakeholders early in the meeting and it was 

mentioned again in the summary. It seemed to me the concepts pertained mainly to industry and 

the Native community; there weren't many comments about the environmental community nor 

of the public as a whole. I think they need to be brought into the discussion. We have people all 

over the country and all over the world that have an interest in the Arctic and what is happening 

there. I would consider them a major stakeholder also. 

Another point is that industry representatives talked about alliances with government and 

Native groups. I can see that might be of value, working together early. However, I think that the 

government has to be careful about entering into alliances. They should maintain a slightly 

different position because they have an overview responsibility so that they can effectively 

regulate and enforce. This, it seems to me, should be more the role of government rather than 

entering into alliances right from the beginning. 

Cleve Cowles: Thank you, Dr. Lentfer. I think that is a point well taken about the definition of 

stakeholders and public. I think it is a question that confronts all government agencies, whether 

they are at the federal, state, or local level. It is a question that we are looking at. This meeting 

is perhaps focused on the Alaskan stakeholders, but there are other ways of gaining public input 

through, for example, comment on our draft five year programs. Other stakeholders will be 

addressing, in fact very soon, the federal budget, so that will also have an influence on the future 

of the program and its specific goals and purposes. 

Grant Walthers: I would like to encourage the corporations, the State of Alaska, and the federal 

government to consider the other circumpolar nations and the Pacific Rim nations that are 

impacted by all of these issues. My suggestion would be, that before any new policies are 

initiated, scientists be brought together in a major forum. Also, the Inuit of some of these 

circumpolar countries should be involved. They have had some circumpolar conferences, but has 

their input been brought into these types of issues? Further, note that Russia and Japan have 

advanced ice breaker technology. Norway has extensive oil development. Sweden and Finland 

have extensive experience in Arctic design. And the British have North Sea developments. I think 

we should give this creative and serious consideration. 

Cleve Cowles: The same thought occurred to me when we were talking about ecosystem 

management. Obviously, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making an effort to organize on 

ecosystems basis; some of the boundaries were along the international lines. I am sure that they 

are integrating their program - as is MMS - with international organizations. It is an important 

concept that it is occurring at a lot of different levels than the individual and federal level. In the 

academic community there is international dialogue. We do need to keep that in mind if we are 

truly systems managers. 

Charles Greene: I am aware of a new Arctic research project that will be of interest to the 

participants in this meeting and that should be part of the record. This is a proposed study of the 

ocean processes of the Arctic Ocean -the oceanographic, mesoscale circulation patterns, the 

ocean and the ice. It will be done using sound transmission across the Arctic Basin. The sound 

is in a coded wave form; during reception, the variability in time and amplitude will reveal 

information about the temperature/structure, and the water motion (the eddies) within the Basin. 

This is a Russian, Canadian, and U.S. international project. It is not just a plan, they had a pilot 
Eirecutive Synthesis 11 

study, an actual experiment, in the spring of 1994.1 am sure you are going to hear more about 

this. It will contribute to he kind of information Dr. Kate Hedstrom needs for her circulation 

modeling and it may interest the biogists. 

Cleve Cowles: I would like to thank the many participants, and particularly our organizers - Dr. 

Tom Newbury of MMS and Ms. Kathy Mitchell, of MBC Applied Environmental Sciences - for 

making the meeting as interesting as it has been. Again, I would like to thank our session chairs 

and presenters for some very excellent contributions; and, of course, the attendees who, in a true 

interdisciplinary sense, have shown interest in all areas of discussion. 

Judy Gottlieb: I do want to congratulate you on your enthusiasm, for having so much curiosity, 

and for having as many questions the last few minutes as you did the first day. I appreciate 

everyone's hard work on this meeting. We had a good representation from across the state, from 

around the country, and internationally. Specifically, I want to thank MMS Director Quarterman 

and Ms. Deborah Williams, Secretary Babbitt's Special Assistant, for attending. I also want to 

express appreciation to Dr. Langdon and to Dr. Albert and others who have said many positive 

things about MMS. That is a nice change from the past. 

I think I might have been the first person to use the word 'stakeholder' at the start of this 

meeting, but I don't regret that. I heard a lot of people say during the meeting that we all do have 

to work together. We talked about communication. We all know what that means -the twaway 

exchange of ideas. I think we all used this opportunity to really make that happen and will 

continue to do so. Many of the things that we heard, the ideas we've heard, are the sentiments 

we've heard as we travel and meet throughout the state - those ideas we've tried to incorporate 

not only in the meeting, but in the way we do our work. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 
Opening Remarks 

OPENING REMARKS 

Dr. Cleve Cowles, Chlef, 

Environmental Studies Section 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Service 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

This Arctic Synthesis Meeting, sponsored by the Alaska OCS Region of the Minerals 

Management Se~ce, is the s'bdh major information meeting since 1978 dealing with the status 

of information on the Beaufort Sea. In the past, the emphases have been focused on preleasing 

information needs and issues, howwer, we plan to focus this meeting on information about 

potential development areas in the central coastal Beaufort Sea, such as Northstar, Kuvlum, and 

others. A session on indu~try plans will be followed by sessions on sociocultural information, 

bowhead whales, general biogy, and physical oceanography. The meeting will conclude with 

a synthesis session, when our session chairs will distill the essence of their presentations and 

discussions. 

I would like to add that sciencebased decision making is one of the policy objectives of 

the Minerals Management Service. As part of that process, our Alaska program recently released 

its Environmental Studies Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997. The goals, purposes, 

and background of the Environmental Studies Program are in that document. In keeping with the 

planning themes of the Alaska Environmental Studies Program, which are Mission, Quality 

Science, Partnerships, and Responsiveness, please let us know any environmental studies whi.ch 

you would recommend to be included in our Mure considerations. Of particular relevance, as you 

think about the Mure for the OCS program in Alaska, would be the new draft proposed meyear 

leasing program and, of course, the essence of this meeting. 

Before I introduce our first speaker, I would like to recognize Dr. Tom Newbury, who has 

coordinated the development of the agenda for MMS, and Ms. Kathy Mitchell, from MBC Applied 

Environmental Sciences, who, once again, has ably assisted MMS in setting up the meeting 

logistics. 

That concludes my introductory remarks, now please welcome our first speaker, Judy 

Gottlieb, the Regional Director for the Alaska Region. 

Judlth Gottlleb 

Regional Director 

Ataska OCS Region 

Mlnemlr Management Service 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

I am also pleased to welcome you to our Arctic Synthesis Meeting. The last meeting of 

this type was about two years ago: that's too long, so it's now time to renew our relations and 

to look forward and plan for the future. 

I'm pleased to see so many familiar faces and, in particular, many from the North Slope 

Borough (NSB). Not only are there distinguished representatives from the North Slope Borough, 

but we're also happy to have representatives from the villages and whaling captains. Maybe we 
14 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

should schedule these meetings more often to occur right after the Alaska Federation of Natives' 

Convention. 

I'm equally pleased to see such a good representation from the oil and gas industry, 

academia, consulting firms, Federal and state agencies, and other organizations. This large 

diversity of interests gives me confidence that this meeting will be successful in helping MMS 

identify what needs to be done to address potential future oil and gas activities in the Arctic. 

This morning there will be several speakers who will review what's happening with North 

Slope leasing, exploration, and development activities. I would like to briefly review the activities 

of the Minerals Management Service. The Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region has been 

undergoing a substantial down-sizing -from 149 to 85 positions. Over the last year we've been 

able to achieve our reduced staffing levels and yet maintain the core expertise, knowledge, and 

skills necessary to maintain our proposed lease sale activities, to prepare technically sound 

Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and resource assessments, to conduct multidisciplinary 

environmental studies program, and to assure that post-lease activlies are conducted in a safe 

manner. We have recently consolidated our Anchorage offices on to the third floor at the 

University Plaza Building, and are in the process of structuring our organization based on these 

reduced staffing levels. These efforts will help improve communication among staff and result in 

a more focused team. 

The next proposed lease sale in the Beaufort Sea, Number 144, is tentatively scheduled 

for September 1996. The draft EIS is currently out for public review, and the comment period 

ends November 15, 1995. We recently conducted workshops in Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, and Barrow 

on ways to review and understand the environmental assessment process. Public hearings on 

the draft EIS will be held in these communlies the first week in November, and in Anchorage on 

Thursday, October 26. 

Last February, the Department of Interior announced that we would defer the proposed 

Chukchi/Hope Basin lease sale, originally scheduled for June of 1997, until the next fiveyear 

program. This was a result of low industry interest, as well as concerns about potential 

environmental effects. As part of this sale effort, the MMS worked with our counterparts in the 

Russian Far East to hold a simultaneous lease sale in the area. The Russians have also deferred 

possible lease offerings in this area. Although the sale activity was deferred, we have held 

seminars and workshops with the Russians on our environmental assessment techniques, 

geological and economic modeling for resource evaluation, and conveyance of mineral rights. 

Addlional workshops may be conducted that would address other aspects of our program, 

including the public process. 

The draft proposed Fiveyear Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 1997 to 2002 was 

published in August. The public comment period ended on October 10. The program includes 

five proposed lease sales in Alaska: a small focused sale in the Beaufort Sea in 1998, a Cook 

Inlet/Shelikof Stral sale in 1999, an area-wide sale in the Beaufort Sea in 2000, Gulf of Alaska sale 

in 2001, and a combined Chukchi/Hope Basin sale in 2002. Comments are still filtering in, but so 

far comments have been generally supportive of the draft program, although there are some 

issues and alternatives that we need to review and consider. 

To help with development of the proposed fiveyear program in Alaska, we proposed an 

Alaska Regional Stakeholders Task Force. This Task Force was formed by the OCS Policy 

Committee - the same committee which advises the Secretary of Interior on the offshore 
Opening Remarks 15 

program of the Minerals Management Service. Mr. Jeff Walker will be giving a more complete 

review of the task force. 

My priorities for a successful OCS program in Alaska include more outreach efforts with 

our stakeholders to resolve potential conflicts. Mr. Walker, who 1 just introduced, has moved into 

a full-time position on my staff as an Outreach Coordinator to improve and facilitate these efforts. 

Incorporation of indigenous knowledge into our decision making process, and establishing 

broader relations with Alaska Native and tribal interests, are also high priorit'is. 

I personally have traveled through quite a few of the coastal communities around the 

State -those which might be affected by our program -to meet with Native and tribal leaders 

and to hear concerns first hand. I, and my staff, have also participated in the Inuit Circumpolar 

Conference, Alaska Federation of Natives Convention and other conferences, met with groups, 

such as Rural CAP, to improve our understanding of acquisition and use of traditional knowledge. 

We have also made initial contacts with the Alaska Native Science Commission and other 

community leaders, and are currently working to assure that this knowledge is incorporated into 

our Environmental Impact Statements. And, of course, at two of the sessions at this meeting, the 

Sociocultural Session and the Bowhead Whale Session, we have invited speakers from the 

villages to present and discuss their traditional knowledge in these areas. 

In the future, new initiatives, creative solutions, new alliances and partnerships will be 

used with development of existing marginal fields. You will be hearing about these in the following 

presentations. I am optimistic about the future of the OCS Program in Alaska, especially in the 

Arctic. The Arctic continues to be an area of interest to industry. There is general support at the 

state level for our program, and the NSB has expressed a desire to work with us to resolve 

potential conflicts. I look'fbrward to working with all the stakeholders of Alaska who have 

concerns. The future of the program will depend in large part on improved communication 

between us and our stakeholders. The identification of problems and development of solutions 

must include everyone. I think this meeting is a good opportunity for that communication. I 

encourage you to participate in the meeting and discussions. I wish you success in working 

together, discussing the available information and building open communication. 

I will now introduce our Minerals Management Senrice Director, Cynthia Quarterman. Ms. 

Quarterman has traveled to Alaska three times in the last year and a half, and we do appreciate 

that! 

Cynthla Quarterman 

Dlrector 

Mineral8 Management Service 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

I, too, would like to welcome you to the Arctic Synthesis Meeting. I am particularly 

pleased to be here with you this morning and to see such a broad representation of the Alaska 

Native community, the oil and gas industry, and the other constituents with whom we work on 

the OCS Program. 

I, like most of you, am here for the next few days just to listen and to learn. The Alaska 

OCS Region is a very important part of our Nation's offshore minerals management program, and 
16 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

this synthesis meeting is an important step for us, helping to determine the environmental studies 

and information needs to support both preleasing and post-leasing decisions in the Alaska OCS. 

Science-based decision making, as was mentioned earlier, is the foundation on which the 

OCS program should be and will be buitt. This synthesis meeting is an important part of building 

that foundation, and I thank you for coming here to help us build a sound foundation. 

The Alaska OCS Region was formed in October of 1975 with promising new lease sale 

areas with very high potential - potential for large discoveries and for near-term development. 

Unfortunately, the resutts so far have been discouraging. However, there have been substantial 

discoveries in the Beaufort Sea; our own resource estimates and the responses to our last FieYear Program show that industry continues to be interested in that area. So we continue to 

believe that there are opportunities here. 

The Alaska OCS Region - with 17 lease sales, 81 exploration wells, and over $250 

million in environmental studies - may not be the frontier area than it was 15, 10 or even 5 years 

ago; but new technologies, like three-dimensional geophysical interpretative techniques, are 

paving the way for new analyses of the information that may show oil and gas resources which 

were hard to identify in the past, or were perhaps even invisible. We've seen this happen in the 

Gulf of Mexico and we expect that to be the case here in Alaska. 

New technology and the partnership approaches that will be discussed this morning are 

important to cutting costs to support marginal field development in Alaska. So despite the 

discouragements that have occurred in the past, we expect a glowing Mure for the Alaska OCS 

area. 

Of course, the OCS Program, to be successful, has to be buitt on open communications, 

as was mentioned earlier. The Alaska Regional Stakeholders Task Force, we believe, is a good 

first step in that endeavor. That group has begun to pull together all of our multiple constituents 

and to discuss the problems and concerns of the Alaskan community with OCS development - 

and to try to resolve those concerns. Both Ms. Gottlieb and I share the same objectives of 

providing the best customer service possible, of listening to all of our constituents, and of having 

open communications. We want to not only listen, but to resolve disputes, and then to make our 

decisions based on sound scientific information. Improvements in communications and resolution 

of disputes are as an important as improved technologies in the success of the Alaska OCS 

region. 

Alaska may not have the level of production that there is in the Gulf of Mexico nor is it 

the frontier area that it was years ago, but in the Mure we see potential development on the 

horizon. While leasing and exploration and development may continue, we expect operations to 

be more focused, more reserved, because of lower oil prices and because of opportunities in the 

international community. I would encourage you, as you listen over the next two and a half days, 

to keep in mind those things. 

I will be here for the next two and a half days, and if anybody would like to ask me 

questions, I would be happy to answer them. Thanks again and welcome. 
- Introductory Session 

THE NORTHSTAR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 

A Challenge of lnnovatlon and Relatknshlps 

One Vhkn of the Door to the Future 

Terry J. Obeney 

Manager, New Developments 

BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc. 

P.O. Box 196612 

Anchorage, AK 9951 9 

BACKGROUND 

The Northstar field was discovered by Shell in 1983 with the drilling and testing of the 

Seal Island #1 well. Several more wells, drilled by Shell and Amerada Hess between 1985 and 

1994, confirmed the reservoir was of modest size, a little over 100 million barrels, and 

economically unattractive. The field lies offshore, outside the barrier islands in a water depth of 

12 m (40 ft). The reservoir zone is found at a depth of 3,400 m (1 1,000 ft) and covers an area of 

3,600 hectares (9,000 acres) on state and federal leases. Well productiviiies are expected to be 

relatively high with field offtake estimated at 50,000 barrels per day from about 25 wells, including 

injection wells. BP acquired its current interest and operatorship in the field by purchase of the 

interests of Shell and Amerada Hess earlier this year. Murphy Oil is the only other partner with 

a small interest, approximately two percent by area. 

WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO DEVELOP NORTHSTAR? 

A typical paper on the subject of oilfield development would devote the rest of the 

available space to description of the physical development plan, lists of hardware, pipeline sizes, 

process description, number of wells, and production forecasts. The Mure of North Slope 

onshore and offshore deuelopment, indeed the future of Alaska's economic prosperity, will 

depend on our ability to think and work in a different way. 

'Success does not come the way we think it does, it comes from the way we think.' 

This paper is therefore devoted to a different view of the Mure - one vision of the way 

ahead for the oil business in Alaska. Table 1 contains an outline of the possible development 

scope for interested readers. 

CORNERSTONES OF SUCCESS 

The cornerstones for successful development of Northstar, and marginal fields in general 

are: 

a Alignment 

a Simplicii 

a Ability to Change 

a Technology 

These have been listed in their order of importance and degree to which they can 

leverage the outcome. This may not appear too intuitive as technology-based companies, such 

as BP, typically put technology at the top of the list and usually fail to recognize the dramatic 

stepchanges that can be achwed with alternative approaches to apparently intractable 
18 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Table 1. Northstar development scheme(8) characteristics. 

252 wells drilled from a single drill site 

A drillinglproduction structure 

Gravel island 

Caisson retained gravel island 

Existing mobile structure (CIDS, Molikpaq, SSDC, etc.) 

Pipeline(s) 

Single or multiple 

Hot or cold 

Buried (trenched) or partially elevated on piles 

Drilled (shallow or deep) 

Process facilities 

New Northstar-specific, onshore or offshore 

Gas and produced water re-injection 

Seawater injection for improved recovery 

Option for use of existing facilities 

Prudhoe Bay 

Lisburne 

Milne Point 

Endiiott 

Infrastructure 

Shared or new 

Logistics 

Air 

Barge 

Hovercraft 

Ice Road 

problems. This paper will unfortunately only scratch the surface of these ideas but will hopefully 

provide a stimulus for others to discuss this issue. Taking each in turn: 

Alignment 

Simply, this is need to expliclly align all stakeholders in the Northstar development. 

Stakeholders means BP and its partners: the people of the North Slope; state, federal and local 

governments; industry; contractors; and the public in general. This can appear a daunting task 

until we break it down into logical elements. 

For the people of the North Slope, regulatory agencies, and the general public, we have 

to be able to address all of their concerns and issues to their satisfaction. There will be no 

development if this is not achieved. The logical way to do this is earty involvement and integration 

of interested parties in the development planning process. Only by learning together can all the 

parties feel true ownership and confidence in the wtcomes. On Northstar we have voluntarily 

offered to subml the project to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. Historically, 
Obeney - The Northstar Development Project 19 

we would have fought such a process for costs and schedule reasons, arguing that an 

Environmental Assessment was adequate. Acknowledging the sensitivities that surround an 

offshore development, we are now trying to jointly develop an efficient, timely process with the 

affected constituencies to reduce the cost and time burdens of the EIS. We aim to avoid 

duplication of costs by performing 'normal' engineering studies concurrent with the EIS scoping 

and alternative analysis. Similarty, all project team meetings are open to the participation of all 

regulatory agencies and on many occasions agency staff have contributed during the 

brainstorming sessions as full members of the project team. By this process of earty involvement, 

integrated workplans, and open dialogue, it is possible to align the interests of all parties around 

a single outcome. 

We are also involved in earty discussions with the State of Alaska to better align our 

commercial interests to ensure optimum development of all the reserves in the area. This might 

invoke flexible lease tenns to incentivize development of incremental reserves through continued 

investment. HB-207, recently passed by the State Legislature, is an illustration of the kind of 

thinking it will take to align government and industry. 

We are also in the process of developing a new Yechnology,' the technology of alignment 

of our contractors and suppliers. The term 'alliance' has been ove~sed and abused in reference 

to relationships with our contractors. Often those arrangements are just another way for the oil 

producers to succeed at the expense of their contractors. A true alliance, one of the type 

developed for Badami and under development for Northstar, -licit& links the prditabilify of all 

involved in the project, Mth a clear sharing of commercial risk based on the expectation of 

sharing the benefits of outstanding performance. All parties view the alliance as an opportunity 

to create business that would not atherwise exist. It is one thing to design a multi-party incentive 

scheme and quite another to develop a shared vision of the Mure and shared commitment to 

succeed. The key to success in creating alliances is in the selection process - selecting people 

and companies who see strategic value in what we are trying to achieve, can share a common 

goal, and have the ability and desire to Yhink outside the box.' 

It is difficult, but possible, to align the interests of all stakeholden. The most difficult thing 

for all to do is 'listen,' particularty when we carry with us the baggage of past experience and 

relationships. It is only through nurtured relationships that the aspirations of all parties can be 

understood and incorporated into a development proposal. 

Simpiicity 

'Any problem, no matter how complicated, when looked at in just 

the right way, can be made ever more complicated.' 

The oil business in Alaska is a classic example of how we solve technical problems by 

making the simple, complex. Often when Xaced with the challenge of cutting capital costs, we 

attempt to do the same complex thing more cheaply. The key to success is to eliminate that 

which is not absolutely necessary. We often design facilities full of 'nice-tehaves.' By looking to 

other parts of the world, the Gulf d Mexico and Northern Canada, we can see that similar 

problems are addressed in very different ways. Both of these areas have thrived in an intensely 

competitiie environment by focus on key goals and simplifying their business process. 

A paradigm of the past is that const~cting basic, simple Xacilities may reduce capital 

costs but increase operating costs and decrease reliability. We now believe the opposite is true. 
20 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

By reducing the complexity and amount of process equipment and eliminating spare machinery, 

we can: 

reduce maintenance costs (fewer things to fix); 

reduce the number of operators (muttiiskilling is more possible); 

imprwe safety (fewer people exposed to safety hazards and plant is 

more easily understood by all); 

increase uptime (fewer things to break and fewer instruments to 

matfunction), and 

decrease environmental impact (smaller footprint, less emissions, less 

waste, higher reliability). 

The Ferrari is more fun but the Chevy is lit-for-purpose. 

AbiiIty to Change 

'The ability to change faster than your competitor may be the only 

true, sustainable competitive advantage.' 

The story behind BP's re-thinking of development of marginal, or economically 

challenged, fields emerged from the thoughts of Joel Barker (futurist) - 'The key to paradigm 

shifts is the answer to the question: what is impossible today, but if possible, would dramatically 

change the future of your business?' By seeking the answer to that question we have uncovered 

a fresh way of approaching North Slope development problems. One that is as much based on 

a state of mind and philosophy as it is based on engineering and design. Northstar was 

impossible a year ago, but possible today. 

On Northstar we are committed to reducing the costs of development from $1.5 billion 

(the previous estimate based on studies by Amerada Hess) to around $300 million, a fivefold 

reduction. We are confident we can achieve this based on recent Badami studies where the costs 

of development have been reduced from about $800 million to below $400 million (and counting). 

In fact, our most recent estimate confirmed we have already identified 90% of the savings 

required. Most of these reductions have come from an alignment with new and existing contractor 

companies. This sort of alignment can only be generated if oil companies are witling to relinquish 

some control and re-invent the project management process. 

'Younger people learn more quickly than dder people. Not 

because they have a greater ability to learn, but rather that they 

have less to un-learn.' 

Project management, in the traditional client-contractor model, is dead as we know it. The 

paradigm has shifted and we are 'back to zero' discovering a new way of relating. That can only 

occur when the parties are not only wilting to change, but actively seek out the opportunity to 

change. We have attempted to acknowledge and honor the past, while avoid being chained to 

it. 

Insanity: to continue to do things in the same way, while 

expecting to achieve a different outcome. 

Therefore, previous project management techniques, designed to manage, control, and 

audit suppliers and contractors are inappropriate when the parties are truly aligned. 
Obeney - The Northstar Development Project 2 1 

Technology 

New technology will continue to be an important lever for improving our business. In the 

near-term, however, technology is more likety to produce incremental, continuous improvement 

in our business rather than stepchange. The continued push to drill ever higher departures, 

horizontal wells and multiilateral wells (a single hole from the surface, branching to many different 

well locations) will create new opportunities to increase oil recovery and lower development costs. 

A larger near-term lever to improve performance is by borrowing technology from other 

locations or even from other industries. In the words of Woodrow Wilson: We need not only all 

the brains we have, but all we can borrow.' 

For Badami we are borrowing cold, buried pipeline concepts from Canada and the ability 

to operate cheaply without roads from other offshore locations. In the process plant itself, we 

have a lot we can leam about unmanned operations, instrumentation and control systems from 

other, non-petrochemical process industries. 

SUMMARY 

The outlook for further new oil field development on the North Slope is bright. New types 

of relationships are being forged which create alignment of vision and purpose. Wi an aligned 

commitment, we will all share in the joint success - if we are prepared to change. 

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION 

Tom Newbury: Is it much more expensive to build and maintain a pipeline offshore than 

onshore? For example, what would be the relative cost of an offshore pipeline from Badami to 

Endicott as opposed an onshore pipeline? 

Terry Obeney: That is a very tough question to answer. Mainly because I would have to really 

know a Id more than I do know about the development costs. One of the things that we are 

discovering as we look at these fields, is that we take our existing database and we make 

comparisons between attematives. We come up with a preferred solution which we think is the 

cheapest, most effective solution. We then find, once we start giving our contractors more input 

into the design process, that the whole database changes. So we don't really know whether the 

scheme we selected was the best one so we go back to the beginning again. So we are in a 

continual process of reinventing the database, the cost database. My current feeling is that 

offshore pipeline construction ought to be quite cost effective, more cost effective than, pehaps, 

onshore locations. lf you are looking at an onshore hot pipeline that you have to elevate out of 

the permafrost, for example, and if you are able to lay a pipeline offshore in something more than 

five or six feet of water depth where the permafrost doesn't exist, the key issue is going to be 

burial depth. That will vary from location to location wen though you might be in relatively 

shallow water. It might be more prone to ice scouring in one location than another. So burial 

depth is going to be a by factor on pipeline costs. So unfortunately, there is no simple answer 

to that. I think, historically, the costs that we have carried for offshore pipelines have been way 

too high. But that is generally true of everything we are looking at now. There are simpler ways 

of doing things. 
22 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Tom Newbury: Thank you. Mr. Obeney, you mentioned alliances and cooperation. Would you 

briefly describe the federal and state agencies that are cooperating on the EIS for the Northstar 

Project? 

Terry Obeney: On a federal level, most all of the federal agencies are involved in the EIS 

process: the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, Minerals 

Management Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service. State 

agencies have been involved; but there is still negotiation as to how the actual EIS process will 

play out. We are anxious to get aU those negotiations to a close so that we can go through the 

bid process to get the EIS contractor in to do the work. The agencies are, in effect, having their 

own negotiations over the process. We are having them involved in the development planning 

process, independent of the EIS process. But when we actually get down to the nuts and bolts 

engineering, we want to do it concurrently so that there is only one set of studies done for actual 

design purposes of the facilities and attematives comparison for the EIS. 
KUVLUM UNIT - DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS 

James Watt 

Unbn Texas Petroleum 

P.O. Box 2120 

Houston, TX T7252 

INTRODUCTION 

In the fall of 1992 oil was discwered at Kwlum. Two offset wells were drilled the following 

year. Present efforts are directed toward understanding the distribution of the reservoir quality 

rock over the structure and formulating viable methods of development. The eastern Beaufort 

SealNorth Slope area has had a number of exploratory discoveries (Figure 1). These fields on 

a stand-alone basis are considered as either marginally economic or completely uneconomic to 

produce given the existing infrastructure. A joint development of the fields may be a viable 

development approach for this area. 

The Kuvlum Field is located offshore of northeast Alaska in the Beaufort Sea. It is 60 miles 

east of Prudhoe Bay Field and 12 miles offshore. The average water depth is 105 feet. Kwlum 

is a large hydrocarbon bearing structure with more than 40,000 acres of structure closure and a 

large oil column. Three wells have been drilled on the Kuvlum structure locating a good quality 

oil productive reservoir sand. The distribution of the sand is not adequately understood. This 

remains the subject of future seismic, sedimentological, and paleontological studies. 

Concurrent with the effort to achieve a higher confidence level on the reservoir, the 

engineering focus is on low cost marginal development approaches that could be utilized in the 

Kuvlum arctic environment. A study of Kuvium development undertaken in 1993-1994 focused on 

the use of a permanent bottom-founded production platform structure and a crude transport 

system consisting of a trenched pipeline. The resutts indicated the proposed production system 

was technically feasible but reserves in the 500-600 million barrel range would be necessary for 

a stand-alone development. Union Texas has investigated the application of a subsea 

development and the use of existing bottom-founded structures for developing Kuvium. These 

low cost development methods and other leveraging technologies could lower the threshold field 

size to the 300 million barrel range. A joint development, sharing the cost of the infrastructure, 

could be the most leveraging concept for the eastern Beaufort Sea area discoveries and could 

lower the commercial reserve threshold even further. 

BACKGROUND 

Union Texas has in the past year focused on low cost marginal development approaches 

that could be utilized in the Kuvium arctic environment. This paper will summarize the 

development approaches that have been considered and some of the leveraging technologies 

that may have appl'mtion. The North Slope area has had a number of exploratory discoveries 

(Fgure 1). Prudhoe and Kuparuk fields have driven the development of the infrastructure and 

have allowed the development of nearby fields, many of which would be uneconomic as 

stand-alone fields at current crude prices. As Kuparuk field has moved the infrastructure to the 

west, no stand-alone field has moved the infrastructure to the east where Kuvium is located. 

The Kuvium Unit (Figure 2) is about 51,000 acres, of which about 47,000 acres are leased 

by Union Texas. The average water depth at Kuvlum is approximately 105 feet, and the area is 

in the multi-year sea ice zone. Kuvium is a large hydrocarbon bearing structure with more than 
24 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

North Slope Alaska 

0 10 10 

Flgwe 1. Mscoverles - North Slope Alaska. 

40,000 acres of structure closure and a large oil column. The discovery well, Kwlum # 1, 

encountered good quality oil productive reservoir sand. Offset wells, three miles to the southwest 

and one mile to the north, had variable quality oil sands. A drill-stem test in the Kwlum # 1 

produced 3,400 barrels of oil per day of 34 degree API gravity oil. Reservoir analyses indicate that 

the sand is capable of producing quantities exceeding that drill-stem test. The major geologic risk 

is reservoir continuity. The Kwlum reserves are noncommercial on a stand-alone basis. 

A question that Union Texas needed to answer was 'Why Retain Kuvlum?" The major 

reasons were as follows: 

- Good Reservoir Sand and Large Structure 

- Potential for lmproving Infrastructure 

- lmproving Technologies 

- lmproving Fiscal Terms 

The good reservoir sand encountered in Kuvlum # 1 and the size the Kwlum structure 

are key in the retention of the Kuvlum Unl. However, there is a lot of uncertainty due to the 

variable quality of the sand and the difficulty of mapping the sand. This reservoir uncertainty 

causes a wide reserve range. The range is nine million to 350 million barrels of oil. There is a 90% 

probability prediction that the reserves are within that range. An improvement of the 

understanding of the reservoir continuity from future seismic, sedimentological, and 

paleontological studies will hopefully reduce the reservoir risk. 

Union Texas feels that there is potential for improving infrastructure to the eastern area 

of the North Slope. The eastern Beaufort SeaNorth Slope area has had a number of exploratory 
Kuvlum Area 

Eastern Beau fort Sea, Alaska 
26 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

discoveries (Figure 1). BP has announced Badami as a potential development which would move 

the pipeline infrastructure approximately 28 miles to the east. There are a number of discoveries 

in the Point Thompson vicinity and a major reserve potential could exist in the Alaska National 

Wildlife Reserve (ANWR). Although these discoveries are marginal or uneconomic on a 

stand-alone basis, a new large stand-alone discovery or joint development of the existing 

accumulations may allow development of the area. 

Union Texas is focusing on what can be done to develop smaller accumulations. 

Improving technologies may play a key role in achieving this objective by reducing cost and 

project risk. Some of the leveraging technologies for Kuvlum will be reviewed as a separate topic, 

but better contractor alignments, changes in design criteria and generally lower costs will need 

to be realized. A 100 million or 200 million banel field cannot support the operating approach of 

a four billion or 13 billion banel oil field. 

There have been indications that the Alaskan Beaufort Sea fiscal terms could be 

enhanced. The recent modification of the Jones Act allowing Alaskan oil to be exported is a step 

in the right direction to improve the commercial aspects of Alaskan oil. Fields like Kuvlum in the 

hostile Arctic OCS should be able to obtain royalty relief to improve economics. This type of 

royalty relief has been given for Gulf of Mexico deep water marginal accumulations, and the same 

logic should apply for the Beaufort Sea. Furthermore, modifying the Jones Act to allow non-U.S. 

dredgers and other equipment to be readily used in the Beaufort Sea should enhance North 

Slope competitiveness by reducing the cost of development. 

DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS 

Union Texas is focusing on low cost marginal development approaches that could be 

utilized in the Kuvlum arctic environment. Three general development options have been 

reviewed: 

1) Subsea 

2) Existing Bottom-Founded Vessels, and 

3) Purpose Built. 

A study of Kuvlum development undertaken in 1993-1994 focused on the use of a 

permanent bottom-founded production platform structure and a crude transport system consisting 

of a trenched pipeline. The results indicated the proposed production system was technically 

feasible; however, reserves in the 500-600 million banel range would be necessary for a 

stand-alone development. This purpose built option is not a viable option given the Kuvlum 

reserve range. 

Subsea applications and the use of existing bottom-founded vessels were the focus of 

the investigation. The potential lower cost of these methods of development could allow a lower 

reserve range (i.e., 200-400 million banels) to be viable. This work is still in progress so the 

results are preliminary. The expected arctic ice loads and potential ice scour depths were studied 

as they relate to the application of both the subsea and existing vessels options. 

In drilling wells in the Beaufort Sea, a glory hole is dredged or drilled with a Tornado bit. 

For example, the Tornado bit will drill a glory hole 20 to 24 feet in diameter and a depth of 240 

feet. The purpose of the glory hole is to protect the blow out preventor (BOP) stack if a large ice 

berg approaches the well location (Figure 3). The potential scour depth would be less than the 

top of the BOP stack, so the integrity of the BOP stack would not be affected. This technique was 

used in drilling the Kuvlum wells. 
Waft - Kuvlum Unit Development Options 27 

This same glory hole technique could 

be applied to subsea trees as shown in Figure 

4. The thought of the use of the glory hole as 

a silo spurred a transfer of technology from 

the North Sea. Silos are used in the North Sea 

at times to prevent subsea trees being 

exposed to anchors, fishing nets, etc. Also, the 

advancing technology on subsea processing 

and pumping could be applied. For example, 

it may be technicalty feasible to place the 

subsea processing within the glory hole. All of 

the equipment could go down below the 

expected scour depth. 

Kuvlum may require one to three wells 

to further appraise the field. In a marginal 

development the use of these wells for Mure 

production will be important to minimize 

development costs. One approach to utilize 

these wells would be to use the Tornado bit to 

provide a pathway from each individual glory Figure 3. E%pkratory well conffguratlon. hole. This could allow the wells to be 

interconnected using a 'cookie cuttef 

technique with the Tomado bit (Figures 5 to 

7). Although the 'cookie cutter" approach 

could be feasible for individual glory holes, a 

dredger to lay out the area for the manifold 

and pipelines to shore would be better utilized. 

Flgure 4. Completion tree In dk. 

Another marginal development 

approach investigated the use of existing 

bottomfounded vessels. The bottom-founded 

vessds considered were the Single Steel 

Drilling Caisson (SSDC) from Canmar, the 

Concrete Island Drilling Structure (CIDS) from 

Global Marine, and the Molikpaq from 

Beaudrill. All of these vessels are for water 

depths ranging from 50 to 80 feet. Since the 

water depth averages 105 feet at Kuvlum, a 

subsea berm is necessary. Berms and gravel 

islands of this size have been constructed; the 

Uviluk berm would be very similar. Figure 8 

shows the development concept using the 

SSDC. The appraisal wells could be drilled 

prior to the berm construction and be utilized 

via a caisson rising through the berm. This 

concept also has a conduit for the pipelines 

on the sea bed. The condul and caisson would be installed prior to dredging the berm and 

setting down the SSDC. 
28 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

TREE 

Figure 5. Single silo subsea completion. Figure 6. Multi-silo subsea completion. 

Figure 7. Subsea system. 

The subsea and bottom-founded vessel options lower the capital costs because a new 

purpose built structure is not required. 
KUVLUM SSDC DEVELOPMENT 

A 

Rgue b Bottomfounded wuel concept. 
7995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

TECHNOLOGIES 

As stated earlier, improving technologies may play a key role in achieving development 

of the smalieraccumulations especially those in the Beaufort Sea. Given the basically flat oil price 

of recent years, the commercial goal can only be achieved by reducing cost and project risk. The 

application of technologies from around the world can be leveraging in reducing cost and risk. 

A few leveraging technologies that might have application for Kuvlum are: 

AVO 

High Departure Wells 

Downhole Splitter Technology 

Horizontal Well Technology 

Subsea Processing 

Partial Processing 

Muttiiphase Pumping 

Normally not manned or minimally manned facility operation 

The prime geological risk is reservoir continuity. The use of Amplitude versus Offset (AVO) 

is one technique that may have application at Kuvlum. Given the Kuvlum crude quality along with 

the sand quality, this technology may be applicable to attain better reservoir definition. Loweling 

this major risk could allow confidence to move further forward in the appraisal process. 

The use of high departure wells is critical to lower development costs. To reach the entire 

reservoir from one location would require just one development structure. The structure cost is 

a major component of the total development costs. On the North Slope, a high departure well is 

normally equal to 2 to 1: that is, if the vertical depth is 7000 feet, the existing technology can 

reach to about 14,000 feet. The departures being considered for Kuvlum are 3-4 to 1. In some 

areas of the world, these departures are being achieved. As this technology develops on the 

North Slope in the next five years, it may have application at Kuvlum. 

The use of a downhole splitter can also save drilling costs. This technology allows the 

upper well bore to be used for two laterals being deviated from different depths and/or directions 

in the reservoir. The splitter technology can substantially lower costs especially for the high day 

rates that are typical in the Beaufort Sea. 

Horizontal wells can reduce the number of wells required to develop a field and have 

higher flow rates. The application is field specific. At Kuvlum, flow rates three times what would 

have been achieved from vertical wells might be possible. Also with improved drainage, fewer 

wells would be necessary. The application of this technology is very leveraging in reducing the 

costs. 

Subsea processing, partial processing and mutti-phase pumping are production facility 

related and could be utilized at Kuvlum. Subsea processing was touched upon in the subsea 

approach. Partial processing and mutti-phase pumping could be applied in the subsea or 

bottom-founded vessel approaches. A partiii processing facility offshore could separate enough 

gas to run the satellite facilities. The rest of the production could flow or be multiiphase pumped 

to shore where existing facilities could be used. 

Normally not manned or minimally manned facility operation is important in keeping 

operating costs to a minimum. Since the Arctic is a tough environment, fully automated facilities 

will be utilized as much as possible. 
Walt - Kwlum Unit Development Options 

SUMMARY 

In spite of these technologies, the current accumulations in the eastern Beaufort 

Sea/North Slope are not large enough for stand-alone developments; that is, no one 

accumulation is large enough to support all the infrastructure. A joint development or shared cost 

approach may have commercial potential. A joint development is probably the most leveraging 

approach that can be used for development of the eastern Beaufort Sea area. 

QUESTlONS AND DISCUSSION 

Jeff Walker: Would you comment on the trade-offs for some of those technologies, such as 

subsea completion versus bottom-founded structures, and for horizontal versus vertical drilling 

technology? Where would one be more beneficial over another? 

Jim Watt: Part of my career was as a production engineer, so I would say that ideally you want 

access to the well bore. That is an advantage of a bottom-founded vessel - where you can 

access the well bores and work them over as the productivii dictates. With subsea completions, 

if you have poor performance, you might have to shut in the well until you can move in at a later 

date and work over the well. That is the main trade off. 

As for the horizontal versus conventional drilling technology, we don't see any real 

disadvantages with horizontal. It is a cost and performance question. It is necessary to attain 

adequate reservoir data and perform reservoir modeling, which will indicate the reservoir 

performance with horizontal or vertical drilling. 

Tom Newbury: Are there complications that arise when oil from many reservoirs is combined in 

the same pipeline? You mentioned the existing pipeline infrastructure and its possible extension 

to Badami. What would be the complications if oil from Kuvlum or the Yukon Gold Prospect 

flowed into the same pipeline? 

Jim Watt: You are going to have crude blends. So with proper design - in terms of volumes that 

would come from each field - the pipeline and pumping stations can handle those problems. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 
STATE OF ALASKA LEASING PROGRAM AND UNIT RESPONSIBILITIES 

James J. Hansen 

DMskn of 011 and Gas 

Department of Natural Resources 

State of Alaska 

3601 C Street, Sulte 1380 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

Among its various duties the Department of Natural Resources' Division of Oil and Gas 

is responsible for conducting the state's oil and gas leasing program and for managing the 

exploration and production units that may eventually be formed from the leased tracts. Today's 

talk will provide an overview of the state's new fiveyear leasing program and of the existing units 

within Alaska's Arctic region. 

Five-Year 011 and Gas Leaslng Program 

At the beginning of each new legislative session the Department of Natural Resources is 

required to present to the state legislature an updated five-year oil and gas leasing program. The 

fiveyear program presented to the legislature in January 1995 included 1 1 lease sales proposed 

through the year 1999. Since its issuance, the fiveyear program has undergone some revision 

(Figure I), resulting in one sale being placed on hold (Sale 79, Cape Yakataga), the addition of 

a Cook Inlet sale (Sale 74W) and a rescheduling of two other sales (Sale 80, Shaviovik and Sale 

85A, Cook Inlet). 

Lease Sales In the Arctlc Regkn 

Currently there are five sales scheduled for Alaska's Arctic region, the first of which is Sale 

80, Shaviovik. On September 6, 1995 the Director, Division of Oil and Gas, issued a decision to 

proceed with this sale, which is scheduled for December 5, 1995. Sale 80 consists of over 

951,000 acres divided into 202 tracts, lying predominately between the Trans-Alaska Pipeline 

System (TAPS) and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), with additional acreage around 

Gwydyr Bay, Foggy Island Bay, and between the Prudhoe Bay and Kupanrk River oil fields. 

Sale86, Central Beaufort Sea, scheduled for April 1997, is predominantly an offshore sale 

extending from the Canning River west into Harrison Bay. Sale 87 is an onshore sale that will 

make available for leasing nearly all unleased acreage on the North Slope. It could consist of 

approximately two million acres, making it the largest sale the state has ever conducted. Sale 87 

is scheduled for March 1998. Two other offshore sales, Sale 83 and Sale 89, are scheduled for 

March and December 1999 respectively and will offer all unleased state submerged acreage in 

the Beaufort Sea between Point Barrow and the Canadian border. Depending on an outcome of 

United States v Alaska, Supreme Court, No. 84, Original, that is favorable to the state, lagoonal 

waters adjacent to ANWR and the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska (NPRA) will be offered in 

these two sales. H included, this will be the first time these lagoonal areas have been offered in 

a lease sale. 

Publk NotMcatkn Process 

The Division of Oil and Gas has developed a public notification process that includes no 

less than four public comment periods for each regularly scheduled sale. According to state 

statute, a lease sale must appear on the fiveyear program a minimum of two years. Fgure 2 

gives the public notification schedule for each sale on the fiveyear leasing program. Sales 

located within the Arctic region of Alaska are highlighted. 
3 

9 

ti' 

North Slope Areas Proposed For Leasing 

Sat. Namo Dato SaIo Namo Dato 

80 mmvw~~ 12-95 86 C.~W mh 4-97 83 wrmneulbrtcta 3-99 87 ~a(h81~0kolkuh 348 

89 12-99 

ADNR 

10.19-95 

Flgure 1. North Slope area8 propored for learlng. 
FIVE-YEAR OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM 

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION SCHEDULE 

ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

DIVISION OF OIL AND GAS 

flgure 2. flvoyear oll and gas leaslng program publlc notlflcatlon 8chedule. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Every two years, approximately nine months prior to adding lease sale areas to the five 

year program, the division issues a Call for Nominations to industry requesting input on what 

acreage should be offered for leasing. Information provided by industry helps structure the 

leasing schedule. The needs of each company differ, and the division tries to accommodate those 

needs as best as possible. Recent changes to the public notification process has resulted in the 

division requiring more time to prepare for each lease sale. As a result, the division has had to 

reduce the number of lease sales it can offer. To compensate for this reduction in the number 

of sales, the division has proposed larger sale areas to ensure that all available acreage that is 

nominated for leasing is included in the fiveyear program. 

After receipt of industry's nominations the division develops the new leasing schedule 

and, upon approval by the Commissioner of Natural Resources, issues a Call for Comments on 

these proposed additions. This Call for Comments normally occurs about six months prior to 

releasing the fiveyear program; the public has two months in which to comment on these 

additions. A Call for Comments has wide circulation. It is sent to many state and federal agencies, 

local municipalities and boroughs, representatives of the oil industry and the environmental 

community, Native organizations, and individuals who have expressed an interest in the state's 

leasing program. After a review of the comments received, necessary revisions are made and 

the new schedule is then made public. 

Approximately three to three and one half years prior to a scheduled sale the division 

issues a second Call for Comments requesting general information on the sale area. This request 

is mainly to remind the public that a sale is being planned for that area. The public ~omment 

period following this Call is approximately five months. Within two years prior to the sale a third 

and final Call for Comments is issued requesting specific information on the sale area. The 

division requires information on various topics that, by law, must be discussed in a Best Interest 

Finding, including wildlife species and habitat, current and projected uses of the sale area, 

cumulative effects of oil and gas activities on the environment and local communities, and the 

fiscal effects on local communities. The public is given five months during which they may suppty 

the division with information and comment on these and other topics. 

This final call for comments begins the division's best interest finding process. State law 

requires that the director of the Division of Oil and Gas find that the lease sale is In the state's 

best interests before it may be conducted. This final finding and decision by the director must be 

issued at least 90 days prior to the lease sale. Six months prior to issuing the final finding, a 

preliminary finding is released followed by a 60-day publlc comment period. During this comment 

period the division schedules at least one public hearing, more if they are requested. Though this 

is the only time in which the division conducts its own publlc hearing, divlsion representatives 

attend hearings conducted by local governing bodles throughout the publlc process. 

An important component of the best interest findlng is an explanation of the mitigation 

measures, which are designed to alleviate any adverse effects of oil and gas exploration and 

development. These mitigation measures, which must be consistent with the Alaska .Coastal 

Management Plan (ACMP) and with local borough and munlclpal coastal management plans, are 

developed utilizing information received during the comment periods from agencies, local 

governing bodies, environmental groups and the oil industry, and from research by division staff 

members. 
Hansen - State of Alaska Leasing Program 

Exempt Lease Sales 

The state may also offer acreage in an exempt lease sale, and attempts to satisfy the 

evolving needs of industry by proposing exempt sales whenever possible. 'Exempr means the 

sales are not bound by the provision that they must be on the five-year program for a minimum 

of two years. There are several provisions for qualifying acreage as exempt - being previously 

subject to a state or federal oil and gas lease, being contiguous to land already under lease, 

being adjacent to land on which a discovery of commercial quantities of oil or gas has been 

made, or being adjacent to land included in the federal five-year Outer Continental Shelf leasing 

program. If acreage that was previously offered, but was not leased, is re-offered within five years, 

only a revision of the original finding may be required. If there is insufficient information warranting 

this revision, the state can go forward with the sale based on the original finding. This is the case 

for the four Cook Inlet sales scheduled for November 1995. 

Lease Sale Terms 

Up until now, leases in the Arctic region have been given a term of ten years. Sale 80 will 

be the first sale in this region with a term of seven years. The leasing method is usually a cash 

bonus bid with a per acre minimum bid of $5.00 or $10.00 and a fixed royalty of 12-112 percent 

or 16-213 percent, depending on the location of the tracts being offered. The state also has the 

option of selecting other leasing methods, including net prom shares either as the bid variable 

or as a fixed amount and royatties as the bid variable. However, a cash bonus bid with a fixed 

royalty has been the established leasing method for the past ten years. 

Unit Management 

During the term of its leases a lessee may form an exploration unit which then extends 

the life of the leases. If it is determined by the operators of the unit that commercial production 

is feasible, then a production unit is formed. The division currently manages four exploration units 

and four production units on the North Slope (Fgure 3). Forming an exploration unit requires a 

plan of exploration agreed to by the division. The division annually reviews these plans, or, if they 

are muttkyear plans, reviews them just prior to their expiration to ensure activii is proceeding on 

schedule. Exploration plans generally require the drilling of at least one exploratory well along 

with the possible gathering of 2-D or 3-D seismic data. The division is responsible for ensuring 

that an exploratory unit encompasses the minimum area needed to carry out the proposed 

exploration plan. 

Once the unit operators have made a decision to form a production unit, the 

commissioner must approve a participating area (the area of productivity). Unless circumstances 

warrant a delay in doing so, ten years after sustained production the unit area is contracted to 

include only the participating area. There is no subsequent contraction of the unit. it is also 

possible to expand production unls. Expansion of a unit can only occur if it is determined that 

the participating area (i.e., the area of production) should be expanded. An example of this was 

the expansion of the Prudhoe Bay Unit to include the Point Mclntyre field. 

Summary 

The Alaska Division of Oil and Gas, responsible for conducting the state's oil and gas 

leasing program, proposes the offering of essentially all unleased state acreage on the North 

Slope and in the Beaufort Sea by the year 1999. The division is also responsible for managing 

the units formed from oil and gas leases, and currently manages eight exploration and production 

units within Alaska's Arctic region. 
Beaufort Sea 

Northrtmr Unlt 

OIlWL/A..III*I*" 

Arclic National ..mwolw.mrlr Wildllfe Refuge 

Figure 3. Central North Slope unit map. 
ARCTIC OFFSHORE PRODUCTION: A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE 

Nkk Vanderkooy 

Canedlan Marlne Drllllng, Ud. 

700 2nd street, S. W. 

Calgary, Alberta T2P OX5 CANADA 

INTRODUCTION 

During the past 20 years of exploration adivities it has been demonstrated that year round 

safe and efficient operations can take place in the Arctic offshore environments. The significant 

database of expertise and technology that has been developed can be applied to production 

scenarios. The conclusion is that offshore development in the Arctic region can be economically 

attractive. This assessment is based on the fact that many changes have taken place especially 

with respect to design ice loads, structural concepts, and operating costs. 

The technology is now available to develop a resetvoir in the order of 200-300 million 

bands located in the Beaufort Sea, using marine transportation to ship crude oil either directly 

to the market or via the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). The following notes outlines the 

feasibility of thii noted concept. 

CANADIAN EXPERIENCE 

Since 1976 a total of 73 wells have been drilled offshore in the North American Arctic 

using ice class floating drilling vessels, caisson retained islands, and bottom-founded drilling 

units. During this time a wealth of information has been gathered and analyzed. The analysis 

results in a significant improvement in the design requirements for offshore structures and 

transportation systems. For example: 

Global Ice Loads: 

Full scale tests since 1980 demonstrate that the design for an offshore structure can 

be based on 100,000 tonnes load. This design load represents a reduction factor of 15, 

from the 1,500,000 tonnes accepted in 1980. 

The reduction in the design load will result in significant savings in construction costs 

of the production structure and site preparation. 

The footprint for the new structure is less than 2% of the footprint proposed during the 

1982 Environmental Impact Hearings on Beaufort Sea Production. This will result in 

minimal disturbance of the ocean floor and increase flexibility to move the platform to 

another field. 

Transportation consideratkns: 

A minimum of 1 billion barrels of resetves is required to justify a pipeline down the 

Mackenzie Valley which would tie in with other distribution systems. This option is 

therefore not considered in this paper. 

Arctic marine transportation using ice breakers presents a viable atternative to cany the 

crude oil to the market or for transshipment to TAPS. This conclusion is based on the 

following: 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Year round transportation of oil in the Battic Sea. Similar shipments are also camed out 

in the Russian Arctic where escort support is available during severe ice periods. 

Operating experience of the Ice Breakers Kigoriak and the Robert Lemeur which were 

designed and constructed by Canadian Marine Drilling (CANMAR). The design of the 

Kigoriak demonstrated that with the unique bow construction an efficient 

displacementlhorse power ratio is achieved for its class. The design of the Robert Lemeur 

represents a scaled prototype for an ice breaker~liquified natural gas (LNG) carrier. 

Demonstrated the structural integrity and the safe operation of both ice breakers after 

some 15 years of ice breaking operation under difficult conditions. 

Improved capabilities to monitor ice and other environmental conditions using on-site 

visual observations and the use of satellite imagery andlor airborne remote sensing 

techniques. Greater confidence levels in operational site-specific weather and ice 

forecasting support. 

The Arctic Shuttle is the proposed mode of marine transportation. The Arctic Shuttle, a 

40,000 DWT vessel, will incorporate the ice breaking capabilities and the safety and prevention 

features specified in the Kigoriak and Robert Lemeufs design. The year round Arctic ice breaking 

experience will be applied to establish crewing level and competency standards to ensure safe 

operations. 

BEAUFORT SEA PRODUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 

The Beaufort Sea is an attractive area for development considering the above noted 

design and operational experience. Current technology and financial analyses provide additional 

evidence of the potential 'prize.' 

A recent study conducted for the Canadian Government Panel on Energy Research and 

Development (PERD) identified that a world oil price of $11.10 per barrel would support a 

production project from a 350 million barrel field, using marine transportation. CANMAR1s financial 

analyses for a 200 million barrel reservoir support these findings. Several such discoveries have 

been made in Canada. 

Small scale production in the Beaufort Sea would resutt in a number of additional 

opportunities. For example: 

Development of a service industry and direct Northern Community participation. 

Linking development of other 'small' field in both Canada and the Alaskan Beaufort 

Sea, thus creating a 'String of Pearls.' 

Opportunity to add volume throughput in TAPS. 

WHAT NEXT?: 

Continue the dialogue with potential operators and regulatory agencies to demonstrate 

that such a proposal is viable and feasible. 
Vanderkooy - Arctic Offshore Production: A Canadian Perspective 41 

Communicate with Northern Stakeholders and the lnuvialuit to develop monitoring and 

prevention programs and encourage direct participation in any proposed project. 

CONCLUSlON 

Beaufort Sea production can be conducted based on present technology, operational 

experience, and financial analyses. Such a project will be implemented in cooperation with 

Northern Stakeholders to ensure adequate protection measures are in place, business 

opportunities are provided, and sustainable community benefits are realized. 

INFORMATION SOURCES 

Federal Panel of Energy Research and Development. 1994. A research planning study for 

Canada's frontier oil and gas. Government of Canada, March. 

Canadian Marine Drilling, Ud. Beaufort Sea Development Project. 

Fitzpatrick, J. State of the art of bottom founded arctic steel structures. Canadian Marine Drilling, 

Ud. 

Hewitt, K. and Sladen, J. Arctic offshore exploration structure- a geotechnical perspective. 

Canadian Marine Drilling, Ltd. and Hardy BBT, Ud. 

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION 

Grant Walther: Sir, are you aware of the Manhattan Project? There were some problems with 

that. More recently, of course, we have had the Exxon oil spill. As far as tanker technology goes 

in the Arctic, what contingency plans do you have to alleviate catastrophic oil spills? Specitically, 

how would you alleviate them? Of particular concern is oil coagulation in the Arctic. It doesn't 

decompose nearly as fast as it does in warmer waters. Would you please address those 

subjects? 

Nick Vanderkooy: I don't have all the answers for you. As the interest is generated, we start 

developing the plans. I think we need to jointly look at those specific questions that you have and 

build on that. Then build the confidence that the type of structural integrity that you bring into an 

Arctic-class ice breaking tanker, that the shell is sound enough that it can withstand pressures, 

that it can run aground without puncturing the shell. We are operating in an environment where 

we don't have the 'Pre-Cambrian' Shield sticking out that we can run on top. Along our entire 

combined coast it is relatively soft. You saw the structural integrity that was built into the Kgoriak 

and that was after 15 years of abuse. The shell is intact. That technology will be incorporated in 

the design of the outer shell. The cargo itsetf is all held in internal tanks, so that provides you with 

a double insurance that the cargo is secure in there. Contingency plans will be developed as they 

are with all facillies or exploration that is taking place right now. In Canada, we have to go 

through a very stringent review process as well. So some of these things will be addressed. From 

where I am standing now, and none of the detailed engineering work has been done on it, your 

concerns will be addressed and will be Hlorked on jointly. 

Jim Watt: I have a couple of questions. Does the Canadian Government offer any incentives to 

operators in the Beaufort Sea in terms of lower royalties or taxes, anything along those lines? 
42 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Nkk Vanderkooy: At this point in time, there are no formal or officiil plans in place that would 

encourage that. If one had a 'real life' project to present, one could go and negotiate. But with 

today's deficit problems of our respective governments, I don't think there is gdng to be a lot of 

support for giving money. There may be some leniency as to when those royalties kick in and 

how, but there won't be any handouts or major loan guarantees. 

Jim Watt: One additional question. Does the Jones Act still impact your Canadian operations, say 

in U.S. waters? Would you care to speak to that? 

Nkk Vanderkooy: I am not sure what you are getting at. The Jones Act does impact our 

operations. Wlh our vessels, we cannot trade between U.S. and U.S. ports. But the type of 

operations that we have had so far in supporting an offshore drilling facility, providing the anchor 

handling, the marine support, ice breaking management, falls well within the requirements of the 

Jones Act. 

Jim Watt: I guess what I was trying to get at was does that have a negative impact on costs? 

Does it increase costs in your view or not? 

Nkk Vanderkooy: When you look at the 'String of Pearls' where the Arctic Shuttle would come 

from Canada and deliver oil into the U.S., we are not trading between U.S. ports. 

Unidentified Questioner: I think that what he is saying is that would your development platforms 

constilute ports in the definition of the Jones Act. If you are picking up oil from those ... 

Nkk Vanderkooy: Oh yes, it would. But the picture that I showed was Canadian production oil 

brought into a U.S. port. You can do that legally. But I cannot pick up oil from a U.S. platform and 

deliver it to another U.S. port. 

UnMerrtifled Questioner: I was trying to get to the point to where your support vessels for U.S. 

ports, basically have to be U.S. vessels. 

Grant Walther: What about submarine tankers? Have you looked into that? There was a lot of 

speculation on that in the 1960s, late 1970s. 

Nkk Vanderkooy: I don't think that, at this point in time, for the size of potential production, that 

this is a realistic way to go. 
ARCTIC MARINE PIPELINES 

David S. McKeehan 

INTEC Engineering 

15600 JFK Blvd., 9th Floor 

Houston, TX 77032 

During the br&k, I was asked how many offshore Arctic pipelines I've put in and the 

answer is none; which isn't too bad considering there really aren't any. There are several onshore 

Arctic lines, but there is only one line that would qualify as an offshore Arctic line; it was installed 

in 1978 as a demonstratiomof-technology in the high Canadian Arctic. 

It is useful to consider what makes the Arctic, from a pipeliner's perspective, different than 

any other conventional area in the world. The answer includes: logistics, ice, permafrost, unique 

soils, and a unique sociocultural environment. Pipeline contractors will have to incorporate the 

expertise and the skill of the largely local and useful tabor force. 

Because there are no actual projects, I'm going to, by necessity, draw on a lot of the work 

that has been done around the world within the Arctic Circle. 

There's been a fair amount of work in the Canadian Beaufort Sea and in the Mackenzie 

River Delta. That test pilot program I mentioned earlier was in this area. The Soviet Union, and 

now the Russians, for a long time, had a very active minerals development program in the 

Barents Sea and ship traffic out of Siberia. So from the standpoint of technology, there is a lot 

to be learned by looking around the world to see what cross-pollination can do for conventional 

and sometimes nonconventional marine pipeline installations. 

It is interesting to note that from the standpoint of Arctic pipelines, the Alaska Arctic has 

been studied intensely for about 20 years, ever since exploration wells were drilled here offshore. 

What is unusual is that in most frontier areas after 20 years of study, there frequently 

usually is something to show for it. There would be a pipeline in existence. One of the reasons 

is that there have been some ups and downs, some cycles in the oil and gas economies. It 

seems that just about the time we got ready to put one in, the bottom dropped out of the market. 

The reservoir didn't prove up. Conditions changed. 

We may be looking at this year a prospect which, although shallow water, may be the 

actual first real Arctic operational pipeline just ofl Prudhoe Bay. I'm talking about BP's Northstar 

project. 

Earlier studies that have looked at ways of transporting oil and gas out of the region have 

largely focused on tankers. In the mid- to tate 1980s, a lot of research was done on Arctic icebreaking tankers, trying to get transshipment terminals out of the Chukchi Sea area down to Point 

Hope; possibly an overland line to the Trans Alaska Pipeline; possibly ice-strengthened tankers 

down to Nome; A transshipment terminal and on down south to the lower 48. 

These have fallen out of favor now in terms of risk and incidents, etc. The focus has 

shifted towards pipelines which have a significantly higher reliability aspect to them in terms of 

potential risk to the environment. 

One of the first things we want to do is characterize the region not just from a 

construction standpoint but from a design standpoint as well. Open water condlis can be quite 
44 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

rough. Although designers and engineers have largely focused on the ice conditions, one cannot 

forget the hydraulic and the environmental loads; the more classical problems that we have to 

face. 

Considering the ice, we can have light coverage; less than 10% part of the time. But it 

increases during a good portion of the year to something like 50% or%more coverage. These 

conditions are not something under which we can do any meaningful construction. 

To make an point, of a convoy of ice breakers, the 75 to 80 thousand horsepower 

category, among which is the Leonid Brezhnev - it used to be the Arctika, the nuclear breaker, 

largest in the world - and they're all locked in the ice north of Siberia. They were trying to get 

some of this convoy of lighter equipment through that side of the ice pack. When the wind blows 

to the west it exerts tremendous ice pressures. These vessels were actually locked in the ice; and 

one of them was crushed by the ice forces. 

But we don't have that problem on our (the Eastern side). The wind blows and it tends 

to blow towards the west. We don't have the tremendous ice forces in the Chukchi on the 

Beaufort side, although we still have to contend with some substantial forces. 

Now we get into the subject of design. But just before I touch on that I would like to say 

that, from a construction standpoint, the issues are largely environmental and economic. There 

is nothing from a construction technology point, as you will see shortly, that has not either been 

done or cannot be applied from other pipeline projects around the world. 

But from a design standpoint, however, we don't have a precedent. We have, in some 

cases, similar circumstances to deal with, but we are in a situation where we must do thorough 

site investigations and surveying. 

As I pointed out, a lot of this work has been done in specific Arctic areas in the 

expectation of a marine pipeline installation. But to date, we are still in the process of gathering 

additional data to try to improve our calculations, models, and our assessments of risk. 

The big risk, of course, is ice scour. That's going to determine the depth to which we 

need to bury the pipe below the seabed. 

The second one is the potential risk of permafrost. Although that's not typical offshore, 

we do find it. We also find discontinuous permafrost patches, relic permafrost at shallow enough 

depth locations and soils locations to pose a subsidence problem to a pipe. 

The ice cover prevents us from doing the installation the way we would normally do it; 

and that is with floating equipment, conventional welding, dredging, etc. We have a very limited 

open water season. 

And lastly, we have the soils and the soil mechanics issues which are not necessarily 

unique to the Arctic but have to be considered. 

The first step in the design process is to gather information along the seabed. We can 

support this with aerial photography to characterize ice features. The only sure way is to use sidescan acoustic survey techniques to map the existing scour characteristics of the seabed. 
McKeehan - Arctic Marine Pipelines 45 

Wih sidescan surveys, you can see ice keels which have passed through an area, but 

one cannot determine the depth of the incision of those keels. All you can determine is the 

general orientation, the relative magnitudes, and by using repetitive mapping year after year after 

year, we can determine the frequency of rescour. This, as it turns out, is a very useful parameter 

in assessing risk. In other words, how many new keels would contact the seabed along a given 

length of pipeline each year? 

There can be areas which have lots of repetitive scour but the scour incision depths aren't 

so deep. Or there can be areas which have only occasional scour, but when they do get scour, 

the keel is of such magnitude that it can create quite a deep incision. 

One of the earty stages of survey work is to gather soil borings and try to assess the 

presence of permafrost. One example of this was done in the Pechora Sea in Russia where we 

were interested in locating the presence of any permafrost in the marine portion of the route. As 

it turned out, the permafrost layer was just about at the mean high water mark, so we didn't have 

marine permafrost to deal with in that particular case. Quite a number of soil borings were taken 

to be certain. 

We can gather quite a bi of information about ice using aerial and satellite imagery, which 

can show the characteristics of the ice sheet. This becomes important when we look at 

construction methods. 

For reference, we characterize the ice as floating, land-fast, and bottom-fast ice. Land-fast 

and bottom-fast ice gives us a construction platform from which we might wish to work. It also 

has distinct effects on the depth of scour that we expect in that area. 

We have an extension of ice which is not necessarily bottom-fast, but which is still landfast and relatively stable. It turns out that the Seal Island prosped essentially falls in land-fast ice 

zone. It's not perfectly stable or bottom-fast. It does have some movement but it's manageable. 

Further out we have the active shear layer which is that section between the fast-ice 

region and the offshore pack ice, which is mobile. 

In the Canadian Beaufort on the East Amauligak project, we did find permafrost in the 

marine section and it had a depth below the mud line of about ten meters. But there is an active 

layer, one which is seasonally frozen, which corresponds to about the water depth where the ice 

contacts the bottom in winter. So at about the 1 to 2 m water depth, we have a seasonally frozen 

active layer. Both of these types of permafrost do present an issue for pipeline design. We want 

to protect against differential settlement and thaw strains which might come into play if this 

permafrost were to melt. 

As it turned out in these areas, we did not find permafrost near the surface but relatively 

low, down around 20 to 25 m. Then it came up right up in here. It was about 18 m below the mud 

line and then dropped off very quickly once we got out into the full water depth, which was at 20 

to 30 m. 

Step two in the process, after we've gathered the information - soils, ice scour, ice 

gouge information - is to design the pipeline to be safe against ice scour damage. There is 

almost no way to get around the requirement of a deep trench, at least in these areas. 
46 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

If there is permafrost, we may have to insulate the pipe. We may not have permafrost or 

it may not be thaw-stable material, it may be granular. 

We have to consider the effects of currents and waves; the normal marine offshore 

pipeline type of design characteristics. 

Concrete weight coating is one design consideration. That is very diameterdependent. 

For diameters of 12 to 14 inches and less, we're better off using extra steel and making the pipe 

heavy by virtue of that steel and also stronger at the same time. For larger diameters, that 

concrete weight coating is sometimes a necessity just to hold it down. 

I'm going to spend some time discussing how we approach ice scour risk and how it can 

be manageable, and to give you some idea of where we are in doing this for the Northstar 

project. 

As mentioned earlier, we have the bottom-fast ice zone, the floating-fast ice, the grounded 

or the transition zone which forms usually around early to mid-winter, and then the floating 

extension, which is mobile. 

The tendency is for the deepest scours to form underneath this ridge and occasionally 

a little bit to seaward of that. So if we do have keel contact, we may see scour depths in the 

range of 4, 5,6 ft. Inshore of this, we will see more frequent scours, but they will tend to be of 

less magnlude as far as depth of incision is concerned. In water depths less than 50 to 60 ft, you 

can see fairty frequent echo sounder records showing Ids of reworking, remolding of the seabed 

in this shallower water. But the design or the type of incision depths we are seeing are not too 

great. 

As we get into deeper water, this tends to spread out a little bit. But when we do get 

scours, they can be a little more severe. In 150 ft or so, in the very deepest regions, we can get 

a relatively flat seabed but when we get scour it is signihcant. 

The trick now, of course, is to determine when scour features originated. Scour may be 

hundreds or thousands of years dd. The deposition rates in deep water are relatively low, 

provided you are not near one of the river dettas. So they can retain their shape for many years. 

Now, we're dealing with water depth in the range of 40 ft for the Northstar prospects, so 

you can get an idea. But as we go out, we can see it would become a more increased trench 

depth or scour depth limitation. IncidenUy, the deepest water depth in which scours that have 

been seen to my knowledge are in the range of about 160 to 180 8, except off Labrador where 

you have large icebergs which can ground, making it a little deeper. 

So in gathering this information, we attempt to characterize the area on a map showing 

the isolines of mean scour depth. As we get farther offshore, the mean scour depth gets up to 

4 to 6 8. There are a couple of areas where you have bathymetric relief which has caused some 

deeper keels and deeper scours. As we get in shallower water, it's only 2 to 4 8. 

So these numbers aren't particularly unnerving from a pipe trenching standpoint because 

we routinely trench pipelines down to 3 or 4 ft deep below the seabed. But this isn't the whole 

story. 
McKeehan - Arctic Matine Pipelines 47 

We then have to add to this picture the frequency of re-scouring because this now tells 

us how often we might get a new scour formed along the pipeline route each year. And we, as 

designers and statisticians, have to take into account, as the point was mentioned this morning, 

when you have a little bi of data and you're extrapolating that, you have to err on the 

conservative side. 

So we want to be a bi wnsetvative about how we apply this data. Since we don't have 

many years of repetitive mapping data, we have to apply safety factors, which I'll mention in a 

moment. 

In the shallower sections where you have bottom-fast ice, scour contact depths are very 

small. In fact, you don't even record any because it is less than the echo sounders can discern. 

As we get into deeper water, we have been able to count more and more of those scours. So we 

have a high scour frequency coupled with a relatively deep incision depth. That would give us 

the worst case, or the deepest requirement for trench depth. 

One of the safety factors that we have to consider is if we had a perfect model of the ice 

scour excavation mechanism along the seabed, we still might have some damage to the pipe 

caused by a zone of soil disturbance. This is the so-called icesoil-pipeline interaction zone which 

is a branch of study which has been conducted for about ten years with continuing debate within 

the industry on the effect on pipe. 

But it appears as though most soils would give us about another 2 or 3 R of clearance 

necessary to avoid secondary damage to the pipe if the keel were to pass directly overhead. That 

does depend on the soil strengths and the strength of the pipe. 

What this effort produces is a set of curves. The curves were prepared for the Canadian 

Beaufort and the eastern side of the Chukchi Sea using two statistical data sets - one being the 

number of keels which cut to a certain depth and the other being the frequency of re-scour. 

When we get into about 100 R water depth, that's the worst case for a marine pipeline. 

These data sets resulted in a required trench depth of just over 15 R. That does give us a 

problem from a marine construction standpoint because that is five times or so to what we would 

normally trench a pipeline. 

However, in shallow water, the picture is a little better. ~iven that we are inside the bamer 

islands in many cases, we're in the land-fast zone. Now inside of the 65 R contour, we're down 

to about 6 to 9 R trench depth. Now, this is a reasonable first step to take for pipelines which 

would be largely in the land-fast ice zone and corresponds roughly to the kind of figures that we 

are seeing in the Northstar region, although this particular area is somewhat more favorable than 

either of these two example sites. 

Another issue which I mentioned but which needs to be elaborated is the permafrost 

effect on the pipelines. What we are concerned about is that we originally lay the fne flat and 

straight on the seabed but suppose it has a permafrost boundary which is below that pipe and 

it's not even? There is a tendency for permafrost boundaries to be continuous or discontinuous; 

they're not just horizontal and Rat. If the pipeline is hot, it will, over a period of years, create a 

thaw radius around it, which will melt and degrade the permafrost. If that is the type of material 

that is thaw unstable - in other words, if it is silt or sitty sand as opposed to gravel and gravely 

sand -then this may create settlement or an eroded boundary. That, in turn allows the pipe to 

settle unevenly. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

These types of problems have been observed on onshore pipelines. It is a very important 

aspect for buried onshore pipelines. A bit less so for marine lines but still the damage to the 

pipes, or the potential risk to the pipe, could be viewed as more important for marine line which 

is harder to get to, particularly in winter, than an onshore line. 

So we want to find out what, if any, permafrost effects might have on this line and what 

the strain profiles might be. This is showing typical strains of between 2 and 2.5% for the kind of 

strains you might get in a differential settlement situation. Onshore, we can use Vertical Support 

Members (VSMs) and just simply lift the pipe up. This particular aspect can be applied in shallow 

water, possibly. It is one solution that is being considered in very shallow water if permafrost is 

found in the Northstar development. 

A more likely approach to the problem will be to prepare a specially designed trench 

which has a thaw stable material or a gravel bedding layer which acts as a thermal buffer to the 

permafrost that may be below it and allows the pipe to retain its position even if there is some 

slight settlement. 

As an option, back fill can be applied or the use of other techniques such as freeze back. 

This has been used one time where the soil is actually frozen around the pipe by using a 

refrigeration line and pumping refrigerated glycol through this. This is not a common method but 

it could be considered in some shore crossing areas to protect permafrost if you have very severe 

problems. Others that would just use the gravel without not necessarily building a trench. These 

would be only useful in sub-Arctic areas or areas where you don't have much ice to contend with. 

Insulated pipe is another option. There aren't that many insulated pipelines in the world. 

There are probably 20 or 25 by now. They are very expensive. The technology is improving. It 

gives you an almost thermally perfect carrier, which means that the inner fluid may be transported 

at 150" F, and the outer surface of this is down around ambient soil temperature about 30 to 35" 

F. So you get very little heat loss. 

Alternative systems include filled elastpmers. That's a little cheaper to use and install but 

probably not likely to be used in the Arctic. 

Those are the two critical design parameters. There are several others but I would like to 

move into construction techniques so we can see how these things might blend together. 

Well, we don't really want to try to bring in tankers in this type of environment and we can 

design the pipeline to be safe if we engineer it properly. But let's take a quick look at where the 

costs are because ultimatelythat's one of the reasons why there aren't any marine pipelines right 

now. 

The big expense is dredging and excavation. That's an upshot of the ice scour risk. 

Another one is materials. That is the line pipe itself and the support equipment. Getting it up 

there. Logistics. The pipe installation itself is less of a cost factor. Engineering, construction, 

management, although not a significant factor, is more expensive than conventional because of 

the extensive planning for contingencies. 

So as construction engineers we try to see if we can't come up with some novel ways of 

reducing the cost of dredging, excavation, and logistics and maybe the cost of any work in 

shallow water. I would love to spend about two hours going through some of the designs that 
McKeehen - Arctic Matine Pipelfnes 49 

have come up over the last 20 years in how to excavate deep trenches in the Arctic, but I'll just 

be able to discuss a few. 

Just for reference, what we are trying to get to is a trench with a pipeline in it. The depth 

of the trench being in the range of 9 to 12 R with stable side slopes such that it doesn't cave in 

before we put the pipeline in the bottom. And of cowse, the depth here is such that the ice keel 

won't contact the pipe if it plows or bulldozes wer it. The bottom width can depend on the type 

of method used and the number of pipelines we might want to consider in there. These have 

been some earlier studies where multiple lines were considered possibly in the same trench. 

The big dredges, like the Aquarius, a cutter suction dredge, can move massive amounts 

of material and aren't too noisy when they're operating. Some points were made on that this 

morning. It is not necessarily your most environmentally-friendly equipment. It has to discharge 

the spoils and it's rather expensive to get in the Arctic; although they have been used up here 

in the construction of exploration islands. There are several dredging contractors that have had 

experience working up here. 

And certainly, in the conventional area, this would be the way you'd approach it: just go 

in and dig the trench and then demobilize the barge. It is very expensive for us to do that here 

because of the time it takes to get the dredge up here and slow production rates for a deep and 

narrow trench. The reason is that these tend to cut back and forth. They're not really designed 

to cut long, narrow trenches. 

Some contractors have come up with some heavy duty bucket wheels to cut through 

permafrost or frozen soil. This might have some application in limited areas if you had hard 

material to cut through. 

Another dredge that never was built, but saw a lot of sketches done on it, is a so-called 

linear dredge. The principle being somewhat similar to the cutter suction dredge, but in this case, 

the arm doesn't swing left and right. It simply goes along in a narrow trench, and it would be buitt 

specifically for Arctic pipeline trenches. It's a good idea but very expensive and the infrastructure 

isn't quite there yet to support this kind of dredge. Maybe some day in the Mure, but not yet. 

Another dredge which has been used up in the Arctic, the Geopotes was mentioned this 

morning. It's a trailing hopper dredge which can move massive amounts of material. It's not very 

good in hard soils. It tends to excavate like a vacuum cleaner. But it has had some work in ice. 

One way to get around that is to consider the use of the trailing hopper dredge to get a 

broad section cut down to about 5 or 6 R and then use a more surgicaltod like a clam shell 

dredge to excavate the remaining 4 or 5 R. This is a procedure which has been used in some 

cases to get a deep trench without having to mwe too much material. 

But from the standpoint of cost redudion, these trailing hopper dredges are still fairly 

expensive. They would require wintering wer in a season or perhaps two, so it's not our first line 

of defense. 

Neither is a mechanical trencher. It's quite useful in short sections or maybe a couple of 

miles. Tending to be used in deep water and it is the first of a series that I'll show that is a posttrenching device. In other words, the pipe is laid on the seabed and then another tod is lowered 

on top of the pipe and is dragged along it, and the cutter excavates. It's a submarine dredge, if 

you will. 
50 7995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

It has good application, but it's probably not one we would use here in the Arctic. You 

can't get a deep enough cut. Moreover, we're faced with a situation if we put the pipeline down 

and for some reason fail in getting it down to the design trench depth, the next winter we may 

have a good chance of losing the pipe. So a pre-excavation as opposed to a post-excavation 

approach is warranted. 

There is one pre-excavation tod, however, that does bear mentioning because of its raw 

speed, and that's the marine plow. This became quite the matter of focus for Arctic marine lines 

in the mid- to late-1970s. In fact, that one pipeline that was installed in 1978 off Drake Point was 

post-trenched using a marine plow. And that was a very short line. It was less than a mile, so it 

went qule fast and it worked quite well. (Trench depth of 3 to 4 ft.) 

One of the risks we have here is getting the pipe trenched in the season. If there is any 

mistake in the design of these tools, the soils will very often play havoc with the contractor. We 

have worked on several projects where the plows worked perfectly and they can excavate the 

trench 2 miles per day without any trouble and several where the plow failed to work at all. Finally 

the contractors had to start over again and try something entirely different. 

A small plow has been used in the Gulf of Mexico. lt will get about 2 to 3 ft of trench 

depth. Bearing in mind that we need 10 ft, you can extrapolate the size. The biggest one that has 

been built to date is about a 320-ton plow about three times the size of this and it was able to get 

between 3 and 6 ft, off Australia. But they're very heavy. They require a fairly large piece of 

equipment just to pull the plow itself. 

The installation method for the pipe itself is not the most expensive part. In fact, once the 

trench is dredged or somehow excavated, getting the pipe in it can be done by a number of 

approaches. 

Starting with the most conventional, you won't see this in the Arctic for a long time to 

come and certainly not in the Northstar prospect, a third generation semi-submersible lay barge. 

These are for deep water. lt is the classical method of laying pipelines where the pipe is welded 

in joints, #foot joints welded together. Usually, automatic welding is used, and then the pipe is 

laid off a stinger. 

The barge has a pair of large, horizontal tensioners, which maintain upwards of about 200 

tons of horizontal tension to hold the pipe in the correct geometry. These have a working draft 

of about 45 ft, so we won't be able to use these in the shallow water. 

With an eye towards optimism, back in the 1980s, one of the shipyards, Valmet in this 

case, came up with a dediited Arctic pipe layer which would have high speed flash butt welding. 

It was a technique developed by the Paton Institute in Russia for joining pipelines. McDerrnott had 

worked on it and perfected it. This would use flash butt welding to make up pipe at about three 

or four times the speed normally found in conventional lay barges to enable her to get in and get 

out in one open water construction season. 

Another method is the reel ship, the Apache. This is a very fast method and this enables 

us to spool up pipe like wire on a drum and then pay it off as the vessel steams down along the 

right of way. The vessel was built in the late 1970s. It's been active ever since. It's an excellent 

piece of equipment which has seen a lot of service. The only limitation is that 14-inch, 16inch 

diameter is about the largest diameter pipe the Apache can spool up. And that particular vessel 
McKeehan - Arctic Marine Pipelines 51 

is getting on in age now and probably will be superseded by something about twice the size in 

the next three years. 

More relevant to Arctic work though is what we can do with smaller, locally-available 

equipment. One installation option, commonly referred to as the bottom tow or bottom pull, is 

where we make up the pipe on land in strings that are about two or three thousand feet long. 

Stationed just offshore, a pull barge, which has a linear winch which is capable of exerting about 

400 tons of pull load on a cable. tt literally yanks the pipe off the beach and slides it along the 

bottom and then they weld on the next string and repeat this process as the barge moves forward 

after each 3 or 4 pulls. 

It is very cost effective, but It doesn't work for very long lines. You run out of pulling 

power after about ten miles or so. But for anything less than ten miles in length, this type of 

technique could be used. tt's largely an open water marine operation, but the winch equipment 

that's used could, in theory, be put on the ice. This pulling could be done from the ice through 

a slot in the ice. 

In the bottom-fast zone, and perhaps even somewhat into the land-fast zone where the 

ice is, in mid-winter, frozen to the seabed - this is about fivefoot water depth - a very 

interesting solution appears to be just straight through excavation, cutting the ice with a ditch 

witch or Vermeer trenchers, a pair of them, then using a backhoe, conventional equipment, to 

excavate the trench. And then lay the pipe into it. 

There are a couple of options as to how we get the pipe onto the ice. One is to weld it 

up on the ice using a heated welding tent to maintain weld parameters and so forth. Side booms 

or winches would be used to lower the pipe. 

That concludes the general view. I'd like to quickly just go through some of the specifics 

that have become of interest in the Northstar work just lately. The prospect is a total distance of 

about 5 or 6 mi offshore in fairly shallow water, 40 ft at Seal Island. 

Now, ice gouges. Since I made such a big deal about ice gouges, I better say something 

about where we are on this. Based on work by Harding and Lawson in 1983,1984, and 1985, the 

maximum gouge depth that we saw was a little over a foot. So that's not too severe. It was a lot 

of work by Harding and Lawson's specialists to go through and match up scours year after year 

over a period of three years and determine the number of new scours that took place each year. 

But they were able to do that and it wasn't as severe as some of the other areas that we're 

dealing with. Ultiitely, that led us to this conclusion of risk. If we look at Site %only data and 

we take a risk during the entire operating life of the tine of one chance in ten thousand, or one 

chance in a hundred thousand, the design keel depth would be about 6 ft. 

Now, allowing for about another 3 R or so for the secondary factors I mentioned, we're 

looking right now at a scour depth of about 10 R based on this information. Again, a little bi 

better than if we used regional data. 

For the soils that we see along the route, to date we don't have enough soils data to say 

for certain, but we have not seen evidence of thaw unstable permafrost. We do have mainly silty, 

clays here, sandy clays here. More sands, a tendency toward sands down here and then a layer 

of fairly thaw-stable materials, sands and gravels, at about 10 R below the mud line. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

What we're going to be doing this winter is to get more bore holes and soils information, 

along here, to establish the validity of this stratigraphy. 

This slide is a demonstration of pipeline strength. For the kinds of pipe we'll be using in 

the Arctic, they're going to be stronger than most marine lines. In fact, I would say the wall 

thicknesses will be a factor of two greater. 

We have done a lot of tests. Actually, the work here that you see was done by the Centre 

for Frontier Engineering Research in Edmonton, Canada. This is a 26-inch diameter pipe with a 

1 518th inch wall thickness. We have already collapsed it with hydrostatic pressure and now we 

were bending it back over on its& to see at what point we could cause a rupture or cause failure. 

We had not yet caused a breach of that pipeline. It is a very strong, very tough pipe and can 

withstand quite a bit. You'll lose flow production in this pipe before you will have a breach in the 

pipe. 

Question from the audience: What pressure is required to collapse that pipe? 

Seven thousand psi external. We had to build a chamber specifically for that. In fact, it's 

now the biggest in the world. It goes up to 9,000 psi, because that's the largest pipe that's ever 

been collapsed hydrostatically and bent. 

A construction technique that we might look at for working on the ice is a big clam shell 

digger. Obviously, with the amount of material we have to remove, the largest bucket we can get 

the better. This is, of course, a marinebased operation but the loads, particularly in the 

nearshore, inshore of the 25foot contour, that we would put on the ice are suitable for on-ice 

construction work with a little preparation. It's a typical shore approach and may be similar to 

what we'd use here. 

The technique that is a personal favorite of mine, at this point, for the Northstar installation 

is a predredged trench with a slot cut in the ice. The pipe is made up in strings and towed out 

on the ice and lowered through the ice slot using a combination of buoys and lowering cables. 

We may or may not need pipeline tension. Probably not in this case except perhaps in the very 

deepest water. The reason I like this is it makes excellent use of local technology and relatively 

small equipment. It's a very controllable and manageable installation technique in these water 

depths at least. We would have the benefit of having a predredged trench which we would be 

certain is already meeting specifications. As it turns out, an installation like this has been done 

recently in Canada in one of the lakes. 

A summary of the approaches that we see are essential for marine Arctic lines include: 

a good understanding of the limit states, the structural strength of the pipe, ice gouge protection, 

and permafrost; construction activities which have to reflect the sensitivity of the environment and 

the regional specifics; and lastly, operational reliability, which is what we're left with after the 

pipeline is installed. And that, of course, feeds back and comes directly out of the design 

integrity, which is done early on. 
McKeehan - Arctic Marine Pipelines 

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION 

Tom Newbury: Is oil always pumped through pipelines under pressure? Is it ever sucked through 

so that there is negative pressure in the pipeline? 

David McKeehan: No, the oil is always under pressure. Typically 800 or 900 psi and occasionally 

more than that. But in the event of damage, back suction and things of that nature could be 

applied. It would be part of an emergency response program, not normal operations though. 

Audience Member: You mentioned directional drilling or boring ... 

David McKeehan: Boring or directional drilling are both being looking at. Their restriction is 

distance. At this point, directional drilling would be possibly an approach to the island or to the 

facility, and it can reach about a mile to a mile and a half. We think we could just make the 25- 

foot depth contour if we started from Seal Island and directionally drilled inward. 

I will say, having been on a number of directionally-drilled projects though, it's a little iffy. 

It depends very much on the soils and you have to have Ids of good soils for the pilot string to 

find its way and hit the target. You also have some muds disposal issues to deal with and you 

still have to pull a section of pipe back into the hole. So it has got some advantages but it's not 

something we'd want to stretch the technology too far on that issue. 

Audience Member: If you dig a trench five or six miles long and ten feet deep, you're going to 

end up with a lot of soil that you pulled out. How would you anticipate handling that? 

David McKeehan: That's a real good question. Right now, we're anticipating spreading it out on 

the ice uniformly or dispersing it uniformly. But actively in consideration is use of that spoil to 

dump back in the trench as a backfill medium. There are some issues associated with that. Mainly 

it's the liquefaction of that material. When a pipe is in a trench and you put native soil back in the 

trench, if it's not granular and fairly stable, it can actually liquify and lift the pipe out of the trench, 

which would be a real problem because then you have the pipe sitting on a liquified soil layer. 

We're looking at ways of getting around that by making the pipe heavy with additional 

wall thickness, which we may end up just putting the soil back in the trench. 

Audience Member: I'd like to follow up on that question. What kind of resources do you have 

to fill up that hole? Like gravel? Do you have any access to these materials to fill with? 

David McKeehen: Yes, that's a very sitespecific stuq. I assume you're referring to Northstar? 

There are enough gravel resources to fill that up. It's a cost issue, which amazingly enough, didn't 

come out to be as much as I thought it would be. But it's evidently available to do that. 

Audience Member: Should an on-ice system where you were using conventional excavation 

techniques, and you had spreaders there it looked like, probably just to keep material from 

flowing from one section to another. But we learned the other day that the pressure of ice moving 

could be a hundred thousand tons. How would you anticipate keeping the ice separated when 

you have a long cut through it? 

Davkl McKeehan: Excellent question. It's one that we're really struggling with. In bottom-fast ice, 

we don't think we're going to have too much of motion characteristics. The trick is to get out 
54 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

beyond the bottom-fast limit, because that only gets you out to 5 or 6 ft and that leaves four miles 

of heavy duty construction. We'll probably use some fom of ice thickening to press the ice down 

and make it bottom-fast part of the way out to mitigate any ice movement. 

But having done all of that, we still will be faced with the problem. We plan this year - 

this is still in the early stages -to do a test slot to see what lengths of slot are susceptible to ice 

movements because of ice pressures closing in on them. Clearly at a very short length, we 

probably have some reasonable working window before you get a wind that blows and causes 

the ice pressure to close that slot. The ice experts that are working on the job say they don't think 

it's a big problem. It's something we need to verify. If that's the case, we may resort to less of a 

slot than a hde in the ice or a traveling hde which is more resistent to those closures. But that's 

one of the very key questions that we hope to shed some light on this year for this area. 

Audience Member: You indicated that the pipe would be 5 to 7 mi long and there's an island 

between the site and West Dock. Which side of the island are you going to go on from the 

mainland? 

David McKeehan: That's not a question t can answer in any final sense but the present route 

goes just to the west of that island, between that island and the mainland. It travels to the west 

of that island. There are several routes being considered. Earlier routes that were looked at back 

in 1990 actually went to the eastern side of the island and directly to West Dock. So I don't think 

it's a final routing. 

Audience Member: I assume that seismic earthquake activity is not a primary concern here in 

Northstar? But is it possible other areas of the Arctic or sub-Arctic where that may be a concern? 

How would you deal with that with a buried pipeline as opposed to marine VSMs? 

David McKeehan: Marine pipelines in seismic areas are fairly common. The techniques that you 

try to use, of course, are not to bury it and not to back fill it, which goes counter to what we 

probably have to do here. So it's probably fortunate that we don't have to deal with both of those 

challenges at the same project at the same time. 

However, in case we would have to, or in areas where we do have sizeable amount of 

shear motion, the best way to do it is to get to a very thick wall pipe. Now, I'm refemng to D over 

T, diameter to wall thickness in the range of 15 to 20. That type of pipe is extremely resistant and 

it behaves like that one piece of pipe whiih I showed here. It will shut in production automatically 

before it ruptures. So, in the went that you had the worst combination of a seismic, shear slips, 

and faults with a buried line with compact, competent soil and it caused bending of the pipe, the 

pipe would probably survive it. Having said all that, there still would be some risk if you had that 

case though. 

Audience Member: You concluded that shipping oil in the Arctic through tankers is 

environmentally not sound. Is that correct? 

David McKeehan: I didn't quite say that. I think it's not the favorite solution at this point. 

Audience Member: Are you familiar with the international North Sea route program? 

David McKeehan: No, I'm not. 
McKeehan - Arctic Marine Pipelines 55 

Audience Member: Anyway, Norway, Russia and Japan are involved in this effort and they're 

spending a lot of money - mostly Norway and Japan are spending the money -to investigate 

a North Sea route using large ice breakers. It seems like it's predicated on, in some of the 

documents I've read, shipping oil from some of those Arctic fields in Russia. 

David McKeehan: I think I know what you're talking about. There is a strong pditical reason for 

that. In Russia, the western companies want to get the oil out. Of course, the Russians want to 

keep it in. There k a real focus to get things mwed by shipment terminals. In fact, a lot of the 

work we're doing k looking at how we would build a shipment terminal and get it out. 

Also the ice conditiis there along those routes are much less restrictive than they are 

here on the U.S. side because of the presence of the Gulf Stream that goes up there. And 

actually, some of those areas remain ice free even all winter long. So it's a little easier of a 

problem plus the pditical aspect of it is really driving a lot of that, I believe. Because the Russians 

want it all coming into their pipeline system. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 
MMS STAKEHOLDERS TASK FORCE EFFORT 

Jeff Walker 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Servke 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 09508 

The success of the OCS program and specifically the Alaskan portion of the program is 

contingent not only on the technical advancements and efforts by the industry to look at making 

marginal fields economic and partnershipping with their contractors but also deals with the ability 

of the government to improve our relationship with our stakeholders and to deal with issues and 

concerns and resolve potential conflicts. The Alaska Regional Stakeholders Task Force is unique 

to the Alaska Program. It was formed by the OCS Policy Committee, which advises the Secretary 

of the Interior on the MMS offshore program, to make recommendations on the proposed Five 

Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program which would cover the period from 1997 to 2002. 

The overall objective of the Task Force was to provide an opportunity for local 

stakeholders to have eariy input into our planning process for lease sale decisions. It is the first 

time that there has been a process that provided for stakeholder input before putting out a 

proposal for formal public review and comment. 

Membership on the task force was diversified to represent the Native, subsistence, and 

the environmental community, commercial fishing, the development community, the oil and gas 

industry, local governments, federal government, state government, gubernatorial appointees, 

coastal districts. and coastal resource service areas. Taking a state the size of Alaska and coming 

up with 20 representatives that can represent everybody in Alaska was a tough chore. 

Task Force members met and developed what they call 'Evaluation Criteria.' These 

criteii categorize all the issues and concerns that would be used in debating and making 

decisions and recommendations on the proposed Fve Year Program. These evaluation criteria 

include: prospectivity, which was inclusive of both industry interest and resource potential; 

existing infrastructure; technological capabilities and limitations for drilling, exploration. 

production, and oil spill clean up; local and tribal government and community interests; 

subsistence and socioeconomic and cultural interests and environmental concerns and values. 

Under each of these evaluation criteria, there is a whole list of additional concerns, issues, 

conflicts, and problems that were identified, which are summarized in the Stakeholder Task Force 

Report. 

The Task Force met twice; and local community meetings were also held in some of the 

key communities: Barrow, Yakutak, Kodiak, and Kenai. Following discussions and input from the 

local stakeholders that they represented, the Task Force came up with the following 

recommendations: 

Use the 'Evaluation Criteria' in considering the Five Year Planning Areas; 

Include the issues and concerns identified as scoping issues to be put in and evaluated 

in Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

Schedule sales to be included in the next five year schedule so that they would be held 

one per year, and there should be order and predictability in the lease sale schedule. 
58 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Continue to analyze and prwe alternative energy sources and their implications to 

lease sales. 

Include five planning areas in the Five Year Program: Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, Hope 

Basin, Gulf of Alaska, Cook Inlet-Shelikof Strait. 

Identify critical habitats and sensitive areas as scoping issues prior to determining the 

areas of the sale in the EIS. 

If the sale goes forward and lessees are not allowed to develop their leases, the 

government should buy back those leases to compensate. 

The draft program that is now out for public review has followed these Task Force 

recommendations. The five planning areas are included in the proposed Fve Year Program. They 

are one sale per year proposed, consistent with the Task Force recommendations. 

One of the other recommendations that the Task Force made was the need for the OCS 

Policy Committee to be made better aware of the subsistence values and significance of 

traditional subsistence economy in Alaska. Among all the planning area evaluation criteria that 

were discussed, the need to better appreciate and recognize Native subsistence ways of life, 

Native knowledge and traditional and indigenous knowledge in the decision making process was 

critical to the Native community and environmental community that participated in the Task Force 

process. Delbert Rexford, who is a special assistant to the mayor of the North Slope Borough and 

who is on the Task Force, was invited to go back and address the OCS Policy Committee. Ms. 

Judy Gottlieb, Ataska OCS Regional Director, has made it her priority to incorporate indigenous 

knowledge into our decision making process. This effort is actively undenrvay within our oflice; 

to meet with the Native population community leaders and other Native organizations, both to 

identify where we can get information and how to incorporate it into our decision making process. 

It is important to recognize that while the Task Force worked hard to reach consensus, 

there was a multiidiverse group of individuals, and there was not always consensus by the Task 

Force on the recommendations made. The Task Force did provide an opportunity for open 

discussion of concerns. Everyone on theTask Force was pleased with the process and welcomed 

the opportunity to table issues and concerns early in the process before the government was set 

in a decision. The recommendations reflect interest and support for including these five planning 

areas in the proposed Fve Year Program for further analysis. There was a minority report 

submitted that reflected that the Task Force and the recommendations are not consistent with 

continued opposition by communitii for individual lease saleactivitis. The Alaska OCS Regional 

Mce is continuing with outreach programs and working with communities to resolve concerns 

and issues for these individual lease sales. 

The OCS Policy Committee did accept the recommendations of the Task Force and the 

Secretary ofthe Interior used these recommendations m developing the draft proposed Five Year 

Program. The OCS Pdi Committee has also recommended that Task Forces similar to this 

continue to be used where all parties agree that it is a worthwhile effort. The Alaska Regional 

Stakeholders Task Force will continue through the completion of the Five Year Program. TheTask 

Force is in the process of adjusting its membership so that the five planning areas that are 

included in the draft program have appropriate representation. There will be new representation 

from Cook Inlet, both Native, tribal, and public interests; new representation of the academic 

community; and new representatives of tribal and subsistence interests from the North Slope. 
Sociocultural -Session 

AN OVERVIEW OF NORTH SLOPE SOCIETY: 

PAST AND FUTURE 

Steve J. Langdon 

Department of Anthropology 

Untverslty of Alaska, Anchorage 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

INTRODUCTION 

Human cultures (or as termed for purposes of our session, sociocultural systems) are 

patterns of thought and behavior communicated through language and other symbolically 

meaningful forms. They are constructed and mdied to provide people with a way to survive in 

a given environment and structure a social system, i.e., a set of relationships among people. 

Ind~dual human beings acquire self-identities, s&esteem and motivations for culturally 

appropriate behavior through successful forms of cultural transmission - the passing of culture 

from one generatiin to the next. Culture thus provides for continuity and change - a foundation 

for psychological equilibrium and a logic for choice and innovation. Rapid culture change 

produces culture shock, personal and social pathology, and a decline in the welfare and quality 

of life of cultural members. This is especially true if people are relocated from traditional lands or 

forced to cease traditional activities. 

In opening this session today, I wish to provide an historic overview of the emergence 

and characteristics of the lnupiat culture with an emphasis on those values, behaviors, and 

institutions that made it successful in the high arctic. Then, the substantial changes that have 

occurred on the North Slope in the past 100 years will be artlined noting the especially rapid 

changes that have occurred since the discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay in 1968. Particular attention 

will be paid to the North Slope Borough as an institution - political, economic, social, and 

educational -that has effectively mediated many of the changes for the lnupiat people allowing 

a positive identity to be maintained and transmitted. Finally, perspectives on the direction North 

Slope society will take in the future raised bythe National Research Council study, Environmental 

Information for Outer Continental She# Oil and Gas Decisions, will be discussed in regard to the 

need for specific kinds of research to address the key issues. 

INUPIAT SOCIETY - ADAPTIVE INSTITUTIONS 

Present archeological information indicates that human beings began utilizing the North 

Slope region as early as 1@12,000 years ago (Mesa site) (Table 1). That initial utilization seems 

to have been dented toward tenestrial, possibly supplemented by river and lake resources; 

evidence for the utilization of marine resources, particularly seals, begins about 4,200 years ago 

(Anderson 1990). Important technological developments, such as the toggling harpoon head, 

made possible winter sea-ice hunting of seals at blow holes thus beginning the shill toward use 

of marine resources in the region. 

Although evidence of whaling can be dated to 3,400 years ago (at only one site), it 

disappears for sometime and begins again in the archeological record about 2,000 years ago on 

Sivuqaq (St. Lawrence Island) and about 1,500 years ago throughout coastal northwest Alaska 

from Bering Straits to the vicinity of Point Barrow. Beginning about 1,000 years ago, the complex 

of cultural elements called the Thuletradition, with its broad flexible subsistence technologies and 

its success in hunting large marine mammals, made possible large Eskimo villages at a number 

of key coastal locations in the North Slope region. In addition, the Thule tradition, also 

successfully adapted to the interior of the North Slope and the Brooks Range, emphasizing 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Table 1. North Slope cultural chronology. 

PERIOD 

Traditional 

Historic 

Statehood 

DATE 

12,000 BP 

4,200 BP 

3,400 BP 

2,000 BP 

1,600 BP 

1,000 BP 

17509 

1831 

1850s 

1880s 

1890-191 0 

1930s 

1940s 

1950s 

1960 

1968 

1972-1974 

1977 

1979 

198@1986 

1 994 

1 995 

SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITY 

Earliest human occupation and use of the North Slope 

Early use of marine mammals on winter sea ice 

Earliest evidence of whaling 

Beginning of dependence on large marine mammals 

Founding of Tikiqaq (Point Hope) 

Emergence of Thule culture-ancestor of lnupiat culture-large 

communities, coordinated cooperative marine mammal hunting 

Trade with Siberian peoples for Russian goods-tobacco, iron 

First European appearance at Point Barrow 

American vessels begin commercial harvests of bowhead 

whales 

Shore whaling stations established with first non-Native residents 

Epidemic diseases reduce population; bowhead whales 

seriously depleted; missionaries and schools arrive 

Reindeer herding introduced; fur trapping for cash; subsistence 

whaling sustained 

Military and construction experiences for many lnupiat men 

Defeat of tuberculosis and extension of medical care produce 

"baby boomm 

Statehood and Barrow Duck-In 

Discovery of oil at Pnrdhoe Bay 

Formation of North Slope Borough 

Ban on bowhead whaling and creation of ttte Alaska Eskimo 

Whaling Commission 

Completion of the AIyeska Pipeline 

Capital Improvement Program upgrades housing and public 

facilities 

Opening of Dalton Highway to public 

First non-Native mayor of Barrow; repeal of alcohol ban; 

reported decline in caribou numbers in pipeline area 
Langdon - An 0ve~'ew of North Slope Society: Past and Future 6 1 

caribou hunting as the primary subsistence strategy. This archeological culture is seen as the 

direct antecedent to the lnupiat culture being practiced in the early 1830s when whites began 

exploration in the area that included both coastal and interior adaptations. 

Tradiional lnupiat culture of the North Slope was made possible by a melding of social 

behaviors and institutions that balanced the individual and competition with the group and 

cooperation. Whaling was central to the lie of the people as a source of food and material, as 

a focus for spirituality and ritual, and as a focus for joy and celebration. A high degree of 

cooperation was developed among the men of a hunting crew and between the men and women 

in the processing and distribution of the catch. Each crew, however, also competed with each 

other to be the first to sight and strike whales. It is in the landing of the whale and the processing 

that the cooperation occurred. Critically important to the success of whaling was the formula 

worked out for distributing whale among the striking and assisting crews -this formula assured 

rapid response from other crews to the site of a struck whale. Thus competition and cooperation 

were fused in the hunt which better provided for all. 

The technical and economic aspects of whaling were embedded in a set of spiritual 

beliefs and practices which emphasized respect for the whale and that whales, as sentient beings 

with spirits cognizant of human activity, chose to give themselves to worthy human beings. The 

spiritual cleansing and ritual engaged in by the 'umealik (captain of the whaling crew and owner 

of the boat and equipment) was to make he and his wife and their crew worthy of the whale. 

Social ceremonies of celebration and cohesion were core dements of lnupiat culture. 

Foods were distributed by the successful captains and crew to the community while song, dance 

and competitive games provided a focus for physical acti in the extreme cold and darkness 

of the winter. There is evidence that privation and even stanmtion periodically affected the lnupiat 

population but the constellation of institutions, values, ideas and behaviors allowed for a vigorous 

people and culture whose persistence and increase in one of the most extreme environments in 

the world is testament to their success. 

HISTORICAL CHANGES 

In the late 18th century, premonitions of change began to be felt in the region as new 

materials such as iron, tobacco, and perhaps alcohd began to be acquired by the lnupiat 

through trading patterns which linked them through Native peoples around Bering Straits to 

Russian trading posts at the mouth of the Kolyrna River in northern Siberia. The first European 

exploration reached the Point Barrow area in 1831. 

In the 1850s. American whaling vessels from New England passed north through the 

Bering Straits in pursuit of the bowhead whale. This began the process of contact with American 

culture. At first the contacts involved relations primarily of trade with Americans providing 

technical items such as guns, pots, pans, stores, and iron as well as unfortunately alcohol, and 

lnupiat providing skins, garments, whale 'bone' (baleen), labor and environmental expertise 

(Bockstoce 1986). Relations were often not amicable. 

In the 1880s, the whaling industry took a new direction as shore stations were established 

by companies to be able to gain access to whales during their spring passage through the leads 

between the shorefast and offshore ice. Many lnupiat were employed seasonally by the whaling 

stations and some Americans, such as Charles Brower, Fred Hopson and George Leavitt, elected 

to settle on the North Slope and take lnupiat wives. By the 1890s. several lnupiat entrepreneurs 

had entered the commerce organizing as many as six crews and hiring whites to work for them. 
62 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

As the industry declined, both due to the loss of a market for whale products (oil and baleen) and 

depletion of the whale population, white companies and personnel withdrew returning whaling 

completely into the hands of the lnupiat once again and reverting it to the subsistence practice 

seen today. 

There were two critical legacies for the lnupiat from the commercial whaling enterprises. 

First, the commercial slaughter of the whales in a matter of four decades reduced bowhead 

numbers to approximately 10% of the original level (Bockstoce 1986:252). This threatened the 

very foundation of the culture and made life exceedingly difficult. Second was the effect of 

epidemic diseases, influenzas were particularly devastating, which spread rapidly due to the 

lnupiat lack of biological resistance as well as poor housing and sanitation. The introduction and 

impact of sexually-transmitted diseases also contributed to the decline in lnupiat population. By 

1910 the decline in population had reduced the lnupiat to 20-25% of their number in 1850 and 

had virtually depopulated the interior of the North Skpe occupied now by the remnant population 

of Anaktuvuk Pass (Fortuine 1989). 

By the 1910s a modified lnupiat adaptation had developed. Christianity and schooling 

introduced in the 1890s had been accepted by many Inupiat. Still, subsistence was the core of 

the culture and whaling had returned to its essential subsistence and social position in lnupiat 

culture although its spiritual content had been revised somewhat (Chance 1990). Despite the 

declines in harvest numbers, lnupiat persisted in this core cultural activii out of survival 

necessity. Contacts with American society now came from furs trapped in the winter months and 

sold to traders. An additional dement was reindeer herding which grew to substantial proportions 

in the 1930s only to decline and virtually disappear by the 1950s (Chance 1990). 

The governmental explosion in Alaska precipitated by World War II was felt in numerous 

ways by the lnupiat of the North Slope. Perhaps most influentially, lnupiat men became familiar 

with the nature of American society and its standard of living through service in the armed forces 

and employment at various construction sites. They became familiar with foods, appliances, 

clothing, housing and many other technical amenitii of American life. Some chose to remain in 

this new environment. The majority, however, returned to their North Slope homes with an interest 

in improving the quality of life in their home communities. 

The extension of medical care for infants and the suppression of tuberculosis in the 1950s 

led to a 'baby boom' throughout Native Alaska and a rapid increase in family size among Inupiat. 

Coupled with limited availability of local wage labor and a collapsed market for furs, the North 

Slope lnupiat were among the most impoverished Americans when the federal government began 

its War on Poverty" in the mid-1960s. 

OIL DISCOVERY AND THE NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH 

In 1968 oil was discovered at Prudhoe Bay. In 1969, Eben Hopson decided to pursue 

Fred Paul's idea for the incorporation of the North Slope Borough as a regional government with 

the power to raise revenue through taxing oil development facilities at Prudhoe Bay (McBeath and 

Morehouse 1980:77). After signiiicant stnrggle in the courts with the State of Alaska and with oil 

companies who sought to halt or severely limit its powers, the North Slope Borough was finally 

formed in January, 1974. It is at the same time, the largest municipality in terms of space and the 

smallest in population. 

lt is interesting to note that elsewhere in the United States, Native American populations 

in proximity to major resource development projects have rarely benefitted and in almost all cases 
Langdon - An Overview of North Slope Society: Past and Future 63 

been harmed by such development. To date on the North Slope, that has not happened because 

the lnupiat had the vision to seize the reins of governmental authority and the will to use that 

authority to protect themselves. Banow, for a number of reasons, looks and feels different from 

Nome, Fairbanks, Juneau or Dawson - communities that also developed around Native 

settlements in response to resource extraction development (McBeath and Morehouse 1980:79). 

The key point that I wish to highlight about the North Slope Borough is its positive impact 

on the lives of North Slope Inupiat. It has served as a vehicle to 1) improve the general quality 

of life of the North Slope lnupiat and 2) to mediate and provide leadership internally in channeling 

culture change as well as externally in protecting the possibility for lnupiat culture to continue. 

This is evident in three areas: economy, subsistence and identity. 

Economy 

Through tax revenues, the North Slope Borough upgraded schools, housing, and other 

facilities throughout the communities of the North Slope. This was accomplished through the 

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) which created substantial wage-labor jobs in construction that 

spread the wealth widely to lnupiat families and others hired to assist in the improvement of the 

quality of life. The bureaucracy formed to oversee thevast territory and responsibilities of the new 

government also provided wage opportunities for men and women to maintain households with 

improved amenities. In addition, and of great importance, the Borough created policies for 

vacation and leave which allowed time off for the pursuit of subsistence activities. This is a critical 

innovation that allowed households to appreciate what might be thought of as the best of both 

worlds - suflicient income to live comfortably and suflicient time to pursue subsistence hunting, 

fishing, gathering, and the cultural ceremonies which celebrate these traditions. This melding has 

been made possible through an elected Inupiat leadership with a different view of the meaning 

of life from the efficiency experts of the corporate world. 

Subsistence 

The North Slope Borough has provided the platform for the protection of lnupiat 

subsistence interests in a variety of ways. It has established an environmental protection office, 

a Department of Wildlife Management, a Coastal Zone Management Plan and a Geographic 

Information System (GIs) program to minimize the impact of industrial activities on critical 

habitats, animal, bird and fish populations and transportation conidors used by subsistence 

hunters. 

The North Slope Borough has used its revenue base to challenge legally and politically 

actions of state and federal agencies and private companies which the leadership has viewed as 

detrimental to the continuity of subsistence species and the habitats they require. The cases of 

the Dalton Highway and offshore exploratory oil drilling are examples of its efforts in this area. 

One of the most impressive results of North Slope legal and pditical activity is the 

protection and enhancement of the bowhead whale hunt, which as we have seen is central to 

lnupiat culture and individual well-being. A crucial innovation was the creation of the Alaska 

Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) in 1977 when the International Whaling Commission called 

for a total ban on bowhead hunting. In addition to managing the bowhead hunt through the 

allocation of strikes and kills between communities, the establishment of rules for the hunt and 

criteria for captainship, the AEWC has developed a state-of-the-art scientific plan forthe censusing 

of whales. Through this institution scientists and lnupiat whalers have gradually developed a 

relationship of trust that I hope will result in lnupiat models of science in which rigorous methods 
64 lQQ5 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

are applied to problems and issues of importance to the Inupiat. lnupiat valued and directed 

scientific studies are important to the Mure of the North Slope because their knowledge and 

sense of homeland gives them a particularly large stake in the protection of that environment. 

The North Slope Borough has directed some of its revenues to actively promote the 

retention of lnupiat culture and language. Through the Office of History and Cultural Heritage, it 

has made possible the recording and transcribing of personal histories, cultural activi 

descriptions, and other obsenrations of the elders. The NSB has provided funds for annual elders 

meetings and for conventions of youth and elders where the cultural traditions can be passed on. 

It is presently in the process of developing a museum to preserve and demonstrate elements of 

the traditional culture. 

Control of education and the availability of advanced education locally were significant 

aims of Borough organizers. The Borough made possibletheformation of an Independent School 

District which has mwed to develop bilingual programs in support of the lnupiat language and 

courses in lnupiat history, culture as well as courses on land claims. It has also funded local 

aides in the classrooms providing role models in classrooms for children. 

Although there have been shortcomings as well as successes in the operation of the 

North Slope Borough, it is not difficult to visualize how different and dismal life for the North Slope 

lnupiat over the past 20+ years would have been without it. 

THE FUTURE - FINDINGS OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL 

In 1992, the National Research Council at the request of the Congress of the United 

States and through invitation of the Minerals Management Senrice (MMS) undertook a study to 

review the adequacy of environmental information for leasing of offshore lands in Alaska. Due to 

the likelihood of exploration and development in the Beaufort and, to a lesser extent, the Chukchi 

Sea, the convened committee elected to focus its attention on Arctic offshore waters. 

It was the view of the committee (and I as a member) that the requirements of the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) requires the MMS to study and manage the effects of OCS 

activities on the 'human environment" broadly defined to include ?he physical, social and 

economic components, conditions, and factors which ... determine the state, condition, and 

quality of living conditions, employment, and health of those affected, directly or indirectly, by 

activities occurring on the OCS' (NRC 1994:129). This is a clear and unambiguous mandate for 

MMS to study and manage broadly defined effects on social and cultural systems. 

In its general conclusions, the committee found that environmental information for the 

lease and exploration phases in the Chukchi, Navarin and Beaufort Basins was generally 

adequate, 'except in the case of effects on the human environment" (NRC 1994:187). The 

committee determined that baseline studies of socioeconomic and sociocultural conditions were 

generally adequate except that the characteristics of and impacts of enclave development on the 

welfare of nmNative migrant workers was poorly analyzed. However, the report went on to note 

that studies dealing with changes due to development and the impacts of those changes on 

socioeconomic and sociocultural condlis were absent. 

In regard to local North Slope conditions, the report found that insufficient research had 

been done on the effects of pre-lease anticipatory and speculative activity as parties react to 
Langdon - An Overview of North Slope Society: Past and Fulvre 65 

impending developments as threat and/or opportunity (NRC 1994:145-146; Table 2). Specifically, 

does such activity significantly affect later developments in social and economic sectors? 

Tabk2. National Research Council flndlngs and recommendations concemlng the human environment 

In oll and gas leaslng declslons (NRC 1994). 

FINDINGS 

1. Environmental information for leasirw and exdoration generally adequate, 'except for information 

on the human environment.' 

2. lnsuffrcient research on the opportunities and threats perceived and acted upon prior to leasing. 

3. Subsistence studies of baseline conditions adequate but not sufficiently longitudinal nor used 

effectively in EIS projections. 

4. Social indicators study culturally rdevant elements but absent are indicators allowing the tracking 

of social pathology and stress. 

5. Research on 'enclavd employment and impacts on non-Native migratory workers lacking. - 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. Research longterm impacts of all phases of OCS activities in terms of revenues, employment, 

income distribution, subsistence and social and cultural health. 

2. Research sociocultural adaptations to change as indicated by social indimtors of well-being in 

addition to cultural measures. 

3. Research through quantitative assessment the impact of cumulative oil development activity on 

significant subsistence acWis in terms of spatial distribution and harvest levels. 

4. Research and analyze the means and degree to which impacts on subsistence from development 

can be mqWted. 

5. Research on impacts of demographic growth and population- mix on pollical control, public 

policies, and revenue allocation. 

6. Secure and maintain adequate funding and experience social scientific staff to wry out necessary 

studies. 

The committee found that MMS studies had produced substantial documentation of the 

scale, timing, and spatial distribution of subsistence activities on the North Slope. However, those 

studies had not been satisfactorily utilized in identifying impacts of additional oil development in 

a detailed quantitative and spatial fashion. Single word assessments of likely impact as low or 

moderate in the 1992 EIS wwe unsatisfactory. More importantty, such assessments are of no use 

in determining what if any kind of mitigating measures, such as alternative siting, environmental 

protections, and limiting access, might be taken to protect subsistence activitiis. Given the 

present and continuing importance of subsistence activities to the cultural and personal well-being 

of members of North Slope society, such assessments are of vital importance. They are also 

particularly well-suited to new partnerships involving Inupiat, scientists, government agencies, and 

oil companies in truly collaborative efforts to address the implications of gradual, but cumulatively 

significant, changes likety to take place in the environment on subsistence act'dies. 

The committee was unable to find evidence that the Social and Economic Studies 

Program (SESP) had deaR in a systematic manner with long-term or permanent socioeconomic 
66 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

or sociocultural changes that are likely to result from OCS development (NRC 1994:146). In 

particular, no apparent attention had been paid in EIS projections to the potential impact of 

changing demographic ratios of Natives and non-Natives on political control of the North Slope 

Borough and its policies. Neither had the long-term impact of declining revenues on the Borough 

and its residents been assessed. It was suggested by the committee that weradaptation, either 

to the Borough as a mediating institution andlor to revenues from oil development, could result 

in a radical bust scenario should new technologies or cheaper energy sources lead to 

abandonment of the North Slope. What are the implications of these scenarios for the facilities, 

employment, and resident population dependent on them? 

While the committee noted a regionally relevant set of Social Indicators had been 

developed for monitoring long-term changes in North Slope conditions, it pointed out that missing 

from these indicators were evidences of social and personal well-being (NRC 1994: 145). 

Standard measures of crime, education levels, dropout rates, and social pathology indicators 

related to violence and drug and alcohol abuse were notably absent. It is interesting that these 

measures have loomed large in the recent debate over legalization of alcohol possession and 

consumption on the North Slope but have been ignored in MMS studies. 

The committee was also concerned that relatively little attention had been paid to the 

social and cultural aspects of employment on the North Slope. Nor had the impacts of the 

'enclave' model of development on the non-Native migrant workers been addressed. Evidence 

indicates that there has been a very low rate of employment of lnupiat in the Prudhoe Bay oil 

patch and most of that has been through Native corporations acting as contractors to the oil 

industry in the service sector (NRC 1994: 144). Little attention has been paid by MMS to this issue 

which potentially could be of critical importance in the future. 

In light of these findings, the committee found that in order to adequately project and 

satisfactorily manage change, a research program of both greater breadth and specificity was 

required. Sk (6) recommendations with several subrecommendations were made (Table 2). The 

most important, in my view, called for. 

1. Research on long-term impacts of all phases of OCS actkiies in terms of revenues, 

employment, income distribution, and subsistence. 

2. Research on sociocultural adaptations to change as indicated by social indicators of 

well-being in addition to cultural measures. 

3. Research through quantitative assessment the impact of cumulative oil development 

activity on significant subsistence activities in terms of spatial distribution and harvest 

levels. 

4. Research and analyze the means and degree to which impacts on subsistence from 

development can be mitigated. 

5. Research impacts of demographic growth and population mk on political control, 

public policies and revenue allocation. 
Langdon - An Ovendew of NoN, Slope Society: Past and Future 

CONCLUSION 

As oil development in Arctic offshore waters continues, the critical question for those 

directly affected is not Wether cultural change will occur because it always has and it always will. 

The questions are, rather, what will be the nature of that cultural change? To what extent will the 

affected people benefit from or be harmed by the change? And, to what extent will the affected 

people be able to determine the nature of those changes and in that way decide their own 

futures? The answers to these questions can exert a powerhrl influence over the degree to which 

the resultant change will, on balance, provide for fulfilling lives or lead to cultural disruption and 

social pathology. 

The National Research Council identified an atmosphere of mistrust over OCS 

development among the involved parties and suggested that trust through experience would be 

necessary to create the opportunity for meaningful collaboration. In addition, the National 

Research Council's report raised serious issues related to the socioeconomic and sociocultural 

future of the North Slope. R also identified the research necessary for MMS to conduct to meet 

the legal mandates of OCSLA for projecting and managing change in the human environment. 

As an examination of the program for this synthesis meeting will reveal, the NRC's call has gone 

unheeded by the Congress and perhaps by the MMS as research of this nature is not reported 

at this session. When the stakes are so high for the future of North Slope society, the lack of 

funding and priority for consideration of these issues suggests at a minimum indifference to the 

future of North Slope lnupiat culture and society. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Anderson, D. 1990. Prehistory of North Alaska. Pages 80-93 in D. Damas, ed. Arctic. Handbook 

of North American Indians, vd. 7. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C. 

Bockstoce, J. 1986. Whales, Ice, & Men: The History of Whaling in the Western Arctic. University 

of Washington. Seattle. 

Chance, N. 1990. The lnupiat and Arctic Alaska: An Ethnography of Development. HoR, Rinehart, 

and Winston. Ft. Worth, TX. 241 p. 

Fortuine, R. 1989. Chills and Fevers: Health and Disease in the Early History of Alaska. University 

of Alaska. Fairbanks, AK. 393 p. 

McBeath, GA, and TA. Morehouse. 1980. The Dynamics of Alaska Native Self-Government. 

University Press of America. Lanham, MD. 125 p. 

National Research Council. 1994. Environmental Information for Outer Continental Shelf Oil and 

Gas Decisions in Alaska. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 254 p. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meebeebng 
HISTORY OF WHALING BY KAKTOVlK VILLAGE 

Joseph Kaleak 

Whallng Captaln 

Kaktovlk, AK 99747 

Today, I am going to try my best to give the history of subsistence whaling for the 

Kaktovik area (Table 1). In 1937 and 1940, two whales were landed. In 1964, the people of 

Kaktovik returned to whaling. There were only about three or four captains at that time. In 1973, 

only one whale was landed. I think that was due to bad ice or water conditions during that fall 

whaling time. In 1977, before we had a quota imposed by the International Whaling Commission, 

five whales were landed. That was a good whaling season that year. In 1985, no whales were 

landed. That was due to the fad that there was a drill ship located about 18 miles east and ten 

miles offshore of Barter Island. So it was a bad year because of that ship. In 1987, no whales 

were landed due to bad weather. From 1992 to 1995 we had a very good whaling season 

because there was no seismic survey activity and the whales were close to shore. 

After the whaling season, everyone puts their boats away. If we get the whale subsistence 

quota early, then we go hunting on land. On Thanksgiving and Christmas, we always share what 

we have caught with the community. The captains always share when whales are landed. We 

share with our friends. 

Fgure 1 is a map showing the harvest locations since we started whaling. The numbers 

33 and 39 are in areas where the oil industry is active. The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is very 

calm, nothing active is going on right now. Since we started whaling, these are the locations 

where we have caught whales. I hope it is going be to like that for a long time (whales close to 

shore); that way we won't have a hard time searching for bowhead whales. Sometimes we have 

to go very far offshore. We have to go back and forth every day. In 1994 and 1995, the whales 

were close to shore and we didn't have to go out too far. I hope it is going to be like that for a 

long time. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Table 1. Bowhead whale harvest data for the Village of Kaktovlk. 

= Number refers to locations on Fire 1, not numbers of whales landed. 

Number' 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Whaling Captain 

Archie Brower 

Herman Aishanna 

Herman Aishanna 

Herman Rexford 

Herman Aishanna 

Archie Brower 

Archie Brower 

Alfred Linn 

Nolan Solomon 

Tommy Agiak 

Joseph Kaleak 

Joseph Kaleak 

Joseph Kaleak 

Nolan Solomon 

Alfred Linn 

Tommy Agiak 

Atfred Linn 

Isaac Akootchook 

Nolan Solomon 

Tommy Agiak 

Herman Aishanna 

Isaac Akootchook 

Nolan Solomon 

Alfred Linn 

Year 

1 964 

1973 

1974 

1975 

1975 

1976 

1977 

1977 

1977 

1977 

1 977 

1978 

1978 

1978 

1982 

1982 

1982 

1 983 

1903 

1903 

1984 

1984 

1984 

1986 

Number. 

27 

28 

29 

30 

3 1 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

4 1 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

Whaling Captain 

Joseph Kaleak 

Nolan Solomon 

Arc hie Brower 

Isaac Akootchook 

Tommy Agiak 

Tommy Agiak 

James Killbear 

Joseph Kaleak 

Herman Aishanna 

Jimmie Soplu 

Daniel Akootchook 

James Lampe, 8. 

Daniel Akootchook 

Joseph Kaleak 

James Killbear 

Herman Ai~han~ 

Joseph Kaleak 

James Killbear 

Herman Aishanna 

Edward Rexford 

Tommy Agiak 

James Killbear 

James Lampe, 8. 

Isaac Akootchook 

Year 

1986 

1986 

? 

? 

1 988 

1989 

1989 

1989 

1990 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1992 

1992 

1993 

1993 

1993 

1994 

1994 

1994 

1995 

1995 

1995 

1995 
Flgure 1. Whale harvest locations near Kaktovlk (adapted from Dept. of Wildllte Management, NoRh Slope Borough, 1993 map). 

. 1 I 

144'00' w 143900' w 

-70'1 5' N 

8 

A 40 

Beaufort Sea 

33 39 

A A 

38 

A 

15 18 

A A 

d 19 

25 

A 

14 

A 

30 

2' A 

37 

A 

fF 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 
HISTORY OF SUBSISTENCE WHAUNG BY NUIQSUT 

Frank Long, Jr. 

PresMent 

Nulqsut Whaling Captalns Association 

Nulqsut, AK 99789 

It is a pleasure to be in a meeting as important as this with the Minerals Management 

Service. I am a whaling captain from the Village of Nuiqsut and also the president of the Nuiqsut 

Whaling Captains Association. I have participated in whaling for a number of years. I began when 

I was nine years old. The first time I ever went out was at Point Hope. After moving to Barrow, 

I participated in whaling there. In 1973, 1 moved to the Village of Nuiqsut to reestablish the 

community. We lived in the tent city during the winter. Actual whaling started in Nuiqsut in the fall 

of 1973. But before that time, centuries back, whaling by our Native people, had been conducted 

in the Cross lsland area, which is near Prudhoe Bay. I don't think that there is anything that would 

stop our whaling because it is not only part of our life and our culture, it is the nature of the 

whales that we live with. 

Nuiqsut is a unique whaling community. We go down the Colville River and across the 

ocean to our base camp at Cross lsland - a distance of about 94 miles. Even though we have 

fast outboards with 200 hp, it takes about eight hours to go that far. After basing there, we hunt 

in the area to the north, northeast, and east of Cross Island. There are numerous industrial 

activities that also take place in that area. 

1 am very surprised to be here, but I am glad I am here to not only speak about my way 

of life also the way that we whale. Whaling has been active for as long as I can remember. I am 

glad and proud to be one of the whalers. It not only gets into your bones; it also gets into your 

blood. Whales think like we do. If there is a lot of controversy among whales and the people, it 

is very difficult to hunt and catch the whales. There are people, like Mr. Rexford, who have been 

whaling for many years. It is important to us that we come from people who subsist on the 

bowhead whale. 

We go to Cross lsland during the first week of September. When there was no industrial 

activity in the area or to the east of Cross Island, we would be successful, landing our quota. 

Since 1973 we have had a quota, today our quota is four whales. It is very difficult to find even 

one bowhead whale when there is a lot of industrial activity. The whales not only pressure us, 

they pressure industry also. We both want to do our thing, but I think that there is a way for both 

oil exploration and whaling to be successful. 

I have been told from the time that I can remember that a whale will be startled or scared 

by a little sound. Even tapping on a boat will cause a whale not to surface. It will go further out 

and leave you behind for sure - way, way out there. 

The main thing that I would like to talk about is the interaction of subsistence whalers and 

the involvement of industry. A lot of times there is controversy between the whalers and the oil 

industry. There was controversy about Kuvlum, Hammerhead, and Galahad on the east between 

Barter lsland and Cross Island. As I stated before, when there is industry activity, we have to go 

very far out for whales - about 44 miles straight out from Cross lsland to catch whales. It takes 

hours and is dangerous when you go that far out. A few years ago, we were caught by a bad 

storm. We last a whale and a crew boat, but everybody was found and we returned to Cross 

lsland safely. It is hard to see far with the little boats that we have; the biggest one is only 26 ft. 

We know that whaling is dangerous, but it is our livelihood. We have to supply our community's 
74 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

nutritional needs for the winter. The captain doesn't get the whole whale; after it is harvested, it 

belongs to the whole community. We share it, like Mr. Joseph Kaleak said earlier; we share 

during Thanksgiving, Christmas, and 'Nalukataq' -a time that we share and give away most of 

the catch. Everybody in the community, regardless of whether they are a small kid or a senior 

citizen, gets a portion of the whale muktuk and meat. 

It is important for us to know that it is a challenge - not only for me but a challenge for 

the industry to get to know the Natives and why we subsist on whales. I know that what they have 

to do, drilling exploratory wells, is important. We also do what we have to do. So, in turn we have 

to learn to work together, or if we don't, we will fall into another lawsuit. A couple of years ago, 

the Nuiqsut whalers filed a lawsuit against the industry and the federal government. In my 

opinion, I think it is not necessary for us to do that against each other. Both will gain if the Native 

subsistence whalers and the oil industry learn to work together - there is nothing to lose. I 

always hope that one day we will learn to work together. 

The map (Figure 1 and see also Table 1) here shows where we live in Nuiqsut to the west 

of Cross Island about 70 air miles west of Deadhorse and Prudhoe Bay. I said it takes about eight 

hours to go from our village to Cross Island. When we do our hunting and there is industrial 

activity taking place in this area, we go straight out about 44 miles at the most. We go in many 

different directions searching for whale. We also go along the Barrier Islands. The closest whale 

that was caught this year, when there was no industrial activii, was two miles off Cross Island. 

When there is pack ice, it covers the area near Cross Island. About four years ago, there was a 

tourist ship near Cross Island; due to heavy ice, they couldn't go beyond Cross Island. Once that 

ice is packed, it doesn't move north or east; it stays the whole year. 

A little sound, east of Cross Island, where the Kwlum Prospect, Hammerhead, and 

Galahad development units are located, will affect the bowhead whale. There is a lot of argument 

between the industry and the whalers. I will argue as long as I have a voice. I know that we, as 

subsistence hunters, weren't taught to argue over an animal; we were taught to harvest and to 

feed our people. But when industrial activity takes place and the arguments get heavy, it is very 

hard to even look at people like the meeting attendees. The federal government will argue against 

us. The International Whaling Commission will argue against us. And maybe the local people will 

argue against too. However, I am glad that I could be part of this meeting. 
Beaufort Sea 

flgun 1. Whale hamot locatlon8 near Crou laland (ham* locatloru 101 and 102 were located farther mat) (adapted from Dept. of Wlldllfe Management, North Slope Borough, 19- map). 

110 

A 

Y 

'T 

I 

I 

148.00' W 14P00' 

107 

A 

2 

A 

109 

A 

105 

1 A 

A 

9 cross Island 

i 103 106 A A 

I 

W 

70'45' N - 

7050' N - 
76 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Table 1. Bowhead whale harvest data - Nuiqsut. 

= harvest locations in Fire 1, not numbers of whales landed. 

1 

Number' 

1 

2 

101 

102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

Whaling Captain 

Taaq~k 

Taaq~k 

Thomas Napageak 

Thomas Napageak 

Billy Oyagak 

U~yd Kittick 

Patsy Tukle 

Thomas Napageak 

Archie Achiviana 

Billy Oyagak 

Oyagak 

Patsy Tukle 

Year 

1937 

1940 

1973 

1982 

1 983 

1985 

1986 

1990 

1991 

1991 

1992 

1992 
THE ALASKA ESKIMO WHAUNG COMMISSION AND 

HISTORY OF SUBSISTENCE WHALING OFF POINT BARROW 'NWUIC 

Burton Rexford 

Chairman 

Alaska Eskimo Whallng Commlsslon 

Bamw, AK 99723 

ALASKA ESKIMO WHALING COMMISSION 

The lnupiat and Siberian Yukpik Eskimos, living in northern and western Alaska, have 

been hunting the bowhead whale for thousands of years. As the International Whaling 

Commission (IWC) has acknowledged, 'whaling, more than any other activii, fundamentally 

underlies the total life way of these communitii.' The entire community participates in the 

activities surrounding the subsistence bowhead whale hunt, ensuring the tradition and skills of 

the past associated with their cultures will be canied on by future generations. Each whale 

provides thousands of pounds of meat and 'muktuk' (blubber and skin), which is shared by all 

the people in the community. Portions of each whale are saved for celebrations at Nalukataq (the 

Blanket Toss or whaling feast), Thanksgiving, Christmas, and pdlucks held throughout the year. 

Subsistence whaling has been the mainstay in our culture since time immemorial, and 

the activities associated with subsistence whaling serves as a tradition that binds our communities 

together. 

In September 1977, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) was formed to unite 

whaling captains against the ban that the IWC put on all types of whaling, including subsistence 

whaling. The AEWC, in cooperation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) signed a Cooperative Agreement in 1981. So, for the past 18 years, the AEWC has 

worked with the federal government, successfully, in the management of the bowhead whale. 

Through this cooperative agreement, NOAA delegated authority to the AEWC to manage the 

subsistence whale hunts. Under this agreement, the AEWC also adopted a Management Plan 

which governs the actual aspects of the hunt. We have found that this system of management 

has worked since the inception of AEWC. The local responsibility of joint management of any type 

of resource is vital and has been proven to be successful. 

The management guidelines for our hunts are set out in a management plan approved 

by NOAA. In addition, our hunt is subject to an IWGimposed annual whaling quota. This quota 

has been established at a level close to our people's needs after many years of effort by the 

AEWC, with the support of the North Slope Borough, and working with the United States 

Congress, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the environmental communities, and the MIC to 

do scientific research. Since 1977, representatives of AEWC have attended every annual meeting 

of the IWC - and every year scientific research on the bowhead whale conducted through the 

efforts of AEWC, the North Slope Borough, and NOAA is provided to the IWC Scientific 

Committee. The information gathered and the positions agreed upon at this meeting form the 

basis of the presentations made to the International Whaling Commission at its annual meeting. 

As a result of our excellent management record and our diligent efforts on behalf of our 

subsistence whalers, the AEWC has gained international recognition and respect as a model local 

resource manager. Today, the AEWC exists as a tax-exempt, non-profit corporation whose 

purpose is to: 
78 1995 - MMS Arctic SynUtesis Meeting 

1. Preserve and enhance a vital marine resource, the bowhead whale, including the 

protection of its habitat; 

2. to protect Eskimo subsistence bowhead whaling; 

3. to protect and enhance the Eskimo culture, traditions, and activities associated with 

bowhead whales and subsistence bowhead whaling; 

4. to undertake research and educational actiiies related to bowhead whales. 

The AEWC carries out those purposes outlined above through the establishment of the 

following goals: 

1. ensure that the hunt of the bowhead whale is conducted according to the AEWC 

Management Plan in a traditional, non-wasteful manner, 

2. promote extensive scientific research on the bowhead whale so as to ensure the 

continued health of the bowhead whale stock; 

3. communicate to the outside world the facts pertaining to the subsistence bowhead 

whale hunt, the manner in which it is conducted, the Eskimo's knowledge of the bowhead 

whale, and the centrality of the hunt to the cultural and nutriiional needs of the Eskimo. 

The members of the AEWC are the registered whaling captains and their crew members 

of the ten whaling communities: Little Diomede, Gambell, Savoonga, Wales, Kivalina, Point Hope, 

Wainwright, Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovii (Figure 1). The AEWC is directed by a board of ten 

elected Commissioners; one from each whaling village. The members of the AEWC are afforded 

a public forum to speak on issues that affect them and to set quotas at the Whaling Captains' 

Convention held in mid-winter. At this meeting, the 150 whaling captains negotiate their demands 

of the whaling captains on priority issues affecting their subsistence whaling activities in their 

respective village. Invited participants include the United States Commissioner to the MIC, NOAA 

personnel, AEWC Commissioners, AEWC staff and legal counsd, the Mayor of the North Slope 

Borough (NSB), the staff of the NSB Department of Wildlife Management, and the AEWC 

Cooperating Scientists. Every four years, a bowhead quota for our aboriginal subsistence whaling 

is set. The whaling captains, at the convention set a quota for each whaling community, based 

on historical, cultural, and subsistence nutritional needs. 

THE BOWHEAD CENSUS 

Signihcant additional research, the bowhead census, was launched in 1993 by the AEWC 

through the NSB Department of Wildlife Management. The census was a great success which 

documented a tremendous increase in the bowhead stock. 

As all who know our people, the bowhead hunt k a vital component of our culture in the 

bowhead subsistence whaling communities. Because the hunt and the Native exemption that 

protects our rights to continue hunting are so important to our people, the AEWC takes sole 

responsibility for representing all of the ten bowhead subsistence whaling communities. 
Alaska 

I 

15v 

I 

Beau fort Sea 

Pnrdhoe - 

Nuisrrrto "\-• 0 

'- ' - CIIE* -- .-- --- --- - -- ---- - -- -- -. ___ - ----a- -. 

Norton Sound 

flgure 1. The whaling communltleo which are member. of the Aladca Eaklmo Whallng Comml~~lon: Uttle Dlomede, Gambell, 

Savoonga, Wale., Klvallna, Point Hope, Walnmlght, Barrow, Nulqaut, and Kaktovlk. 
80 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

HISTORY OF SUBSISTENCE WHALING OFF POINT BARROW 'NWUKm 

I was born at Point Barrow 'Nuvuk,' Alaska on January 12,1930. Unlike other boys in the 

village of Barrow, my observation of sea animals began at the early age of six years old. My 

grandparents were the last residents of Point Barrow 'Nuvuk,' Alaska. My aunt and I would hunt 

daily for food, such as snipes, along the beach shoreline of Point Barrow 'Nuvuk.' Often we would 

observe fall migration of belukha and bowhead whales about 25 yards from the beach shoreline. 

I was ten years of age when my father introduced me to the spring migration whale hunt at 

Barrow, Alaska. We didn't have dog teams to assist us in transporting our whaling equipment and 

necessary supplies. The resutts are very clear, that manpower is used to pull 30 ft Boston Whaler, 

a wooden hull boat, over the ice pressure ridges. 

During the early 1940s (1943), 1 was one of the crew members of the late Mr. Anthony 

Weber of Point Hope during the spring migration bowhead whale hunt. After the whaling season, 

we moved to Kotzebue, Alaska until 1948. While a resident there at Kotzebue, I would observe 

belukha whales localized 10 to 15 yards from the beach shoreline. In 1948, we returned to 

Barrow, and I didn't waste any time. I made crew member to Mr. William 'Enugruak' Leavitt, Sr., 

the son of the Yankee whaling ship captain, Mr. George Leavitt, Sr. I have been an active 

participant whaling captain since the mid-1950s in the fall migration hunt of the bowhead whale. 

During some recent years, oil industry seismic activi has been conducted in our hunting 

grounds of the bowhead whale. In the vast Beaufort Sea, the seismic area - with parameters 

clearly identified as approximately 20 to 30 miles northeast off Cape Simpson TulimaniU and 

approximately 20 to 30 miles north of Point Barrow 'NuvuU - extended through migration routes 

and natural habitat areas. 

Since time immemorial, Point Barrow 'Nwuk,' Alaska has been both a staging area and 

strategic location for our fall bowhead whale hunt. The Eskimo elder bowhead whalers have 

clearly identified the natural habitat areas where the bowheads congregate as: 

1. Point Barrow 'NuvuU 

2. Eluitqauk Island 

3. Taupkaluk Island 

4. Cooper Island 

5. Martin Island, and beyond east of Martin Island 

The migration routes are unpredictable due to nature's conditions. When the oil industry 

was doing seismic work during the fall migration, my two colleagues and their crew members 

completely searched these above locations and beyond. The entire month of September was 

spent in our attempts to locate bowhead whales, resulting in nothing. Not only were there no 

bowheads, there also were no belukhas nor gray whales to be seen. My same two colleagues 

and their crew members, along with my crew, repeated this same process years later and again 

came up with zero results. After going through this same process, we have never experienced 

such a low morale in our lifetime as when there were no whaling activities. After a thorough 

coverage of what used to be our whale hunting grounds, my colleagues and their crews 

attempted to go beyond the parameters of the seismic work area. In spite of the endangerment 

of human life, these attempts were executed repeatedly, and still the end results were the same. 

I share the honor, dignity, and humiliation that my colleagues and their crew members 

have inherited from those seismic boat experiences. Throughout my 55 years of whaling in Point 

Hope, Barrow, and Nuvuk, I have observed, like many other whalers, the impact of underwater 

noise on bowhead whales. My honor and dignity as a Whaling Captain are of the utmost 
Rcudord - History of Subsistence Whaling and Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission 81 

importance to my peers and cdleagues in the Barrow Whaling Captains Association and the 

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission. Wihout honor and dignity, a whaling captain loses face with 

the whaling community and loses the respect and prestige one attains through many years of 

involvement as a member of the whaling community. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak at this meeting. 
SOCIOCULTURAL SESSION 

GENERAL DISCUSSION 

Burton Rexford: As we talk about seismic activii, it is bad news for the.whalers to have a 

distribution of the whales so far away from the hunting grounds. It is dangerous to take a crew 

out that far in the Arctic Ocean. Thank you. 

Abigall Dunning: You mentioned, Mr. Rexford, that you were introduced to whaling at 10 years 

of age. I wondered if you, or any of the panelists, would address how you are passing on that 

tradition to your young people in the whaling villages? 

Burton Rexford: Unfortunateiy, I was lucky to go out at that age. It wasn't allowed, but I went out 

early. Today, we have the availability of fast moving transportation. We are allowing the ten-yearolds to go out to the whaling camp. We are allowing women, too, today! That never used to be 

allowed in my days, when I was young. 

Tom Newbury: Mr. Rexford, I appreciate very much that you brought the maps. Mr. Kaleak, Mr. 

Long, and you talked about the specific sites where you have harvested whales. That is a great 

help to us. In the past, the MMS has heard about the general harvest areas, but we've not known 

about the specific sites. I thought you made a good point when you said that while the sites show 

where whales were harvested, the sites aren't the only places where you hunted. I understand 

that you hunt in the general area. 

I want to note also that you talked about the response of whales to slight noises in the 

whaling boats. There will be a subsequent session on the responses of bowhead whales to 

underwater noise. 

I want to respond to a similar, specific comment by Mr. Kaleak. He mentioned that no 

whales were landed during the year that a drill rig was located near Barter Island. Previously, I 

had heard about the,correlation, and was concerned. So I looked through the data from the 

Bowhead Whale Aerial Survey Program (BWASP), checking to see if whales were sighted near 

the island. What I found was that during part of 1987, when a rig was being towed into position 

at the Aurora Prospect near Barter Island, no whales were sighted near the island. But once the 

rig was left in positiin - it was left 'idling' but not drilling during the migration - and the tow 

boats were gone, then the whales were sighted by BWASP near Barter Island. The BWASP data 

indicates that whales were displaced by the towing operation but not by the idled drill rig. This 

general subject - the effects of underwater ndse from vessels, drill rigs, and ice breakers -will 

be discussed further in the next session. 

Burton Rexford: To quickly respond to your comment on monitoring: we have been following 

the monitoring programs for several years with the North Slope Borough scientists and AEWC. 

Tom Newbury: Also, I want to explain that MMS has tried to mitigate the biological consequences 

- of noise effects on the whales - with monitoring requirements. We realize that we need more 

data to quantify the effects. However, it has been more difficult to mitigate the sociocultural 

consequences; the effects on subsistence. We have tried to do it by requiring industryhhaler 

coordination. 

During the lease sale process, an environmental impact statement (EIS) is prepared. 

There is a draft EIS which gives the whalers time to comment on the proposal, and to express 

your concerns. However, during the next step (exploration) there isn't time for a draft document 
Sociocuttural Session - General Discussion 83 

- time to review and to comment on the documents. So we have a special requirement for 

coordination. 

It is a special stipulation that has been attached to leases that requires the exploration 

company to contact the potentially affected communities. It requires the company to discuss the 

potential conflicts; to describe efforts that are being made to assure that the activity is compatible; 

and then, significantly, to discuss unresolved conflicts. 

I wanted to explain again that during the leasing process, there is a draft and a chance 

to make comments. During the exploration phase, there is just a single document and a 

requirement to coordinate. In the next phase - the development phase which we have been 

discussing at this meeting - we are preparing a draft EIS. There will be a chance to comment 

on it. 

A question that I have is: has the industrylwhaler coordination helped you? I realize that 

it hasn't always worked; there was a time you mentioned when the coordination broke down and 

a lawsuit was filed. Is there anything more that we could do through this coordination process 

that would make it more suitable? 

Burton Rexford: I guess the reason for filing the lawsuit was to put the federal agencies on notice 

that we were not satisfied with the monitoring program. We are subsistence people; we observed 

the poor quality of data that was coming from the monitoring programs. Whenever there is any 

industry activity out in the sea, the whales are distributed way out from the beach. We argued that 

point. We got an adverse ruling in the court, but we benefitted even from filing the lawsuit. 

Tim Holder: This is a question for Mr. Long. Have you gone to Cross Island for many, many 

years, or is that a fairly new place where you set up whale camp? 

Frank Long: It is a former whaling island. Taaqpak and people before him had whaled on it. 

There are some whale bones out there. The oldest recorded whale is 1937, but there are bones 

that are older than that out there. I don't know exactly how old, but when we were conducting 

a history and culture survey for the North Slope Borough in 1980, there were five whalebone 

heads. So, I would say that whaling had been going on for a long time. I think that the whalers 

left the island in 1940s when the federal government required the Natives to attend school. All of 

the people from that area either went to Barrow or to Barter Island. 

Tlm Holder: When you catch a whale do you bring it up on the island or do you bring it back to 

the mainland shore and pull it up there? 

Frank Long: We bring it up on the island. We've a winch that we use. We butcher it there. Then 

when we are all done, we try to take it all home by boat if we can. If not, then we either go to 

West Dock or Endicott, and have it trucked to Oliktok Point near Nuiqsut (Figure 1). 

I also would like to respond to the question about young people participating and 

learning the activii of whaling. In our community, we take out young people. All of my boys have 

been exposed to whaling - not at the age that Burton and I started - but we do try to teach 

them about our hunt and the area in which we hunt. I first took my youngest boy when he was 

ten years old. He loves to go out. He is anxious to go fall whaling, although he recognizes that 

there is danger. There is not only danger, but a challenge. It becomes part of you to be a whaler. 

It becomes your nature, your life, and your way of breathing. So whaling is very important to us. 

In each community, I think we have different views of it, but we teach our children and young 
84 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Figure 1. Possible whale landing sites: Cross island, Endicott, West Dock, and Oiiktok Point. 

adults who are interested in whaling. 

Joseph Kaleak: I would like to comment on what Mr. Long said. We've have about five or six 

kids who go out with us all of the time during fall whaling. The kids always make an excuse to 

get out school during fall whaling time. The schd lets them go and we train them. They like to 

go out and look for themselves and train themselves in how we do the subsistence whaling. Even 

when we land a whale, they are always trying to help cut the whale, so that they can do it 

themselves later on. We appreciate it when the students go out with us during fall whaling. 

Burton Rexford: My recommendation for the Cross Island area and the whalers from Nuiqsut, 

would be to insist on no seismic activity after September 1st. We have done that before; we have 

shut down the seismic activity. If I can do anything for Nuiqsut, that is what I would recommend 

- September 1st. 

Tom Albert: A couple of interesting things have happened during this session. One of them is 

that you have heard from some very senior Eskimo people who have spent their whole life 

hunting in a rather dangerous environment. Mr. Long said that now they go out 40 miles in a very 

small boat - not four miles but 40 miles. The thing that I have heard for years, and years, and 

years, is that seismic noise scares the whales away. 

Somebody asked what can be done to make the coordination process better. When there 

are draft EIS public hearings, or industry coordination meetings in the villages, it is like a repeat 

of a very brief movie that over the years is attracting fewer and fewer participants. Fmeen years 

ago, when I participated in such eady meetings, the rooms would be packed; people would come 

in and testify. The MMS, industry, whoever, would sit there, nod, and take notes - but nothing 

would happen. Over the years, as these meetings have continued, the number of people who 

give up an evening to come dut and comment on these things is declining. MMS personnel were 

kind enough to come to Barrow not long ago for a meeting. It was unfortunate how few people 

showed up. But it signifies something - %hat is the sense?' 

The main issue, as I see it after years of listening to the whalers, is either they are all lying 

or the scientific data (that we will discuss in the next session) on the seismic effects on bowhead 

behavior are wrong. Some scientific studies indicate that most whales will respond at 7.5 km. We 

will hear that tomorrow, and I am not ttying to upset Dr. Richardson unduly. He and I have been 
Stxitxultural Session - General Discussion 85 

through this before. That is the 'scientific conclusion.' But for the Eskimo hunters on the water, 

it is an entirely different story. I have heard this for years. They pound on my desk saying, We 

were out hunting all over the place for the past week and we can't find any whales. Aren't even 

any gray whales. What are you going to do about it?' So there is something wrong. 

When we discuss what needs to be done in the development phase, we've got to get the 

truth to this question. What is the effect of seismic noise on these animals? There is a stronger 

response than the avoidance that is seen within 7.5 km. There is displacement. Even though the 

observers in the survey aircraft can sometimes see whales in these areas, for the hunters at sea 

level, there are so few whales that they don't find them. So when seismic activity is conducted, 

there is a scarcity of animals. Although the airplane observers find some, they have the advantage 

of traveling 150 mph and looking down. There is something wrong here. 

Since the Director of the MMS is here and these are days of budget cutting, I hope that 

the Environmental Studies budget will somehow be enhanced to take into account the design of 

studies that can resolve this difference. There is a problem - and it is not going to go away. 

As Mr. Rexford pointed out about the lawsuit, that may be the only recourse we have. If 

the monitoring plans are not good - and unfortunately a lot of them have not been good - we 

are going to run into lawsuits which is not good in itself. As Mr. Long pointed out, people want 

to get along, because there are too many other problems. But here is a problem and it has to be 

solved. Somebody asked the question, 'How can we do it better?' A good study, properly funded, 

I think will help us get there. 
1995 - MMS Arctic !Synthesis Meeting 
OVERVIEW OF RECENT SOCIOCULTURAL STUDIES 

IN NUIQSUT AND KAKTOVIK, ALASKA 

Sverre Pedersen 

Dklskn of Subsistence 

Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game 

1300 College Road 

Fairbanks, AK 09701 

INTRODUCTION 

Community studies discussed here are part of a three-year study entitled 'An Investigation 

of the Sociocultural Consequences of Outer Continental Shelf Development in Alaska.' These' 

studies were conducted by the Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

(ADF&G), under a cooperative agreement with MMS, Alaska OCS Region, Social and Economic 

Studies Unl, in Anchorage, Alaska. 

The primary purpose of the three-year study was to investigate the long-term social and 

cultural consequences of the development of the resources of Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS), especially as these affect the subsistence uses of fish and wildlife. 

A major focus of the research was the sociocultural consequences of the Exxon Valdez 

oil spill of March 1989 on Prince William Sound, Kenai Peninsula, Kodiak, and Alaska Peninsula 

communities (17 in all) affected by the spill; four control communities in the Arctic region 

(Kotzebue and Kivalina in the North West and Nuiqsut and Kaktovik on the North Slope) were 

included in the study to strengthen the application of the findings to broad questions of 

sociocultural change related to development of resources of the OCS and to update baseline 

sociocultural information for these communli useful in the preparation of area environmental 

impact statements, leasing plans, and in assessing OCS related impacts. 

Project purpose, procedures, and pertinent survey instruments for Nuiqsut and Kaktovik 

were reviewed and approved by the city council in each study community prior to survey start-up. 

Councils were kept infonned of project progress and project staff met with council members 

whenever requested (as in Kaktovik). Draft reports were reviewed with each city council and 

copies of the final report were distributed to study communities and corresponding regional 

organizations. 

Data collection took placethrough voluntary face-teface interviews using two instruments: 

a harvest survey questionnaire modeled after the d~sion's standard community baseline survey 

tool (which collects data on household demography, involvement in the cash economy, resource 

harvests and uses, and assessments of changes in subsistence harvest and use patterns) and 

a 'Social Effects Questionnairew (addressing changes in social and community organization which 

could be affected by OCS development) patterned after research tools developed in prior Social 

Indicators research funded by MMS. 

Two rounds of North Slope community fieldwork took place. Kaktovik surveys were 

carried out in mid-1993 and fieldwork in Nuiqsut was completed in early 1994. 

All North Slope fieldwork was led by Diion of Subsistence staff in participation with staff 

from MMS, North Slope Borough (NSB) Departments of Planning and Wildlife Management; and 

with the support of locally hired survey assistants who helped with the fieldwork in both Kaktovik 

and Nuiqsut. 
88 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

This presentation summarizes major findings for Kaktovik and Nuiqsut. The full report, Fall 

and Utermole 1995, was submitted to MMS, in six volumes, organized by study community. 

COMMUNITY INFORMATION AND FINDINGS 

This small community is located on Barter Island, about 160 miles east of Prudhoe Bay, 

on the northern edge of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). It is a predominately lnupiat 

community of about 220 persons in 63 households (1993). The local economy in Kaktovik is best 

characterized as 'mixed cashsubsistence,' with subsistence harvests of local resources forming 

the central thread in the economic, social, and cultural fabric of the community. 

Fieldwork was carried out during July 1993, and the study period was July 1, 1992 

through June 30,1993. The survey approach was to obtain a household census for the 63 eligible 

households. Our final household survey tally was 47 households for the harvest portion of the 

survey and zero for the social effects survey (due to a request from the city council that we forego 

that part of our planned survey work). Relevant survey findings from Kaktovik are presented in 

Table 1. 

Located on the west bank of the Nechelik Channel in the Colville River Deb, Nuiqsut is 

about 150 miles southwest of Barrow and 60 miles west of Prudhoe Bay. The community was 

resettled in 1971 and has experienced steady population growth since. During the study period 

the community was predominantly lnupiat with about 350 persons in 100 househdds. The local 

economy is best characterized as 'mixed cash-subsistence,' with subsistence harvests of 

paramount economic, social, and cultural importance. 

Fieldwork was carried out in February 1994, covering the period January 1,1993 through 

December 31,1993. The survey approach in Nuiqsut, due to the larger population size, was to 

take a random sample of 60 househdds. Our final household survey tally was 62 househdds for 

the harvest survey and 60 households for the social effects survey. Relevant Nuiqsut findings are 

presented in Table 2. 

SOCIOCULTURAL STUDY SUMMARY 

Survey findings from both Kaktovik and Nuiqsut show an increase in local subsistence 

harvests since previous division baseline harvest surveys, with a particularly strong maline 

mammal and estuarine fish component. These two resource categories now make up wer 60% 

of the estimated annual harvest (by weight) in Nuiqsut, and over 70% in Kaktovik. 

Concerns regarding possible negative effects of OCS leasing and development was 

clearly expressed in the Nuiqsut Social Effects survey results. Over 80% of sampled households 

in Nuiqsut believed that marine mammal and fish resources would decrease as a result of OCS 

development, and over 66% of the sampled households were not in favor of either searching for, 

or development of, OCS oil or gas resources. Their main concern expressed was that there would 

be adverse impacts, such as decreased resource population levels and contamination, on local 

harvesting activities and disruption of resource migration patterns. These concerns cannot be 
Pedersen - Overview of Recent Sociocuttural Studies in Nuiqsut and Kaktovik, Alaska 89 

taken lightly, particularty when seen in the light of the overall findings of the larger three-year 

study summarized below. 

Table 1. Summary of Kaktovik survey findings. 

Cash Economy 

Employment 

79% of Kaktovik adutts had some form of employment in the study year. 

average number of jobs held was 1.4 per adult 

average length of employment was 7.9 months per adult 

44% of adutts had year-round work 

leading source of jobs was in local government (53%) 

Income 

per capita income was $18,176 from all sources 

average household income was $55,688 

about 70% was earned income 

Cost of Living 

estimated at over 200% above Anchorage, AK 

Subsistence Economy 

Resource Harvest 

Total estimated community harvest: 170,940 Ib 

Total estimated household harvest: 2,714 Ib 

Per capita estimated harvest: 886 Ib 

Harvest Composition 

Fsh: 13.4% 

Land mammals: 16.9% 

Marine mammals: 67.7% 

Other: 02.9% 

Harvest Participation 

Mean number of resources used per household: 16 

Mean number of resources harvested per household: 8.6 

Mean number of resources given away per household: 7.7 

Mean number of resources received per household: 10.5 

Percent of households harvesting any resource: 89% 

Percent giving away any resource: 83% 

Percent receiving any resource: 920k 

Social Effects 

No measures: The Kaktovik City Council did not support this survey. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Tabk 2. Summary of Nuiqsut survey flndlng~. 

Cssh Economy 

Employment 81% d Nuiqsut adults herl some form d employment in the study year. 

average number d pbs hdd was 1.6 per adult 

average length d employment was 8.8 months per adult 

42%dadultshedyeerdwork 

leading souce d jobs was in local gwemment (39%) 

Incme: per capita hcome wcrs $14.301 from dl sources 

average househdd income was $56,743 

about 86% was earned income 

Cost d Wi: estimated at crver 200% above Anchorage. AK 

Subsistence Economy 

Resource Hervest 

Totel estimated community hervest 267.81 7 Ib 

Totel estimated househokl hervest 2.943 Ib 

Per capita estimated hwest 742 Ib 

Hwest Composition 

Foh. 33% 

Land memmals: 33% 

Marine memmals: 32% 

Other: 01 % 

Hwest Participation 

Mean number d resources used per household: 20 

Mean number d resources harvested per houddd: 11 

Mean number d resources gken sway per household: 11 

Mean number d resources received per household: 12 

Percent d households harvesting my resource: 90% 

Percent gbkg away my resource: 92% 

Percent rscehring my rssource: 98% 

Soci Effects 

OCS Development 

on fish: decrease numbers 8046 

no effect 11% 

on marine memmals: decrease numbers 87% 

no effect 10% 

In favor d OCS search for oil: 

no 67% 

Yes -28% 

In favor d OCS development md production d oil: 

IK) 68% 

Yes 25% 

on OCS development md production of oil: 

more jobs in mmunity 2% 

bchndogy to & it right 2% 

h favor d onshore development 

instead d dfshore 2% 

adverse impact on subsistence 52% 

pdlution concerns I 8% 

in fsvor if done carefully 1096 

i 
Pedersen - Overview of Recent Smiocultural Studies in Nuiqsut and Kaktovik, Alaska 9 1 

Research by the division in the Prince William Sound area before and after the Exxon 

Valdez oil spill documented major impacts of the spill on subsistence uses and the sociocultural 

systems which they support. In addition, there was a definite geographic pattern to spill effects, 

reflecting the degree of oiling and the persistence of oil in the environment. 

Over the three years of this study further evidence of this geographic pattern developed. 

Respondents in communities close to the spill report that their subsistence harvest levels are still 

low, sharing of wild foods since the spill has decreased, and that children's participation in 

subsistence activities has been negatively affected. Study findings show that people living in close 

proximity to the spill area were most likely to report that they liked living in their communities less 

during the study years than before the spill. 

In the third study year subsistence harvest levels appear to be rebounding from the low 

levels of the first and second post-spill years, and prespill harvest levels have been approached 

in all but the most severely impacted communities, i.e., those close to the spill origin, where 

harvest levels remain well below prespill averages. In some of the most heavily affected 

communities (Tatitlek and Chenega Bay) harvest declined further in the third study year, and 

there are important shifts in the composlin of subsistence harvests. For instance, marine 

mammal harvests are much lower than before the spill, and a larger proportion of the harvest is 

now fish. 

In 1989 negative spill impacts on resource uses by spill area respondents focused on fear 

of oil contamination; by 1993 households reporting spill effects on their subsistence uses cited 

reduced resource populations as the cause of the decline. This viewpoint was especially strong 

in Prince William Sound communities where a large majority of respondents said that populations 

of deer, harbor seals, sea lions, sea ducks, salmon, halibut, and clams were down since the spill. 

Fear of human contamination from specific resources, though substantially reduced from 

the first post-spill years, still persist among a significant number of households in communities 

near the spill site. 

It is important to note the finding that many households in the spill area reported that they 

had not received adequate information about the safety of subsistence foods, and despite 

lingering contamination concerns they returned to using subsistence foods. Economic and 

cultural necessities of relying on subsistence foods compelled Alaska Natives of the spill area to 

resume subsistence harvests in the face of increased costs of time, money, and health concerns. 

In the view of many of the people interviewed as part of this study, and especially in 

Prince William Sound and among Alaska Native people, the spill caused fundamental changes 

to natural resource populations and the natural environment overall that have yet to be 

adequately explained. This uncertainty has had profound effects on the outlook for the future that 

people expressed in communities dose to the spill site. This remains an important long-term 

impact of the spill. 

Another long-term impact of the spill is the prolonged litigation over damage claims. The 

lack of judicial senslwity to, and recognition of, the cultural importance of subsistence to the 

Alaska Native communities of the spill area and, the injury that this culture suffered, continue to 

be contested in federal court. Rulings in federal court which made ineligible claims by the Alaska 

Natiwe Class concerning injuries to their way of life were especially disheartening to the people 
92 7995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

whose subsistence uses had suffered demonstrably from the spill. In some cases, these rulings 

even served to discourage people from participating in further documentation of their losses. 

Litigation, and narrow definition of subsistence injuries, must be given due consideration 

in impact assessments for future OCS development in Alaska. 

Relevance of major study findings to Nuiqsut and Kaktovik lie mainly in the area of marine 

resource harvests. In both communitii a large portion of their subsistence harvest is from the 

marine environment, and nearly all of the marine harvest areas for the two communities lies in, 

or in close proximity to, former and present (Sale 144) federal lease sale areas in the Beaufort 

Sea. As such the two study communities (but really all but one NSB community - Anaktwuk 

Pass) appear as vulnerable to industrial activity mishaps as Prince William Sound communities, 

with a high probability of the same kinds of sociocultural impacts as were documented in those 

communities. 

The single most important lesson learned from the &on spill, relevant to other regions 

where the economic and cultural necessity of using subsistence foods is compelling, is that 

prevention is the best cure! We recommend this principle be employed in all development 

proposals we now review. In order to attain this goal we need to improve cooperation and 

coordination between agencies responsible for formulating applicable rules, conditions, and 

mitigation measures; incorporate broadly-based sociocultural monitoring and evaluation 

procedures as a standard set of requirements; seek a broader level of involvement of regional 

and local authorities in planning and monitoring of permitted activities; and finally, we need to find 

institutional mechanisms that responsibly improve the working relationship between government, 

industry, and the public. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Fall, J.A. and C.J. Utermole (Eds.). 1995. An Investigation of the Sociocutural Consequences of 

Outer Continental Shell Development in Alaska. Alaska OCS Region, Social and 

Economic Studies Unit, Technical Report No. 160. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service. Anchorage, AK. 

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION 

Tom Newbury: Would you repeat the conclusions you listed at the end of your talk? 

Sverre Pedersen: We recommend this particular principle: improve coordination between 

agencies responsible for formulating applicable rules, conditions, and mitigation measures. We 

need to incorporate broadly-based sociocultural mohitocing and evaluation procedures as a 

standard set of requirements. We need to seek a broader level of involvement of regional and 

local authorities in planning and monitoring of permitted activities. We also need to find better 

institutional mechanisms that responsibly improve the working relationship between government, 

industry, and the public. 

Cleve Cowles: A major portion of the findings that you talked about this afternoon was regarding 

perception of impacts. I was wondering if there was anything in your work that would help direct 
Pedersen - Ove~ew ofRecent SociocuIturaI Studies in Nuigsut and Kaktovik, Alaska 93 

the government, in terms of what types of information could be provided, to better achieve a level 

of understanding of effects in areas where there may not be sufficient information flow? 

Sverre Pedersen: This is a complicated area. I am no expert on this. But having worked on the 

North Slope for some time, I do have opinions on what needs to be done. I am not sure that 

these are necessarily the mechanisms that will work the best. But in my experience, the best 

approach would be to take time in the communities; to share the information that you have on 

whatever actki that is proposed. I don't mean calling a meeting between 8:00 and 10:00 pm 

one evening and then at 11:00 pm everyone leaves on a plane and goes back to where they 

came from. I am talking about people spending time in the community, getting to know concerns, 

maybe on a oneteone basis and developing better lines of communication with individuals. Very 

often, in my experience, meetings, particularly in Nuiqsut and Kaktovik, often are best after all of 

the government people have left. Because government people don't spend enough time in the 

communities. So that is an ingredient that I think is very important here. Take the time to explain 

projects to people. That means spending a couple of days, maybe a week, in the community. In 

fact, maybe even visiting with households and talking about the issue. Meetings are not the best 

mechanism for sharing information in my experience. Talking to people is. That is how I get my 

information. If I were to try and get information from just a meeting, I would feel very 

uncomfortable. So this is one avenue where I think we can all work on a little bit more and 

perhaps it will pay off. I think it will. 

As I was talking to Dr. Langdon earlier, one of the big problems on the North Slope is 

time. That currency is a problem in many locations, it not unique here. Time is a very important 

ingredient. That is allow people to get time. First you present the problem for them to think about 

it, consider it, and then formulate opinions or positions on what you presented. Because it cannot 

go at the rate that often we go now. It may seem to us that three months for them to think about 

this would be plenty. But that is probably not adequate, it probably needs to be more time there. 

As I was telling Dr. Langdon, perhaps what we need is about one generation, in terms of time, 

to allow people think about problems. Because we are presenting sophisticated problems to 

people in ways that they have a difficult time relating to. So even though they have had a couple 

of days to think about something, they may not make the best decision. They need more time. 

That is my 'pat answer- time. With more time we will get better resutts. 

Steve J. Langdon: I would like to make a brief comment about that question as well. In 

examining our past policies, it appears that the only currency unfortunately that is present for 

mitigation is financial. That is why Mr. Pedersen and the Subsistence Division have turned to the 

issue of prevention. The reason they have returned to prevention is that these are 

incommensurates. People cannot be financially compensated when valued subsistence elements 

of their life have been destroyed. That is a fundamental finding. It is a very serious thing for 

people to think long and hard about. 

Now having said that with regard to subsistence activities and the importance of 

subsistence resources to the continuity of the culture, I would make the second point which is 

that the entire framework of this decision, in terms of power and in terms of the allocation of 

resources, is so totally skewed as to make it impossible for people to weigh these consequences. 

There is no way that they can perceive, at present, any benefit. There is no calculus that shows 

them how financial resources will flow to the North Slope Borough. There is no guarantee about 

the siting of facilities with regards to the continuity of tax revenues. There are no plans in place 

with regard to employment circumstances. Residents of the North Slope shoulder substantial 

costs associated with these kinds of decisions with no indication of potential benefits. How can 

anybody possibly embrace an activii over which they have such little influence and such an 
94 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

extremely uncertain and incalculable possible benefit? Nobody can make decisions in those kinds 

of contexts without fundamental reallocations of the resource revenues, which we see debated 

heavily in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) where the state is upset that its share is 

likely to be reduced from 90-100 to 50-50. What is demonstrably going to be received by North 

Slope Borough (NSB) and NSB communities by OCS actWis that may take place completely 

outside of their boundaries? That is a very signemcant issue. 

Grant Walther: What is the viability of the State of Alaska being able to monitor the situation? I 

think we find ourselves in a awkward position. I think the Em Valdez spill demonstrated that. 

The State of Alaska, in essence, is an oil company. It receives royalties. It receives funds. It 

receives profit every time a drill goes down and oil comes up. lt is very difficult to monitor your 

neighbor when you are both doing the same thing or when you are the big brother or the little 

brother. 

When you talk about these surveys and the questions that are asked up north, how much 

value does the input from these people really matter? What can they say that woukl make any 

difference, in reality? It seems to me that we have heard a theme today. The gentlemen who were 

up on the panel earlier (the subsistence whalers) said that they have problems when there is 

seismic activity in the Arctic and can't obtain the whales that they do otherwise. The 'studies' 

seem to always say a different story. Is their input of any value? Is their input of any value 

regarding ice scouring, subsea pipelines, possible development? How much value does what the 

lnupiat community really have to say. Does it matter to the oil industry? Or is it just a matter of 

going through the motions because we are going to do it regardless? It doesn't matter if it takes 

us two weeks, two months, six years. We are going to do it and we are going to do it the way we 

have done it in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Saudi, and we are going to do it that way. We 

don't care what else happens. Okay, we will play along with a little bi of it. In the State of Alaska, 

Governor Knowles openly says that we are going to partner with the industry. I thought that was 

very interesting; to come in as a democrat, liberal candidate and the next day he is in office he 

comes forth and says we are going to partner with industry. I thought his position, coming from 

that party, was to be somewhat of a monitoring positii, to tell industry that we need to think 

things over. I am not saying that I am associated with either party or have any particular partisan 

belief. But I do believe that the State needs to crit'kally examine its role in this situation dealing 

with oil development, both onshore and offshore. It is a very difficult position to be in. 

Sverre Pedersen: That is an interesting question. All I can say to you is in the work that we do, 

we employ methods that are recognized by the scientific community. We present this information. 

We just make sure that this information gets considered. There is an entirely different process that 

takes over from there on. We do the best that we can to provide information that should be useful 

in thinking about these problems. 

Grant Walther: Don't you need a baseline study? Your studies are old, if I understood that 

correctly. Are you getting funding for new studies? 

Sverre Pedersen: I haven't seriously sought those funds yet. 

Grant Walther: May I suggest that you seriously seek them? 
Bowhead Whale Session 

THE BOWHEAD WHALE MIGRATION OF FALL 1994 

Stephen Treacy and Warren Horowitz 

Mlnemls Management Sewke 

Alaska OCS Regbn 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 995084212 

INTRODUCTION 

From 1979 to the present, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) has funded annual 

monitoring of endangered whales in arctic waters. Since 1987, MMS uses agency personnel to 

perform field work and reporting activities for the Beaufort Sea on an annual basis. Previous 

survey reports are available for inspection at the MMS library in Anchorage. 

GOALS 

The present goals of the ongoing program are to: 

1. Provide real-time data to MMS and NMFS on the general progress of the fall migration of 

bowhead whales across the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, for use in implementing overall seasonal 

drilling restrictions and limitations in gedogical/geophysicaI exploration. (The study provides 

immediate information to management for day-teday decision making.) 

2. Monitor temporal and spatial trends in the distribution, relative abundance, habit, and 

behaviors (e.g., feeding) of endangered whales in arctic waters; 

3. Provide annual analysis of long-term interyear trends in the median depth of the migration axis 

of bowhead whales. (This addresses the question of whether whales are swimming in deeper 

water from year to year.) 

4. Provide an objective widearea context for management interpretation of the overall fall 

migration of bowhead whales and site-specific study results. (A recent site-specific study at 

Kuvlum showed a high-resolution map of whales in the vicinity of the drillsite. Our report for the 

same year provided a contrasting picture of the entire sweep of the migration as it mores across 

the Beaufort Sea.) 

5. Monitor behaviors, swim directions, dive times, surfacing patterns, and tracklines of selected 

bowhead whales; 

6. Record and map belukha whale distribution and incidental sightings of other marine mammals; 

and 

7. Determine seasonal distribution of endangered whales in other planning areas of interest to 

MMS. 

STUDY AREA 

The annual survey program is based on a design of random-field transects within 

established geographic blocks in and adjacent to the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea sate areas 

offshore of Alaska. The study area includes Beaufort Sea Survey Blocks 1 through 12 (Fgure 1) 

between 140" W and 157" W longitudes, south of 72" N latitude. 
BEAUFORT SEA 

Agure 1. Fall 1994 study area showing survey blocks. 
Treacy and Horowitz - The Bowhead Whale Migration of Fall 1994 97 

Addressing our major goals requires a sample design covering the entire area. We rely 

on other more sitespecific studies for analysis of high-resolution behavioral effects. 

AERIAL SURVEY DESIGN 

Aerial surveys were based out of Deadhorse, Alaska, from 31 August through 18 October 

1994. The field schedule was designed to monitor the progress of the Fall 1994 bowhead whale 

migration across the Alaskan Beaufoit Sea. An bowhead (and belukha) whales observed were 

recorded, along with incidental sightings of other marine mammals. Particular emphasis was 

placed on regional surveys to assess finescale shifts in the migration pathway of bowhead 

whales in this area and on the coordination of effort and management of data necessary to 

support seasonal offshoredrilling regulations. 

RESULTS 

Environmental Conditions 

General ice coverage in the Alaskan Beaufoit Sea was relatively light during the Fall 1994 

surveys. Ice coverage ranged from >0-25% in August to >75% concentrations throughout 

October. By the end of October, the Alaskan Arctic Ocean was essentially covered with very 

heavy ice from Icy Cape to Banks Island, Canada. The open-water conditions during Fall 1994 

generally provided for good observation of subsurface whales, although associated high sea 

states sometimes reduced the ability of observers to spot whales near the surface or at great 

distances from the transect centerline. Cloud ceilings over portions of the study area were often 

lower than the target-survey altiiude of 458 m. Overall, environmental conditions were considered 

favorable most of the time, permitting 33 flights in 48 days. 

Bowhead Whale Observations 

One hundred five sightings were made for a total of 204 bowhead whales observed 

during Fall-1994 surveys in the study area, not counting repeat sightings. Three of these whales 

were identified as calves, resulting in a seasonal catf ratios (number of calves/total whales) of 

0.015. 

The day-teday timing of the bowhead whale migration was calculated over the entire 

study area as a daily sighting rate, or sightings per unit effort (SPUE), and an index of relative 

abundance, or whales per unit effort (WPUE). Of the 105 observed sightings of bowhead whales, 

the first bowhead whales were sighted on 31 August. The data for daily sighting rates showed 

a peak of 7.30 SPUE on 2 September, followed by a second peak of 3.81 SPUE on 9 September. 

Of 204 bowhead whales sighted during Fall 1994,160 (78%) were in shallow water (0-50 

m deep), 42 (20%) were in waters of transitional depth (51-200 m), and 1 (1%) was sighted in 

deeper water (> 200 m). 

Belukha Whale Observations 

Although the study area and survey attiiude were designed to record the fall migration 

of bowhead whales, belukha whales, which undertake a somewhat parallel migration, were always 

counted and were considered suitable for selected analyses. Over the Fall 1994 field season, 92 

sightings were made for a total of 514 belukha whales. Sihtings of belukha whales were 

distributed between 140" W and 156" W longitudes, south of 72" N latitude. 
98 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

ARCIINFO APPLICATIONS 

In recent months, we have incorporated bowhead whale sightings into a single database 

within ARCANFO Geographic Information System (GIs). Most of our bowhead data (1974present) 

include whales that were sighted from research ships and airplanes or sightings made during 

offshore drilling operations. In the ARCANFO database, we are currently developing metadata for 

each selected bowhead whale data set. We recently acquired data on bowhead whales whose 

movements were tracked by satellite. Future data from successful satellitetagged whales should 

prove useful for delineating general migration patterns and for evaluating the behavioral effects 

of industrial activity on bowheads. 

Sea ice is one of the most critiil physiographic elements when observing the movements 

of the bowhead whale in the Beaufort Sea. Sea-ice maps for the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas have 

been digitized for the 1994 fall season and incorporated into ARC/INFO. These coverages provide 

useful overlays for comparing sea ice with bowhead whale sightings. 

Simplified integration of bathymetry and regional ice merage, incorporating bowhead 

whale observations, suggests there may be some general relationships between sea ice, 

bathymetry, and bowhead whale mwements. The data also suggest that there may be other 

physical and biological variaMes that need to be incorporated to better understand the movement 

of the bowhead whale. 

We hope to integrate additional information from earlier years, especially in those years 

where offshore drilling has occurred. This will include data from satellitetagged bowhead whales, 

visual ice observations near drill-site locations, weather information, and other variables. 

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION 

Tom Albert: Do you foresee this program continuing? I know, at least from the North Slope 

Borough perspective, we think this is an important program. Do you foresee this continuing? 

Steve Treacy: I think so. As you know, the Federal government is belt tightening everywhere. But 

I think that this program has a value in that it provides a third perspective. The industry has their 

sitespecific studies and the whalers have their own knowledge of what they see out there each 

year. The perspective of this study is the larger sweep of the fall bowhead migration across the 

Beaufort Sea. I think it is almost necessary to the proper interpretation of results of some of the 

sitespecific studies. BP, which will be talking later today, I think, will come closest to maximizing 

the use of some of our collected data in their study. So it does have value to industry and to the 

whalers, and I think it will probably hang in there. 

Anne Dalley: I think you mentioned that you said you saw 204 different whales. Those were 

different sightings, but how many different individual whales do you think you actually saw? 

Steve Treacy: The 204 represents the total number of whales counted in 1994. And, of course, 

that number varies each year. I was going to give a little update on the 1995 Fall migration, too. 

We just finished our field season and brought people back on the 20th. During the month of 

September, we had good weather and we saw 413 bowhead whales. That's not to assume that 

the population has doubled in one year. It just has to do with sighting conditions. In October, the 
Treacy and Hon,wih - The Bowhead Whale Migration of Fall 1994 99 

sighting conditions were terrible. Wih high winds, we only saw 15 whales there. So there was 

quite a difference between months in 1995. 

Anne Dalley: Are those, perhaps, multiple sightings of the same whale over and over? 

Steve Treacy: We do what we can to avoid that. Certainly within the same day we come close 

to guaranteeing that they're not the same. If we go out the next day, and the only place we can 

work is just to the west of where we were the day before, yes, we could be seeing some of those 

same whales. But where they're swimming relative to known isobaths or the actual water depth 

they're swimming in would still be of interest, even if some of them did happen to be the same 

whales as the day before. It would still show the sweep of the migration as it moves across. so 

it doesn't really mess up our data. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 
TRACKING THE HABITS OF BOWHEAD WHALES WITH 

SATELUTE-MONITORED RADIO TAGS 

Bruce R. Mate and Gregory K. Krutzikowsky 

Hatfield Marine Science Center 

Oregon State Unhretrrlty 

Newport, OR 97385 

Following a tag and attachment development phase, this project resutted in the 

successful tagging and tracking of two species: North Atlantic right whales in 1989, 1990, and 

1991 (Mate et al. 1992, Mate and Nieukirk 1993) and bowhead whales in 1992. This presentation 

covers the monitoring of 12 rad'btagged bowhead whales in the western Arctic. The 

satellitemonitored Argos radio tags were applied between 30 August and 1 September 1992 in 

Mackenzie Bay, M, Canada (Mate and Kmtzikowsky 1995). Locations and sensor data were 

obtained through the Argos Data Cdledion and Location Service (Fancy et al. 1988). The tags 

transmitted according to a preset transmission schedule and only when at the surface. The tags 

summarized data on dive durations, dive depths, and time spent at the surfacelunderwater for 

eight periods each day. 

The stainless steel cylindrical tags (192 mm long x 54 mm diameter) were applied with 

a crossbow at close range from a 13.7 m diesel-powered fiberglass boat. Two tag types were 

used: durationldepth (n = lo), which transmitted each time the whale surfaced and duration-only 

tags (n = 2), which transmitted for a 100 min period every 12 h. Two or more messages were 

necessary in a 10-min orbit to achieve a location, which is calculated from Doppler shift data. 

Location accuracy increased with reception of additional transmissions. We received 

transmissions from all 12 tags but useful locations were obtained from only eight whales. Three 

tags with poor attachment or placement provided the least amount of data. One was heard from 

only five times but provided the longest documented tag attachment (49 days). Utility status 

messages were received from only six tags (depthlduration). Fie of these reported low battery 

voltage toward the end of their operation suggesting that they quit due to battery exhaustion from 

frequent transmissions (every surfacing) in a very cold environment. The number of messages 

sent by each tag varied from 524 to 8164 (T = 3180) at the time of their last status message. 

Most of the locations (80%) were location class zero (with unknown accuracy). We 

eliminated 216 locations (Wk) which resutted in: (1) such long distances whales would have 

traveled at unreasonably high speeds (> 25 km/h) or, (2) locations on land. The remaining 

locations described 11 1 days of tracking and 9633 km of trackline with mean speeds of individual 

animals ranging from an average of 1.0 to 6.2 km/h). 

Whale 10824 provided the most detailed record with 203 locations during 34 days. It 

moved 4053 km through Canadian, U.S., and Russian waters. The whale spent considerable time 

near Herschel Island and Demarcation Bay. Had fewer locations been received, the migration 

route would still be apparent and the tag would have had a longer operational life, perhaps 

revealing more of the animal's wintering habitat. However, some of the detailed movements would 

have been lost and swim speeds would have been underestimated. 

Sensor data from 11 whales were received during 1 - 34 days. The number of summary 

periods of information available for the three data types (duration, depth, time at depth) varied 

between whales. The latter two categories have never before been collected for bowhead whales. 

We received 566 periods of dive duration information, 477 periods of dive depth information, and 
102 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

482 periods of timeat-depth data. For ind'idual animals, the number of summary periods of data 

varied from 1-223. 

Of the 42,332 dive durations recorded for nine animals, most (77.3%) were 51 min 

whereas only 1.4% were >19 min. The longest recorded dive was 62-64 min. Fie other tags 

recorded dives of 161 min in one or more summary periods. The longest die for the other three 

tagged whales returning duration data, were 33-35 min, 44-46 min, and 5557 min. The longest 

dive was <33 min in 506 (89.4%) of the !Xi6 summary periods recorded. The mean surfacing rate 

for individuals ranged from 18.2 to 47.0 surfacingsh. Mean blow rates, calculated from diveslh, 

ranged from 0.3 to 0.8 blows/min and were significantly different among animals. 

Most of the animals' time (61%) was spent in the upper 16 m of the water column and 

-2% was spent deeper than 97 m. Water depths corresponding to satelliteacquired locations 

ranged from 40 m (63.7%) to >500 m (6.4%), with 85% of the depths <I00 m. The maximum 

depth of each of 32,629 dives was measured for seven whales in 466 summary periods. Of these 

dives, 80.6% were <I6 m. Dives deeper than 48 m often occurred in bouts. The deepest diie per 

summary period was reported for 468 summary periods by nine whales. The deepest recorded 

dive was between 440 and 455 m, the second deepest was between 344 and 359 m. Several 

animals spent more than half of some summary periods at depths greater than 49 m. One animal 

averaged 70.6% of its time at depths >97 m during We consecutive summary periods (17 h). 

Another animal spent 62% of one 3-h period deeper than 201 m. 

The mean percentage of time spent under water by the nine animals ranged from 91.6% 

to 96.0% as surfacings were usually <I min. The longest surfacing was between 13.5 and 14.4 

rnin (n = 562 summary periods); however, 99.1% of the surfacings were ~3.5 min. Based on our 

sensor data, the percentage of time animals were 'potentiilly'visible from the air was comparable 

to previous observational studies of bowhead surfacing and dive behavior, but ind'idual ranges 

exceeded llerature values. The sensor information revealed characteristics of diving depths and 

durations that can affect aerial or shipboard surveys, thus influencing population estimates due 

to regionally different behaviors. 

Changes in the die behavior of whale 10824 were observed when, on 20 September, 

between Harrison Bay and Pt. Barrow, it moved to areas where ice covered 90+% of the surface. 

Thereafter, the tag reported significantly fewer but longer dives, the mean percentage of time 

exposed to the air was significantly greater, the longest surfacings during periods were 

significantly longer, and much more time was spent deeper than 48 m. These differences likely 

reflect behaviocal responses to heavy ice conditions. This whale may have made deeper, longer 

dives under the ice and longer surfacings in small open pods, or pdynyas, between the ice. It 

may also reflect some bias in heavy ice situations where the tag may not always clear the water 

surface to acknowledge a surfacing. For example, this tag recorded 25 summary periods where 

the longest dive exceeded 61 min, 23 (92%) of which occurred in 90+% ice cover. AIthough such 

long 'dives' may actually occur in heavy ice, it is possible the animal broke ice to breathe and 

the tag did not come out of the water to register a surfacing. 

None of the dive behavior variables we examined from each of the tags showed 

consistent die1 patterns. It is likely the dive information reflected more about the animal's prey 

preferences and available water depths than a limitation of the animal's diving capability. We have 

no information that would indicate that 500 m is a limitation of the animal's dMng ability. 
Mate - Tracking the Habits of Bowhead Whales with Satellite-monitored Radio Tags 103 

SUMMARY 

This study provided the first data on route and rate of movement for the fall bowhead 

migration from Canada to Russia. These data indicate areas of importance to bowhead whales 

in the Beaufort Sea and suggest that the heavy ice front may be the principle migratory cue for 

navigating across the Chukchi Sea. The changes in dive durations, depths and surface times 

seen in various ice conditions or regions would affect the sighting of whales during surveys and 

thus influence population estimates. Atthough 12 whales of similar size were tagged within one 

week in a 40 km2 area, considerable variability in their subsequent movement, behavior, and 

distribution indicate that the population does not migrate 'en masse.' 

Future studies will benefit from improved attachments, smaller transmitters, and shorter 

repetition rates. While a reduced duty cycle could result in longer duration tracks, it would not 

provide detailed movements around specific sites for the analysis of potential cause and effect 

relationships. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Mate, B.R. and G.K. Krutzikowsky (In prep.). Application of remote methods of large cetacean 

tracking: bowhead whales. Final Report, OCS Study, Minerals Management Service, 

950053, Contract No. 14-12MX)130411,169 pp. 

Mate, B.R. and S.L. Nieukirk, 1993. Satellite-monitored movements and dive behavior of the right 

whale, Eubalaena glacialis, in the western North Atlantic. Final Supplementat Report - 

December 1992, OCS Study, MMS 934049, Contract No. 14- 12-0001-30411,80 pp. 

Mate, B.R., S. Nieukirk, R. Mesecar and T. Martin, 1992. Application of remote sensing methods 

for tracking large cetaceans: North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis). Final 

Report, Minerals Management Service 91-0069, 167 pp. 

Fancy, S.G., L.F. Pank, D.C. Douglas, C.H. Curby, G.W. Gamer, S.C. Amstrup and W.L. Regelin, 

1988. Satellite Telemetry: A new tool for wildlife research and management. U. S. Dept. 

of Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 172. 55 pp. 

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION 

Steve Treacy: You described a lot of information. Could you give us a few main points? 

Bruce-Mate: Sure. First, we tagged 12 animals of similar size in one location in one week. They 

did not all move in the same direction, in similar water depths, or at the same speed. This 

suggests the animals do not move 'en masse' in response to a single 'environmental cue.' 

Seeing individuals back-track after significant westerly movement was contrary to conventional 

wisdom. The importance of Herschel Island and Demarcation Bay was emphasized by the 

amount of time several animals spent there often on multiple occasions. It looks like bowhead 

whales, on average, should be visible from the air about 13% of the time. This takes into account 

some visibility down through the surface and surfacing sequences but there is variation between 

individuals and geographic areas. The tatter may be due to changes in environmental conditions 

or in animal behavior. The animals are only at the surface about 5% of the time. Some animals 
104 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

utilize deep water when it is available, down to at least 400 meters, but 200 meters is more 

common for most of the animals we monitored in deep water. 

The surfacing rates and other individual dive characteristics of the animals have a twefold 

range from the lowest to the highest values in most categories. 

Individual whales can move at a relatively consistent speed, although there is variability 

between animals. 

Even if you look at every third, fifth, or tenth point, this technique provides the trend of 

migratory movements which is encouraging, given that there are some known ambiguities about 

individual locations. 

Lon Hachmelster: What water depths were available when the whales were diving deeper? 

Bruce Mate: That is in our final report. Available water depth is an important part of what the 

animal does. Although you wouldn't expect whales to dive deep in shallow water, apparently we 

had two fauky sensors that occasionally indicated depths greaterthan those shown on our charts. 

In general, the animals appear to explore in some areas to bottom depths of 200 m. 

However, we cannot link specific dives from summary data with the exact time of a calculated 

location, so it's sometimes difficult to interpret. The summary data may be from one to five hours 

different from the location, so we can't be sure exactly where the animal was when the deepest 

or longest dive occurred. 

Lon Hachmelster: Do you know where the whale's prey is in the water column? 

Bruce Mate: lt would be wonderful to do this type of bowhead research in conjunction with a 

prey study where a net or towed array provided prey depths and densities. We did that this year 

in August and September with the National Marine F~heries Service for blue whales in southern 

California. You can see where the prey densitiis are and what they're doing. 

Sverre Pedersen: This question relates to bowhead whales going to the bottom. We have 

indications from the air that the bowhead whales are feeding on the bottom. They're coming up 

with mud. The mud plume is coming off their back and I just didn't know if you had data that was 

accurate (precise enough) to indicate that? 

Bruce Mate: Our depth data were measured to the nearest 4 m and reported to the nearest 16 

meters. It could be adjusted to be more accurate but it would take more bit space in a message 

only 256 bits long. The spec& timing of deep dives could be reported to coincide with locations 

but it would be at the sacrifioe of the sensor data. It is a possible thing to do. We've seen the 

same thing with right whales in the North Atlantic, just before this bowhead study. Animals came 

up with mud on them in 200 m deep water and we knew they had to be going to the bottom. 

It would be nice to have people going to areas of interesting satellite data to confirm what 

is going on when certain dive patterns occur. It does appear that bowheads utilize the bottom 

often. but I can't be quantitative about it. 

Larry Bright: Did you mention the battery life was about 30 days? 
Mate - Tracking the Habits of Bowhead Whales with Satellite-monitored Radio Tags 105 

Bruce Mate: We heard from one animal up to 49 days. We had planned an intermittent 

transmission schedule which would have given a less frequent location spread wer 2530 

months. With continuous transmission, the whale transmitter that went 34 days did better than 

we expected in such cold water. Now I think we could get even longer duration tracks but it 

would be at the sacrifice of many locations/day. 

Lany Bright: Do you know how long your tags stayed on? 

Bruce Mate: One stayed on at least 49 days. Fie probably used up their batteries so we don't 

know how long they stayed attached. A couple of tags stopped before the battery was used up 

so they were probably attachment failures. We've seen attachment failures on other species we've 

tagged also but we are working on new attachments which we hope will extend the tags useful 

life on the whale. 

The big problem is hydrodynamic drag. The tags are reasonably large. You might think 

that whales are so large, size shouldn't be a problem, but stick your hand out of a window while 

going 60 miles per hour and feel the drag! What you feel is trivial compared to a whale moving 

at live miles per hour through a dense medium like water. Water is constantly tugging and the 

small attachments are limited to shallow penetration of the blubber. There isn't a whole lot to hold 

the tag on. 

Thomas Napageak: I have a question about tagging procedures. Where are you planting these 

radio tags? 

Bruce Mate: We're trying to get it up very close to the midline of the back without being right 

on the center, because of the vertebral elements, and we're back from the blowhole. When you 

see the animal surface, you see the blowhole and then there's a depression frequently filled by 

water and then the broad portion of the back. About in the middle of that broad portion of the 

back so that, hopefully, when the animal surfaces to breathe, we'll get a message. 

Thomas Napageak: I can just feel that bowhead whale trying to come up, trying to break the 

ice, with a tag on it, like a sliver. That's harassing. 

Bruce Mate: Your point is well taken. And it's one that we had a concern over as well. There 

aren't any of us in our group who tag animals who wish to really harass them or acquire 

information from an animal that is compromised, or to do any serious damage to an animal. We 

talked with a number of people and it was the feeling that the animal uses principally its blowhole 

to come up through the ice, and that this area of the back had the least amount of scarring. We 

actually checked with folks at Barrow about the scarring, and there's been some data actually 

produced on scarring. So we picked an area of the animal that did not have a lot of scarring and 

which we thought would not come into contact with ice, because, of course, we also wanted the 

tag preserved. 

When we've seen tags come off, by the way, to set your mind a little at rest. We've seen 

a female with a calf that went 42 days and 2,500 miles in the North Atlantic that lost its tag and 

16 days later just a small white mark about the size of a pencil was where the attachments were. 

It didn't look too bad. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 
ACOUSTIC EFFECTS ON BOWHEAD WHALES: OVERVIEW 

W. John Rkhardson 

LGL Ud., environmental research associates 

22 Flshet St., POB 280 

King City, Ontario L7B 1A6 CANADA 

Reactions of bowheads to underwater noise from the offshore oil industry have been 

studied by ourselves and others over the past 15 years, with funding from the Minerals 

Management Service and oil industry. Reactions of bowheads to aircraft overflights, ships, icebreaking, seismic exploration, dredging, and various types of drilling have been examined. This 

presentation summarized some of the available data for (a) ships and boats, (b) drilling, dredging 

and other sources of continuous low-frequency sounds, and (c) seismic exploration. Richardson 

and Malme (1993) provide a detailed review of the responses of bowheads to noise. For a 

broader and updated review, considering disturbance responses of all species of marine 

mammals, see Richardson et al. (1995). 

Man-made noises are known or suspected to have at least three types of effects on 

bowheads and other marine mammals under some circumstances. (1) Disturpance effects, 

including subtle changes in behavior, interruption of previous activities, and short- or long-term 

displacement. (2) Masklng of important sounds, including calls from conspeciiics, reverberations 

of the animal's own calls, predator sounds, and other significant environmental sounds, e.g., ice 

noise or surf noise. (3) Hearing Impalnnent, temporary or permanent, if the received level of the 

sound is high enough. 

In following sections, we consider only the disturbance effects of man-made sounds on 

bowheads, although masking undoubtedly occurs to some unknown degree. Hearing impairment 

(and other injuries) can occur when marine mammals are exposed to nearby explosions. 

However, it is not known whether the strongest non-explosive man-made sounds, e.g., seismic 

pulses, can impair the hearing of nearby whales. If so, these effects are expected to be restricted 

to very short ranges--less than those at which avoidance normally occurs (Richardson et al. 

19951372-6). 

Bowheads exhibit a wide range of reactions to man-made noises, in part depending on 

the type and level of the noise. These reactions range from: 

tolerance (no overt behavioral response) to 

subtle behavioral changes (e.g., minor changes in surfacing-respiration-dive cycles), 

more conspicuous changes in general actkrities, 

short-term avoidance (swim away, or change course to divert farther to the side), and 

possibly 

longer-term displacement (suspected but not proven in bowheads). 

SHIPS AND BOATS 

In general, bowheads react strongly and rather consistently to approaching vessels of a 

wide variety of types and shes. Bowheads interrupt their normal behavior and swim rapidly away. 

This reaction often begins when the approaching vessel is still as much as 4 km away, when the 

received level of vessel noise may be rather low-only a few decibels above the natural ambient 

noise level. Surfacing, respiration, and diving cycles are affected; fleeing bowheads have short 

surfacings with few breaths per surfacing, and often have short dives. Bowheads in the path of 

an oncoming vessel often attempt to 'outrun' it, rather than swimming away from the path of the 
108 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

vessel. Because bowheads are rdatively slow swimmers, even a rather slow vessel can overtake 

a fleeing bowhead, whereupon the whale usually dives or turns away to the side as the vessel 

comes within a few hundred meters. The 'flighr response can cause bowheads to travd several 

kilometers from their original location. fleeing subsides by the time the vessel has moved a few 

kilometers beyond the whale. After single disturbance incidents involving feeding bowheads, 

some individuals return to their original locations. 

Vessels moving slowly and in directions not toward the whales usually do not elicit such 

strong reactions. This can be so even when the level of vessel noise received by the whalek is 

higher than that eliciting flight reactions during rapid vessel approaches. The rate of change of 

vessel noise seems more critical than the absolute levd in determining the severity of flight 

reactions. Bowheads actively engaged in mating or other social interactions seem relatively 

unresponsive to boats. 

Reactions of bowheads to icebreakers breaking ic+a very noisy activity--are discussed 

later in these Proceedings. Playback tests suggest that reaction radii around an actual icebreaker 

would be highly variable, but often up to 1@50 km. 

DRILLING, DREDGING AND OTHER SOURCES OF 

CONTINUOUS LOW-FREQUENCY SOUNDS 

Reactions of bowheads to several types of dredging and drilling operations, and to 

underwater playbacks of recorded dredging and drilling sounds, have been studied. These types 

of sounds are all concentrated at rather low frequencies, and most of these sources are stationary 

or slow-moving. In general, when the received level is low, e.g., 10 dB or less above ambient, 

bowheads often tolerate the sound and continue with seemingly-normal actkriies. In contrast, 

when the received levd is 20 dB or more above the natural ambient noise level at corresponding 

frequencies, feeding bowheads often move away; traveling bowheads approaching the noise 

source often adjust their courses so as to pass farther to the side than would have occurred 

without a course change. Both feeding and traveling bowheads exposed to these types of rather 

steady, lowfrequency noises tend to have short surfacings with few breaths. Traveling bowheads 

sometimes slow down when approaching one of these noise sources, and speed up when 

moving away. 

Noise from conventional drillships and their associated support vessels tends to be 

stronger than that from semi-submersibles, and both are noisier than various platform- and islandbased drilling operations. Given the rather high levels of noise emitted by conventional drillships 

and their support vessels (especially icebreakers), there is evidence that some traveling 

bowheads 10 to 20+ km from the drillsite may divert farther to the side. 

Long-term consequences of these short-term reactions are poorly known. After several 

years of intensive offshore oil exploration in the Canadian Beaufort Sea, utilization of that area by 

summering bowheads seemed to decrease. It is not known whether this was a cumulative, longterm effect of industrial activities, or was caused by naturally variable food distribution or other 

factors. 
Richardson - Acoustic Effects on Bowhead Whale.: Overview 

SEISMIC WLORATION 

Pulses of noise from airgun arrays and other similar sources have high peak levels, often 

exceeding 160 dB re 1 pPa at distances up to 510 km from the seismic vessel. Seismic pulses 

are often detectable underwater 50-100 km away, even in shallow continental shelf waters. Most 

bowheads show strong avoidance when an operating seismic vessel is within 6-8 km, and there 

probably are some avoidance effects at greater distances. Surfacing-dive cycles tend to be 

unusually quick in the presence of seismic noise, with fewer breaths per surfacing and longer 

intervals between breaths. In summer, this pattern was evident among bowheads 6 to 73+ km 

from seismic vessels as well as during controlled tests at closer ranges. However, available 

scientific evidence suggests that active avoidance is uncommon unless the seismic ship is within 

6-8 km and unless the received level of seismic pulses exceeds about 160 dB re 1 pPa. 

The 'avoidance threshold' to seismic pulses is much higher (" 160 dB) than the reaction 

thresholds for boat, dredging, or drilling sounds. The difference is probably related to the fact that 

seismic sounds are brief pulses whereas boat, dredging, and drilling sounds are continuous. 

On a broad-scale basis, the Bering-ChukchkBeauf population of bowheads continues 

to occupy summering areas where bowheads have been exposed to seismic pulses during 

previous days, weeks and years. Whether some individuals are less likely to use areas where they 

have been exposed to seismic noise in the past is not known. Bowheads also continue to migrate 

through areas where the population has been exposed to seismic noise during previous years. 

However, lnupiat whalers report that bowheads are more difficult to locate during autumn - 

migration when seismic vessels are active. This has not yet been confirmed by scientific studies, 

but existing analyses have limited statistical power for analysis of this question (Moore and Clarke 

1 992). 

CONCLUSIONS 

Noise from oil industry operations can elicit short-term behavioral reactions, often 

including sudden dives and other changes in surfacing-respiration-dive sequences. When strongly 

disturbed, pre-existing activities of bowheads are often interrupted and they may swim away. In 

general, bowheads--like other baleen whales--commonly tolerate exposure to man-made noises 

that are weak, e.g., no more than 10 or 20 decibels above the natural background sound. 

especially if the noise is steady. Bowheads tend to be more sensitiie to the increasing noise of 

an approaching boat. They tolerate higher levels of pulsed seismic sounds than of steady drilling 

or dredging sounds, but often show strong avoidance when a seismic vessel approaches within 

6-8 km. Sensitivity seems to vary greatly among whales, and responses are often graded: Weak 

sounds may elicit subtle behavioral reactions, stronger sounds of that type ekii more obvious 

behavioral changes, and still stronger sounds elicit actiie avoidance. Short-term behavioral 

reactions typically persist for periods of a few minutes to a few hours. Little is known about the 

long-term consequences of these short-term behavioral reactions. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

LITERATURE CITED 

Moore, S.E. and J.T. Clarke. 1992. Patterns of bowhead whale distribution and abundance near 

Barrow, Alaska, in fall 1982-1989. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 8(1):27-36. 

Richardson, W.J. and C.I. Malme. 1993. Man-made noise and behavioral responses. Pages 631- 

700 in: J.J. Bums, J.J. Montague and C.J. Covdes (eds.), The bowhead whale. Spec. 

Publ. 2. Soc. Mar. Mamm., Lawrence, KS. 787 p. 

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene Jr., C.I. Malme, D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine mammals and noise. 

Academic Press, San Diego, CA 576 p. 
INDUSTRIAL SOURCES OF UNDERWATER NOISE 

Charles R. Greene, Jr. 

Greenerldge Sciences, Inc. 

4512 Via Huerto 

Santa Barbara, CA 931 10-2324 

SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION 

The material for this presentation was taken primarily from Marine Mammals and Noise, 

by W. John Richardson, Charles R. Greene, Jr., Charles A. Malme and Denis H. Thornson, 

published by Academic Press, 1995, 592 p. Particularly applicable are Chapter 2, 'Acoustic 

Concepts and Terminology,' and Chapter 6, 'Man-Made Noise.' 

Sound is generally measured as a pressure variation p, although sound is also 

manifested as particle motion. The rate of variation is related to the sound frequency, in hertz 

(cycles per second). The sound presaure level (SPL) in decibels is defined as 20 log (plpd, 

where p, is a reference pressure. In underwater acoustics, the reference pressure is one micropascal (1 pPa). It is important to state the reference pressure in presenting sound pressure levels, 

e.g.. 99 dB re 1 pPa. The logarithmic nature of decibels leads to many misunderstandings, most 

of wtr'ih can be avoided by stating the reference units. 

Most naturally-occurring swnds are not tonal (very narrowband). Rather, sound power 

is distributed across wide bands of frequencies. When such swnds are analyzed to determine 

their distribution with frequency, usually by a fast Fourier transform (FFT), the resutts are 

described by sound pressure spectral denslty levels, in dB re (1 pPa)'/Hz. 

Sound sources are described by their source level, the SPL that would be measured 

from an equivalent point source of sound at a distance of 1 m. For example, a sound projector 

source level might be said to be 172 dB re 1 pPa-m. A large sound source like a ship must be 

measured sufficiently far away that it appears to be a point source; its source level then applies 

only to far-field observations. Sound sources are often directional, and their source levels then 

vary with direction. 

INDUSTRIAL SOUNDS 

Industrial sounds can be distinguished by their time characteristics: they are generally 

either transients (short-lived, like explosions, hammerblows, airgun bursts and sonar pings) or 

continuous (long-lasting, like machinery sounds, propulsion sounds from ships and boats 

underway, dredges, and offshore drilling sounds). 

Contlnuous Sound Sources 

As a general rule, the character of sounds from vessels underway is related to vessel size. 

Large vessels tend to have big, powerful engines, and propellers turning slowly, producing high 

levels of sound predominantly at low frequencies. Thus, large tankers and container ships may 

have source levels > 185 dB re 1 pPa-m (frequencies 45-7070 Hz) and dominant sound power 

at frequencies below 100 Hz. An outboard-powered Zodiac, on the other hand, is reported to 
112 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

have a 457070 Hz broadband source level on the order of 156 dB re 1 pPa-m and dominant 

sound power in the 6300 Hz 113 octave band. Other vessels generally fall in between. 

Drillships have been reported to have 457070 Hz wideband source levels of 174-1 85 dB 

re 1 pPa-m and dominant sound power in the 63-400 Hz 113 octave bands. Their sound comes 

primarily from power sources like diesel-electric generators. Their hulls, which both contain the 

generators and are in good contact with the water, radiate sound better than do the legs of 

semisubmersibles or drilling platforms supporting the operating machinery. 

Dredges have been reported to have source levels of 172-185 dB re 1 pPa-m in the 45 

890 Hz band. Their dominant sound power is in the 100-1M Hz 1/3 octave band. 

Icebreakers actively breaking ice follow a pattern of full power forward to ram the ice, then 

being stopped by the ice, then backing down to gain space, then powering forward again. Strong 

cavitation sounds occur when the ship is stopped by the ice after ramming and when the ship 

reverses direction from astem to forward. Broadband source levels during icebreaking have been 

reported from 177-193 dB re 1 pPa-m. 

Aircraft create sound continuously but it couples into the water generally only within a 

cone 26" wide (Snell's Law) beneath the aircraft. Thus, the sound from a passing aircraft has both 

transient and continuous qualities. Rough water will increase the cone size, and in shallow water 

sound is reflected outward between the bottom and the surface, extending the zone of sound 

beyond the extent of the cone. Depending on aircraft speed, its sound underwater may be 

audible for up to a minute. A Bell 212 helicopter has been reported to have a source level at 22 

Hz (second harmonic of the main rotor blade rate) near 150 dB re 1 pPa-m, similar to the 

reported source level of a de Havilland Twin Otter at 82 Hz (propeller blade rate). A 4-engine 

turboprop P3 Orion has been reported to have a source level of 162 dB re 1 pPa-m in the 56-80 

Hz band. 

Translent Sound Sources 

The strongest transient sound source is an explosion. An 0.5 kg TNT charge has an 

effective broadband peak source level of 267 dB re 1 pPa-m. Peak pressure is proportional to 

only the cube root of the charge weight, however. Received level computations of peak pressures 

from explosions require considerations of shock wave propagation for distances over which the 

wave is not acoustic. Black powder, which 'bums' (deflagration) at much slower rates (0.03-0.3 

mls) than does dynamite or TNT (4.6-9.1 kmls), has a much lower effective peak source level; 

0.5 kg yields a broadband source level of 246 dB re 1 pPa-m. 

Geophysical surveys ('seismic surveys') in all but the shallowest water use awys of 

airguns for impulsive sound sources. An array may have from 3 to more than 40 airguns of 

different volumes. An airgun is charged with high pressure air (often 2,000 psi), which is released 

suddenly into the water to create a rapidly-expanding air bubble, which creates a shock wave 

whose amplitude depends on the air pressure and on the airgun volume. The risetime of the 

wave is slow compared to that from high explosives, and marine life is not damaged to the extent 

it can be, depending on distance, by high explosives. Controlled timing of the air release of the 

airguns in a horizontal array results in a wave focused toward the crustal layers beneath the array. 

The airgun array depth, often 6 m, results in the surfacereflected waves providing a strong 

negative pressure pulse just following the direct, positive pulse. The sound levels for horizontal 

propagation are reduced compared to the levels of the downward wave and are aspect 

dependent because of the phasing of the waves from the individual guns. Generally, levels to 
Greene - Industrial Sources of Undemater Noise 113 

broadside are somewhat higher than levels toward either end of the array. A 4.9 L airgun may 

have a peak source level of 225 dB re 1 pPa-m; a 66 L array may have a source level of 255 dB 

re 1 pPa-m. The pulse energy is predominately at frequencies less than 120 Hz. 

Other sources used for geophysical surveys include boomers, sparkers, water guns, 

sleeve exploders, gas guns, and Vibroseis. Vibroseis is used on land or sea ice. It consists of a 

truck-mounted vibrator whose frequency is swept from about 10-70 Hz within a few seconds. 

Source levels of 210 dB re 1 pPa-m are reported. 

Active sonars, used for depth sounding, fish finding, submarine hunting, bottom mapping, 

and navigation can have operating frequencies from 2-500 kHz and source levels of 180-230+ 

dB re 1 pPa-m. 

Oceanography studies often use sound sources to measure ocean features and 

processes. A sound transmission experiment related to average ocean temperature change 

measurement was conducted off Heard Island in the Indian Ocean in 1989. The sound source 

level was about 220 dB re 1 pPa-m at varying frequencies near 57 Hz. The source depth was 175 

m and the sounds were received at listening stations 18 Mm distant. A subsequent experiment, 

called Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) is planned for the eastern Pacific. Its 

sources will be at depths of 850-980 m, frequencies 75 2 15 Hz, and source level 195 dB re 1 

pPa-m. The duration of transmission was originally planned to be 20 minutes every 4 hours, with 

Sminute rampup periods so that the full power will not be achieved instantly. 

Comparlson of Industrial Sound Sources Underwater 

The potential reactions of marine mammals to man-made sounds will depend in part on 

whether the sounds are continuous or transient. Comparisons of the two general categories of 

sounds may be made on the basis of long-term average powers or intensities, but the peak levels 

of short sound bursts may also be important. Until more is known about animal responses to 

continuous and transient sounds, it seems best to describe them separately. 

Explosions produce by far the highest peak pressures among the transient sound 

sources, 267 dB re 1 pPa-m for even a small 0.5 kg charge of TNT. Powerful search sonars and 

high-energy nonexplosive sources used in seismic surveys also generate high peak pressures. 

However, their short duration and long intervals between bursts reduce average sound levels. 

The strongest of the continuous sound sources, such as supertankers, container ships and 

icebreakers, generate high levels of sound near the surface (on the order of 195 dB re 1 pPa-m) 

for long periods. The ATOC source produces the same source level, although it does not operate 

continuously and it is about 900 m deep. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 
ACOUSTIC EffECTS ON BOWHEADS DURING SPRING MIGRATION 

W. John Richardson 

LGL Ud., environmental research associates 

22 Fisher St., POB 280 

King City, Ontario L7B 1A6 CANADA 

Previous studies of noise disturbance to bowheads have been in summer or autumn, 

mainly in open water. The study summarized here was the first to examine reactions of springmigrating bowheads and belukhas to noise from oil industry activities in the Beaufort Sea. This 

work was done during four spring seasons, 1989 through 1991 plus 1994, and the final report is 

available (Richardson et al. 1995). 

This study was conducted, in part, because of concern that oil development and 

production activities in or near spring lead systems might cause blockage of migration. The 

National Marine Fsheries Service concluded, during consultations under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act, that 

'development and production activities in the spring lead systems used by bowhead 

whales for their migration would be likely to jeopardize the population ... NOAA Fisheries 

will reconsider this conclusion when new information become[s] available.' 

This study was funded by the Minerals Management Service to obtain some of the needed 

information. 

The objectives were to: 

1. determine ambient noise levels and sound propagation loss rates in spring lead 

conditions as needed to predict noise exposure vs. distance from the noise source; 

2. determine the effects of underwater noise from oil production platforms and 

icebreakers on distribution and movement patterns and behavior of bowhead and 

belukha whales migrating through leads in spring; 

3. avoid interfering with other studies and with the spring bowhead hunt. 

Objective 1 was addressed by subcontractor Greeneridge Sciences. Reactions of 

bowheads to steady low-frequency drilling noise we summarized at previous Information 

Transfer Meetings and in Richardson et al. (1991). This presentation briefty mentions the work 

with drilling noise, but concentrates on more recent mwk concerning reactions to icebreaker 

sound. In comparison with the drilling sound, icebreaker sound has broader bandwidth and is 

more variable over time. 

METHODS 

Most of the work was done in the area 2575 km northeast and east of Barrow. During 

consultations with the Barrow Whaling Captains' Association, Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission 

and the North Slope Borough Dept. of Wildlife Management, it was agreed that this area was far 

enough east of the whaling activities near Barrow to avoid any potential interference. 

Recordings of drilling or icebreaker sound were projected into the water using one or 

more undenvater loudspeakers suspended from the edge of the pack ice or, occasionally, the 
116 1995 - MMS Afctic Synthesis Meeting 

land-fast ice. Mwements and behavior of whales approaching and passing the projector site were 

observed by biologists and acousticians on the ice, and by another crew in a Twin Otter aircraft 

circling at altitude 460 m. 

DRILLING NOISE PLAYBACKS 

In 1989 and 1990, the sounds projected into the water were steady, low-frequency drilling 

sounds recorded under the ice near the Karluk drillsite. During playbacks with a small sound 

projector, we could not reproduce the lowest frequency components of the Karluk drilling sounds, 

below about 80 Hz. However, at distances beyond a few hundred meters from the source, the 

overall broadband levels during playbacks were at least as strong, and generally stronger, than 

the levels from the actual Karluk drillsite. The playback levels diminished with increasing distance 

from the source, but were abwe the typical ambient noise levels out to a distance of 5 km or so. 

Bowheads approaching the playback site commonly came well inside that 5 km radius, 

often approaching within a few hundred meters. When they came within 1 km, there were 

statistically significant changes in several measures of behavior. These included changes in 

surfacing and respiration sequences, changes in swimming speeds, increased turning, and 

diversion away from the playback source. 

At times, subtle behavioral effects extended out to 2 km from the playback site, and 

possibly to 4 km, even though some individual whales approached well inside those distances. 

During the date when this was most evident, the received level of the drilling sound was about 

12 dB above the background ambient ndse at 4 km range, where we suspected that the first 

subtle effects were occurring. However, in the absence of an alternative migration corridor, at 

least some bowheads came as close as 200 m, where the received sound level was about 40 dB 

above ambient. Details are given in Richardson et al. (1991). 

ICEBREAKER NOISE PLAYBACKS 

In 1991 and 1994, we tested the reactions of bowheads to noise from an icebreaking 

supply ship, the Robert Lemeur, recorded while it was managing ice. The icebreaker noise 

extended up to higher frequencies, well above 1 kHz, than did the drilling noise used in the earlier 

playbacks. Icebreaker noise also was much more variable wer time. 

The projectors could not eml sounds with a source level as high as those of the actual 

icebreaker. Therefore, a given received level of icebreaker sound would be found farther away 

from the actual icebreaker than from our projectors. The projectors used in 1991 and 1994 did 

not adequately reproduce the components below about 40 Hz. 

Bowheads often came within a few hundred meters of the projectors during playbacks. 

However, the proportion of bowheads that came within 400 or 500 m during playbacks was 

reduced relative to control conditions. 

Most bowheads that approached within 3 km came close enough to the playback site for 

received sound levels to exceed natural background levels at corresponding frequencies. 

Therefore, the icebreaker sounds were probably audible to most of these whales. Among 

bowheads that came within 3 km of the projector site, we noticed diversion by 18 of 80 whales 

or groups during icebreaker playbacks, but only 1 of 116 cases under control conditions--a 

highly significant difference. Some bowheads showed apparent diversion at low icebreaker-toambient ratios, c10 dB, whereas others showed no obvious diversion at much higher icebreaker- 
Richardson - Acoustic Effects on Bowheads during Spring Migration 117 

tu-ambient ratios, >30 dB. This observation is consistent with other evidence that there is no 

single lwel of man-made sound above which all bowheads react and below which none do. 

Instead, the proportion reacting tends to increase with increasing sound level and increasing 

signal-tu-ambient ratio. 

We looked at several measures of behavior vs. distance, received sound level, and 

icebreaker-tu-ambient ratio. Several measures were significantly different when the received level 

of icebreaker sound was 20 dB or more above the natural ambient level, and in two cases there 

was evidence of an effect at icebreaker : ambient ratios as low as 10-20 dB. Statistical power 

analysis confirmed that behavioral effects could have extended to icebreaker : ambient ratios <20 

dB, and thus to greater distances from the projectors, without being statistically detectable. This 

difficulty in identifying the minimum sound level causing reactions, and thus in determining the 

maximum radius of influence, is a consequence of low sample sizes, high natural variability, and 

the graded nature of the behavioral responses. 

Overall, playbacks indicate that reactions are common when icebreaker noise is 20 dB 

or more above ambient, and some effects may occur at levels down to 10 dB above ambient. The 

source level of an actual icebreaker is much higher than that of the projectors used in this study. 

If bowheads react to an actual icebreaker like Robert Lemeur at sound levels similar to those 

found during our playbacks, they might commonly react at distances up to 10-50 km (5.4-27 

n.mi.) from the actual icebreaker. These predictions make many assumptions, and there are many 

uncertainties. Some arguments suggest that reaction distances may be overestimated by these 

procedures; other arguments suggest that reaction distances may be underestimated (see 

Richardson et al. 1995:305316). 

In any case, detection and reaction distances would vary widely from day to day and 

place to place, depending on sound propagation conditions, ambient noise level, and the reaction 

threshold of a particular whale. Some bowheads might not react to the Robert Lemeur engaged 

in icebreaking unless it were within 2 km-considering the case of a whale with a 30 dB reaction 

criterion, shallow water, poor propagation, and high ambient noise. Other bowheads might react 

at distances as great as 95 km, considering a whale with a 10 dB reaction criterion, deep water, 

good propagation, and low ambient noise. If one considered a different icebreaker, a somewhat 

different set of predictions would result, as the underwater sounds from different icebreakers are 

not identical. 

Thus, one of the important results of this study is that there is no single reaction threshold 

and no single reaction radius. Instead, the probability of reaction and the strength of reaction tend 

to increase gradually with decreasing distance, increasing received sound level, and increasing 

signal-to-ambient ratio. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Based on the playbacks, we concluded that spring migrating bowheads show both behavioral reactions and course diversions in response to icebreaker noise. Because of the high source 

levels of icebreaker noise, these effects could extend to distances considerably greater than those 

observed directly during the playbacks. If effects are common out to radii of 10-50 km, as playbacks suggest, a single icebreaker could affect a large area. We found that bowhead mothers 

with accompanying newborn calves are less likely than other bowheads to travel through heavy 

ice. Of all bowheads, it is probably the mothers and newborns whose migrations are most likely 

to be interrupted if there is icebreaking in or near the migration corridor. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

This study dealt with spring migration, but effects of oil development near the autumn 

migration corridor are of more immediate concern m this meeting. Effects of icebreaking in 

autumn have received little study. We expect that bowheads would react to icebreaking in autumn 

as well as in spring, with the possibility of quite large diversion radii at some times. However, the 

potential for migration blockage is probably lower in autumn because heavy ice cover is less 

common then than in spring. Also, bowhead calves are dder in autumn, and have better 

swimming and diving capabilities than in spring. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene Jr., W.R. Koski and MA. Smultea. 1991. Acoustic effects of oil 

production activities on bowhead and white whales visible during spring migration near 

Pt. Barrow, Alaska-1990 phase ... drilling noise. OCS Study MMS 91-0037; LGL Rep. 

TA848-5. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., for U.S. Minerals Manage. Sew., Herndon, 

VA. 31 1 p. NTlS PB92-170430. 

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene Jr., J.S. Hanna, W.R. Koski, G.W. Miller, N.J. Patenaude and M.A. 

Smultea. 1995. Acoustic effects of oil production activities on bowhead and white whales 

visible during spring migration near Pt. Barrow, Alaska-1991 and 1994 phases ... icebreaker noise. OCS Study MMS 95-0051; LGL Rep. TA954. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King 

City, Ont., for U.S. Minerals Manage. Sew., Herndon, VA. 539 p. 
. . 

LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE 

Ron Mom& 

National Merlne Fbheries Sewke 

222 W. 7th Avenue, Box 43 

Anchorage, AK 9951 3 

Draft Letter of Authorization (LOA) regulations allowing the incidental but not intentional 

take of marine mammals north of the Arctic Circle are presently being evaluated. National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) anticipates the regulations will be in place by January 1996. Currently 

there are no existing Letter of Authorization regulations in place for oil and gas operations in 

Northern Alaska since the original Fve Year Authorizations expired on August 28, 1995. 

No major changes are anticipated in the new Fve Year Authorization except for a 

provision requiring peer review of proposed monitoring plans. All Letters of Authorization will be 

processed in Washington, D.C. with input from the field. The term %ke9 means to harass, hunt, 

capture, or kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. The term 

'harassmenr is defined in the amended 1994 Marine Mammal Act, %ke9 as any pursul, torment, 

or annoyance which could (1) injure a marine mammal, or (2) disrupt the behavioral patterns 

(e.g., migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering) of marine mammals. 

The genesis for authorization 70 take9 by the oil and gas industry started after the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was passed in 1972. During the late 1970s, the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game became concerned about ringed seal pupping being affected by 

seismic on ice activities in the nearshore Beaufort Sea. Seismic operations would generally begin 

shortly before female ringed seals would start to den in ice ridges. Seal bidogists believed that 

the tracked vehicles and associated human activity would cause the seals to abandon their pups. 

Because there were no provisions to incidentally %ke,' the seismic operators agreed to stop 

seismic on ice activities on March 30th. This date coincided with the start of the denning season. 

This date greatly reduced the window of availability for seismic operators to gather data safely. 

In 1980 the MMPA was amended to allow a small take exemption for various activities including 

on ice seismic activities. The NMFS regulations required the operators under a federal or state 

seismic permit to submit a report to NMFS on sighting of any ringed seals. As long as NMFS 

ascertained that the level of take was not adversely affecting the Beaufort Sea ringed seal 

population the take permits could be issued for a five year period. 

The take provision was eventually expanded to endangered species (the LOA) thereby 

allowing the incidental take of bowhead whales in 1990 for a period of five years. The 

authorization for this take required a far greater monitoring and reporting effort than the original 

ringed seal regulations. Additionally,the authorized operator had to prepare a plan of cooperation 

with each village that hunted bowheads that were affected by the oil and gas exploration activity. 

Extensive monitoring and subsequent data collection was obtained for several offshore 

drilling projects. Under the original Letter of Authorization, NMFS ascertained that bowhead 

whales were avoiding the drilling rigs. No in-water seismic activities were attempted under a Letter 

of Authorization and therefore no monitoting data was collected for this type of activity. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION 

John Rkhardson: Could you clarify if the fiveyear provision still exists? Is it just that the new 

regulations for the oneyear process have not yet been finalized? 

Ron Morrls: That's correct, John. There will be another fiveyear permitting period with a oneyear 

at-a-time permit to be issued to the industry that applies for it. We're starting all over with a new 

fiveyear period. Over that five years, we'll make a determination whether animals will be affected. 

If they're not, then we'll allow oneyear permits through that fiveyear period. 

John Rkhardson: I guess what I was getting at is whether the original process for getting five 

year regulations and Letters of Authorization under that process still exists but, in addition, there 

is a new process ... 

Ron Morris: No, no. That one is gone. We're starting brand new right now. 

John Rlchardson: And is it not correct that a oneyear LOA has been issued already under the 

new provisions to a seismic company off California? 

Ron Morris: Yes, but above the Arctic, none will be issued. Now, I've mixed metaphors here to 

a degree in providing some background there. Seismic operations on the ice are allowed 

because that's a different LOA. 

We call them Letters of Authorization because we actually send you a letter saying you 

are authorized. Conversely, we don't have an application. For example, I'll get a call from a fellow 

in Houston and he'll say, 'Send me an application for a Letter of Authorization.' And I say, Well, 

we don't have an application.' I'll tell him that you have to send us a letter. Keep in mind, there 

are no applications. It's not like getting a hunting license. You actually write us a letter and then 

we write you a letter back. 

Bruce Mate: For those of us who didn't see the new regulations that were proposed and 

recognizing that alter the comment period, it may change, can you give us the benefit of what 

the thrust of the changes were? You indicated that there was some, perhaps, disappointment on 

the industry side of not ever showing takes or that you sort of alluded to the fact there may have 

been some programs that didn't really produce information in that direction as well. 

Can you give us an idea of what the new ones were proposed? 

Ron Morrls: Well, I think it will come out about the same way as in the past. I think the industry 

will be in a better position based on the analysis and the better reports that are being produced 

to insist when industry doesn't say there is a takeI'm not going to get into companies. But my point is that the last report we received 

showed an avoidance by bowheads to an oil rig drilling. And the industry did the study. They paid 

for it. A nice bg report. But the bottom line was there was no take. Their analysis of the data 

showed no take. 

We analyzed the data and did a full-blown scientific analysis that said there was a take. 
Morris - Letter of Authorization for Incidental Take 121 

I don't know how we're ever resolve that, Bruce. I mean, it's just the basis of the industry. 

I've done W with them for a long time. Their lawyers choke when you say 'take.' I mean, they 

just gag, their throats stick. They get tight and they just won't say 'take.' 

Bruce Mate: If I could just follow up on this for a moment. The Act does allow them to make a 

take? 

Ron Mods: That's my point. 

Bruce Mate: The Letter of Authorization is for that, so there's no reason to avoid mentioning ... 

Ron Morrls: They mention take. They can take. 

Bruce Mate: They're authorized to take. It's just that it has to be low numbers and negligible 

impact, right? 

Ron Morris: And they can admit they have taken, because that's what they have a permit to do. 

But in their eyes, there's never been a take. 

Years ago, when I started with Fish and Wildlife, we were the experts and what we said 

went. Now, all these companies hire experts and everybody fights about what the truth is. It used 

to be the government agencies were the experts. And now, everybody's got an expert that has 

an opinion. 

Frank Long: Are you saying that the incidental take provision will be in-place in all of the 

applications for the industry? 

Ron Morrls: We hope to have the regulations in place sometime in January that will apply to all 

the Arctic areas in which the AEWC hunts. It's my understanding that the companies which want 

to do work in your area are anxious to come up and meet with you and want me to come with 

them to talk to you. But yes, by the next open water season, there should be regulations in place. 

A company could apply and they would have to come to you and tell you what they want to do. 

I would be with them. We'd try to work out a monitoring plan, etc. If there are regulations. 

And Nuiqsut would be totally involved, as Thomas Napageak and I have worked in the 

past. We'll do that again this next time. 

Richard Newman: Who needs to educate whom as to the meaning of the word 'take?' I think 

all anybody is squabbling about is what does it really mean. I think maybe the industry might 

perhaps be objecting to saying that they're taking anything because the word 'take' as legally 

defined here means something totally different from the ordinary common English language use 

of the word. 

Ron Morris: Well, Congress, in their infinite wisdom, has come up with a new, revised definition 

of harassment, which is a take. I think the gentleman's point is well taken. For some of us when 

you talk about take, you're talking about Wildlife Biology 101. A take is once you reduce an 

animat you kill it and it's on the ground. It's yours. You've taken it. 

Well, in the marine mammal vernacular, if you cause an animal to do something it 

normally isn't doing, you've %kenm that animal. Now, that's not the same. But that's what a take 

is according to the Marine Mammal Regulations, Rules and the Law. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

And I'll read the definition that we're talking about: 

'Harassment would be defined in the existing term take to include any pursuit, 

torment or annoyance which could: 1) injury a marine mammal, or 2) disrupt the 

behavioral patterns, e.g., the migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering of marine mammals.' 

So all the above constitute a take. And that's generally what the industry does 

occasionally. They don't kill an animal. They haven't killed one yet. And they can do this 

incidentally as in accident. They can't by design chase an animal and harass it. That's what we're 

talking about. There's an oil rig out there and it's making noise and a hundred bowheads swim 

by the rig. And when the rig's not there, they're a little closer to it. When the rig is there, they're 

off 15, 20 kilometers. We think that's a take. You're changing the behavioral pattern. 

It may be semantics to some people, but that's what a take is under the Marine Mammal 

Law. I'd be first to tell you that a lot of times laws don't make sense. The Endangered Species 

Act, to a lot of people, doesn't make sense and some of the provisions of the Marine Mammal 

Act. But we feel, and the Congress feels, that harassment is defined and we're out there to 

protect these animals and as importantly in Alaska, to protect the rights of the subsistence takers. 

And that's why these definitions are in here. 

If you pick up the provisions of the law, it's replete with ?hou shah not affect the 

subsistence take by the Alaskan natives.' That includes oil companies up here. It also includes 

people in Resurrection Bay. There are provisions where Section 119 of the Marine Mammal Act, 

says Natives can cemanage marine mammal resources with us. The new regulations on take will 

cover that angle. If there is a cemanagement agreement, subsistence rights have to be protected 

and provisions have to be made to protect the subsistence uses. 

And that's where all the shouting, of course, comes from, because the Natives are vocal. 

You've heard their story and their arguments for why they need these animals. That's where most 

of the conflict arises in this business of take and the animals being farther away from the hunters 

than they normally would be. 

Grant Walther: I have a couple of questions. First is what penalties are there for violations 

regarding this act? And second, if there are substantial penalties, are companies denied being 

able to do geophysical exploration or oil exploration or drilling in the Arctic? And if so, do they 

have to wait out a year or two? Is that one of the penatties? It seems like that would be a penalty 

that would work. 

Ron Morris: If they don't have a permit, they'd better not take, period, because that's a big time 

offense. 

Grant Walther: Has any company ever been denied a permit? 

Ron Morris: No. 

Grant Walther: So it's just a matter of writing for the permit? 

Ron Morris: Not necessarily. The purpose of the monitoring plan and to do what we're doing is 

to gather enough information so that we could make a more learned decision in future outcomes. 
Morris - Letter of Authorization for Incidental Take 123 

For instance, on Year One, before we issue a permit in Year Two, we had to have the 

reports in hand, the monitoring reports analyzed to determine what the level of take was and 

whether there was a take, and whether we would issue a permit the second year. 

So the point is that they can all appty and possibly get a permit, but the evidence might 

come in that we would say no because based on what happened the year before, or during the 

monitoring study, we would see something that was more than we had counted on and we have 

the power to suspend the permit while it's being used. 

The provisions of the Act can be very onerous. We don't have any examples that I can 

give you with the oil companies, but let me give you one that happened many, many years ago. 

And I don't suggest or even want to connect oil companies with this. A humpback was swimming 

along in southeast Alaska and a guy decided he didn't have anything better to do, so he started 

shooting at it with a 22 rifle. And just his luck, there was somebody on a beach who saw him. 

With just as much luck, the guy had a telephone who was able to call the troopers. The troopers 

flew a plane over and found the boat and came into town. We cited the boat. To make a long 

story short, the captain, who was asleep at the time the guy was shooting at the humpback 

whale, got a $25,000 fine and they took his boat away, a $100,000 seiner. 

So there are plenty of provisions in the Act and this is what we want the oil companies 

to avoid. 

Steve Langdon: Is the permit dependent upon a plan of cooperation? 

Ron Morris: Yes, and this is my personal comment, unforhrnately, it's not mandatory. In other 

words, they can agree to disagree and that's the end of it. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 
BPS BOWHEAD WHALE MONITORING NEAR 

THE NORTHSTAR DEVELOPMENT UNIT, AUGUST 1995 

Christopher J. Herlugson 

BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc. 

900 E. Benson Blvd. 

Anchorage, AK 9951 9 

BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc. conducted aerial surveys for bowhead whales in the vicinity 

of the Northstar Unit from August 23 to 31, 1995. The objective of the surveys was to establish 

baseline data on the earfy season migration of bowhead whales through the Northstar area. Aerial 

surveys were flown in MMS Survey Block No. 1, from approximately 150-147W, from the barrier 

islands to approximately 71°N. An extensive aerial grid of 12 flight lines spaced 8 km apart was 

flown once, and an intensive grid of 8 lines spaced 8 km apart was flown three times. Twentyeight sonobuoys were dropped and 21.5 hours of ambient noise data recorded. A total of eight 

bowhead whales and six belukha whales were observed. This data, in combination with the 

Minerals Management Service spring and fall migration survey data (1979-1995) will be used to 

support development permits for the Northstar Unit, and to ensure that activiiies do not interfere 

with subsistence use of the nearshore and offshore area. 

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION 

Warren Horowitz Because of potential weather problems during your aerial surveys, do you plan 

any supplemental monitoring with tagged whales? 

Chrls Herlugson: Right now, we are not doing that. We are very early in our planning for the 

Northstar Development. As some of you may have heard, we are in the very initial stages of 

working on an EIS for this project. A lot of what will happen in the Mure will depend upon the 

outcome of the EIS, i.e., what is required in terms of Mure monitoring; what we believe is 

required in terms of monitoring our actMies ourselves. So, I can't say right now what we would 

be doing. Personally, I would be hesitant about getting into tagging studies for a project of this 

scope. It is always possible, but I think right now that might be out of the scope of something like 

this. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 
OVERVIEW OF NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH BOWHEAD WHALE RESEARCH 

WITH A FEW COMMENTS ABOUT INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY IN THE BEAUFORT SEA AREA 

Thomas Albert 

Department of Wildltfe Management 

North Slope Borough 

P.O. Box 69 

Barrow, AK 99723 

Since 1981 the major focus of the North Slope Borough (NSB) bowhead research 

program has been to estimate population size and trend based upon visual sightings and passive 

acoustic locating of spring migrating whales passing Point Barrow. The estimate of population 

size currently accepted by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) is 8,000 (95% confidence 

interval 6,900-9,200). The IWC accepted rate of increase is 3.1% (95% confidence interval 1.4% 

to 4.7%). Studies have documented what senior hunters had told us in 1981-82 as traditional 

knowledge: 1) that the bowhead population was much higher than the 600-2,000 that scientists 

estimated it to be in 1978,2) that bowheads are not 'afraid OF ice and will swim 'intog ice covered 

waters, 3) that bowheads pass Point Barrow on a Wde fronr and don't just confine themselves 

to the open water of a lead, 4) that bowheads can break ice to breathe, 5) that bowheads are 

sensitive to man-made noise, and 6) that some bowheads in the spring leave the area of St. 

Lawrence Island and go up the Chukotka coast and therefore do not come near the census 

station at Point Barrow. 

GENERAL COMMENTS 

First of all, the few things that I wanted to mention about our research are mentioned in 

the abstract, so if I skip some of them, please refer to the abstract. 

Rather than talk about our research, I would like to expand on a few things that should 

be done after listening to this session and after having been involved in bowhead whale-related 

matters for many years. 

The first point is, and this goes back to something that some people were talking about 

earlier, to give some consideration to the traditional knowledge of the people who live in the area. 

For future work that is done in the Beaufort Sea area, give more consideration to the traditional 

knowledge of the people who live there. 

The fellows sitting in the back here, Mr. Burton Rexford, Mr. Joe Kaleak, etc., have lived 

their whole lives in the Beaufort Sea area. They know a lot about what's going on. In general, and 

I've watched this for a long time, their views are pretty much just ignored. MMS deserves credit 

for having these people on the agenda to present their views themselves. I think that was really 

goodLet me give you an example. We heard from Mr. Frank Long and others the other day, 

about the problem with marine seismic exploration noise and what it does to the distribution of 

bowhead whales. Here's a case where traditional knowledge is saying one thing and limited 

scientific studies are seeming to say something else. 

Another example about traditional knowledge is just today, in a presentation by Dr. Bruce 

Mate, he showed a slide by one of my colleagues, Craig George, of a bowhead whale breaking 

through the ice. Dr. Mate showed a slide from Ms. Lori Quakenbush. But anyway, let's not forget 

where this idea came from. There's a person who is now dead who said, 'Look, you dummies, 
128 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

bowhead whales break through the ice to breathe all the time and I'm getting tired of you not 

giving that due thought. So here's what I want you to do. Go out on the ice here and look for 

this thing (certain cracks in the ice). And when you find it, you'll know that I'm not lying.' 

That was Harry Brower, Sr., who's now passed away. He is the Eskimo hunter who told 

us about the whales. Lots of hunters tdd me about whales breaking the ice, but Harry very 

carefully sat us down and explained here's where you go to look for the evidence. When you get 

there, this is what you're going to see. This is how you need to interpret it because he's seen it 

for many, many years. 

So we need to give folks like that their due credit. 

The second thing in this regard is the whde NSB's research program, or the major part 

of the NSB's research program over the years. When we inherited the bowhead whale research 

program from the National Marine Fisheries Service in early 1980s, we had a problem of 

conflicting views. The conventional scientific wisdom was that there were 600 to 2,000 bowheads 

and that they stick pretty much to this open area (lead) in the ice as they sort of come by Point 

Barrow. 

On the other hand, we had a group of people who I listened to every day who were 

saying, 'I don't know how many bowheads there are, but there's a whole lot more than 600 or 

2,000, because I've been watching them my whole life, 60 years or whatever. And I also know 

that they're not afraid of ice. You people are afraid of ice and gray whales are afraid of ice, but 

they're not afraid of ice.' 

So here we have these conflicting views. So what do we do? The normal thing to do, of 

course, is to go to the library and get out reference books and find out what's really going on. 

But we did not have a library at that time with all this information. Two reasons: 1) we didn't have 

a library in Barrow, and 2) the information wasn't written down. The closest thing we ever had to 

a really good arctic 'library' in Barrow, was Dr. Max Brewer. When he retired from NARL and left, 

we were deprived of that. But I did the best I could and turned to the local 'library system,' which 

was people like Mr. Harry Brower, Sr., Mr. Burton Rexford and some of these dher folks. They 

told me very consistent things about these whales. 

'1) There's a lot more than you people are counting. 2) They're not afraid of ice 

like you and like gray whales are. 3) They don't all stay in the lead. They go by 

Barrow on a broad front. I don't know how broad it is but it's a whde lot broader 

than that little patch of open water (lead). 4) These animals are afraid of noise. 

They respond to noise. 5) We don't think all of them come past Point Barrow, 

which is where you scientists are counting them, because we know from Eskimo 

people on Saint Lawrence Island that some of the whales go over to Chukdka. 

They don't ever come to Barrow. 

So if you guys are going to do a study to count whales, you'd better do it 

properly.' 

So we spent millions upon millions of dollars and many years essentially working out step 

by step what these people told us. And, in particular, this one person who very patiently sat 

down with us to explain: Harry Brower. 
Albert - Ove~~ew of NSB Bowhead Whale Research and Comments on Industrial Activity 129 

So I would ask MMS or anybody else who is going to work up there to do more, to go 

and seek out the help of people who live there. Not that they know everything, but they certainly 

know a lot more than they generally get credit for. It's useful to consult the local experts. 

The second general point I want to mention is I don't think we need many more acute 

experiments with seismic boats where you take a seismic boat and have it approach whales and 

see what the whales do. There have been some of these done, and in my view, as I've expressed 

to the people doing these studies over the years, I think many of them have been confounded 

by the presence of other seismic noise in the background from another seismic boat 60 miles 

away that's booming away, or a seismic boat that was booming in the same general area an hour 

before. 

The third point I want to mention is something that we really do need, and you heard this 

from the people themselves yesterday. We have to somehow get at what is really going on up 

there with the fall distribution of bowhead whales in relation to noise from seismic exploration and 

drill rigs, in particular, seismic exploration. 

On the one hand, we have the people who are 'on the ground,' more precisely, on the 

water, 'putting around" out there, looking for these whales and they can't find them when the 

seismic boats are working. But on the other hand, we have some limited scientific data that say 

things like behavioral responses begin at seven to ten kilometers and so on. 

So, we have two observations and a gap between them. So I hope that MMS or someone 

gets at the truth and designs a study that will determine what is the noise like in the water around 

an active seismic exploration event. What is the noise really like 50 miles away and 20 miles away 

and so on? And what's the whale distribution around this? Are these animals pushed further 

offshore like the hunters say they are? 

My guess is that when you do that study property, you'll find out that the Eskimo hunters 

are just as right about that as what they told us in 1981 about whales being not afraid of ice. 

The fourth point I want to briefly mention is the need for scientific review boards for some 

of these studies, particularly the ones that everyone knows are going to be controversial. To 

MMSBs credii, but not after a lot of prodding I might add, they instituted a scientific review board 

for the so-called 'noise in the lead study' that Drs. Greene and Richardson conducted. I think 

probably everyone will admit that the associated review process helped that study to become 

better than it might have been and certainly helped to keep the evaluation of the data hopefully 

on track. And the final report from that study, we'll see today. 

If you have a scientific review board, they need to take into account the major 

stakeholders. We've heard the word 'stakehddef used a couple of times lately. The major 

stakeholders for such studies in the Beaufort Sea without any doubt are the AEWC, the North 

Slope Borough, the oil industry, and probably others. 

The fifth general point, I'd like to mention is that you need a proper power analysis of the 

data that come from these impact assessment studies. I'm not a statistician but I've read so many 

reports over these many years which present four or five hundred pages of text and then basically 

come down in the Executive Summary to say 'no adverse effects noted.' But yet, the number of 

observations in the study is often times minuscule. The number of pages in the report is usually 

substantial. The number of observations is often minuscule. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

So there needs to be some sort of a power analysis done to tell the ordinary person, like 

me or other readers who are not statisticians, how big an effect would you really have to have 

in order to detect it with the 13 or so observations that you've got. 

That's a really important thing. Making a judgement of no 'adverse effect noted,' based 

upon a few observations is not fair. 

The sixth point is, as industry moves toward development in the Beaufort Sea area, 

Canada andlor Alaska, you have to remember that there are at least three major stakeholders up 

there: 1) the bowhead whales, 2) the Eskimo hunters, and 3) the oil industry. The bowheads have 

been there Vorever.' Who knows how many tens of thousands of years those animals have been 

there. The Eskimo hunters have been there for 8,000 to 10,000 years. Only in the last 20 or 30 

years has the other stakeholder appeared in the area. 

I think the bowheads have the most 'righr to the place, and the Eskimos the second right 

to the place. The oil industry has a right to be there too, but it has to take care not to interfere 

too much. 

The final point, is I hope that MMS, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and others will 

work together to see that the industrial activity up there does not unduly interfere with two things: 

1) it doesn't unduly interfere with use by bowheads of the area for feeding and for migration and 

2) it shouldn't unduly interfere with the Eskimo's subsistence hunt of the bowheads. 

There are lots of other animals also in the Beaufort Sea (polar bears, seals, etc.) But let's 

face it, it's the bowhead that drives the system. And finally, let's remember to use common sense 

in determining what is meant by 'unduly' and 'significant.' 


OVERVIEW OF SPECIES THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY DEVELOPMENT 

WITHIN THE ARCTIC ALASKA OCS REGION 

Lori Quakenbush 

Ecological Sewkes 

U.S. Fhh and Wildlife Servke 

101 12th Avenue, Box 20 

Fairbanks, AK 99701 

INTRODUCTION 

Welcome to the General Biology Session of the Arctic Synthesis Meeting. My name is Lori 

Quakenbush and I am the Session Chair. I am a Fish and Wildlife Biologist with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. I have worked in the Alaskan Arctic for the past 12 years studying marine birds 

and mammals. For the past 5 years I have worked on oil and gas exploration and development 

permits on the North Slope and OCS. Today I would like to present a brief overview of some of 

the species of concern that may be affected by development. Some of these species have 

dedicated presentations in this conference, or as in the case of bowheads, dedicated sessions, 

but others do not. This is not an exhaustive list of species of concern nor of potential impacts of 

oil activities. 

The Environment 

The dominant feature of the Arctic Alaska OCS is sea ice. Portions of the Chukchi Sea 

are icecovered for nine months of the year (LaBelle et al. 1983) and the Beaufort Sea is never 

ice free. Before I talk about the species I want to define some terms and describe the dynamic 

sea ice environment. 

Pack ice consists of annual ice and heavier multiiyear ice that is in motion. Shorefast, 

or land-fast ice, is ice that freezes to shore and is fixed in place. Drifting ice consists of floes of 

annual and multiiyear ice that can be loosely or tightly packed depending upon the action of the 

pack ice. Drifting ice creates linear openings, called leads, and nonlinear openings called 

polynyas. These openings occur throughout the winter, but their locations are not predictable. 

Islands and prominent points of land create generally predictable areas of open water called 

recurring leads and polynyas. These areas are important marine bird and mammal habitats. 

Bowhead Whales 

The entire western Arctic stock of bowhead whales enters the Chukchi Sea via the 

nearshore lead system in April, and most pass Point Barrow by early June. Mating activii has 

been reported during the spring migration through Chukchi waters. Presently, bowheads are not 

known to summer in the Bering or Chukchi seas (Miller et al. 1983), although historic records of 

commercial whaling show that whales were harvested there in summer. Bowheads feed on 

zooplankton at the surface, in the water column, and on or near the bottom. Bowheads travel 

through the Alaskan Beaufort Sea into the Canadian Beaufort for the summer and return through 

the Chukchi to the Bering Sea for the winter beginning in late September. 

Bowhead whales are an important subsistence resource for indigenous coastal people 

of the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas. Due to ice condiiions and migration routes some of 

the villages hunt whales only in spring, others only in fall, and some are strategically located to 

hunt both spring and fall. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Bowhead whales and subsistence whaling are potentially vulnerable to noise and activity 

within the lead system during migration as well as to oil spills. It is thought that oil could foul the 

baleen filtering mechanism making feeding inefficient. 

Belukha Whales 

At least two groups of belukha whales enter the Chukchi Sea via the Chukchi Polynya 

and nearshore lead system in April and May. The first group passes through the Chukchi to 

summer in the eastern Beaufort. The second group arrives in Kasegaluk Lagoon in June or July 

and spends the summer there. The distribution of belukha in Kasegaluk Lagoon does not appear 

to be directly related to the availability of prey, which suggests the area may be important for 

other reasons. Kasegaluk may be a safe or otherwise preferred calving area, the warmer water 

may assist the thermoregulation of young calves, or benefit adults by accelerating the molting 

process and decreasing the energy expenditure (Hazard 1988; Davis and Thomson 1984). 

Gray Whales 

Gray whales were recently removed from the endangered species list due to population 

increases. Gray whales inhabi the Chukchi Sea from July to October. Systematic aerial surveys 

conducted in July showed the majority of gray whales feeding within 40 km of shore between 

Point Hope and Point Barrow. Gray whales feed on benthic amphipods that may be scarce in 

offshore waters (Stoker 1978). As a benthic feeder, gray whales may be vulnerable to oil and gas 

activities that affect the benthos. 

Ringed Seals 

Ringed seals are the most abundant of the seals in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas and 

they are present all months of the year, even in areas of continuous ice. They maintain breathing 

holes in the ice and excavate ice caves for resting and pupping. Ringed seals are known to 

maintain more than one lair (Kelly et al. 1990). Ringed seats give birth in lairs in late March to 

early April. 

Ringed seals would be vulnerable to oil spilled under or in broken ice. Ringed seals 

disturbed during the pupping season by on-ice seismic programs and ice road construction for 

exploration and development, could respond by abandoning dependent pups. In May and June, 

ringed seals haul out on top of the ice to mdt. Molting appears to be physiologically demanding 

and may be a stressful time for seals. Seals may be more vulnerable to disturbances or exposure 

to hydrocarbons at this time. 

Spotted Seals 

Spotted seals do not maintain breathing holes and prefer more open areas with less ice. 

They are present in the Chukchi Sea from May to October and are found in the lagoons. They 

are especially concentrated in Kasegaluk Lagoon at Akdiakatat and Utikok passes often with 

more than 1,000 seals per location (Frost et al. 1983). Some spotted seals (probably < 1,000) 

are found in the Beaufort Sea in summer. Haul out areas in the Beaufort Sea include Oarlock 

Island in Dease Inlet, the Colville River delta and Smith Bay. 
Quakenbush - Ovm-ew of Species 

Bearded Seals 

Bearded seals are present in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas in all months of the year. 

Although they are capable of maintaining breathing holes, bearded seals are most often found 

in areas of broken ice. In the Beaufort Sea this behavior restricts them to the moving ice zone 

offshore in winter. Some unknown portion of the population migrates south in the fall to winter 

in the Bering Sea. Bearded seals are benthic feeders and oil spills and drilling mud and cuttings 

disposal could affect their food source. 

Rlbbon Seals 

Ribbon seals are little known seals of the pack ice. Until recently they were thought to 

inhabit the North Pack and Bering Sea, but recent sightings and review of the literature suggest 

that many ribbon seals spend the summer months in the Chukchi Sea (Kelly et al. in prep.). 

Walrus 

Walruses are present in the Chukchi Sea from May to November (Fay 1982). Walrus 

distribution and movements are related to the distribution and movements of the pack ice. They 

feed predominantly on benthic organisms in waters less than 80 m deep. Feeding areas are 

determined by a combination of ice conditions and water depth, therefore, walrus concentrations 

are not predictable. In summer, females with dependent young are found in the Chukchi Sea, few 

walruses of any sex or age dass are found in the Beaufort Sea, and adult males form large herds 

that haul out in the coastal areas of the Bering Sea. 

Walruses are vulnerable to oil and gas activities in at least two ways: 1) concentrations 

of walruses hauled out on ice or land are sensitive to noise generated by boat and air traffic and 

respond by stampeding into the water. This can result in calf mortality by trampling or separation; 

and 2) walrus are benthic feeders, therefore oil spills or drilling mud disposal could affect their 

food source. 

Polar Bears 

Pack ice of the Beaufort, Chukchi, and Bering seas is the essential habitat for polar bears 

in Alaska. The Beaufort Sea is never completely ice free and provides summer habitat for polar 

bears. When the ice advances in the fall bears begin to move south, some move into the Chukchi 

and Bering seas, while others remain in the Beaufort. There k evidence that polar bears west of 

Point Barrow may constitute a somewhat discrete population separate from bears of the Beaufort 

Sea. 

The primary food of polar bears is ringed seals, however many other edible and nonedible items are eaten as well. Pdar bears mostly hunt ringed seals in leads. Concentrations of 

bears may occur in certain areas due to ice conditiis, which affect the availability of ringed 

seals. The presence of carrion may also result in concentrations of bears, but these 

concentrations are not regular or predictable in their occurrence. 

All polar bears make 'day beds' or temporary dens in winter, however, only pregnant 

females den for extended periods of time. Pregnant females enter dens in late October or early 

November. Cubs are born in December but do not emerge from dens until late March or early 

April. Maternity dens are excavated in drifted snow but can be on pack ice, fast ice, islands, or 

on the mainland. Approximately 53% of the 90 dens found in the Beaufort Sea between 1981 and 
134 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

1991 were on the pack ice (Amstrup and Gardner 1994). Wrangel Island, in Russian waters of the 

Chukchi Sea, has the highest known density of maternity dens (Amstrup and DeMaster 1988). 

Polar bears lick their fur to clean themselves, making them vulnerable to ingesting spilled 

oil if they come in contact with it. Bears are also known to eat rubber and petroleum based 

products voluntarily, indicating that it is unlikely they wwld avoid oil. Females with cubs in dens 

are also vulnerable to disturbance by oil and gas activities such as on-ice seismic programs and 

ice road construction. If a female with cubs is forced to leave a den between December and 

March, the cubs would probably not survive. 

Common Eklers 

Common eiders winter in the Bering Sea and migrate north in spring to nest on barrier 

islands in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas as well as in the Canadian Arctic. Common eiders are 

potentially vulnerable to oil and gas activity that occurs on the barrier islands during the breeding 

season. Common eiders undergo a flightless mdt and may aggregate into large flocks at sea 

making a large component of the population vulnerable to an oil spill. 

King Eklers 

King eiders winter in the Bering and Chukchi seas and migrate north in spring with the 

common eiders. Kings nest in the tundra along the entire Beaufort Sea coast and in the Canadian 

Arctic. An estimate from a spring migration count near Barrow in 1976 placed king eiders at 

800,000 and common eiders at 150,000 (Woodby and Dioky 1976). A 1994 estimate, also near 

Barrow was considerably lower with king eiders at 373,000 and common eiders at 71,000 

(Suydam et al. 1995). 

Spectacled Eiders 

In Alaska, spectacled eiders nest in the Yukon-Kuskokwim (Y-K) delta and across the 

North Slope, primarily from Cape Simpson to the Sagavanirktok River. The breeding population 

on the Y-K delta declined from an estimated 47,700 pairs circa 1972 (Dau and Kistchinski 1977) 

to less than 3,000 pairs in 1992 (Stehn et al. 1992) and was listed under the Endangered Species 

Act as threatened in 1993. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the National Biological Service (NBS) 

using aerial surveys and satellite telemetry has begun to identify molting, fall staging, and 

wintering areas. In November, 1994 an estimated 32,000 spectacled eiders were observed in the 

vicinity of St. Lawrence Island in the polynya to the south of the island and along the ice edge. 

Following up on a telemetry signal in March 1995, the Service found an estimated 140,000 

spectacled eiders in extremely tight flocks in small openings of continuous ice. This location was 

about haKway between St. Lawrence and St. Matthew islands. A return visit one month later 

found an estimated 155,000 spectacled eiders in the same location but less tightly packed due 

to larger openings in the ice (Lamed et al. 1995a). This number matches the current estimate of 

the world population spectacled eiders. Prior to this discovery. the major spectacled eider winter 

area was unknown. 

Spectacled eider hens, fitted with satellite transmitters in the Prudhoe Bay area, in August 

were found to be in the Chukchi between Point Lay and Cape Lisbume in September. Along with 

many females were an estimated 30,000 males (Lamed et al. 1995b). An addlional41,000 birds 

were observed in Mechigmenen Bay on the Chukosk Peninsula. 
Quakenbush - Overview of Species 135 

Follow-up flights are planned to better define the molting and wintering areas. Troy 

Ecological Associates for BP Exploration (Alaska) has been conducting surveys to monitor the 

status of spectacled eiders within the Prudhoe Bay oiffields, and has been using VHF telemetry 

to study nest success and brood movements within the oiffield. 

Steller's Ekler 

The Steller's eider is another eider species, currently nesting in northern Alaska and 

northern Russian and wintering mainly along the Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands. The only 

confirmed nesting area used currently in North America occurs in the vicinity of Barrow. There 

has been an apparent decline in the number of Steller's eiders nesting in Alaska, and a reduction 

in the breeding range of the species within the state (Quakenbush and Cochrane 1993). The 

Alaska breeding population of Steller's eiders were proposed to be listed as threatened but the 

listing process has been halted until the current moratorium on listing is lifted. Lile is known 

about their migration route, they do not migrate with kings and commons but arrive in the tundra 

near Barrow in midJune (Quakenbush et al. In prep.) 

Oldsquaw 

Oldsquaw nest in low density along the entire Alaskan coast of the Chukchi and Beaufort 

seas. Many ddsquaw winter in the Bering Sea along the ice edge and in leads and polynyas. 

They also winter in Southeast Alaska, the Aleutians, and as far south as California. Oldsquaw form 

large molting flocks in protected waters of the lagoons through July and August. Large flocks of 

flightless oldsquaw makes them vulnerable to oil spills and other disturbances. 

In fall, shorebirds, especially phalaropes concentrate in lagoons and on shore to stage 

for fall migration. Oil spills in nearshore areas during this time of year could affect a significant 

portion of the population. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Amstrup, S.C., and D.P. DeMaster. 1988. Pdar Bear, Ursus mwitimus. Pages 3456 in J.W. 

Lentfer, (4.). Selected Marine Mammals of Alaska: Species Accounts with Research and 

Management Recommendations. Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C. 

Amstrup, S.C., and C. Gardner. 1994. Pdar bear maternity denning in the Beaufort Sea. J. Wildl. 

Manage. 58(1):1-10. 

Dau, C.P., and A.A. Kistchinski. 1977. Seasonal movements and distribution of the spectacled 

eider. Wildfowl 28:6575. 

Davis, R.A., and D.H. Thomson. 1984. Marine mammals. Pages 47-79 in J.C. Truett, (4.). The 

Barrow Arch environment and possible consequences of planned offshore oil and gas 

development. Proceedings of a synthesis meeting, 30 October-1 November, 1983. 

Girdwood, AK. 

Fay, F.H. 1982. Ecdogy and biogy of the Pacific walrus, (Odobenus rasmarus divergens Illiger) . North American Fauna No. 74. U.S. Dep. Inter. Washington, D.C. 279 pp. 
136 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Frost. K.J., LF. Lowry, and J.J. Bums. 1983. Distribution of marine mammals in the coastal zone 

of the eastern Chukchi Sea during summer and autumn. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, 

OCSEAP Final Rep. 20(1983):563-650. 

Hazard, K. 1988. Beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas. Pages 195-235 in J.W. Lentfer, (4.). 

Selected marine mammals of Alaska: species accounts with research and management 

recommendations. Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C. 

Kelly, B.P., and L.T. Quakenbush. 1990. Spatiotemporal use of lairs by ringed seals (Phoca 

hispida). Can. J. Zd. 68(12):2503-2512. 

Kelly, B.P., F.H. Fay, D.J. Rugh, and R.R. Nelson. In Prep. Seasonal distribution of the ribbon seal 

(Phoca [histriophoca] fasciata Zimmermann 1 783). 

LaBelle, J.C., J.L. Wise, R.P. Voelker, R.H. Schulze, and G.M. Wohl. 1983. Alaska Marine Ice 

Atlas. AEIDC. Univ. of Alaska. 302 pp. 

Lamed, W.W., G. R. Balogh, and M.R. Petersen. 1995a. Late winter distribution of spectacled 

eiders (Somateria fischeri) in Ledyard Bay, Alaska, September 1995. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Migratory Bird Management, Anchorage, AK. 11 pp. 

Lamed, W.W., G. R. Balogh, and M.R. Petersen. 1995b. Distribution and abundance of spectacled 

eiders (Somateria pischen] in the Bering Sea, 1995. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Migratory Bird Management, Anchorage, AK. 21 pp. 

Miller, R.V., J.H. Johnson, and D.J. Rugh. 1983. Notes on the distribution of bowhead whales, 

Balaena mysticetus, in the western Chukchi Sea, 1979-1982. Paper submitted to Int. 

Whaling Comm., July 1983. Cambridge. 9 pp. 

Quakenbush, L., and J. Cochrane. 1993. Report on the conservation status of Steller's eider 

(Polysticta stelleri), a Candidate Threatened and Endangered Species. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Fairbanks, AK. 26 p. 

Quakenbush, L., R. Suydam, K. Fluetsch, and C. Donaldson. In Prep. Breeding biology of 

Steller's eiders nesting near Barrow, Alaska: 1991 -1 994. 

Stehn, R.A., C.P. Dau, B. Conant, and W.I. Butler, Jr. 1993. Decline of spectacled eiders nesting 

in western Alaska. Arctic 46(3):264-277. 

Stoker, S.W. 1978. Benthic invertebrate macrofauna of the eastern continental shetf of the Bering 

and Chukchi seas. Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. Alaska. Fairbanks, AK. 259 pp. 

Suydam, R., L Quakenbush, and M. Johnson. 1995. Migration of king and common eiders past 

Point Barrow, Alaska - Spring and Summer/Fall1994. Sea Duck Symposium, 23rd Annual 

Pacific Seabird Group Meeting, 812 November 1995, Victoria, B.C., Canada. (Abstract). 

Woodby, DA., and G.J. Dioky. 1982. Spring migration of eiders and other waterbirds at Point 

Barrow, Alaska. Arctic 35:403-410. 
Quakenbush - Overview d Species 

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION 

Tom Newbury: What are the species of seals near the Northstar prospect in the Beaufort Sea? 

Lori Quakenbush: Ringed seals are the most abundant seals in the Beaufort Sea. You can also 

find bearded seals there and some spotted seals in the summertime, in some areas. Ribbon seals 

are probabty mostty out in the Chukchi Sea. The same for spotted seals. Harbor seals don't go 

that far north. Those are our Alaskan species. 

Lany Bright: Male polars bears do very little denning, is that correct? 

Lori Quakenbuah: They make day beds or temporary dens just to hole up in storms or whatever. 

But, yes, there is no long-term denning as there is with females. And it is not just females, it is 

pregnant females that den. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 
SUMMARY OF ME POLAR BEAR HABITAT CONSERVATION STRATEGY 

AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT 

Scott L Schliebe 

Marine Mammals Manegement 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servke 

101 1 E. Tudor Road 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) issued regulations on December 16, 1993, 

under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA), which authorize and govern the 

incidental, but not intentional take of small number of pdar bears and walruses in the Beaufort 

Sea region. The 'take' regulations required the Service to develop and begin implementing a 

strategy for the identification and conservation of important polar bear habitats in order to extend 

the "taken regulations beyond the authorized 18 month period to the full five year term. Following 

a 60 day extension to more fully consider public comments the Strategy was finalized on August 

15, 1995, and the incidental take regulations were subsequently extended for an additional 40 

months ending on December 15,1998. 

The scope of the Beaufort Sea incidental take regulations extended from a north-south 

line at Barrow to the Canadian border, offshore throughout the State and Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) waters, and 25 miles inland, excluding the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The 

scope of Polar Bear Habit Conservation Strategy (Strategy) is statewide. 

The Strategy includes the following sections on: 1) the biology of polar bears; 2) their 

environment; 3) summaries of scientii information and local knowledge; 4) identification of 

habitat threats or concerns; 5) identification of important habitats; and 6) a description of 

implementation techniques. The objectives of the Strategy were to identify and protect important 

habit, provide for subsistence uses, and to further the goals of the 1973 international Agreement 

on the Conservation of Polar Bears between Canada, Norway, Denmark, the former Soviet Union, 

and the United States. Particular reference is provided to Mile II which instructs 'Each 

Contracting Party shall take appropriate action to protect the ecosystem of which polar bears are 

a part, with special attention to habit components such as denning and feeding sites and 

migration patterns, and shall manage polar bear populations in accordance with sound 

conservation practices based on the best available scientific data.' 

In order to assess information on polar bear and habitat use the Service focused on two 

sources of information: published and unpublished scientihc information or data; and traditional 

knowledge which is oral spoken information provided by Native polar bear hunters based upon 

years of observation. Each source of information has its own particular strengths and also 

limitations. The evaluation of scientific information was through conventional literature review. The 

evaluation of traditional knowledge invoked an extensive effort to interview and cdlate information 

from Native hunters and naturalists. In total 61 individuals residing in 12 villages were interviewed. 

The product of these interviews was a series of maps which depict traditional knowledge of 

seasonal polar bear habit use, such as denning and feeding areas, observed within the area 

used by the residents for hunting or traveling. The information on composite maps was verified 

for each village during follow-up visiis. 

Threats to pdar bear habit were identified as industrial activity, shipping, contaminants, 

mining, global warming, and human population growth and corresponding demands or effects 

upon either habit or polar bears themselves. The Strategy identiis general Important Habit 

Areas for protection. These include feeding areas associated with recurrent leads and pdynyas. 
? 

1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

areas where marine mammal carcasses accumulate, and in areas deemed to be of importance 

for denning bears, including the Arctic NWR. 

The Strategy proposed conservation measures for these areas through the regulations 

governing incidental take, particularly through Letters of Authorization, which may specify 

provisions for monitoring the take, plans of cooperation with affected villages, and seasonal or 

temporal considerations for industrial activities, among other considerations. The Strategy also 

proposes measures to further the goals of the 1973 international Agreement on the Conservation 

of Polar Bears which include development and implementation of a Polar Bear Advisory Council, 

development of a Village Communication Plan, and through recognition of the importance of the 

status of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for maternity denning, and to cooperate and 

coordinate through international consenration initiatives. Lastly, the Strategy identifies a number 

of important research needs regarding pdar bear and habiit relationships including the role and 

effect of contaminants in the environment. 

So where are we today? It is important to recognize that the Strategy's identification of 

measures to conserve and protect pdar habiit did not in itself accomplish these actions and that 

in many instances the funding necessary to accomplish these objectives is currently unavailable. 

However, there are a number of the elements that can be achieved under existing conditions and 

the Senrice has begun implementation of some of these measures of the Strategy while others 

are in a preparatory state. 

1. The Service will continue to emphasize the incidental take program as a means to 

monitor and evaluate the effect of industrial activities on polar bears, their habitat, and 

their availability to subsistence users as required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

2. The Service will continue to work with Minerals Management Service (MMS) in the early 

planning stages of lease sales to identify resource issues of concern while the Strategy 

should provide a focus of the areas of important values to pdar bears. 

3. The Service will continue efforts to be instrumental in other programs which either 

indirectly or directly affect the ecosystem of the region. Examples include the Bering Sea 

Ecosystem initiative, the Coastal Zone Management Plan process, and the U.S.-Russia 

conservation initiatives. 

4. The Service has begun surveys to delineate marine mammal carcass locations and in the 

Mure anticipates further studies to evaluate the energetic value, importance and use of 

carcasses by polar bears. This information and maps will be provided to industry in order 

to minimize potential disturbance of areas used for feeding. Initil surveys reveal that the 

number of carcasses available is much less in the Beaufort Sea region than in the 

Chukchi and Bering seas regions in western Alaska. 

5. A Village Communication Plan will be developed and funds sought for its implementation. 

6. Authorization to form an Advisory Committee and operational funding will be sought. 

7. The Senrice will continue discussions towards developing a U.S.-Russia polar bear 

conservation agreement for bears of the Alaska-Chukotka (ChukchiIBering Sea) 

population. 
Schliebe - Polar Bear Habitat Conservation Strategy 141 

8. The Service is reviewing the effectiveness of U.S. implementation of the 1973 international 

Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears and preparing a report to Congress. 

9. The Service will consult with the Parties on the werall effectiveness of the Agreement 

within the next year. 

10. The Service will continue international efforts through the Arctic Environmental Protection 

Strategy and the Committee on Arctic Flora and Fauna for polar bear conservation. 

In conclusion, while many of the initiatives identified in the Strategy have not received 

funding, we are fortunate to be experiencing heatthy polar bear populations in Alaska. We are 

optimistic also since the marine ecosystem adjacent to Alaska is relatively healthy and intact and 

has been only minimally affected by human presence or activities. The Service will strive to 

continue the past successes in conservation of polar bear while working with industry, the State, 

other government agencies, and the public. The Service will continue its work on the North Slope 

and particularly in the Beaufort Sea region in proportion to the level, frequency, and duration of 

future development act'wit'is. 

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION 

Cleve Cowles: This morning there was an interesting discussion of how the scientific aspects of 

monitoring leads to the interpretation of ?ake.' Was there a Letter of Authorization (LOA) issued 

for Shell Western in the Chukchi Sea for polar bear take? 

Scott Schllebe: There was a couple of years ago. In the Chukchi Sea, I think there were three 

LOAs: two to Shell and one to Chevron. They spanned a period of two years and, I believe, four 

or five exploratory drill sites. 

Cleve Cowles: I was just wondering how Fish and Wildlife Service handled this question of the 

interpretation of the observations of bears in relation to industry and the definitions of Take.' Just 

as a comparison to this morning's discussion as far as bowhead whales and how monitoring may 

be involved with interpretation of observations relative to take and how you have handled that 

with the bears. 

Scott Schllebe: Our definition of %kern is an alteration of behavioral processes. That can be 

attraction or avoidance. In the case of the Chukchi Sea, there were quite a number of encounters 

between polar bears and the survey crew. I don't think there were very many encounters between 

pdar bears and ice breakers or vessels that were managing ice. There were many more 

encounters or interactions between walruses and those activitiis. Some of the monitoring in that 

case indicated that 9akes' included prdusion by industrial activities of walruses' use of ice near 

the drilling rig. Back to your inrial question, the incidental take permits do not authorize the lethal 

take, they only authorize the incidental take. There have been a number of incidental takes of 

polar bears concurrent to oil and gas activities, not only in the Chukchi Sea but also in the 

Beaufort Sea. That is the framework for the Letter of Authorization which provides protection to 

industry for those types of takes. 

Cleve Cowles: Is it Fish and Wildlife Service's expectation that industry report quantified takes 

or has the Service done that independentIy? 
142 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Scott Schliebe: The Service has not done that independent from the monitoring. The requirement 

is that industry conduct the monitoring and that that monitoring program be approved by Fish 

and Wildlife Service. If the monitoring program is well structured and well designed, it should lead 

you to the conclusion regarding level of take.' 

Bruce Mate: At the end of your presentation you stated that you are optimistic that you will be 

able to carry out several of the things you want to achieve but weren't funded for. Is that optimism 

a personal mindset of yours or do you have some reason to believe that funding will actually 

change and you will be getting some funds in the near future for that? 

Scott Schllebe: It is more of a personal mindset than one that is borne out by budget forecasts. 

I still believe, however, that the emphasis that was placed on development of this strategy 

ultimately will result in funding to accomplish and achieve those components that were identified 

in it. 

Grant Watther: Are there any known occurrences of oil spillsand polar bears, in Russia, Canada, 

or the Alaskan Arctic? If so, what documentation is there regarding that? 

Scott Schllebe: I am only aware of the instance of where three bears were intentionally oiled in 

Canada in an experimental sense. I am not aware of other instances in the wild where follow-up 

on the fate of an oiled animal was achieved. I believe there are a couple of anecdotal instances 

(of bears being oiled or ingesting oil) also in the Churchill Bay area where polar bears have been 

observed coated with oil or drinking, in one case, hydraulic fluid. But the fate of that animal wasn't 

determined. 

' 50 CFR 18.1 17 Requirements for monitoring and report state that The Holder of a Letter of Authoriiation 

must submii a report to the Service's Alaska Regional Director within 90 days of the completion of any 

exploratory activii. The Holder and the Service shall meet and discuss the report each year. The report 

must include the following information ... Results of the monitoring activities including an estimate of the 

actual level of take; ...' 
NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SERVICE OCS ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM: 

RESEARCH AND MONITORING IN ARCTIC ALASKA 

Lyman Thorstelnson 

Department of the lnterlor 

Natlonel Blologkal Sewke 

Western Reglonal Office 

909 Flrst Avenue, SuRe 800 

Seattle, WA 981 04 

INTRODUCTION 

The National Biological Service (NBS) was created in 1993 by consolidating the biological 

research, inventory and monitoring, and information transfer programs of seven Department of 

Interior (DOI) bureaus. The NBS mission is to provide leadership in gathering, analyzing, and 

disseminating biological information to support management of the Nation's natural resources. 

Because the NBS has no regulatory authority, it serves as a source of unbiased information to 

DO1 resource managers and other users. The scope and content of Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) research managed by the NBS is determined annually in consultation with the Minerals 

Management Service (MMS). 

The NBS studies for Alaska and Pacitic OCS Regions are administered by the Western 

Regional Office, Seattle, Washington. During Fiscal Year 1995 (FY 95), projects addressing 

seabirds, contaminants in marine mammals, and behavioral effects were conducted in Alaska. 

Brief project overviews of each are provided below. In addition, information on the distribution and 

abundance of young-of-theyear (WY) arctic cod (Boreogadus saida) in Camden Bay, Alaska, 

is presented. Observations of YOY cod densities in September 1990 are related to this species' 

ecology and oceanographic pattems in the eastern Beaufort Sea. 

I. NBSMANAGED OCS STUDIES 

Our environmental studies address priority research questions and information needs 

identified by the MMS through the Alaska Regional Stakeholders, other State and Federal 

agencies, and other interest groups. A program goal is to integrate these mission-oriented studies 

with other NBS research (e.g., Alaska Science Center). In this way, the NBS and its partners (e.g., 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]) can address broader environmental 

issues or regional ecosystems that may be affected by oil-andgas or other human activities. In 

every OCS study, MMS information needs are of priority concern and our milestones reflect 

current oil-and-gas leasing and Environmental Impact Statement schedules. Our monloring 

studies involve systematic sampling of both control and impacted sites subsequent to baseline 

studies to develop time series data for detecting impact, trends, and changes in the baseline. 

In FY 95 the NBS continued seabird colony and contaminants monitoring in Cook Inlet, 

Norton Sound, and Arctic lease areas. In addition, new research was initiated to develop the 

technologies needed to evaluate potential visual and acoustic disturbance effects on Pacific 

walius. Previously, the NBS's Alaska Science Center (ASC) had identified the need for programs 

to (1) monitor the status and trends of Alaska and Pacitic coast marine birds, and (2) integrate 

contaminants monitoring into ecosystem research, as high priority research areas. 
144 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Chukchl Mammals and Blrds (ASC) 

A two-year project was initiated to study behavioral effects of helicopter overflights on 

Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) in the Chukchi Sea. To date the research has 

involved the development and testing of satellitelinked Geographic Positioning System, 

TemperatureDepth-Recorder, and Depth Recorder units on hauled out walrus at Cape Peirce, 

Bristol Bay. If successful, the technology will be applied in disturbance experiments at Point 

Wainwright during summer 1996. Investigators are compiling/synthesuing regional environmental 

information and data as part of their development of Geographic Information System capability. 

Initial emphases are being placed on walrus and spectacled eiders (Somateria ficsen]. They are 

also evaluating an application of the Inter-site Population Sensitiv'i Index to walrus in the Chukchi 

Sea. 

Cook inlet Seabirds (ASC and U.S. Flsh and Wlidltfe Service) 

Colony monitoring at Chisik, Gull, and Barren islands is part of long-term research to 

elucidate oceanographic influences on seabird productivity. The populations selected for 

long-term study include representatives from surface, pelagic-, and benthic-feeding species. The 

coordinated NBS/Fish and Wildlife (FWS) research includes traditional monitoring at the colonies 

in concert with oceanographic surveys of local, and larger-scale, physical properties (e.g., 

hydrographic) and biological attributes (e.g., prey, at-sea distributions of seabirds, etc.) thought 

to be major determinants of seabird productiv'i. Broad-scale and seasonal distributions of sea 

surface temperatures in lower Cook lnlet are being acquired from satellite thermal imagery. The 

research focus is the quantification of ecological relationships linking numeric and functional 

population responses. 

Chukchi Seabirds (ASC and NBS) 

In summer 1995, FWS biologists monitored cliff-nesting seabird species (kittiwakes [Rissa 

spp.] and murres) at colonies located at Capes Lisburne and Thompson. These surveys extended 

the time series from the mid-1970s and late1960s, respectively. Monitoring objectives were 

supported by prey and telemetry studies to investigate summer (short-term) and winter 

(long-term, telemetry only) habitat use by common (Uria dge) and thick-billed (U. lomvia) 

murres. The research is testing a hypothesis relating contrasting population trends in munes at 

the colonies to differential patterns of habitat use in the Bering Sea. 

Alaska Marlne Mammal Tlssue Archlval ProJect(AMMTAR) (NBS, NMFS, Natlonai Institute 

of Standards and Technology) 

The success of the AMMTAP reflects its many partners. Major research collaborators 

include the: NOAA, Department of F~heries and Oceans (Canada), University of Ulm Germany, 

FWS, North Slope Borough, State of Alaska, Kawerak and TDX Corporations, Alaska Sea Grant 

Program, and the Cook lnlet Marine Mammal Advisory Committee. The purpose of AMMTAP is 

to collect tissues from Alaska marine mammals and to store these samples for future 

contaminants analyses. Marine mammals sampled are important subsistence resources and 

include: ringed seals (Phoca hispida), bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus), spotted seals (P. 

largha), harbor seals (P. vitulina), Pacific walrus, northern fur seals (Callorhinus orsinus), Steller 

sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus), belukha whales (Delphinapterus leucas), bowhead whales 

(Balaene mysticetus), and polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Liver, fat (blubber), and kidney tissues 

are collected from freshly-killed animals using standardized sampling procedures. Contaminant 

analyses include petroleum hydrocarbons, trace metals, PCBs, and persistent polychlorinated 
Thorsteinson - Nab'& Biological Service OCS Environmental Studies Program 145 

hydrocarbons. Future directions include expanding tissue dlectionstp include greater food web 

representation and human risk assessments. 

II. OFFSHORE FISHERY INVESTIGATION 

Large gaps exist in our knowledge of the ecology of arctic cod. In Alaska, they occur in 

marine waters extending from Norton Sound to Demarcation Point and are an often-acclaimed 

key component of Arctic food webs. They are the most abundant fish in the Alaska Beaufort Sea 

and are considered one of the 'keystone" species or indicators of coastal ecosystem health. This 

small cod species is of minor value in subsistence fisheries at Barrow and Kaktwik. The fall 

timing (November) of these fisheries is important, however, because it demonstrates their coastal 

presence in early winter. 

Biological descriptions of the species life pattern and major habitat associations in Alaska 

is not available. Craig and Haldorson (1980) encountered ripe arctic cod in Stefansson Sound 

in November 1978 and, by February 1979, all of the fish captured in this area were spent. 

Prespawning cod were captured again the following November and thus traditional use is 

indicated. This is the only documented spawning area reported to date from the Alaska Beaufort 

Sea. 

A generalized early life history account is available from the scientific literature (e.g., 

Sekerak 1981). The eggs of arctic cod are buoyant, possessing a flimsy membrane, and are 

among the largest gadoid eggs. The egg stage lasts from 1.5 to 3 months; the larval stage 

(5.4-15 mm) for about 2 months; and the transition to juvenile occurs at a size of 30 to 50 mm. 

Young-of-theyear (YOY) arctic cod are planktonic and their occurrence and depth distribution 

appears synchronous with the spring bloom. Phytoplankton and early life stages of zooplankton 

are their major foods. Juveniles remain planktonic until the end of their first growing season. 

Older cod prey on zooplankton, substrate and iceassociated crustaceans, and young fish, 

including YOY cod. Information from northern Alaska indicates that most males mature at 2 and 

3 years and females at 3 years. Spatial variation in the relative abundance of arctic cod is best 

known in nearshore areas, especially in late summer and autumn when onshore movements are 

common. 

The MMS sponsored NOAA research in the Alaska Beaufort Sea during 1988-1991 with 

objectives to (1) describe anadromous fish movements and migrations, and (2) investigate 

spatial-temporal relationships in fish habitat use. The study area included nearshore waters 

between Harrison Bay and Barter Island. In 1990, Camden Bay was the site of NOAA's fish 

telemetry studies (Jarvela and Thorsteinson, in press) and more than 50% of our fish sampling 

effort (Thorsteinson et al. 1991). The combination of multiple research objectives, limited field 

time, and inclement weather resulted in only one period of systematic sampling in Camden Bay. 

In this paper I describe how the presence of relatively high, uniform densities of YOY 

arctic cod in nearshore waters of Camden Bay provides new insights into this species ecology 

in arctic Alaska. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Study Area and Methods 

Camden Bay is a 90 km-wide bight abutting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR, 

Figure 1). The annual patterns of change in water properties and thermohaline structure in the 

bay are similar to other coastal locations (e.g., Hale 1991). Marine conditions are promoted by 

an absence of large local freshwater sources, lack of barrier islands, and comparatively deep 

water near shore. In most areas, marine water (-1 to 3OC, 27-32 ppt) predominates during the 

summer. 

An active fish sampling protocol allowed direct comparison of catch and hydrographic 

data (Thorsteinson et al. 1991). On September 2 and 3, 1990, replicate samples were collected 

at each of 14 fishing stations situated along three N-S transects extending offshore at Arey Island 

(4 stations), Collinson Pt. (6), and Brownlow Pt. (4). The stations were generally located at 

distances of 2-, 3-, 6-,9-, and 12-km from the coast over depths ranging between 2 and 25 m 

(Figure 1). A single station was located in the center of Simpson Cove at a depth of 2-m. 

On this basis, the study area was post-stratified into four large subareas (Brownlow Pt. 

- 215 km2, Camden Bay - 580 km2, Arey Island - 215 km2, and Simpson Cove - 85 km2; see 

Thorsteinson et al. 1991 and Figure 1). The total area sampled was 1,076 km2. The subareas 

correspond to western, central, and eastern portions of the bay, respectively. Each subarea was 

further subdivided into a surface grid of volumetric cells averaging 9 x lo7 m3 in eastem (5 cells) 

and western (5) subareas, and 19 X 1 o7 m3 in the central (7) part of the bay. The depth dimension 

corresponds to the depth sampled by the tow net. The length and width of individual cell 

boundaries correspond to the (1) geographic position of sampling stations on each transect, and 

(2) the placement of transects with respect to the physical boundaries of Camden Bay. 

Arctic cod densities were estimated by computing the volume (m3) of water fished per 

10-minute set (distance towed [m] X area [m2] of the tow net mouth) and standardizing the catch 

to numbers per 1000 m3. The coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated (as in Zar 1984) to 

describe relative variability in station catches and spatial patchiness across the bay. The 

classification of CV values developed by Grossman et al. (1990) was further adapted to Camden 

Bay where: values s25% indicate an even distribution; 25% cCV ~75% a relatively even 

distribution; 50% <CV ~75% moderate patchiness; and CV >75% high patchiness. Area swept 

methods (Bakala and Smith 1978) were used to describe arctic cod abundance and biomass. 

Ninety-fwe percent (95%) confidence intervals were computed for population standing stocks and 

wet-weight biomass. Sample shes were based on the computation of effective degrees of 

freedom (v) as described by Cochran (1963). 

Hydrographic (CTD casts) data was processed as described in Thorsteinson et al. (1991). 

Additional meteorological and oceanographic data was obtained from stations located on the 

ANWR coast (Underwood et al. 1995). 

Results 

Marine conditions were encountered at 13 stations sampled; transitional waters were 

observed in Simpson Cove. The average temperature of the upper 2-m layer was 1°C at the most 

northern stations of the bay warming to 2S°C within 2 km of the coast. Salinities >30 ppt were 

found in all exposed waters. Winds were from the northwest at approximately 3.5 m/sec during 

the 31-hr sampling period. Oceanographic conditions in Simpson Cove included surface 

temperatures of 4°C and salinities of 26 ppt. A strong salinity gradient was evident with 31 ppt, 

<4OC water, near the sea floor. 
Thorsteinson - National Biological Service OCS Environmental Studies Program 147 

:gz AWL(* 

CP-14 

Barter I. 

Flgure 1. Camden Bay study area, statton locations, and subareas. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

A total of 5,744 arctic cod were captured in 28 tow net sets. The catch was almost 

exclusively comprised of YOY cod. The average fish was 45 mm long (fork length) and weighed 

11.6 g. Catches were greatest in the central portion of the bay where densities averaged 97.5 

fish11000 m3. Other indices of abundance are presented in Table 1 below 

Table 1. Population abundance and biomass of YOY arcUc cod In Camden Bay, September 2-3,1991. 

The total number of YOY cod present was estimated to be 87,000,000 fish. The 95% confidence interval (v = 15) for this estimate was 52.7 X 10' fish and 114.5 X 10' fish. Similarly, the 

95% confidence limits (v = 15) for the estimated population biomass were 1,275,736 kg and 

1,980,339 kg. 

The spatial pattern of YOY cod distribution observed in the catch was one of diminished 

variability and greater abundance towards the head of the bay. Average CV values for each 

subarea were: 17% in Simpson Cove, 26% in Camden Bay, 62% in Arey Island, and 102% for 

Brownlow Pt. The highest relative abundance of YOY cod was observed within 6 km of the 

exposed coast. Greatest densities were reported at stations north of Collinson Pt. (Simpson Cove 

not included) (Table 2): 

Subarea 

key Island 

Camden Bay 

Simpson Cove 

Brownlow Point 

Totals 

Discussion 

Mean 

Density 

YOYIl ,OOOmS 

16 

86 

23 

0.5 

31.4 

Total Catch 

175 

4,942 

599 

28 

5,744 

Underwood et al. (1995) report 

large numbers of arctic cod in standard 

fyke net catches in Simpson Cove during 

July - September sampling periods in 

1988-1991. Examination of the age 

composition of their arctic cod catches in 

1988 and 1989 reveals an absence of YOY 

fish in July. Instead the inshore catches 

Table 2. Spatial dlstrlbutlon of YOY arctlc cod 

(flshl1000 m3 in Camden Bay, September 2-3, 1991. 

Estimated 

Population 

(YOY X 107 

6.6 

76.8 

3.4 

0.2 

87 

Estimated 

Pop. Biomass 

(kg YOY) 

79,044 

1,501,230 

28,235 

2,529 

1,628,038 - 

were dominated (90%) by 2-4 year old fish. 

Presumably, these cod were feeding on the rich mysid and amphipod food resources 

characteristic of arctic lagoons. Small numbers of YOY cod were captured in August and 

September 1990 at Simpson Cove and at Kaktovik and Beaufort lagoons. The onshore movement 

of YOY fish in autumn suggests a 50 mm size in fish transitioning from planktonic to benthic food 

habits. It may also reflect the size when cannibalism and predation are reduced. Older cod were 

rarely sampled in association with YOY fish in offshore habitats. 

Distance 

Offshore: 2-4 km 2-6 km >6 km 

Prior to this research, and that of Underwood et al. (1995), littleinformation was available 

about the fishes in the eastern sector of the Alaska Beaufort Sea. This is particularly true in 

key Island 

Camden Bay 

Brownlow Point 

55 

1 68 

1 

25 

1 28 

0.7 

2 

3 

0.2 
Thorsteinson - National Biological Se~ce OCS Environmental Sludies Program 149 

offshore areas closest to OCS oil-and-gas exploration. Limited trawling by Frost et al. (1978) 

indicated arctic cod to be most abundant in the northeastern Chukchi Sea (10.3 fishltrawl), 

moderately abundant between Barrow and Prudhoe Bay (7.8 fishhrawr), and least abundant 

between Prudhoe Bay and Demarcation Pt. (1.9 fishhrawr). Their sampling extended our 

knowledge about the depth range of the species and their sampling occurred at much greater 

depths than reported here. Craig (1984) reported the highest concentrations of arctic cod 175 km 

north of Prudhoe Bay in winter. 

The results of the standing stock evaluations presented in this paper suggest a mean 

overall YOY arctic cod density of 0.04 fish/m2 in Camden Bay in early September 1990 

(Thorsteinson et al. 1991). Craig and Haldorson (1980) estimated a school of 19 X 10' arctic cod 

in Simpson Lagoon during mid-August 1978. They estimated this school to correspond to a 

density of 0.14 fish/m2. This is very similar to the 0.13 fish/m2 we estimated in the central part of 

Carnden Bay in this study (Thonteinson et al. 1991). From an ecological perspective, 0.13 fish/m2 

corresponds to a wet-weight biomass of 1.5 g/m2 or 0.15 g dry weight/m2 (mean weight of 

average fish was 1 1.6 g). Assuming the daily rate of primary production is 1 g C/m2 in Camden 

Bay, and a 10% efficiency between trophic levels occurs, implies sustainable biomass levels of 

0.01 for secondary consumers. The catches suggest another center of abundance east of 

Prudhoe Bay and, perhaps, another stock offshore northeastern Alaska. 

It is not possible to identify the parent stock of the YOY fish we captured in Camden Bay. 

The transport of young fish is passive and their development tied in ways unknown to coastal 

oceanography. It is possible that the young fish were transported into our study area from 

Stefansson Sound, or more likely, as suggested by the distributional data, another spawning area 

located somewhere in the east or farther offshore. Tow netting near Collinson Point in early 

August suggested few cod were present in coastal waters at that time (Thorsteinson et al. 1991). 

A northwesterly wind had been blowing for several days prior to September 2-3 and this might 

explain the paucity of fish near Brownlow Point. Considering the variable nature of winds in this 

region, their effect on coastal circulation, and the known occurrence of nearshore concentrations 

of older fish in nearby waters each fall (i.e., Kaktovik fishery), a spawning population and nursery 

ground could be located to the east. If this is true, early life history development, including the 

transport and development of eggs and growth of YOY fry, would be inextricably linked to the 

physical processes and productivity of Camden Bay. A coastal eddy is suggested by the coastal 

configuration, bathymetry, and known currents in the eastern bay. Verification of such a nursery 

awaits further testing. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

1 thank Laurie E. Jarvela and David A. Hale for their participation in this study. This study 

was funded by the Minerals Management Service (MMS), U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), 

as part of the MMS Alaska Environmental Studies Program. The interpretations of data and 

opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the 

views and policies of the DOI. 
lQQ5 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

LITERATURE CITED 

Bakala, R.G. and G.B. Smith. 1978. Demersal fish resources of the eastern Bering Sea: Spring 

1976. U.S. Department of Commerce, Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center, Seattle, 

Washington. 233 p. 

Cochran, W.G. 1963. Sampling techniques. Wiley & Sons, New York. 

Craig, P.C. 1984. Fiih use of coastal waters of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea: a review. Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society 113: 265-282. 

Craig, P.C. and L Haldorson. 1980. Beaufort Sea barrier island-lagoon ecological process 

studies. Ecdogy of fishes in Simpson Lagoon, Beaufort Sea, Alaska. Annual Report of 

Principal Investigators. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Outer 

Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program, Juneau, Alaska. 

Frost, K.J., LF. Lowry, and J.J. Burns. 1978. Trophic relationships among iceinhabiting seals. 

Appendix 1, Offshore demersal fishes and epibenthic invertebrates of the northeastern 

Chukchi and western Beaufort seas. Vd. 1: Pages 231-271 in: Annual Report of the 

Principal Investigators. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program, Juneau, 

Alaska. 

Grossman, G.D., J.F. Dowd, and M. Crawford. 1990, Assemblage stability in stream fishes: a 

review. Environmental Management 15(5): 661-671. 

Hale, DA. 1991. A description of the physical characteristics of nearshore and lagoonal waters 

in the eastern Beaufort Sea, 1989. Report prepared forthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Anchorage, 

Alaska. 

Jarvela, L.E. and L.K. Thorsteinson. In press. Movements and temperature occupancy of sonically 

tracked Ddly Varden and Arctic Cisco in Camden Bay, Alaska. Special Symposium 

Publication, American Fisheries Society. 

Sekerak, A.D. 1981. Summary of the natural history and ecdogy of the arctic cod (Boreogadus 

saida). Final Report to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Outer 

Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program, Juneau, Alaska. 10 p. 

Thorsteinson, LK., LE. Jarvela, and DA. Hale. 1991. Arctic fish habitat use investigations: 

nearshore studies in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, summer 1990. Annual Report. National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and 

Assessment, Anchorage, Alaska. 166 p. 

Underwood, T.J., JA. Gordon, M.J. Millard, L.A Thorpe, and B.M. Osbome. 1995. Characteristics 

of selected fish populations of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal waters, Final Report, 

1988-1991. U.S. Fiih and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks Fishery Resource Office, Alaska 

Fisheries Technical Report Number 28, Fairbanks, Alaska. 590 p. 

Zar, J.H. 1984. Biistatistical analysis. Second edition. PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, New 

Jersey. 
PRELIMINARY RESEARCH ON PACIFIC WALRUS TO EVALUATE POTENTIAL EFFECTS 

OF DISTURBANCE BY OCS RELATED OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES IN THE CHUKCHI SEA 

Chadwlck V. Jay, Brenda E. Ballachey, Stephen M. Arthur, 

Gerald W. Gamer, and Danlel M. Mulcahy 

Alaska Sclence Center 

Natkml Bkloglcal Senrice 

101 1 East Tudor Road 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

INTRODUCTION 

Pacific walruses (Odobenus rosmanrs divergens) range throughout most of the Bering 

and Chukchi seas (Fay 1982; see Figure 1). The Chukchi Sea is used in summer by adutt females 

and young walruses. The proposed U.S./Russia simultaneous lease sale in the Chukchi Sea and 

the independent lease sale in U.S. portions of the Chukchi Sea would open the area to oil and 

gas exploration and eventual development. Oil and gas activities that occur during iceminimum 

conditions in summer in the Chukchi Sea are likely to come into direct contact with adutt females 

and subadutt walruses. 

Walrus in sea ice habits are known to respond to disturbances resutting from various 

industrial activities (Brueggeman et al. 1990, 1991) and are sensitive to disturbances at land and 

sea-ice haulouts (Loughrey 1959, Ray and Fay 1963, Satter 1979, Fay et al. 1986). The response 

is usually a general mwement away from the disturbance source (Brueggeman et al. 1990,1991). 

tf disturbances cause walruses to abandon preferred feeding areas or interfere with catf-rearing, 

resting, or other activities, then the walrus population could be negatively affected. Conversely, 

if such cause and effect cannot be demonstrated, then the overall effect of disturbance might be 

considered of little importance to the population. 

We are conducting a study sponsored by Minerals Management Service to assess the 

manner and degree with which disturbance may affect walruses in sea ice and open sea habitats. 

The study will focus on the effects of over-wing helicopters on the use of haulouts by walruses 

along the ice edge. 

METHODS 

TELEMETRY 

The disturbance study will involve pretreatment, treatment, and post-treatment 

observations on haulout patterns and mwements of animals fitted with transmitters to assess the 

werall impact of the disturbance an individual walruses. The treatment will consist of exposing 

hauled-out animals to helicopter werilights. The study will require suitable methods for (1) 

capturing and handling live animals, and (2) satellite telemetry for determining at-sea movements 

of walruses. Testing of methods was initiated in summer 1995 at a haulout at Cape Peirce, in the 

Bristol Bay area. 

Anlmal capture and handllng 

Handling walruses to attach satellite transmitters and collect biological samples requires 

that they be immobilized for an adequate period of time. A variety of immobilizing drugs have 

been used in the past (Gales 1989), including ketamine (Hagenback et al. 1975), phencyclidine 
152 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Ugure 1. Range of Pacific wah (from Fay 1982). 

(Sernatyne, DeMaster et al. 1981), etorphine (Hills 1992, Griffiths et al. 1993), ~elaz& (Stiiling and 

Sjare 1988, Griffiths et al. 1993), and carfentanil (Hills 1992). In our 1995 field efforts, we used 

carfentanil, because it has a relatively rapid induction time and requires a small volume for 

delivery. Furthermore, the recent availability of an improved antagonist, nakrexone, greatly 

reduces the chance of renarcdization, which was thought to be a problem associated with 

carfentanil in the past (Hills 1992). To extend the period of immobilization, we intubated and 

anesthetized the animal with koflurane gas. A similar procedure has been used successfully on 

Steller sea lions (pers. comm. D. Calkins, Alaska Department of Fish & Game). This has the 

advantages of a more controlled level of anesthesia, longer duration, and resolution of 

tachycardia and hypertension due to the induction drugs, as seen with other large animals, such 

as elephants (Dunlop et al. 1994). 

Both VHF radio transmitters and satellitelinked radio transmitters (Platform Transmitter 

Terminals, PTTs) have been used for monitoring walnrses. Timedepth recorders (TDRs) have 

been used to obtain diving patterns of Atlantic walruses (Stewart et al. 1993, Wiig et al. 1993). 
Jay - Preliminary Research on Pacific Walrus and Oil and Gas Aciivitjes in the Chukchi Sea 153 

Various configurations of PTT housing, antenna design, and transmitter attachment have been 

tried. The preferred site of attachment has been on the tusk (Hills 1992, Stewart et al. 1993, Wiig 

et al. 1993); however, devices that are attached to the tusk are severely battered. Causes of PTT 

failures are unknown, because failed units have not been retrieved and are rarely seen in the field. 

It is speculated that failures are due to housing breakage or leakage, antenna deformation, or 

insufficient attachment to the tusk (Hills 1992, Stewart et al. 1993). 

In 1995, we attached PTTs (three different designs) to the tusk of eight male walruses. 

Five of the transmitters were designed to collect dive information in addition to locations. In an 

effort to monitor the physical status of the PTTs, we attached a VHF radio transmitter to the 

opposite tusk of each walrus to aid in daily efforts to resight the animals at Cape Peirce haulouts. 

Atternative transmitter attachments, such as subcutaneous implantation, may alleviate 

problems experienced with tusk-mounted transmitters. Subcutaneous transmitters or transmitters 

with subcutaneous anchors have been used in birds and small mammals (Korschgen et al. 1984). 

A dacron pile collar used in human patients for maintenance of long-term indwelling catheters 

(von Recum and Park 1981, Khanna 1990) has been adapted to lix percutaneous antennas to the 

skin and form a seal to prevent subsequent infection, and has resutted in successful use of such 

antennas in birds (Petersen et al. 1995). The use of subcutaneous transmitters on walruses is 

being investigated; the development of isoflurane anesthesia will enable the necessary surgery. 

The development of PTTs using GPS for obtaining accurate and precise location 

information would enhance our ability to determine local movement patterns of walrus associated 

with sea ice and land-based haulouts. Uncertainty exists concerning the size of the transmitter 

package, attachments, and the ability to obtain locations using the GPSIPTT interface while the 

animal is at sea. Our research will evaluate the feasibility of the GPS satellite-linked technology 

for future use in studies of walrus in sea ice habits. 

OTHER PERTINENT RESEARCH ACTIVITIES 

Measures of anlmal condition 

Methods of determining animal condition from an evaluation of blood or other tissue 

components and various body measurements are being investigated in search of attemative 

means of assessing population status. Potentially, some of these methods may be incorporated 

at a later date into disturbance studies where measures of individual condition and physioiogical 

stress may be informative. Areas of investigation include hematology and serum chemistry, and 

extent and distribution of body fat. 

GIs data base 

U.S. and Russian scientists conducted periodic surveys of walruses in the Bering and 

Chukchi seas from 1958-1990, which include aerial counts of walruses on sea ice in the Russian 

and U.S. sectors, aerial and photographic counts of walruses at Russian land haulouts, and 

ground and aerial counts of walruses at U.S. land haulouts (Estes and Gilbert 1978, Estes and 

Gol'tsev 1984). Most of the information from U.S. surveys is accessible only through agency 

reports (e.g., Buckley 1958, Kenyon 1960,1961,1968,1972). Data from earty Soviet surveys were 

published in the Russian language (e.g., Fedoseev 1962,1981, Gol'tsev 1968,1972,1976) and 

may be diicutt for many researchers to obtain and use. These data, together with oceanographic 

data on the Bering and Chukchi seas such as bathymetry, sea ice distribution, surficial substrate, 

and the spatial distribution of selected benthic organisms, will be incorporated into a GIs data 
154 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

base so that they can be accessed by researchers addressing habitat and marine mammal 

relationships. 

SUMMARY OF 1995 FIELD EFFORTS 

During 1995 summer field efforts at Cape Peirce, capturing and handling techniques were 

tested on seventeen adult male walruses, and satellite transmitters were attached to eight 

animals. Biological samples and measurements were collected from each animal to investigate 

methods of evaluating animal condi. The immobilizing drug carfentanil and its antagonist 

nabexone worked well on most animals. Procedures for holding the animal after initial 

immobilization were refined. We anticipate that the procedures will provide the necessary restraint 

for the implantation of subcutaneous transmitters in future work. The success of tusk-mounted 

transmitters will be evaluated upon completion of haulout monitoring in fall 1995. 

Preliminary dive information from a single walrus indicates that the animal was spending 

an average of 50% of time diving, which occurred in waters 30-45 m deep near the Cape 

Peirce haulout, and that dives lasted for 7-8 minutes. Die information from this and other animals 

will be used to help identify feeding areas. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Brueggeman, J.J., C.I. Malme, RA. Grotefendt, D.P. Volsen, J.J. Bums, D.G. Chapman, D.K. 

Ljundblad, and GA. Green. 1990.1989 walrus monitoring program: the Klondike, Burger, 

and Popcorn prospects in the Chukchi Sea. Unpubl. Rep. to Shell Western E. & P. Inc., 

Houston, TX. 120 p. 

Brueggeman, J.J., D.P. Volsen, RA. Grotefendt, GA. Green, J.J. Bums, and D.K. Ljundblad. 

1991.1990 walrus monitoring program: the Klondike, Burger, and Popcorn prospects in 

the Chukchi Sea. Unpubl. Rep. to Shell Westem E. & P. Inc., Houston, TX. 130 p. 

Buckley, J. L 1958. Preliminary report-walrus survey, May 10.12,1958. UnpuM. Rep., U.S. Fish 

and Wildl. Serv., Anchorage, AK. 4 p. 

DeMaster, D.P., J.B. Faro, JA. Estes, J. Taggart, and C. Zabel. 1981. Drug immobilization of 

walrus (Odobenus rosmarus). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38:365367. 

Dunlop, C.I., D.S. Hodgson, R.C. Cambre, D.E. Kenny, and H.D. Martin. 1994. Cardiopulmonary 

effects of three prolonged periods of isoflurane anesthesia in an adult elephant. J. Amer. 

Veter. Med. Assoc. 205:1439-1444. 

Estes, JA., and J.R. Gilbert. 1978. Evaluation of an aerial survey of Pacific walruses (Odobenus 

rosmanrs divergem). J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 35:1130-1140. 

Estes, JA., and V.N. Gd'tsev. 1984. Abundance and distribution of Pacific walrus, Odobenus 

rosmarus divergem: Results of the first Soviet-American joint aerial survey, autumn 1975. 

Pages 67 to 76 in F.J. Fay and GA. Fedoseev, editors, Soviet-American cooperative 

research on marine mammals. Vdume 1 - Pinnipeds. National Oceanographic and 

Atmospheric Administration Technical Report, National Marine Fmheries Service 12. 
Jay - Preliminary Research on Pacific Walrus and Oil and Gas Acfhities in Ute Chukchi Sea 155 

Fay, F.H. 1982. Eodogy and Bidogy of the Pacific Walrus, Odobenus rosmarus divergens Illiger. 

U.S. Dep. Int., Fsh Wildl. Sew., No. Amer. Fauna No. 74, Washington, D.C. 279 p. 

Fay, F.H., B.P. Kelly, P.H. Gehrinch, J.L Sease, and A.A. Hoover. 1986. Modem populations, 

migration, demography, trophies, and historical status of the Pacific walrus. Pages 231 

to 376 in Environmental assessment Alaskan continental shetf, final report principal 

investigators. Vd. 37. MMSFIOAA, OSCEAP. Anchorage, AK. 

Fedoseev, G. A. 1962. [On the state of the stock and the distribution of Pacific walrus]. Zool. 

Zhur. 41:1083-1089. (In Russian). 

Fedoseev, G. A. 1981. [Aerovisual survey of walruses and bowhead whales in the eastern arctic 

and Bering Sea]. Pages 25 to 37 in L A. Popov (ed.), [Scientific investigational work on 

marine mammals in the northern part of the Pacific Ocean in 1980-19811. All-Union 

Scientific Investigational Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography, Moscow. (In 

Russian). 

Gales, N.J. 1989. Chemical restraint and anesthesia of pinnipeds: A review. Mar. Mammal. Sci. 

5:228-256. 

Gol'tsev, V. N. 1968. [Dynamics of coastal walrus herds in connection with the distribution and 

numbers of walruses]. Pages 205 to 215 in Arsen'ev and Pannin (eds.), Lastonogie 

Sevemo Chasti Tikhogo Okeana. Pishchevaia Promyshlennost. Moscow. (in Russian). 

GolYsev, V. N. 1972. [Distribution and assessment of numbers of the Pacific walrus in the autumn 

of 19701. Pages 25 to 28 in [Abstracts of Papers of the 5th All-Union Conference of 

Studies of Marine Mammals, 19721. (In Russian). 

Gol'tsev, V. N. 1976. [Aerial surveys of the Pacific walrus in the Soviet sector during autumn 

19751. Unpubl. Rep., TINRO, Magadan, Russia. 22 p. (In Russian). 

Griiths, D., 0. Wiig, and I. Gjertz. 1993. Immobilization of walrus with etorphine hydrochloride 

and ~oletil". Mar. Mammal. Sci. 9:250-257. 

Hagenback, C.C., H. Lindner, and D. Weber. 1975. Fiberoptic gastroscopy in an anaesthetized 

walrus, Odobenus rosmancs. Aq. Mamm. 320-22. 

Hills, S. 1992. The effect of spatial and temporal variability on population assessment of Pacific 

walruses. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Maine, Orono. 217 p. 

Kenyon, K. W. 1960. Aerial surveys of marine mammals in the Bering Sea, 23 February to 2 

March 1960 and 25-28 April 1960. Unpubl. Rep., U.S. Fish and Wildl. Sew., Anchorage, 

AK. 47 p. 

Kenyon, K. W. 1961. Report of a survey of marine mammals in the Chukchi Sea conducted for 

the Atomic Energy Commission, 29-30 March 1961. Unpubl. Rep., U.S. Fish and Wildl. 

Sew., Anchorage, AK. 10 p. 

Kenyon, K. W. 1968. Table of estimates of walrus numbers for aerial surveys conducted in 

Feb-March 1960, April 1960, March 1961, and April 1968. Unpubl. Rep., U.S. Fish and 

Wildl. Sew., Anchorage, AK. 3 p. 
156 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Kenyon, K. W. 1972. Aerial surveys of marine mammals in the Bering Sea, 616 April 1972. 

Unpubl. Rep., U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Anchorage, AK. 79 p. 

Khanna, R. 1990. Acute management of the patient requiring a chronic peritoneal dialysis 

catheter. Sem. Dial. 3:9399. 

Korschgen, C.E., S,J, Maxson, and V.B. Kuechle. 1984. Evaluation of implanted radio transmitters 

in ducks. J. Wildl. Manage. 48982-987. 

Loughrey, A.G. 1959. Preliminary investigation of the Atlantic walrus, Odobenus rosmarus 

rosmanrs (Linnaeus). Can. Wildl. Serv. Bull. No. 14. Ottawa. 123 p. 

Petersen, M.R., D.C. Douglas, and D.M. Mulcahy. 1995. Use of implanted satellite transmitters to 

locate spectacled eiders at sea. Condor 97:276278. 

Ray, C., and F.H. Fay. 1963. Influence of climate on the distribution of walruses, Odobenus 

rosmarus (Linnaeus). 11. Evidence from physiological characteristics. New York Zool. Soc. 

53:1932. 

Salter, R.E. 1979. Site evaluation, activii budgets, and disturbance responses of Atlanticwalruses 

during terrestrial haul-out. Can. J. Zd. 57:11641180. 

Stewart, R.EA., P.R. Richard, and B.E. Stewart. 1993. Report of the 2nd Walrus International 

Technical and Scientific (WITS) Workshop, 11-15 January 1993, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 

Canada. Can. Tech. Rep. of Fwh. and Aquatic Sci. 1940.91 p. 

Stirling, I., and 6. Sjare. 1988. Preliminary observations on the immobilization of male Atlantic 

walruses (Odobenus rosmanrs rosmam) . Mar. Mamm. Sci. 4:163-168. 

Von Recum, A.F., and J.B. Park. 1981. Permanent percutaneous devices. CRC Crit. Rev. 

Bioengin. 5:37-77. 

Wiig, O., 1. Gjertz, D. Griffiths, and C. Lydersen. 1993. Diving patterns of an Atlantic walrus 

Odobenus rosmarus rosmanrs near Svalbard. Polar Bid. 13:71-72. 

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION 

Anne Dalley: I was just wondering, with this thing strapped onto the tusk of the walrus, did it 

impede their ability to gather food? 

Chadwkk Jay: No one really knows. We do mount the transmitter over to the side of the tusk. 

When the walrus feeds, it feeds with its face right down and the tusks dragging along the 

substrate. The transmitter is attached to the side of the tusk. 

Anne Dalley: Would the transmitter eventually come off if they are strapped on with metal 

bindings and epoxy? 
Jay - Preliminary Research on Pacific Walm and Oil and Gas Activities in the Chukchi Sea 157 

Chadwick Jay: It is meant to be a permanent attachment. Now how long they last, again, we 

don't know because they are seldom resighted. That is the kind of information that we would like 

to know though for future development. 

Bruce Mate: What has been the longest distances and durations of satellite tags that you had? 

Chadwkk Jay: In earlier work by NBS, well then USWS, I believe the longest transmitter lasted 

for about 265 days, but that was an outlier. Most of them lasted in the order of two to three 

months. In previous work, a few animals have been tracked moving between the Chukchi and 

Bering seas. 
IQQS - MMS Arctic -thesis Meeting 
USING IMPLANTED SATELLITE TRANSMllTERS 

TO TRACK THE MOVEMENTS OF MURRES AND PUFFINS 

Scott A. Hatch, Paul M. Meyers, Daniel M. Mulcahy and David C. Douglas 

Alaska Sclence Center 

Natknal Bklogkal Servke 

1011 East Tudor Road 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

To track the movements of breeding Common and Thick-billed munes and Tufted puffins, 

we surgically implanted &gram satellite transmitters at three field locations in Alaska (Barren 

Islands, Cape Lisbume, and Cape Thompson). Implantation disrupted most breeding attempts 

of munes at the Banen Islands. Birds stayed out at sea, primarily foraging south to Kodiak Island 

at distances of 40 to 100 km from the release site. Munes from capes Lisbume and Thompson 

foraged north and west into the Chukchi Sea. Individuals that retained breeding status in those 

colonies showed typical foraging ranges of 70 to 80 km. Locations of birds that ceased to 

commute averaged about 170 km frorn the colonies in the first month after release. First-month 

mortality was high for instrumented puffins (80%) and munes (60%) at the Banen Islands, 

moderate for munes at Cape Lisbume (SO%), and low for munes at Cape Thompson (0%). The 

differences in mortality among study areas may reflect variable feeding conditions, although 

breeding success of munes was high (ca. 70 to 80%) at all three colonies in 1995. 

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION 

Bruce Mate: A lot of concerns have been expressed in the past about transcutaneous wounds 

on the animals. You have an antenna coming out of a bird from an internal transmitter. Have you 

recovered any animals so you can take a look at those sites and see how they deal with it? Or 

do you do something special with it? 

Scott Hatch: Wi respect to the wounds we inflicted, that could be a factor. We lost three of our 

birds within two or three days post-release. Those we attribute to possible infection. It turns out, 

from what I understand frorn the veterinarians and various people I have talked to, a bird's 

immune system is better in this context than perhaps, pinnipeds and some other mammals that 

have been used, when you are doing implants. They have a lot of problems releasing pinnipeds 

after an operation like this, and they will get infections. It is a major factor. You have to have a 

much more sterile environment, perhaps, for doing this. Ours is clean, not sterile, surgery. The 

veterinarian we are working with feels this would be a low incidence thing at most. But we do 

have a few cases of mortality, soon enough after release, that that would be a likely scenario. But 

birds, as I said, seem to be little prone to that kind of a thing. 

As far as recovering the birds, no we haven't done so. I don't believe there is any way 

we could home in on these transmitters. We do have some transmitters, even now, oh there, 

apparently on beaches giving us the locations. It is useful, in one way, because we can look at 

the redundancy of those locations from fbted transmitters out in the field. We have a number of 

those. Unlike, maybe a VHF, where you go out with a directional antenna and have some prayer 

of actually locating the dead animals, we don't have that ability here. Maybe we could design 

something in the future to recover the dead birds. That would certainly be the way you would like 

to do it - have a look and do the autopsy. 

Brenda Ballachey: You might mention the harlequin ducks ... 
160 la5 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Scott Hatch: If I knew much about it I would. I haven't had a chance to talk to Dan Esler about 

his work. May be you can help us there. 

Brenda Ballachey: I am also working at the NBS and involved in a project where one of the other 

investigators put out 96 WF implanted radios in Prince William Sound, a similar unit to what Scott 

uses but WF rather than the satellite. Those have a mortality switch in them. They are also trying 

to recover carcasses wherever they can. The surgery seemed to be very successful on those 

because 89 of them are still on the air and they were put out in August. So, in that case, there 

seems to be very little surgically-related mortality. But I think your question breaks down into two 

parts, one is the surgery itsetfand second, the percutaneous antenna, subsequently as a source 

of infection. I think, generally, once it seems to be established, you are finding that it is pretty 

good. They did do some work on ducks in captivity, I believe, to test the methods. But on the 

walrus, where we are considering the percutaneous antenna, we are far more concerned because 

with the animal on a haul out where they are rolling, presumably, there is much more chance of 

infection getting in through that collar than on a bird where they are not rolling against each other 

in a mucky place. 
POPULATION STUDIES OF MURRES AND KllTlWAKES 

AT CAPE LISBURNE AND CAPE THOMPSON 

David G. Roseneau 

Alaska Maritime Natknal Wildlife Refuge 

2355 Kachemak Bay Drfve, Sulte 101 

Homer, AK 99603 

Atthough Cape Lisbume and Cape Thompson are not in the central Beaufort area, I was 

asked to come and give a short presentation on these seabird colonies to update you on what 

we have been doing in the Chukchi Sea during the past 20 years. I first started working at these 

sites in 1976 with Dr. Alan M. Springer, Institute of Marine Sciences University of Alaska-Fairbanks 

(IMSUAF), and thought I had made my last Wits to them in 1991-1992. However, last year I was 

asked to retum to both colonies to conduct additional studies during the 1995 nesting season. 

Basically, I will be showing you some of the long-term data sets on murres (Uria lomvia 

and U. aalge) and black-legged kittiwakes (Rissa fridactyia) that we have accumulated from these 

Chukchi Sea colonies, but first some historical perspective. Field work was initiated at both 

locations in 1976 under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Outer Continental 

Shetf Environmental Assessment Program (NOAA-OCSEAP, Research Unit 460). These studies, 

later directed by the Minerals Management Service (MMS), ended in about 1983. However, the 

Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (AMNWR) supported continuing small-scale efforts at 

Cape Lisbume during 1984-1986. In 1987 and 1988, the MMS sponsored additional monitoring 

work at capes Lisbume and Thompson, respectively. MMSsupported monitoring studies were 

also conducted at Cape Thompson in 199@1991, and at Cape Lisbume in 1992. In 1993, the 

Cape Lisbume colony was visited again with AMNWR support, and in 1995, we conducted larger 

scale studies at both locations with joint MMS and National Biological Service support. 

Also, I should mention here that AMNWR has designated Cape Lisbume as an annual 

monitoring site under their seabird monitoring program. However, the Refuge rarely receives 

enough money to visit it every year without outside support. The Refuge has also designated 

Cape Thompson as a secondlevel seabird monitoring site, and as such, we try to conduct work 

there every three or four years. But again, to meet this goal, we usually have to rely on outside 

help for funding. 

Since 1976, we have acquired a total of 14 years of data on murres and kittiwakes at 

Cape Lisbume, and nine field seasons of information on these species at Cape Thompson. Also, 

because seabird research was conducted at Cape Thompson during the Atomic Energy 

Commission Project Chariot days, we have some valuable 1959-1961 data on the birds from that 

colony. We are lucky enough to have access to this historical information because Dr. L.G. 

Swartz, the principal investigator of the AEC-sponsored study, was both Dr. Springer's and my 

major professor at UAF during the eady 1970s, and he tumed his field notes over to us shortly 

before he retired. 

Earlier today, you heard about a spring lead system that is important to a variety of birds 

and marine mammals in the Chukchi Sea. I would like to point out that there is another system 

that develops in the region during the summer months that is also important to seabirds and a 

variety of other wildlife. There is a strong current that flows northward through the Bering Strait 

and part of this flow passes by capes Thompson and Lisbume and eventually rounds Point 

Barrow. This northward flow of water persists most of the year, and during summer, it carries a 

rich drifting boreal pelagic food web past the colonies. 
162 1w5 - MMS Arctic Spthesis Meeting 

During spring and early summer, the Cape Thompson and Cape Lisbume regions are 

dominated by an Arctic benthic and demersal food web consisting primarily of Arctic cod 

(Boreogadus saida), sculpins (primarily Myoxocephalus spp.), and flatfishes (primarily 

Pleuronectidae). However, by about mid-summer, a pelagic food web containing sand lance 

(Amrnodytes hexapterus) and capelin (Mallohrs villmus) begins to develop as the northward 

current flow begins to bring a variety of zooplankton endemic to the Bering Sea into the region, 

particularly large numbers of copepods (including Eucalanus, Calmus, and Acartia spp.). Usually, 

by about late July, we begin to see the effects of this rich, developing food web on seabird 

foraging patterns and diets at the Thompson and Lisbume colonies. 

In addition to the northward current flow, another factor plays a key role in the late 

summer shift from an Arctic benthicidemersal food web to a pelagic food web in the Cape 

Thompson and Cape Lisbume regions of the eastem Chukchi Sea. During late spring and early 

summer a large relatively warm low salinity water mass begins developing in the eastern Bering 

Sea. This feature, named the ALaska Coastal Water mass, consists of a mixture of Bering Sea 

parent water, melting sea ice, and outflow from the Yukon-KuskWm Delta. During about midto late July, this water mass, which can easily be seen on satellite imagery, begins to reach the 

Thompson and Lisbume regions. By late summer in some years, it rounds Point Barrow, and in 

others it begins to dissipate in the Icy Cape region. This warm low salinity coastal water strongly 

influences both the diversity and richness of the developing pelagic food web that is carried past 

the seabird colonies by the prmiling northward current now. 

The effects of the ALaska Coastal Water mass can be dramatic. Often, nearshore 

temperatures in the Cape Thompson and Cape Liibwne regions rise by as much as 10" C and 

salinity declines by several parts per thousand in only 7-10 days time. These changes appear to 

strongly influence the availability of sand lance, one of the primary forage fish the seabirds rely 

on. In general, these fish usually begin to appear in nearshore surface waters near the colonies 

at about the time kii'mrake chkks begin to hatch. However, if development of the Alaska Coastal 

Water mass is poor and nearshore waters remain cold, strong inshore runs of 0+ and 1 + age 

class sand lance either tail to materialhe or are delayed, and surfacefeeding kiiiwakes ledge 

few nestlings. Conversely, in years when development of Alaska Coastal Water is good and 

nearshore temperat- warm suRici, large schools of sand lance appear in the surhce 

waters and kittiwake productivity improves markedly (productivity in cold and warm water years 

can vary from almost zero to more than one chick per pair). I should also mention that we have 

some evidence suggesting that water temperatures can become too warm. In 1984, when 

temperatures were the highest we have recorded, few sand lance appeared and kii'mrakes failed 

reproductively. 

As a general rule, annual changes in summer water temperatures and the productivity of 

kiiiwakes tend to be similar at the Thompson and Lisbume colonies. However, in 1995 we 

observed a marked diierence in kiiiwake productivity between these locations. At Cape Lisbume, 

where large schools of sand lance appeared before kiiiwake eggs hatched and persisted 

throughout most of nestling period, productivity was relatively good, about 0.8 chicks per nest. 

In contrast at Cape Thompson, kiikes laid eggs, but reproductive success was essentially 

zero, because most paks abandoned their nests shortly aiter hatching began. The near-complete 

failure of kiiiwakes at Cape Thompson appeared to result from a severe mid-season shortage 

of prey in surface waters. Atthough sand lance were clearly present in the Thompson region, as 

indicated by murres bringing them to chicks and the high overall productivity of these diving birds 

(about 0.85 fledglings per egg, a level nearly identical to that recorded at Cape Lisbume), they 

were apparently not availableto surfacefeeding kiikes. We will be reviewing satellite imagery 
Raseneau - Population Studies d Murres sMd Kittiwakes at Cape Usburn8 and Cape Thompson 163 

to see if differences in sea surface temperatures can help explain the differences in distribution 

and availability of this key forage fish species at the colonies. 

Now I'd like to show you examples of some of the long-term data sets we have obtained 

at the Lisburne and Thompson colonies wer the years. This graph shows counts of murres on 

a series of monitoring plots that we census from boats at Cape Lisburne (Figure 1). Because 

weather and sea conditions are often unfavorable, these are single counts (one per season) 

without any measure of variability. Although we were able to obtain two counts this year, it is the 

first time we've been able to accomplish that since the studies began in 1976. As you can see 

from the graph, these counts show a signmcant positive trend in numbers of birds. We believe 

this trend is real for several reasons. First, it is based on nine years of data collected over a 20- 

year interval. Also, it is supported by several other sets of data. 

Percent change between 1976 and 1995 = + 1 16% 

Average annual haease = 6%/yr 

35000 

Years 

30- 

Figure 1. Trend In Mnnber of muntm on boat plots 11, 12, 25,28, 30, 32, 65, 66, 70, and 72 at Cape 

Usbwne, Alaska between 1976 and 1995 (cab are dngk comb without any measures of 

variabllty). 

r2=0.83 30.41 3 

H,: Slope = 0, P < 0.001 

We now have several different sets of plots that we ant at the Lisburne and Thompson 

colonies, and this is an approach that I am using at other colonies. For example, we are currently 

censusing several plot sets in the Barren Islands where I've been conducting a murre monitoring 

project for the Ebron Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council since 1993. Basically, when you attempt to 

count a whole colony or a large section of it, you are rarely able to count it more than once or 

twice during the conect time of year and day because of logistics and weather. Since daily 

variation in attendance of murres tends to be fairly high (e.g., in the order of plus or minus 20°k), 
764 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

you have to count the cotony at least five times during the census period to get a reasonable 

measure of variability. However, when dealing with large cdonies or sections of them such as 

these historical boat-based Lisbume plots, you are usually limited to only one or two counts that 

give no measurement of that variable. Because ofthis, we set up a series of smaller plots that we 

use to statistically track population trends. These plots, which we call multiwnt plots, are 

counted at least five and preferably ten times during the census period to provide measures of 

variability (the census period is defined as the interval between peak egg-laying and first seagoing of chicks). 

Here is a graph showing replicate counts made on a set of seven land-based multicount 

plots that we set up at Cape Lisbume in 1987 (Fgure 2). As you can see, there is a highly 

significant positive trend in mune numbers on these plots which supports the trend found on the 

larger set of boat-based plots that were only counted once each year. We also have a second 

set of multiiunt plots that we have been censusing since 1992. Although only three years of data 

Years 

1 r2=0.93 

-T H,: Slope=O,P<o.~l 

B 

2500- 

2000- 

1500- 

Figure 2. Trend In number of mwres on bnd pkb 1-7 at Cape U8bwne, Alaska between 1987 and 

1995 (~0~nts are multlple counts wfth mea8wea of variability: 1987, n=8; 1992, n=9; 1993, n=5; 1995, 

n=lO). 

1000- 

500- 

0 

are available from it, it shows the same pattern. This year, we started another level of counts on 

two sets of smaller plots that we established to obtain data on productivity. As a result, in about 

four to five years we'll actually have five separate sets of data that can be used to track changes 

in murre population numbers at the cotony. Using several different sets of census plots to track 

bird numbers at cotonies is a valuable tool. When we see the same patterns emerge from the 

various data sets, it increases our confidence in the results. Because patterns are similar on the 

Percent change between 1987 and 1995 = +62% 

Average annual increase = 8%/yr 

I I I I I I 1 I I 

86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 % 
Roseneau - Population Studies of Mum and Kittiwakes at Cape Lisbume and Cape Thompson 165 

boat-based census and mukount plots at Cape Lisbume, we believe that there has indeed been 

a significant increase in mune numbers at the colony since the early 1980s. Also, using several 

plot sets provides an important measure of flexibility when conducting long-term monitoring 

programs at seabird colonies because weather and sea conditiis, logistical problems, and 

changes in funding levels may prevent cwnting some sets of plots in some years (i.e., multiple 

sets of plots help ensure that at least some level of comparative information is obtained wer the 

life of the project, desple these variables). 

Here is another graph to quickly show you what the kittiwake population has been doing 

at the Cape Lisbume colony wer the years (Figure 3). We actually make two kinds of kittiwake 

counts. This graph happens to show numbers of birds. However, we also count nests. Nests tend 

to be the more stable of the two, because birds tend to respond fairly rapidly to local changes 

in environmental condlis. As you can see, there is no overall trend in numbers. However, 

interestingly enough, we noticed that there was a positive trend between 1977 and 1s. Not a 

Percent change between 1977 and 1986 = +79% 

Average annual increase = 9%/yr 

Years 

Flgure 3. Trend In number of black-legged MtUwakea on boat plots 65, 66, 70, and 72 at Cape 

Usburne, Alaska between 1977 and 1095 (counts are slngle counts wfthout any measures of 

varlabllity). 

highly significant one, but never-theless an increasing trend. I bring this to your attention now, 

because I will show you similar results from Cape Thompson later. In general, the pattem is the 

same at both locations. This suggests that something happened in the eastern Chukchi Sea 

during the late 1980s - early 1990s that caused attendance to decline at both colonies. Now that 

numbers appear to have decreased, we will fdlow the situation to see if it develops into a 

negative trend. 
166 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meetreetrng 

This graph shows our long-term data set on kiiwake productivii at the Cape Lisbume 

colony (Figure 4). It helps illustrate the high degree of variability typically found in kiiwake 

breeding success at Alaskan cdonies. Note the low productivity in 1976-sea surface 

temperatures were qule cold and availability of food was poor during the nesting season that 

year. Also note 1 *the birds also essentially failed to reproduce that year. Again food was the 

limling factor, but its low availability (lack of shoaling sand lance in surface waters) appeared to 

result from relatively high nearshore water temperatures. Nineteen eighty-four was by far the 

warmest of all the years show on this graph. After 1984, sea surface temperatures dropped 

+ Number of EggdChicks per Nest 

+ Number of EggdChicks per Successful Nest 

Years 

Figure 4. RoductMty of black-legged klttlwakes at Cape Ueburne, Alaeka between 1976 and 1995. 

somewhat and productivity rose. I should mention that 1992 was somewhat of an anomalous 

year. Water temperatures were indeed coder, compared to the mid-1980s, but productivity was 

also lowered by cold late summer air temperatures and snowfalls that killed chicks. In 1995, sea 

surface temperatures were slightly higher on average during late summer and air temperatures 

were unseasonably mld, compared with 1992, and reproductive success improved. 

I should mention that we have other types of data from the Lisbume dony. Some of 

these data sets appear to be tightly coupled with some of the environmental information we've 

been collecting, and this is exciting because it is beginning to help us understand how the 

eastern Chukchi system works. 

I inlially started to explore relationships between seabirds and changing environmental 

conditiis with Dr. Alan Springer, a partner of mine at the Institute of Marine Sciences UAF, and 

Dr. Edward Murphy, who is now a professor at the Institute of Arctic Bidogy UAF. All of us are 

continuing to work together on this subject to this day. In fact, Ed will be sending me some 

information from Bluff in Norton Sound next week because he has observed some of the same 
Roseneau - Population Studies of Mum and KMwakes at Cape Lisburne and Cape Thompson 167 

changes that we are starting to detect at Cape Thompson. So it's starting to become quite 

interesting, because these types of long-term data sets are now allowing us to make progress 

toward understanding the system. 

Now, I'd like to show you some information from Cape Thompson, another large murre 

and kittiwake colony located only about 50 miles south of Cape Libume. In general, murre 

numbers appear to have undergone little change there since the mid-1970s. This graph, showing 

single counts at Cdony 4, does not include Swartz's 19591961 information (Figure 5). If these 

Years 

flgure 5. Trend in number of mwrea at Colony 4, Cape Thompson, Aleska between 1976 and 1995 

(counts are single counts wlthout any measures of vatlabitlty). 

% 

15000 

tmP 

h 

o 

s 

S 

E 

P mnl0 

data were included in some of the data sets, they would show that a population decline occurred 

between the early 1960s and the mi61970s. Based on the 197&1995 data, we believe that 

numbers may be starting to recover. 

r2=029 

(No significant correlation) 

7.617 

6892 

a 

5.910 6.223 

6,312 

5550 

4.463 

11111111111111111111' 

75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 

This graph shows data from set of murre plots established by Swartz in the late 1950searly 1960s that we continue to track today (Figure 6). The counts shown here are multiple counts 

with measures of variability. Error bars are not present because these data are still being 

analyzed; however, I know what they basically are. I am only showing you the information from 

the late 1970s - mid-1990s. As you can see, there has been no significant trend in murre numbers 

during this interval on these plots-it's basically a Ilat line. However, this next graph shows data 

collected on another set of plots that were set up 1988 (Figure 7). These data do show a weak 

positive trend. 
168 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Years 

Figure 6. Trend In mmber of rm~~ea on mvm LGS hnd pkb at Cape Thompson, Alaska between 

1979 and 1995 (counts are multiple comb wlth measures of varlablllty). 

These latter data are hardty compelling by themselves. However, we have some other 

information that suggests the Cape Thompson murre population may be beginning to change. 

We have noticed over the years that at cdonies (e.g., the Barren Islands) with populations that 

have little depth to them (e.g., age structures skewed toward older adults), numbers of birds on 

the cliffs begin declining rapidty as soon as chicks begin leaving and going to sea. The adults 

go to sea with the chicks and the nesting cliffs become bare in onty about 10-14 days time. 

In contrast at Cape Lisbume, we obviousty have a large floating population of subadults 

that will soon be entering the breeding population. At this cdony, numbers begin to increase on 

the plots about a week before chicks start to leave. This year, after seagoing started, numbers 

on some plots increased dramaticalty-h some cases doubling over about two weeks time. The 

lateseason increase persisted for about two weeks and then numbers finally began declining as 

the last chicks started to depart the cliffs. This increase in numbers cleady results from an influx 

of prospecting subadults. When we watch sections of plots carefully, we see new birds show up 

that begin to hang out on the edges of the occupied breeding territories and territorial disputes 

increase. We also see that when members of breeding pairs leave the nesting ledges with their 

chicks, some of these new birds quicw mwe into the vacant nesting sites-sometimes as many 

as three or four individuals. These buds spend most of their time checking the nesting habitat out. 

The presence of these large numbers of prospecting birds indicates that there is a large, healthy 

pool of non-breeders out there that are waiting to be recruited into the breeding population. 

We've started to notice a similar late season increase in murre numbers at Cape 

Thompson, and Dr. Murphy also noted this for the first time at Bluff this year. Ed now has 

numbers increasing on plots at the end of the census period. As a result, we predict that within 
Roseneau - Population Studies of Murres and Kittiwakes at Cape Lisbume and Cape Thompson 169 

15000 

Figure 7. Trend in number of mums on 20 BSF bnd plot8 at Cape Thompson, Alaska between 1988 

and 1995 (count8 are multlple counts wlth measures of varlabllty). 

-. 

0 

a few years' time we're going to find increasing trends at both cdonies (populations of murres 

have remained low at both locations since at least the mid-1970s). 

r2 = 0.96 

H,: Slope = 0, P < 0.05 

Percent change between 1988 and 1995 = + 14% 

Average annual increase = 2 %Eyr 

llllIIIII1IIIIIIII I1 

Here is the last graph I have that shows some of the data on kittiwake numbers at Cape 

Thompson (Figure 8). Just as we saw in the Cape Lisbume data set, no trend is apparent in 

population numbers over the myear long 19761 995 period. However, a significant positive trend 

is present between 1976 and 1990. As I mentioned earlier, this pattern is similar to the pattem we 

found in the 19761987 portion of the Cape Lisbume data set. It appears, based on information 

from both locations, that kittiwakes were increasing at the cdonies until about the late 1980s. 

Again, these complimentary data sets suggest that something may have occurred in the eastern 

Chukchi Sea in the early 1990s that caused kiiike attendance to decline at the cdonies. In 

both cases, we will make an effort to track kittiwake numbers wer the next few years to see if this 

apparent change is real. We will also review avaikble environmental data to see if we can 

pinpoint any specific conditions that may have contributed to this apparent change in attendance 

at the colonies. 

75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 

Years 

In conclusion, I would like to leave you with the message that the types of long-term data 

sets I have shown you are now starting to pay off. We are in the process of developing a much 

better understanding of how these seabirds respond to changing environmental parameters. 

There is no doubt that these types of long-term information bases have great value, and we would 

like to thank NOAA and the MMS for the support they have given us over the years that has 

allowed us to continue collecting these kinds of data. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Percent change between 1976 and 1990 = +244% 

Average annual increase = 17%/yr 

Years 

flgwe 8. Trend In number of black-legged klttlwakes at Colony 4, Cape Thompson, Alaska between 

1976 ad 1995 (count8 are dngle counte without any measures of vatJablWty). 

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION 

DavM Rugh: You spoke about some of the variabilities in the environmental conditions in the 

timing of birds leaving. Have you ever tested inter-obsewer counts? That is, you've been a 

common factor for about 20 years. Would someone else make an identical count to yours? 

DavM Roseneau: Basically, yes. Fust of all, I can say that we've been lucky enough at Cape 

Lisbume to have one of the original investigators present almost every year. Eier Alan Springer 

or myself in most cases. When the Fbh and Wildlife Service became involved, Art Sows and Vern 

Bycd also began counting the birds. They've been there a number of years with either Alan or 

myself, so they're now well-trained members of the census team. Basically we have somebody 

present every year who has a number of years of experience at the colony. 

But to answer your question, yes, we've looked at differences in observers' counts. We 

did that back in the 1970s. We've looked at differences between observers, various types of 

individual obsewer error, the kids of errors that can be introduced when making these types of 

counts, and basically, these kinds of errors do not appear to have large impads on results. In 

general, given such factors as daily variation in bird numbers, these types of errors tend to only 

play minor parts. 
Roseneau - Populaiion Studies of Mum and Kittiwakes at Cape Lisbume and Cape Thompson 171 

However, I should mention that we have encountered people that apparently can't count 

birds. We have to be careful in this regard. Most people tend to estimate numbers a little low, 

usually about 15 percent, at least in my case. This does not create much of problem, compared 

to the potential problem of being inconsistent between counts. We've occasionally run across 

people that make both high and low estimates that vary by 50 percent or more, and we cannot 

use these individuals because of the large amount of error they would introduce into the data. 

In general, natural variation in daily and hourly murre numbers is large enough to swamp 

the smaller kinds of errors that may be introduced by observers, including observers newly added 

to censusing teams. Also, new observers' abilities to estimate numbers of birds are tested in the 

sense that they are required to practice counting plots with experienced personnel. The amount 

of enor that observers introduce into the counts is a relatively small portion of the whole and it's 

almost always overshadowed by natural variations in numbers. Observer error is something we 

have to be aware of, but controlling the introduction of signiiicant errors is relatively easy to deal 

with. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meetlng 
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA COASTAL MARINE INSTITUTE 

SPONSORED STUDIES IN THE ARCTIC OCS 

John J. Goeting 

lnbtltute of Matine Science 

Unhrorslly of Alaska 

Fairbanks, AK 99701 

OVERVIEW 

A Cooperative Research Opportunlly 

The University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), the State of Alaska, and the Minerals 

Management Service (MMS) have joined forces to establish an Alaskan Coastal Marine Institute 

(CMI) at UAF as a means of providing MMS funding for research in Alaska that is of mutual 

interest to both the MMS and the State of Alaska. The research thrust of the Coastal Marine 

lnstitute is on potential coastal, marine, and human environmental issues pertaining to minerals 

exploration and extraction. Funding offered by MMS through the CMI is matched 1:1 by nonfederal support. This arrangement provides a cooperative and cost effective means of funding 

research needed by the state and federal governments. 

BACKGROUND 

Minerals Management Senrice is the federal agency tasked to investigate the potential 

impacts of oil and gas (and other minerals) exploration and production in coastal and offshore 

U.S. waters (U.S. Economic Zone). In an attempt to stretch their resources, MMS has joined with 

the State of Alaska and the University of Alaska to focus research in those areas of shared 

interest. The vehicle for joining forces k the University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute. Funds 

of up to one million ddlars per year are made available to the Alaskan CMI through fiscal year 

1997. There is no limit set on dollar amount for each project, but the intent of the CMI is to fund 

several smaller as opposed to fewer larger projects. A similar CMI is operating in Louisiana as 

a joint venture between MMS and Louisiana State University. 

The Alaskan CMI is administered at UAF under the School of Fisheries and Ocean 

Sciences as a special project under the Dean's office. Direction for the CMl is provided by a 

Technical Steering Committee of six. It is composed of two members from MMS, two members 

from the UAF marine research community, and two members from the State of Alaska. MMS 

members are Dr. Cleve Cowles from Anchorage and Ken Turgeon from MMS headquarters in 

Hemdon, VA. The two UAF members are Dr. Vera Alexander (as Director of the Institute) and Dr. 

John Goen'ng. The two State members are Dine Mayer, Director, Division of Governmental 

Coordination and Gordon Kruse, Diion of Commercial F~heries Management and 

Development, Alaska Dept. of Fwh and Game. 

The CMI annually develops a request for Letter of Intent (LOI) based on the mutually 

shared research interests of MMS and the State as stated in a series of Framework Issues. 

Projects funded through CMI provide information whkh can be used by the MMS and the State 

for management decisions speciiically relevant tothe MMS mission. That is, projects are pertinent 

to either the OCS oil and gas program or the marine minerals mining program and provide useful 

information for one of the phases of program management, or for the scientific understanding of 

the potential environmental effects of these resource development act'rvities in the arctic and 

subarctic environments. Additiilly, projects are frequently designed to foster the training of 

researchers in relevant fields of study, especially through the award of graduate student 
174 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

assistantships or traineeships. Projects may be proposed by graduate students through the 

sponsorship of a faculty member. Projects can involve workshops to foster the continuing 

education and training of the academic and regulatory communities as well as MMS staff. 

FRAMEWORK ISSUES GUIDING THE CMI 

Projects funded by the CMI generally embrace one or more of the following Framework 

Issues which have been identified by the Technical Steering Committee to guide the selection 

process: 

1. Studies for better understanding the affected marine, coastal, or human 

environment; 

2. Modeling studies of environmental, social, and economic processes for better 

predictive capabilities and for defining information needs; 

3. Experimental studies for better understanding of environmental processes, or the 

causes and effects of OCS activities; 

4. Projects which design or establish mechanisms or protocds for the sharing of 

data or information regarding marine or coastal resource or human activities to 

support prudent management of oil and gas and marine minerals resources. 

5. Synthesis studies of background information; and 

6. Descriptive studies of offshore mining technologies. 

THE CMI PROPOSAL CYCLE 

Requests for Letter of Intent (LOI) are made in September and, based upon the Technical 

Steering Committee's evaluations of the LOI, full proposals are requested in early November for 

selected projects. Final review (internal and/or external) and potential acceptance of a project 

occurs the following February. Funding for selected projects is generally available in March-April. 

RESEARCH PRODUCTS 

The CMI-funded projects provide a variety of products, including a contribution to an 

annual CMI report detailing work in progress, and a detailed final report at the culmination of the 

work. In addition, investigators are strongly encouraged to publish their findings in peer reviewed 

journals and to present their work at symposia and to the lay public when appropriate. Data 

collected on CMI-funded projects are fomarded to the National Ocean Data Center, or to other 

appropriate repositories so they become available to other researchers and to the public. 

The CMI has initiated three projects which are addressing biogical information needs 

relative to the Arctic Coastal Ecosystem. These include: 

North Slope Amphldrorny Assessment - Natural stable isotope abundances measured 

in tissues of Alaska North Slope coregonine fishes are being shown to reflect differences 

in feeding habit relative to size and age. This methodology is being developed so that 

it may be used as a tod for proxy analysis of lish behavior in future North Slope 

environmental monitoring studies. Development ofthe methodology consists of sampling 

Arctic and least ciscos, broad whitefish, Dolly Varden, and representative non-commercial 

fish and forage species through collaboration with existing sampling programs being 

conducted by the North Slope Borough's Department of Wildlife Management and BP 

Exploration through contracts to LGL, Ltd. Intensive sampling at a limited number of sites 

is enabling an analysis of population structure using natural stable isotope abundance. 
Goering - Univenify of Alaska Coastal Marine lnstifute 175 

Initial results of the first field season confirm that stable isotope data reflect 

amphidromous feeding modes. 

Testlng Conceptual Models of Marlne Mammal Trophk Dynamics Uslng Carbon and 

Nitrogen Stable Isotope Raw - Steller sea lions and harbor seals are declining in 

numbers in the northern Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and the Bering Sea and the northern fur 

seal has apparently stabilized aRer a decline from previously higher numbers. Although 

no lease sales are currentty planned in the Bering Sea wer the near future, if either 

species is declared endangered species, oil and gas exploration and production might 

be severely curtailed in Bering Sea or GOA continental shelf habitats. This project focuses 

on the food web dynamics supporting top trophic levels in the GOA, Bering, and Chukchi 

seas with an emphasis on attempting to find linkages to explain these population 

declines. We are using the natural abundance stable isotope ratios of carbon and 

nitrogen to trace trophic transfers of these elements with the goal of identifying possible 

changes in trophic status or habit usage over seasonal, annual, and decadal time 

scales. Our preliminary data show large temporal changes in isotope ratios over the 

seasons which may deflect changes in diet and habitat usage. These initial data have 

also shown the presence of large isotopic gradients in zooplankton between the 

continental shelf biota of the Bering-Chukchi seas versus those from the pelagic regions 

near the Aleutian Islands. The isotopic variations in marine mammal tissues showing 

temporal signals, such as whiskers and claws, reveal that the fur seals change trophic 

positions in the food web on a seasonal basis. Little dietary information linked to isotope 

data is yet available to account for these changes. Over the next year our research will 

focus on expanding the prey isotope database and identifying possible causes for the 

observed isotopic variations. 

The Alaska Frozen Tlssue Collectkn and Assochted Electronic Database: A 

Resource for Marlne Bktechnology - The Alaska Frozen Tissue Collection (AFTC) is 

the primary regional archive for frozen zodogical samples and a major contributor to 

biotechndogy studies of Alaska and its waters. Advances in molecular biology are rapidly 

establishing the value of frozen specimens for detecting environmental change. Samples 

in the WC are essential for monitoring long-term trends in marine organisms. Though 

we are acquiring new material from several sources, important opportunities have been 

missed and, unfortunately, some investigators are still unaware of this resource. The 

objective of this project is to expand the Collection's zoological scope of marine 

organisms and thereby establish the AFTC as a state-funded regional resource for 

monitoring long-term trends in Alaska's marine environment. An electronic database will 

be developed that is accessible through the Internet, thus facilitating the transfer of 

information and sharing of genetic resources among investigators. The AFTC is also 

expanding collaborative efforts with the Alaska Marine Mammal Tissue Archiil Project 

(AMMTAP) and other marine mammal projects throughout the state. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 
AN OVERVIEW OF ME U.S. RSH AND WIIDUFE SERVICE'S ECOSYSTEM 

APPROACH TO FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 

bq K. BNM 

Ecologkel Senrlce8 

U.S. Fl8h and Wlldllfe Senrlce 

101 12th Avenue, Box 19 

Falrbank8, AK 99701 

ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT 

Wiin the U.S. the term 'ecosystem managemenr has gained wide usage among 

resource professionals who are working together to reach common agreement on how to appty 

ecosystem concepts on the ground. While elements of the ecosystem approach are not new, the 

way these elements are combined represents an advance in coordinated resource management. 

An ecosystem approach requires changes in attitude to enable resource managers to look 

beyond their jurisdidion, and to establish true partnerships for resource planning and 

management with the goal of maintaining healthy, diverse and productive ecosystems. 

Ecosystem management is a goal-driven approach to restoring and/or sustaining healthy 

ecosystems and their functions and values. It is based on a collaborativety developed vision of 

desired future ecosystem conditions that integrates ecological, economic, and social factors 

affecting a management unit defined by ecological and not political boundaries. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Senrice (Service) has adopted an ecosystem approach to fish 

and wildlife consenmtion as an underlying foundation for our operational activities and is making 

a serious effort to mwe from the conceptual to practical in terms of how we think, act and solve 

problems. As a result, the Service is attempting to appty the concept of managing and protecting 

ecosystems to everything it does from reviewing permits, evaluating fisheries, and managing our 

National Wildlife Refuges. Director Mdlie Beattie said the Service's ecosystem approach 

'represents a new way of managing natural resources that takes into account the entire 

ecosystem and balances recreational use, economic development, and conservation of fish and 

wildlife so that each is sustainable.' 

In early 1994, the Service designated ecosystems across the country based largely on 

watersheds, and established ecosystem teams composed of managers and scientists within the 

agency. These teams have spent the last year contacting potential partners, establishing 

cooperative projects, and developing Action Plans that are intended to supply management 

direction and a %olledive vision' of future ecosystem conditiis. 

As of October 1, 1995, the Service has reorganized its personnel structure around 

ecosystems. Fild offices within a given geographic area will be supervised by a single assistant 

regional director. Supervision will be based on the location of field offices, not the services or 

programs they administer. Thii new organizational structure is designed to assure that issues are 

viewed more in a geographic or ecosystem context than in a programmatic, or specific resource 

context. Geographic supervisii also provides greater opportunity to integrate our activities 

toward common priorities and to facilitate cooperation with our partners in land and resource 

management. 
180 1905 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Jack Lentfer: They are not organized in the three regions as you are? 

Larry Bright: No, they are not. That has been one problem. Each agency has been taking a little 

different approach, drawing lines a little bi differently on maps. That is starting to pan out, starting 

to come together. The lines on a map are not nearly as important as what people are doing, the 

process. So we have tried not to get bogged down by getting all the agencies in one room and 

saying, 'Now we are not going to leave the room until we get these lines on the map drawn.' We 

haven't approached it in that way at all. 

Tom Newbuy: During your talk, you mentioned regional mitigation strategies. I think that there 

are such strategies for onshore developments on the North Slope, and for nearshore 

developments with causeways. But for offshore developments in the Beaufort Sea the strategies 

are still being identified. Hopefully, some of the information that has been presented during this 

meeting will help with identification of mitigation strategies for offshore developments, such as 

Northstar. 

Larry Brlght Yes, it reminds me of what was said earlier about time. It takes time. 1 think we need 

to slow down in terms of planning and get folks, especially the Native folks in the north, involved 

in the process, and give everyone enough time to visualize a strategy. But that kind of thing 

doesn't happen overnight. 

Grant Walther: It is not quite dear to me. Is it the collection of data that is the fundamental 

problem? Do you need more data to work with? Or is it the interpretation of data that you already 

have? 

Larry Bright: I am not sure what problem you are speaking to. 

Grant Walther: Like field work. Do you need more field data? 

Larry Bright: Wdl, in certain areas, we need data of a different type, for example, habitat on the 

North Slope. We work quite a bit with oil companies. There have been individual attempts to 

classify and map habitats on the North Slope. But we haven't pulled all of those together for a 

unified look at habitat across the coastal plain. So we realty don't know what hablats are truly 

limited, what is abundant, what might be critical to certain species at certain times of the year. 

We need to pull that kid of information together on a landscape level. With this kind of 

information in hand, we can form strategies that protect or restore habitats across their normal 

range of variation, and foster the variety of wildlife that depend on them. It is difficult to make 

enlightened dedsiins on a projec-t by project basis without that kind of overview of the system. 

Grant Walther: The reason I asked the question the way I did is because I attended an 

archeological dig the last few summers, down near Delta Junction; the Broken Mammoth Site, 

for those of you who might be familiar with it. It is very interesting that not only do they have 

professionals who were 'professional' Ph.D. archeologists, geochemists, etc. who were there to 

analyze what was going on in the dig and to pursue whatever they were after. But they also had 

a field school whii ran simultaneously. They recruited students from all over the country. The 

first year was mostly Alaskan students, but the latter years they have had people from other 

schools. But then there was a group of volunteers who showed up who were like amateur 

archeologists. These were people who travel the circuit of digs all around the world. These people 

are quite knowledgeable. They are all trained as to how to do the professional field work. They 

are trained in the techniques before they actually go. They attend school for a week or so. Out 

in the field they have critique sessions every night. If the collection of data is a problem, if there 
Bright - U.S. FWS Ecosystem Approach to Fish and Wildlife Management 181 

is not enough funds to wMk with, I am just going to throw that idea out to you. May be you have 

considered it before, but it might be a way to tie in with the Native communlies. So it is not just 

'us scientists' and 'you village people.' Students are a great resource with a great deal of energy. 

They want to do something practical besides the academic stuff they hear all year. They were 

even charging for these people to come and they were paying. I was kind of surprised. So I am 

just throw-ng that idea out and you may want to toss around. 

Larry Bright: Thanks. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 
Physical and Geological Session 

A COUPLED ICE-OCEAN MODEL OF THE BEAUFORT AND CHUKCHI SEAS 

K.S. Hedstrom, D.B. Haldvogel and S. Signorlnl 

Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences 

Rutgem Unhrersity 

New Btunswick, NJ 08903 

A coupled ocean circulation/sea-ice model is used to simulate flow properties and sea-ice 

evolution in the Western Arctic during the year 1983. The coupled system, employing a 

semi-spectral primitive equation ocean circulation model (Haidvogel et al. 1991) and the Hibler 

dynamic-thermodynamic sea-ice model (Hibler 1979), is applied on a uniform (20 km) horizontal 

grid, and is forced by daily surface geostrophic winds and monthly thermodynamic fluxes. The 

model coupling is described in Hedstrom (1994) and the model results are presented in 

Hedstrom et al. (1995). 

In addition to the grid and surface forcing, the model must be provided with the bottom 

depth. We have decided to use a bathymetry which ranges in depth from 50 to 500 meters with 

the water below 500 meters assumed to be at rest. The cross-Arctic boundary is treated as a wall 

with a specified outflow equal to the specified Bering Straight inflow of 0.8 Sverdrups. The initial 

conditions consist of temperature and salinity fields derived from a horizontal average of the 

Levitus climatology and zero initiil flow. A nudging to the initiil temperature and salinity fields was 

found to be necessary and was applied with a timescale of 100 days. 

The coupled model was run for a total of five model years, repeating the 1983 forcing 

fields. Monloring the average ice thickness shows that the model was largely spun up by the end 

of this period. The last year of this simulation became our central experiment and was used to 

compare the model with the available data. We also ran some parameter variations, including the 

addition of the Eby and Hdloway (1994) eddy form stress to improve the representation of the 

Beaufort Undercurrent. 

The model has Lagrangian drifters which trace the paths taken by particles released at 

given locations. Drifters moving with the ice velocity were used to compare the motions in the 

model with buoys released by Roger Cdony during 1983. This comparison showed that there is 

substantial room for improvement in the simulation. However, the velocity fields from this 

simulation were sent to the Minerals Management Senrice which has produced its own buoy 

trajectories. These trajectories were made using the ice velocity when there is greater than 80% 

ice concentration and the water velocity plus 3.5% of the wind velocity for lower ice 

concentrations. It is these buoy trajectories which were used in their Oil-Spill Risk Analysis 

(OSRA) report. 

The results of the central model simulation are consistent with the largescale circulation 

features of the Western Arctic. In particular, the Beaufort Gyre and its seasonal variability in the 

sense and amplitude of its circulation are reproduced to the extent of our ability to quantify them 

in the target year of 1983. Local reversal of the climatdogical circulation along the continental 

shelf (the Beaufort Undercurrent) is not reproduced at the resolution of the current study. 

Incorporation of the Eby and Holloway eddy form stress parameterization improves the degree 

of skill in the Undercurrent region, though to an unknown degree. Clearly, simulations at 

enhanced resolution (perhaps 4 or more times finer than presently employed) are necessary to 

resolve the processes responsible for the generation of the Undercurrent. 

The bulk properties of the ice distribution observed during 1983 - including ice 

concentrattm and thickness and its seasonal growth and retreat - are reproduced well by the 
184 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

coupled model to the degreethat availableobservations allow model evaluation. Some systematic 

tendency for faster-than-observed melting in the spring and summer months is seen in the model 

along the Siberian continental shelf. The regional reasons for this disagreement are unclear. 

The poorest model performance is seen in the comparison between the model-inferred 

ice floe (Voar) trajectories and the observed trajectories of surface floats released in the Arctic 

in 1983. Mean motion of the simulated drifters is comparable to those observed; however, there 

is little agreement between individual sets of trajectories. The apparent inability of the present 

coupled system to reproduce the detailed motions of individual floats is likely a consequence (at 

least) of the heavily smoothed atmospheric wind stresses used in the present study (Kozo and 

Robe 1986). Though the bulk properties of the oceanlice circulation are retained in the smoothed 

atmospheric products, local Lagrangian flow properties are clearly influenced by spatial and 

temporal filtering of the wind forces. tt is suggested that further study be instituted of the influence 

of using higher resolution wind products. 

Enhanced simulation skill, particularly as it relates to local properties such as the detailed 

dynamics of the Beaufort Undercurrent and the individual trajectories of ice floes and surface 

drifters, will require improvements to the coupled model and its inputs. Improvements in several 

areas are desirable, including oceanrie dynamics, thermodynamics, and numerical methods. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Eby, M. and G. Holloway, 1994. Sensitii of a large scale ocean model to a parameterization 

of topographic stress. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 24:2577-2588. 

Haidvogel, D.B., J. Wilkin, and R.E. Young. 1991. A semi-spectral primitive equation ocean 

circulation model using vertical sigma and orthogonal curvilinear horizontal coordinates. 

J. Comp. Phys. 94:151-185. 

Hedstrom, K.S., 1994. Technical Manual for a Coupled Sea-IceIOcean Circulation Model (Version 

1). OCS Study MMS 94-0020. 

Hedstrom, K.S., D. B. Haidvogel and S. Signorini, 1995. Model simulations of oceanlsea-ice 

interaction in the Western Arctic in 1983. OCS Study MMS 95-0001. 

Hibler, W.D., 111. 1979. A dynamic thermodynamic sea ice model. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 9:815-846. 

Kozo, T.L. and R.Q. Robe, 1986. Modeling winds and open-water buoy drift along the eastern 

Beaufort Sea coast, including the effects of the Brooks Range. J. Geophys. Res. 

91:13011-13032. 

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION 

Dick Prentki: Some of the emphasis in this meeting is development very close to shore, within 

12 miles or 12 km, in some cases. Development would be over a much smaller area than the 

areas of concern in your Arctic model. What would be your recommendation on how to model 
Hedstrom -A Carpled Ice-Ocean Model of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas 185 

the circulation or spill trajectories close to shore, once you know where you are going to 

develop? 

Kate Hedstrom: I think you would still need to include the influence of the larger Arctic Ocean 

circulation, maybe with some kind of nested grid scheme. All of these things happen on a very 

small scale. It is just that we can't afford to model the entire Arctic at the 2 km resolution that we 

would like to do. 

Dkk Prentkl: I understand that. But if you did have a small nested model, what resolution do you 

think is feasible with the current science or likely finances? 

Kate Hedstrom: Certainly we could go finer that what we did here. For this study, each year of 

the simulation took 25 Cray hours on the Fairbanks Cray Y-MP. If you double the grid spacing 

in each direction, you need eight times as much computer power. That would be pushing it. 

Tom Albert: Over the years, I have been impressed by the various models that I have seen for 

the ocean and other things up there, by the complexity, and for the parts that I could understand, 

the minute amount of actual real data. I have two questions. One is what do you think are the 

major data needs, real data needs on actual measuring of water, on measuring of ice, something 

not done in a computer, but actually going out and checking on things. Secondly, has anyone 

in this modeling process gone and talked to the people that live along the northern Alaskan coast 

and the northwest Alaskan coast, since the area of interest is the first 10 to 20 miles offshore and 

these people roam around in that area? Has anyone ever asked them? 

Kate Hedstrom: I don't know of anybody having asked the people who live up there. It is 

certainly a good idea. As for the data needs, I am not the expert on that, but there is a guy at 

Rutgers, Andreas Miinchow who would love to go up and make more measurements. I talked to 

him about what was actually known. He said that it is such a difficult area to work in that they 

haven't made many studies up there. There is a lot that is not known. 

lgor Appel: The trajectory of ice motion shown are they received under the ... 

Kate Hedstrom: The model trajectories that I produced are based on the ice velocities. 

lgor Appel: From five points ... 

Kate Hedstrom: Oh, the five launch point releases were done by MMS and include a wind-driven 

component. 

lgor Appel: Are they influenced only by the wind? 

Kate Hedstrom: No. If there is 80% or greater ice cover, they move with the ice velocity. If there 

is less than that, then they move with the ocean velocity, plus 3.5% of the wind. 

lgor Appel: It seems that the trajectory from the third and fourth point are significantly different 

at least in the winter. If this is true, what is the explanation that the envelopes are different? The 

points are very close to each other, but the envelope is significantly different. 

Kate Hedstrom: I don't know the answer to that. They are dominated by the ice velocities from 

that model. 
186 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Tom Newbury: A question was asked about the amount of real data as opposed to model data. 

I was wondering if Dr. Lon Hachmeister would say something about the amount of field data 

available for the area around the causeways and Seal Island? 

Lon Hachmeister: Certainly, over the years there has been a lot of the large-scale data taken. 

I know that Knut Aagaard was out there even in the 1970s putting out current meter moorings. 

So there is data on the shelf, but not a lot of information in deeper water except for Roger 

Colony's buoys. 

In answer to one of the questions that somebody had, I don't think it is going to do us 

much good to use high resolution grid spacing in models unless we get higher resolution data. 

The driving force, in the near shore, is the same as farther offshore -the wind. Unless we get 

high resolution wind information, it probably will not do us a lot of good to increase the grid size. 

Regarding data availability in the nearshore, around the causeways, there is a lot of data. 

However, we would need a lot more information on the wind field before we start modeling in 5 

to 10 m of water. 

Nick Vanderkooy: Is there any cooperation taking place with Canadian agencies that are doing 

a Id of oceanographic wwk in the Beaufort Sea and modeling work, as well? I am thinking 

primarily of Dept. of Fisheries and Ocean and the Canadian Atmospheric Environment Services 

through their Ice Central Office to verify some of the results that you do have. 

Kate Hedstrom: I don't know of any. Andreas Miinchow has gone out on Canadian vessels to 

do research in the Mackenzie Deb region. That is about all I know of that. 

Dick Prentkl: Right now I don't think that Minerals Management Service is doing any joint work 

with the Canadians in Beaufort Sea oceanography. We do have one project which is working with 

the Japanese in the Chukchi Sea. I have a comment on Dr. Albert's question on using Native 

knowledge. We haven't done too much oceanographically in the last five years or so; but 

between 1975 and 1985, we conducted at least a handful of studies where we did have 

researchers talk with Natives. Some of the things that came out of that were, if you look at the 

ice nomenclature, the ice types that the scientists track, we track about as many as the Natives 

do: 40,50 or 100.1 forget whatever the number is, but science has taken some of those Native 

categories and uses them. Interviewers have also gone back and obtained information on historic 

ice overrides and information on what Natives remember about historic bad ice years, etc. We 

do have that data incorporated into the database. But that was work that we did mostly between 

1975 and 1985,l believe. 

Cleve Cowles: Andher thought in that respect: the physical oceanography study at the Coastal 

Marine lnstitute is cooperating with the North Slope Borough on a logistic basis. Because that 

study is incomplete, there probably hasn't been much communicated back to the local people 

on the North Slope; but part of the overall concept or design of the Coastal Marine lnstitute is to 

have the people at the Coastal Marine lnstitute try as much as possible to establish that 

communication. I would see that happening in the future. 
TRENDS IN OCCURRENCE RATES FOR OFFSHORE OIL SPILLS 

AND THE BEAUFORT SEA 

Richard T. Prentkl and Cheryl M. Anderson 

Mlnerals Management Senrice 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

INTRODUCTION 

Occurrence rate estimates for offshore oil spills are periodically updated by the Minerals 

Management Service (MMS) to include the most recent years of record. Data summaries, 

statistical analyses, and results of the most recent update on occurrence rates for offshore oil 

spills have been published (Anderson and LaBelle 1994) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature 

to insure wider scientific review and dissemination; this presentation will in large part summarize 

this latter paper, but in the context of potential Beaufort Sea oil production. 

THE SPILL RECORD 

The MMS estimates oil spill occurrence rates for large spills (r 1,000 barrels [bbl]) from 

the historical record for U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) platform and pipeline spills (currently 

1964 through 1992) and worldwide tanker spills (currently 1974 through 1992). There are several 

reasons for the emphasis on large spills. Large spills are consistently reported, smaller spills may 

not be. Large spills persist longer than small spills with consequently more than proportionately 

greater potential effect. Causes of large spills differ from smaller spills, many causes of small spills 

are incapable of spilling as much as 1,000 bbl. Very important is the dichotomy between rdatiie 

number and volume of small and large oil spills (Figure 1). On the OCS, large spills account for 

less than 0.1% of the spills, but 77.1% of the volume spilled. Spills of less than one barrel 

constilute 91 9% of the spills, but only 4.3% of the volume spilled. 

Size and causes of large platform and pipeline spills on the OCS are variable. There have 

been only eleven major platform spills on the OCS, with the largest being the Santa Barbara spill 

of 1969 of 80,000 bbl. Most large platform spills are still under 10,000 bbl. Causes of platform 

spills range from vessel collisions (3), blowouts (4), structure or equipment failure (3), and 

hurricane (1). There have been twelve large pipeline spills, again, mostly less than 10,000 bbl, 

but with largest, at 160,638 bbl, occurring in 1967. Anchor dragging caused seven of the spills, 

trawls, hurricanes, and corrosion each caused two. 

OIL SPILL OCCURRENCE RATES 

The MMS uses oil-spill risk analysis most extensively in lease sale Environmental Impact 

Statements (EISs) where the only direct measure of oil development is the resource estimate. All 

other aspects in the development scenario in the EIS - pipeline miles, number of platforms, 

years and rates of production - are derived from the resource estimate. Any OCS production 

in the Beaufort Sea is expected to be piped through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAP) to Valdez 

and then tankered elsewhere. The MMS has also, therefore, compiled statistics on TAP tankering 

and spills. 

The spill occurrence rates can be expressed and normalized in terms of number of spills 

per volume of crude oil produced, piped, or tankered. The rate statistics used by MMS 

incorporate a statistical trend analysis to evaluate whether the data indicate a change in the 

frequency of large oil spills. For example, improving safety technology could be reducing the 
lQ95 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

SPILLS 

flgure 1. U.S. OCS apllk: dze mu8 total spill vokrme. 

likelihood of large oil spills. Details of how the trend analysis is done can be found in Anderson 

and LaBelle (1994). Factoring in the most recent years of spill records (post-1987) has lowered 

the MMS estimate for the platform spill occurrence rate, has increased the estimates for the 

pipeline spill occurrence rate, but has not changed the estimate for the worldwide tanker spill 

occurrence rate (Figure 2). The changes are attributable to both a longer historical record (=more 

data) and periodic statistical reevaluations of rates and trends. The increase in spill rate for 

pipelines between the 1990 and most recent, 1994 analyses k not due to so much to an increase 

in spillage, but rather to a disappearance of a statistical trend toward less frequent spillage. The 

1990 analysis included pipeline data through 1964-1987, with no spills in the last sbc years d that 

record. Subsequently, pipeline spills occurred in 1988,1990, and 1992; and the apparent trend 

in decreasing spillage disappeared. On the other hand, a decreasing trend in frequency of 

platform spills was substantiated in the 1994 analysis. 

For the first time in the 1994 MMS estimates, spill occurrence rates were calculated for 

tanker and barge spills occurring in U.S. waters, and for spills of North Slope crude oil 

transported by tanker from Valdez, Alaska (Figure 3). Thus, estimates for tanker spills of Beaufort 

produced oil can now be directly projected from experience along the tanker route on which 

Beaufort oil would be shipped. The frequency of spills from TAP tankers has been slightly less 

than that for all tankers in U.S. waters or for all tankers. The frequency of large spills from barges 

is more than threefold higher than for any other transportation mode. The barge statistic may 

have some Mure relevance to the Beaufort Sea. It has been suggested that crude of Canadian 

Beaufort oil discoveries could be barged to the U.S. Beaufort Sea and sent through the TAP 

pipeline. However, also note that although large spills from barges are more frequent than from 
Prentki - Trends and Occurrence Rates for Offshore Oil Spills and the Beaufort Sea 18s 

flgure 2. Comparlron of hlrtorlc rplll rate8 for rpllls of at leart 1,000 bbl. 

either pipelines or tankers, the average and median sizes of large barge spills are much less 

those of pipelines and especially tankers. 

APPLICATION 

Statistically, the occurrence of oil spills can be treated as following the Poisson probability 

distribution, which governs the occurrence of rare and random events. Radioactive decay k 

another example of a process which follows a Poisson distribution. Figure 4 shows an example 

of how MMS applies the spill occurrence rates and Poisson distribution in the draft EIS for 

Beaufort Sea Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 144 (USDOI, MMS 1995), our nexl proposed 

Beaufort lease sale. Because of the emphasis on the theme of cumulative and 'string-of-pearlsw 

development during this meeting, the example is for the cumulative case, which includes Sale 144 

plus other developed and undeveloped Federal and State offshore resources totaling 1.842 billion 

barrels (Bbbl). The figure is for spills within the Beaufort Sea, and thus incorporates spill rates for 

pipelines and platforms, but not for tankers. The combined spill occurrence rate for pipelines and 

platforms times the 1.842 Bbbl resource provides the statistically 'expected' number of 3.26 spills. 

Application of the Polsson dlstrlbution provides estimates of probability of having no spills, the 

probability of having a specMc number of spills, the probability of having one or more spills, and 

the most likely number of spills. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Flgure 3. Cornparlson of rplll rates and rlzes by murce. 
Prentki - Trends and Occurrence Rates for Offshore Oil Spills and the Beaufort Sea 191 

EEIPROBABILJTY OF /D~--m 

90% N SPILLS 

-8- PROBABILITY OF 

N OR FEWER 

SPILLS :: 60% 

M 

40% 

NUMBER OF SPILLS GREATER TEIAN OR EQUAL TO 1,000 

BARRELS 

flgure 4. Beaufort Sea curnulathre caw (Sale 144 phm other offshore state and federal developed and 

undeveloped resources = 1.842 Bbbl): Poisson dlstrlbutlon for expected number of 3.28 spllls. 

REFERENCES 

Anderson, C.M., and R.P. LaBelle. 1990. Estimated occurrence rates for analysis of accidental oil 

spills on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. Oil and Chemical Pollution 6: 21-35. 

Anderson, C.M., and R.P. LaBelle. 1994. Comparative occurrence rates for offshore oil spills. Spill 

Science and Techndogy Bulletin 1 (2):131-141. 

Lanfear, K.J., and D.E. Amstutz. 1983. A reexamination of occurrence rates for accidental oil Spills 

on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. Pages 355365 in 1983 Oil Spill Conference. 

American Petroleum Instlute, Washington, DC. 

Stewart, R.J. 1975. Oil spillageassociated with the development of offshore petrdeum resources. 

Report to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Martingale, Inc. 

Cambridge, MA. 

Stewart, R.J. 1976. A survey and critical review of U.S. oil spill data resources with application to 

the tankerlpipeline controversy. Report to Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Washington, DC. Martingale, Inc. Cambridge, MA. 

USDOI, MMS, Alaska OCS Region. 1995. Beaufort Sea Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 

144 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. OCS EIS/EA MMS 95-0043. Anchorage, AK. 
7995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSIONS 

Grant Walther: Did you or did you not factor in the Exxon Valdez spill in this predictive model, 

the Beaufort Model? 

Dick Prentkl: Yes, the Exxon Valdez spill is included in the spill rates that came out in 1994 which 

we are using now. That spill didn't make much difference in the spill rates. It was the major U.S. 

spill, catastrophic for Alaska in a lot of senses; but it didn't affect the overall spill rates. 

Tom Newbury: What is it that changed the predicted number of spills between the reports by 

Anderson and LaBelle in 1990 and 1994? In the 1994 report, the estimated number of spillsfrom 

pipelines is the same as it is for tankers. 

Dkk Prentkl: When they did the last calculation, the last version of the statistics which were 

published in 1990, data only through 1987 was included. When MMS did that analysis, there had 

not been a pipeline spill since 1982. The MMS did the statistical analysis using a non-parametric 

technique which looks at production intervals and questions whether you have had a spill in this 

production interval or a spill in the next one. The statistics indicated that there was a decreasing 

trend in pipeline spills. What happened is that more data came in with spills and the trend 

disappeared. We have had some more pipeline spills. So the analysis now shows there is no 

decreasing trend and therefore when MMS calculates the spill rate, we take this entire time 

period, sum up the amount of oil produced and the number of spills, divide the number of spills 

by the amount of oil .... That is why the number went up. 

Tom Newbury: If the estimate was converted from number of spills to volume of oil-spilled, would 

that change the trend? 

Dick Prentkl: It might. If you remember the first pipeline spill which occurred in our records in 

1967 was 160.000 barrels. It was by far the largest spill we have had on the OCS. almost by a 

factor of two. There have been only 12 spills on record and the first one is much larger than the 

rest. So yes, it would drive down the average volume. Which is one argument for using median 

spill size when you do analyses rather than the average spil size. But if you use the average spill, 

you may be more environmentally conservative - if you want to call assuming larger 

catastrophes are 'conservative,' a little semantics problem there. 

Lon Hachrnelster: In your last figure you showed a high probability of spills occurring between 

two and four for pipelines. Have you coupled that with some of the other information yokt had on 

some of your earlier slides to estimate what volume of spills might be likely there within those two 

to four spills? 

Dkk Prentkl: That two to four spills was for both pipelines and platforms not just pipelines. So 

it would be all of the spills in the Beaufort Sea that you could expect from development of all of 

that oil. Generally when we look at this in-house, we have looked both the average spill size and 

the median. If we are dealing with a large number of spills, we might in our analysis use a spill 

size distribution such that if you had six spills, six times, you are going to get six times the 

average volume. But your median spill size is usually much smaller than average size, and you 

want half of the six spills to be 5 the median and half to be 2 the median. So if you have six 

tanker spills, with an average size of 100,000 barrels, you might assume one of half a million 

barrels and five of 20,000 barrels. Usually if you deal with smaller numbers of spills, like three, 
Prentki - Trends and Occumnce Rates for Offshore Oil Spills and the Beaufort Sea 193 

there is no set way that is deatt with. I haven't seen a statistical treatment of projecting muttiple 

spill sizes. either. What we have done is based on assumptions. 

Lon Hachmelster: Two to four doesn't sound bad if they are all under 5,000. Two for four 'Exxon 

Valdei would be more significant. 

Dkk Prentki: I am not sure how this is analyzed in the current Beaufort Sea EIS. In the first 

Beaufort Sea EIS following the Exxon Valdez dl spill, we were concerned about the size estimate 

of tanker spills in Prince William Sound and possibly we went off the wall. We assumed one spill 

of a million barrels and then adjusted the rest of spills down to get the proper statistical total 

volume of spillage. That approach didn't get much comment at the time because readers of the 

EIS were more interested in what was happening in the Beaufort Sea rather than the Gulf of 

Alaska. It is a touchy subject and I haven't seen a statistical treatment of how that should be done 

nor a scientific recommendation. It has been more of a seat-of-the-pants type of thinking. 

Jlm Cralg: I have no problems with your numbers there ... 

Dkk Prentkl: They are yours! 

Jim Craig: Well, I don't know if they are mine or not, I won't 'fess up' to them. I have a question 

about the location of this spill. You had a spill from three different main sources, generally not 

much from platforms expected, but from pipelines and tankers. You had a number of spills 

expected to result from North Slope cumulative production ... 

Dkk Prentkl: Expect is a statistical term. I am not predicting .... 

Jim Craig: I know. You are not hoping, that is the expected model ... 

Dick Prentki: We are projecting that number. 

Jlm Craig: Projected number would be a better way to say it. My question is related to the 

location of these expected spills and how they are addressed in the environmental impact 

statement. Since most of this oil is probably transported south through TAPS. and then on 

tankers, where would the spill locations dually be? 

Dkk Prentki: The way we currently handle tanker spills allows us to plot a tanker route and then 

spill randomly all along that route. So essentially, so if we are projecting two tanker spills we can 

distribute the probability of those two spills along the entire tanker route. Generally, MMS 

assumes that half of the tanker spills would occur in our model area or Alaska area and half 

somewhere farther south. For pipeline spills, we generally do the same thing. I am not quite sure 

how such spills were distributed what happened in the Beaufort EIS. Usually, pipeline spills are 

spread along the hypothetical pipeline routes. But those routes aren't known anywhere near as 

well as tanker routes out of Prince William Sound. For example, from the first day of the meeting 

I recall that there may be a 20 mile pipeline from Northstar to shore, crossing the Barrier Islands 

or not. They way we do things now, that 20 mile pipeline would have the same number of spills 

projected for it as one that went from Northstar through Bering Strait and then down to the lower 

48 without ever touching land. We don't have any distance factor, length of pipeline factor, in that. 

If you get to development and try to use these numbers, you might need to factor that into your 

analysis. 
194 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Jim Craig: 1 guess that is what I am alluding to here. You have a certain number of spills 

predicted for the cumulative production from the area. It is a much different impression if you've 

got three spills greater than a 1,000 barrels occurring on the North Slope as a result of North 

Slope production versus occurring somewhere between the North Slope and the West Coast as 

a result of production. How is that addressed? 

Dkk Prentki: The 3.28 in that chart would just be spills, which would be stridly within the 

Beaufort, from production in the Beaufort. In the current case, we are projecting the number of 

spills to occur from export of that oil out of Prince William Sound. We don't actually run a 

trajectory analysis down there, we just have project and report the number of spills. For the 

Beaufort, how MMS handles the oil spill risk analysis for pipelines and platforms changes partly 

with how Resource Evaluation does the resource estimates. If the people in Hemdon, Virginia 

who do the oil-spill modeling are given proprietary information about where the oil is likely to be 

within the model they can target those locations and assume that is where platform spills occur. 

If the Resource Evaluation procedure does not give the modelers that information, they assume 

equal distribution of oil and spill at all model platform locations. 
ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING SEA ICE CONDITIONS OF 

THE ALASKAN NORTH SLOPE 

Jeff Andrews and DavM Benner 

Natknal Ice Center 

4301 Suitland Road 

Washington, D.C. 20395-5180 

The National Ice Center (NIC) produces sea ice analysis and forecast products that are 

utilized by military, government, and commercial operations in the polar regions. Sea ice 

analyses, describing current conditiions, are produced through the integration of a variety of 

remotely sensed and ground-truth data sources. Long-range (30-90 day) forecasts of regional sea 

ice extent and coverage are a valuable asset to the success of maritime commerce in Alaskan 

North Slope coastal waters. Reliable predictions can be used to prolong safe ship operations into 

the fall season and in strategic planning for the commencement of shipping activii each summer. 

The purpose of this paper is to describe the production and dissemination methods used for NIC 

operational sea ice analysis products as well as operational long-range ice forecasting techniques 

as they pertain to Alaskan waters. 

Visual, infrared, passive microwave, and Synthetic Aperture RADAR (SAR) imagery are 

combined at the NIC with less frequently received shiplshore reports and aerial reconnaissance 

data to produce regional and tactical-scalesea ice guidance products. Sea ice parameters, critical 

to safe navigation, include: the location of the ice edge, concentration of the various stages of 

development of ice, and the presencelabsence of navigable open water leads. It is well 

documented that environmental parameters (surface wind, ocean currents, and air temperature) 

play an integral role in predicting dynamic (ice drift) and thermodynamic (ice formationlablation) 

changes in the sea ice cover. Due to the absence of forecasting skill for these forcing variables 

on longer time scales, the NIC employs a combination of sea ice forecasting techniques to 

produce the Alaskan seasonal ice prediction. These techniques include: a) a linear air 

temperaturefie thkkness relationship with date of initial ice break-up, b) absence or presence 

of multiiyear ice in shipping lanes, and c) an analogfstatistically based procedure that relates 

regional ice anomalies with variations in large-scale atmospheric forcing of sea ice. Methodology 

for producing NIC seasonal sea ice forecasts are discussed with particular emphasis on historical 

skill in predicting the severity of summer ice conditions in the western Arctic. 

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION 

Dkk Prentkl: I assume that the bad ice years are attributable to the ice pushed against the 

Alaska shores - not that there is more ice in the polar ocean in those years. Is that your 

understanding? 

Jeff Andrews: Well, there were a couple of other things. As far as our validation goes for the ice 

severity, we look basically at the distance to the ice edge on 15 September. The main point of 

measurement is Point Barrow, because that is the choke point for the ice movement. The 

measures include distance to the 5110th~ boundary on 15 September, the number of days that 

the sea route to Prudhoe Bay is ice free, the number of days that the route is 5tlOths covered, 

and the number of clays between the initial and final days. We use all of this to calculate a 

cumulative severity index. 

There is another source of information -the drifting buoys - that we have been using 

since 1988. The drifting buoys give the rate of movement of the ice per day; we have been trying 

to correlate that into the forecast conditions. Initially, it looked like the rate was less than 2 kn per 
196 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

day. But in 1992 we seemed to have much more movement per day. We are now looking at a 

lot of different things for improvement. I think problems come from using too much data. But we 

are always looking for things that will help key us build a better forecast. 

Now I have a special theory about the autumn that I have been testing over the last two 

or three years. The main difference with the autumn is all young and new ice that forms almost 

instantaneously. It seems to be a weather-related phenomenon. 

Don Hansen: I have a question about your ice maps. Do you have trouble identifying the 

formation of new ice? 

Jeff Andrews: The only thing that visual images give us is a key, because even with the images 

you can't detect new ice - especially if it is thin. It is still going to appear black. You are not 

going to be able to pick up the finger rafting that occurs with ice as it starts to form. You can get 

a better indication with the microwave imager (SSMI); it will give you an early indication. That is 

generally what we use to detect new ice formation. The only problem is that most of the time the 

new ice forms near the coast and the SSMl is easily contaminated with coastal information. So 

you lose 25 km there. Also, the SSMl is weak in areas of light concentrations of ice, especially 

if the ice is only one to three tenths and is surrounded by 9110th~ ice. The SSMl won't recognize 

it as ice; it will recognize it as water because it doesn't actually fill enough of the pixel for it to 

register as ice. 

Don Hansen: I think that might have been a particular problem this fall because, when we were 

up there, we had a lot of new ice formation, in spite of high sea states. We had ice forming not 

just from the shore outward, but even offshore. You could see grease ice forming pans of new 

ice and there would be waves underneath it. It was unusual. I have never seen that before. I have 

been flying up there since 1987. Each year is different. This year there weren't any chunks of 

pack ice to break up the new ice. Often, if you have wind and small pieces of floe ice or sails, the 

floes would ad like ice breakers and break up the new ice. This year there wasn't any of that. 

Jeff Andrews: The one slide that I showed that showed on the DMSP, that showed the area 

northwest of Barrow. We didn't see that for a week. The SSMl gave us an indication that ice was 

being advected. Well we were having a hard time buying that because the ice edge had been 

30 miles to the north. When the clouds finally broke, we saw that the ice was there. And about 

that time the coal barge was coming up on a resupply mission and they couldn't get in because 

the ice was too thick. The delay lasted about a week and a half, waiting for the ice to advect a 

little bit further offshore so they could go into Barrow. 

I have an advantage over most of the people who analyze the satellite images in that I 

flew for five years over the ice. I can identify easily what I am seeing on satellite images. If I am 

looking at shuga, brash, young, or new ice. Also, you have to consider sun angle, hours of 

daylight, and sea surface temperatures. 

Tom Newbury: I really appreciate your index. I noticed that Steve Treacy referred to the index 

in his talk about the median depth analysis of the bowhead whale migration and its relationship 

with ice. It also correlates very well with observations during some of the operations. Your index 

shows cycles in severity, that every five years there tends to be severe ice conditions. In 1985 

when the Corona Prospect was explored, the ice conditions were severe. Later, in 1991 and 1992, 

when Galahad and Kuvlum were drilled there was severe ice again. It is a very useful index for 

US. 
MODELING AND PREDICTION OF ICE HAZARDS 

NEAR THE OCS DEVELOPMENT PROSPECTS IN THE BEAUFORT SEA 

lgor Appel 

Fairweather Forecasting, Inc. 

71 5 L Street, Suite 1 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

INTRODUCTION 

The study of local natural geographical features supports industry with necessary data 

on conditions for offshore construction. For the Arctic Alaska Outer Continental Shetf (OCS) 

Region, sea ice is important and, in many cases, a limiting factor. The presence of ice during 

most of the year and the significant variabilii of the ice state caused by wind, current, tide, and 

thermal processes is the main feature of the Beaufort Sea ice regime. 

In the region under consideration, ice hazards are elemental phenomena that can cause 

great damage to structures and also direct harm to the environment. In critical cases, these 

hazards can endanger the safety of personnel working offshore. The most dangerous sea ice 

hazardous phenomena are as follows: the appearance of pack ice, rapid development and 

movement, heavy ice and icebergs, compacting in ice cwer, superstructure icing, and scouring. 

The distribution of ice cover also indirectly governs another hazard - high seas. 

Ice atlases of hazardous phenomena and long-term ice forecasts can determine the basis 

for strategic planning and decision making. Operational ice support with current information and 

short-term forecasts includes remote sensing of the ice state and numerical modeling for those 

parameters that cannot be observed. 

Construction in Alaska OCS waters needs knowledge, not only of the general 

development of processes in ice cover, but also detailed knowledge on the influence of ice 

conditions in the area of structures. Therefore, for cases with an increased probability of 

hazardous conditions, additional systems of ice management should be considered as a 

mandatory measure. 

Ice Cover In the Vlclnity of Alaska OCS 

Ice cover influences industrial activii differently in iceinfested waters. Sometimes ice 

cwer is useful for supporting offshore activities in the Arctic. It can be used to unload and 

transport cargo, build moorings and artificial islands, and create air strips. At the same time, ice 

cover can be hazardous for other activities. 

First of all, the presence of any ice should be considered a hazardous phenomenon in 

most cases. But the appearance of ice cover with high ice concentrations is dangerous for all 

kinds of activities in iceinfested waters. Heavy ice cover (with concentrations more than 50-60 

percent) exists in the vicinity of much of Alaska's OCS, usually until the end of July. In 

unfavorable years, heavy ice exists all summer and through to freezing in autumn. 

Feasible dates for the beginning and ending of navigation along the Beaufort Sea coast 

with icebreaker support can be considered a good example of interannual variability. Beginning 

navigation is possible in the first hatf of June. An average date for beginning navigation is early 

July but can start as late as the end of July. Ending dates of navigation vary from early October 
1Q8 lQQ5 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

through late November. It is necessary to emphasize that the aforementioned dates are typical 

and do not reflect extreme condlions that could significantly alter these dates. 

Ice Forecasting 

Not only seasonal but also great interannual variability is typical for ice condlions in the 

Alaska OCS Region. Significant changes in the ice cover state explain the need for developing 

methods of ice forecasting for the area under study. Because even the appearance of ice cover 

should be treated as a hazardous phenomenon, all ice forecasts can be included in this 

consideration. 

Allowing for Mure ice conditions is a necessary requirement to develop plans for working 

in iceinfested waters. The content of long-term ice forecasts is determined by the importance of 

ice parameters having the most significant variability. The main task of long-term forecasting is 

to predict conditions and duration of working offshore. 

Thus, forecasts of flaw polynyas, diverging, and fractures in ice cover allow the early 

beginning of work in iceinfested waters in the spring. For the autumn period, the forecast of ice 

freezing is of great importance. 

The Alaska OCS is characterized by significant, rapid changes in ice condlions and 

therefore short-term forecasting has a large significance. Short-term forecasts should meet more 

restricted requirements and state ice conditions more precisely. 

Dynamic characteristics and redistribution of ice cover present the main interest for shortterm forecasting. Ice drift, concentration, ice edge, and compacting are among the most 

important parameters. 

Methodology of Calculatkns 

Long-term statistical forecasts take into account previous transport in atmosphere, air 

temperature, and vorticity (velocity of rotation) of the ice drift in the Arctic Ocean. Allowing for 

changes in the location of points used to determine atmospheric forcing on sea ice, presents the 

main advantage of the developed approach. 

Mathematical modeling of the evolution of sea ice cover is considered to be an effective 

means of developing ice forecasts. In our models we combine theoretical constructions, using 

the laws of physics, with empirical conclusions, developed as the result of field observations. 

Anisotropic descriptions of ice cover behavior and allowing for changes in ice edge configuration 

are other features of the model used. 

Joining numerical and physical-statistical methods seemsthe most appropriate approach 

for long-term forecasting. For shorter periods, numerical methods haveobvious advantages which 

permit the calculation of spatial and temporal changes of many ice cover state parameters. 

Numerical calculations allow us to get the spatial distribution of different sea ice cover 

characteristics, such as: ice concentration, thickness distribution, edge configuration, drift velocity, 

zones of divergence and compacting, distribution of ice Roe sues, and their strength and motion. 
Appel - Modeling and Prediction of Ice Hazards 

Ice Redlstributlon 

Numerical methods of computing ice cover evolution have found wide application for 

solving a number of scientific and applied tasks. 

Verification shows good results of long-term forecasts for periods of 1-4 months and 

short-range forecasts for up to 57 days. 

There are no systematic errors in calculating magnitude and direction of drift. Root-meansquare errors are less than published estimates for other models. 

The model simulates slightly smoothed locations of the ice edge for long-term 

calculations. Calculations for short-range changes describe all of the main features of ice 

redistribution under the influence of dynamical and thermal processes. Some results of 

calculations for numerous ice cover state characteristics are available in Appel (1995). 

The most interesting example of local long-term statistical forecasting was the prediction 

in 1993 of the initial date when ice concentrations at the Kuvlum site would be 50 percent or less. 

More than three months in advance it was noted that the ice conditions would be favorable to 

carry out exploration. Later, on June Ist, long-term forecasts showed an opportunity to begin 

working in Camden Bay on 10-17 July. The actual beginning of breakup, characterized by retreat 

of the compacted ice cover from the Alaska coast, occurred between July 7th and 17th. 

Ice Compacting 

Obsewation data from onboard ships in ice has helped to study compacting in the ice 

cover. This phenomenon is included in the numerical model. Compacting in ice cover is usually 

connected with the movement of cyclones over the region. The compacting corresponds to 

specific parts of atmospheric formations and its intensity - to velocity and trajectory of cyclones 

and anticyclones. The zones of significant negative air pressure in moving deep cyclones are 

characterized by the predominance of heavy winds, falling pressure, convergence, and heavy 

compacting of ice cover. 

Theory explains this phenomenon by the convergence of isolabaric wind - the wind 

component, connected with movement of atmospheric synoptic formations. The greater the 

atmospheric pressure gradient and the velocity of cyclone movement, the greater the compacting 

in ice cover. This is typical for conditions outside the coastline influence. In the vicinity of islands 

and coastline, compacting is determined by wind speed and its direction relative to the coast. The 

strongest compacting is observed in a relatively narrow beR of ice cover along the coastline or 

fast ice, which includes the location of all exploratory drill sites on the Beaufort Sea Outer 

Continental Shelf. 

The reliability of the calculation of intensity and orientation of compacting has been 

confirmed by observation data from ship and air reconnaissance. 

The processes of compacting in ice cover are accompanied by the formation of pressure 

ridges. In its turn, ridged ice cover intensifies all hazardous influence. But, in addition, pressure 

ridges might cause another specific hazardous influence on underwater constructions. 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Scouring 

The study for offshore pipeline construction requires evaluation of possible scouring 

depth. Theoretical investigations and field observations on grounded hummock and ice piling up 

at artificial islands allowed one to obtain a general connection between scouring depth and 

influencing factors. 

To evaluate the possible depth of scouring we need information on ridge morphology, 

drift velocity, ice strength, and others. Ridge morphdogy has been determined during numerous 

field experiments and is included in the mathematical description of the processes. Now 

necessafy data on pressure ridge dimensions can be received as a resutt of model calculations 

simulating ice cwer dynamics. Ice drift and strength also can be calculated. 

Developed formulae can be applied to describe the results of interrelations between the 

sea bottom and pressure ridges of differing ice age. Using methods of probability theory allows 

us to deduce an equation giving the chance of occurrence for different scouring depths. Such 

an equation is used to make principal decisions on pipeline design. Conclusions derived show 

that for conditions of the Beaufott Sea the depth of scouring can exceed 5 m. The maximum 

probability of scouring in the Beaufort Sea is observed at depths of 2030 m. 

Superstructure Icing 

The icing of ships or marine structures is the resutt of freezing water coming from the 

atmosphere (atmospheric icing), sea (sea icing), or atmosphere and sea simultaneously (mbed 

icing), Sea and mixed icing presents the greatest hazard. Negative air temperature and strong 

wind, accompanied by waves. lead to superstructure icing. Accumulation of ice on different parts 

of a vessel causes critical changes in its stability and can also influence other marine structures. 

Analysis of existing observation data on icing helped to develop methods of icing 

calculation. The parameterization of those data allowed us to use a nomogram or prepare simple 

calculation schemes to estimate current and Mure intensity of icing. 

In the autumn-winter period another similar hazardous process can be observed. It is the 

adhesion of snow-ice masses to the hull of a ship or other marine structure. The bond between 

hull and ice leads to formation of a snow-ice 'pillovf that can even cause the vessel to stop. 

Wlnd Waves 

Ice cover in the Beaufott Sea not only causes direct influences, but distribution of ice 

cover also determines development of another hazardous phenomenon -sea waves. Significant 

retreat of ice cover from the Alaska coast creates favorable conditiions for the development of high 

seas presenting hazards for ships and structures. Development of waves depends upon wind 

speed and direction, sea depth and bottom topography, and also wind fetch. The fetch in the 

vicinity of Alaska OCS, to a great degree, depends upon ice edge location. Waves can be 

especially high in September and October when long wind fetch and also deep cyclones are 

often present. When fetch is equal 800 km. wave heights can reach 7-9 m. Wind waves can be 

calculated and predicted with high accuracy. 
Appd - Modeling and Prediction of Ice Hazards 

CONCLUSION 

The problem of using knowledge of hazardous phenomena for working on the Arctic shelf 

should attract greater attention. An optimal allowance for hazardous phenomena presents one 

way to increase the effectiveness and minimize environmental influence of working in extreme 

condaiis of the Arctic zone. To take into account the influence of hazardous phenomena, it is 

necessary to know the ice regime of the area and the structure and dynamics of ice cover. 

The present level of knowledge on ice regime for the Alaska OCS can be reflected by 

maps developed on the basis of existing observations and calculation methods. The most 

convenient presentation of this information is in a form of usual or electronic atlases. Such an 

atlas, in additii to ice maps, will include calculated probability density for different ice 

parameters and their combination and typical synoptic situations causing the appearance of 

hazardous conditions. 

Those conditions would be taken into account for rational design of offshore structures 

and also strategic planning work on shelf. The strategic planning and decision making can be 

more effective if long-term forecasting is also taken into consideration. 

The second aspect of allowing for hazardous phenomena is operational support with 

current information and short-term forecasts. The data from high resolution satellite images will 

be used to study mese and small-scale features of ice behavior. Numerical modeling will give 

additional information on ice cover state including those parameters that cannot be observed, in 

particular, ice thickness and areas of compacting. 

Some supplementary notes about strategy to develop a scientific operational ice support 

system for working in Alaska OCS and cooperation between exploring and supporting companies 

can be found in Appel (1994). 

LITERATURE CITED 

Appel, I.L. 1994. Scientific operational ice support for offshore exploration in Arctic seas: state 

and strategy of development, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston. 241-248. 

Appel, I.L., and C.B. Samuels. 1995. Simulated sea ice data. Fourth Conference on Polar 

Meteorology and Oceanography, Dallas. 47-52. 

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION 

Tom Newbury: You showed a profile of the amount of open water in 1993. Do you have a similar 

projection for 1992? During Kuvlum operations in 1992, there was very bad ice, but during 

operations in 1993 there was very little ice. 

lgor Appel: When we developed the method it was verified on many years. The years of 1991 

and 1992 were not included into consideration to create the method. But later, the method was 

verified on these two years before the real forecast was developed. And it shows mild ice 

distribution in 1991 as far as I remember and very heavy ice conditions the next year. 
202 7895 - MMS Arctic Synthssis Meeting 

Tom Newbu y: Aside from the obvious operational hazard associated with extremely heavy ice, 

there is a hazard associated with extremely mild ice. When the ice is very mild and the ice edge 

is far off shore, there is a long fetch and large waves can develop. During one year when there 

was a long fetch, several of the offshore islands were damaged by heavy storm waves. 

lgor Appel: As far as I know that phenomenon is well known to you also. Yes, it is a real hazard. 

It is not the direct influence of ice but ice distribution that explains the development of these 

waves. Sea wave height can be calculated very easily and can be forecasted up to at least three 

days in advance with high accuracy. It can be useful. Such information can be developed and 

can be available to estimate future development of sea state under mild ice conditions. 

Grant Watther: I have a question concerning the ice scouring map that you showed us of Barter 

Island area. What was that based upon? Is that a one year study or it is several years? 

lgor Appel: The map showing the distribution of ice scouring is a map combining observed data 

not calculation. So it is a real distribution of scouring depth in the water off the Alaska North 

Slope. 

Grant Walther: Was that based on a one year study or over several years? 

lgor Appel: The field observations included several years of studies. 

Grant Walther: Does there tend to be a variability at all as far as the scouring depths are 

concerned? Or do they seem to be very consistent and constant? 

lgor Appel: Scouring depths can undergo large variability from year to year also. Because it 

depends upon the morphology of the ice pressure structure. And this morphology depends upon 

all processes during the previous winter. It can be calculated and I don't think it is necessary to 

forecast the structure of ridges but we can calculate the keel depths, and we can estimate 

possible scouring variability from year to year. 

Grant Watther: Then you mentioned that the subsoils were also impacted by the scouring. Does 

there seem to be a predictable range as to what the amount would be subsurface? 

lgor Appel: Yes, there are a few works devoted to the study of this process. Modeling, as theory 

explaining the deformation under the scouring and also laboratory experiments showing the same 

results. So there are estimations that can be taken into account. 
NEW ARCTIC NDPES GENERAL PERMIT 

Anne Dailey 

U.S. Envlronrnental Pmtectkn Agency, Regkn 10 

1200 Sbrth Avenue 

Seattle, WA 981 01 

INTRODUCTION 

This presentation introduces a new NPDES general permit and discusses its relationship 

with oil and gas exploration activities in the Arctic. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has 

recently issued the Arctic National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPES) general 

permit which will authorize discharges from offshore oil and gas stratigraphic test and exploration 

wells in federal and state waters of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (60 Federal Register 27508, 

May 24, 1995). 

On September 20,1994, the draft Arctic general permit was opened to a 120 day public 

comment period. Comments were received from 17 parties. The final permit was issued May 24, 

1995 and became effective 30 days later. The permit expires June 23,2000. The permit is in force 

and has not been legally challenged. 

Key points of this talk include: 1) what is an NPDES general permit?, 2) what's new in the 

Arctic general permit?, 3) summary of permit conditions, and 4) take home points. 

WHAT IS AN NPDES PERMIT? 

NPDES general permit covers multiple point source dischargers of similar waste streams 

in the same geographical area (in contrast to individual NDPES permits which are for single 

discharge points). The Arctic general NPDES permit covers offshore oil and gas stratigraphic test 

and exploratory operations but does NOT cover discharges from development or production 

wells. The area of coverage for the permit is the federal waters of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas 

planning basins (as defined by the Minerals Management Service) and the Alaska state waters 

contiguous to landward boundary of the aforementioned planning basins (Figure 1). 

WHAT'S NEW IN THE ARCTIC NPDES GENERAL PERMIT? 

There are several unique features of this perml. This is the first permit issued under the 

recently issued offshore oil and gas effluent limitations guidelines. The area of coverage for this 

permit is defined by the Minerals Management Service planning basins rather than the specific 

federal or state lease sales. The permit also contains new conditions on the discharge of drilling 

muds and cuttings, including a toxicity limit on muds and a mud management plan requirement. 

The areal restrictions on drilling muds and cuttings discharges have been enlarged. In addition, 

the Arctic general permit is the first NPDES oil and gas permit which includes a Best Management 

Practices Plan requirement. 

PERMIT CONDITION 

The bases of the permit conditions include the Clean Water Act, the effluent limitations 

guidelines for offshore oil and gas, best professional judgment, Ocean Discharge Criteria (CWA 

Section 403c), and the Alaska Water Quality Standards. The exploratory waste streams authorized 

with limitations are: 1) drilling muds and cuttings, 2) deck drainage, 3) sanitary wastes, 4) 

domestic wastes, 5) test fluids, and 6) other miscdlaneous discharges. 
Flgure 1. Arctic NPDES General Permit area. 
Dailey - New Arctic NDPES General Pennit 205 

The drilling muds/cuttings waste stream is the primary discharge from exploratory oil and 

gas operations. The key limits for this dkcharge include: I) flow limit which is a function of depth, 

2) no discharge of diesel, free oil or oil-based fluids, 3) drilling mud toxicity limit, and 4) limls on 

mercury and cadmium in stock barite. Other conditions which apply to drilling muds/cuttings 

include, among others, a requirement for development of a drilling mud management plan, areal 

and seasonal restrictions, and environmental monitoring requirements. 

Areal and seasonal restrictions on the drilling muds/cuttings discharge include the 

following no discharge areas: 1) waters shallower that fwe meters, 2) Steffansson Sound Boulder 

Patch, 3) Omalik and Kasegaluk Lagoons, and 4) near river mouths or deltas. Environmental 

monitoring is required in certain areas identified as requiring further information on the fate and, 

in some cases, the effects of discharged drilling muds. 

To apply for authorization to discharge under the Arctic general permit, operators must 

request for coverage at least 60 days prior to the initiation of discharge. EPA will assign a permit 

number to the operation. The permittee must notify EPA at least seven days in advance of 

discharges. 

TAKE HOME POINTS 

The take home points from this presentation are the following: 

The Arctic general NPDES waste water discharge permit for exploratory offshore 

oil and gas activiies is in place. 

First oil and gas general permit to require Best Management Practice Plans. 

The permit has a new procedure for drilling muds. 

The permit has new provisions to protect sensitive areas. 

Permit has not been legally challenged. 

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION 

Tom Newbury: You mentioned that the permit is only for exploration, that production is under 

a different permit. Is the latter permitting procedure in place? 

Anne Dailey: No, that permit is not in place for the Arctic because there were no production 

operations. If there is a production operation, (I have already talked to folks at BP about this with 

respect to Northstar), we anticipate that they would send in an application for an individual 

NPDES permit. EPA would handle that as an ind'~dua1 permit for that facility. The reason for that 

is that there were no production operations when we were developing this permit. Plus, 

exploratory operations are likely to be there one, two, or maybe three months. Production 

operations are expected to be there for a very long time. So it is appropriate to look more 

specifically at the site that they are actually talking about and figuring out what sort of monitoring 

is needed for that site, giving that site more attention than you would in a general permit. In a 

general permit, you have to address the whole area. I gather that there may or may not be 
206 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

discharges of mud or produced water discharges under Northstar. BP is examining available 

options. If there are no or few discharges, then NPDES permit requirements may be slight to even 

non-existent for Northstar. 

But let me follow up also that the Cook Inlet permit, which has expired but the draft permit 

is open for public comment right now, does cwer all exploratory development and production 

operations because there are many production operations there. Specific limits are proposed for 

each of the platforms given their specific location. 

John Bridges: You say that monitoring is required. Is the applicant required to submit a 

monitoring plan of what will be specificalty monitored? 

Anne Dailey: Yes, they are. If an operator is going to propose to discharge in an area where 

monitoring is required, they are required to develop a plan. EPA and ADEC and the North Slope 

Borough all will have an opportunity to review those plans. 

John Bridges: And are the monitoring results submitted to EPA and to the North Slope Borough? 

Anne Dailey: Yes, and to the State. It will be public information. 

John Bridges: Is that per year or per live years? 

Anne Dailey: Well, the discharge would be there for a short period of time, so there is a 

requirement that they monitor during the discharge and for a period afterwards. 
. Appendices 

Appendix A 

Agenda 

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVlCE - ALASKA OCS REGION 

ARCTIC SYNTHESIS MEETING 

Sheraton Anchorage Hotel 

FINAL AGENDA 

MONDAY, 23 OCTOBER 1995 - KUSKOKWIM ROOM 

8:30 am Registration and Coffee 

INTRODUCTORY SESSION 

9:00 am Opening and Welcome 

Dr. Cleve Cowles, Chief, Environmental Studies Section, MMS, Anchorage 

Major inlitives by the MMS Alaska OCS Region, including responsibilities for the 

development units 

Judith Gottlieb, Regional Director, MMS, Anchorage 

Cynthia Quartennan, Director, MMS, Washington, DC 

Jeff Walker, MMS, Anchorage, moderator of following session 

9:15 am Northstar Development Project 

Teny Obeney, BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Anchorage 

10:00 am 30 MINUTE BREAK 

10:30 am Kwlum Unit - Development Options 

Jim Watt, Union Twas Petroleum, Houston, 7X 

10:45 am State of Alaska leasing program and development unit responsibilities 

James Hansen, Alaska Dept of Natural Resources, Anchorage 

11 :00 am Arctic offshore production - a Canadian perspective 

Nick Vanderkooy, CANMAR, Ltd., Calgary, Alberta 

11 :30 am Session summary, including MMS Stakeholder Task Force processes 

Jeff Walker, MMS, Anchorage - 

12:W to 1 :30 prn LUNCH 
MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE - ALASKA OCS REGION 

ARCTIC SYNTHESIS MEETING 

Sheraton Anchorage Hotel 

FINAL AGENDA 

MONDAY, 23 OCTOBER 1995 - KUSKOKWIM ROOM 

SOCIOCULTURAL SESSION 

Co-chaired by Delbert Rexford, Office of the Mayor, North Slope Borough (NSB) and 

Dr. Steve J. Langdon. Dept. of Anthropology, University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) 

1 :30 pm An overview of North Slope society: past and future 

Dr. Steve J. Langdon, Dept. of Anthropology, UAA 

2:00 pm History of subsistence whaling during the fall migration at Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, and 

Barrow 

Joseph Kaleak, Whaling Captain, Kaktovik 

Frank Long, Jr., President, Nuiqsut Whaling Captains Assn. 

Burton Rexford, Chair, Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), Barrow, 

with Thomas Agiak, AEWC Commissioner of Kaktovik and Thomas Napageak, 

AEWC Commissioner d Nuigsul 

3:30 pm 30 MINUTE BREAK 

4:00 pm Overview of recent sociocuttural studies in Nuiqsut and Kaktwik, Alaska 

Sverre Pedersen, Division d Subsistence, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, 

Fairbanks 

4:30 pm Summary of session 

Dr. Steve J. Langdon, Dept d Anthropology, UAA 

5:00 pm ADJOURN 
MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE - ALASKA OCS REGION 

ARCTIC SYNTHESIS MEETING 

Sheraton Anchorage Hotel 

FINAL AGENDA 

TUESDAY, 24 OCTOBER 1995 - KUSKOKWIM ROOM 

7:30 am Registration and Coffee 

BOWHEAD WHALE SESSION 

Chaired by: Dr. Thomas Albert, Dept. of Wildlife Management, North Slope Borough (NSB), Barrow 

8:00 am The bowhead whale migration of Fall 1994 

Steve Treacy and Warren Horowitz, MMS, Anchorage 

8:30 am Tracking the habis of bowhead whales with satellite-monitored radio tags 

Dr. Bruce Mate, Oregon State University, Newport, OR 

9:00 am Acoustic effects on bowhead whales: overview 

Dr. W. John Richardson, LGL Ltd., environmental research associates (LGL), 

King City, Ontario 

9:20 am Industrial sources of underwater noise 

Dr. Charles Greene, Jr., Greeneridge Sciences, Inc., Santa Barbara, CA 

9:50 am Acoustic effects on bowheads and belugas during spring migration 

Dr. W. John Richardson, LGL, King City, Ontario 

10:10 am 20 MINUTE BREAK 

1030 am Letters of Authorization for Incidental Take of Marine Mammals 

Ron Morris, National Marine Fisheries Service, Anchorage 

11 :00 am BP's bowhead whale monloring near the Northstar Unit, August 1995 

Dr. Christopher J. Herlugson, BP, Anchorage 

11:15 am Summary of session. including werview of NSB bowhead whale research 

Dr. Thomas Albert, Depattment of Wildlife Management, NSB, Banow 

1 1 :30 am 15 MINUTE BREAK 

1 1 :45 am GUEST SPEAKER 

Arctic Marine Pipelines 

David S. McKeehen, INTEC Engineering, Houston, 7X 

1230 to 1:30 pm LUNCH 
MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE - ALASKA OCS REGION 

ARCTIC SYNTHESIS MEETING 

Sheraton Anchorage Hotel 

FINAL AGENDA 

TUESDAY, 24 OCTOBER 1995 - KUSKOKWIM ROOM 

GENERAL BIOLOGY SESSION 

Chaired by Lori Quakenbush, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Fairbanks 

1:30 pm Overview of species that may be affected by development within the Arctic Alaska 

OCS Region 

Lon Quakenbush, FWS, Fairbanks 

1 :50 pm Summary of Pdar Bear Habitat Conservation Strategy and implications for future oil 

and gas development 

Scott Schliebe, FWS, Anchorage 

210 pm Overview of research and monitoring in the OCS conducted by the National 

Biological Service (NBS) 

Lyman Thorsteinson, NBS, Seattle, WA 

2:30 pm Preliminary research on Pacific Walrus to evaluate potential effects of disturbance by 

OCS related oil and gas activities in the Chukchi Sea 

Chadwick V. Jay, NBS, Anchorage 

250 pm Using implanted satellite transmitters to track the movements of murres and puffins 

Dr. Scott Hatch, NBS, Anchorage 

3:10 pm 20 MINUTE BREAK 

3:30 pm Population studies of murres and kittiwakes at Cape Lisburne and Cape Thompson 

David Rmeneau, FWS, Homer 

3:50 pm University of Alaska Coastal Marine lnstiiute sponsored studies in the Arctic OCS 

Dr. John J. Goering, School ol Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of 

Alaska, Fairbanks 

4:10 pm Overview of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Ecosystem Approach to the 

management of fish and wildlife 

Lany Bright FWS, Fairbanks 

4:30 pm Summary of session 

Lori Quakenbush, FWS, Fairbanks 

5:00 pm ADJOURN 
MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE - ALASKA OCS REGION 

ARCTIC SYNTHESIS MEETING 

Sheraton Anchorage Hotel 

FINAL AGENDA 

WEDNESDAY, 25 OCTOBER 1995 - KUSKOKWIM ROOM 

7:30 am Registration and Coffee 

PHYSICAL AND GEOLOGICAL SESSION 

Chaired by Dr. Dick Prentki, MMS, Anchorage 

8:00 am Overview of physical and geological processes that would be affected by operations 

at the development units 

Dr. Dick Prentki, MMS, Anchorage 

8:15 am A coupled iceocean model of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas 

Dr. Kate Hedstrom, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 

8:45 am Trends in occurrence rates for offshore oil spills and the Beaufort Sea 

Dr. Dick Prentki, MMS, Anchorage 

9:15 am Analysis and forecasting of sea ice conditions of the Alaskan North Slope 

Jeff Andrews, National Ice Center, Washington, DC 

9:45 am 30 MINUTE BREAK 

10:15 am Modeling and prediction of ice hazards near the OCS development prospects in the 

Beaufort Sea 

Dr. lgor Appel, Faheather Forecasting, Inc., Anchorage 

10:45 am New Arctic National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit 

Anne Dailey, Em.ronmenta1 Protection Agency, Seattle, WA 

CONCLUDING SESSION 

11:15 am Concluding Synthesis by panel, including Conference Chair and all Session Chairs. 

12:00 NOON ADJOURN 

Appendix B 

Attendee List 

MMS/AOCS REGION ARCTIC SYNTHESIS MEETING 

Attendee Ust 

= Speaker or Chair 

Thomas Agiak 

P.0 Box 24 

Kaktovik, AK 99747 

Thomas Albert* 

Dept. of Wildlife Management 

North Slope Borough 

P.O. Box 69 

Barrow, AK 99723 

(907) 852-0351 

George Allen 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Service 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

Jeff Andrews* 

National Ice Center 

4251 Suitland Road 

FOB#4, Room 2301 

Washington. D.C. 203955180 

(301) 457-5314 

lgor Appel* 

Fairweather Forecasting, Inc. 

71 5 L Street, #I 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

(907) 258-91 65 

Michael Baffrey 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Service 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

Brenda Ballachey 

National Biological Service 

101 1 E. Tudor Road 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

(907) 786-3417 

Tom Barnes 

BP Exploration 

700 E. Benson Bhrd. 

Anchorage, AK 99519 

(907) 564-51 54 

Paul J. Barter 

Kinnetic Laboratories, Inc. 

403 W. 8th Ave. 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

(907) 276-6178 

Robert K. Bell 

Fisheries Joint Management Committee 

Box 149 

Air Ronge, Saskatchewan SOJ 3G0 

CANADA 

(306) 42531 36 

Emily Binnian 

USGSIEROS Alaska Field Office 

4230 University Drive 

Anchorage, AK 995084664 

(907) 786-7033 

Mdly Birnbaum 

Pipeline Office 

Dept. of Governmental Coordination 

41 1 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 2C 

Anchorage, AK 99501-2345 

(907) 271-4317 

Max Brewer 

U.S. Geological Survey 

4200 University Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508-4667 

John W. Bridges 

Marine Mammals 

U.S. Feh and Wildlife Service 

101 1 E. Tudor Road 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

(907) 786-3810 
lW5 - MMS Arctic SynWis Meeting 

Larry Bright* 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

101 12th Avenue, Box 20 

Fairbanks, AK 99701 

(907) 456-0388 

Robert P. Britch 

ENSR 

4600 Business Park Bhrd., Suite 22 

Anchorage, AK 99503-7143 

(907) 561-5700 

Bob Brock 

Regional Supervisor 

Leasing & Environment 

Minerals Management Service 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

Thomas Bucceri 

Division of Oil and Gas 

State of Alaska 

3601 C Street, Suite 1380 

Anchorage, AK 99503-5948 

(907) 762-2593 

Jim Bunch 

Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans 

200 Kent Street 

Ottawa, Ontario KIA OE6 

(61 3) 990-7284 

Michael Bum11 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Senrice 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

Robin Lee Cacy 

Public Affaii Officer 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Service 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

(907) 2714070 

Doug Choromanski 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Service 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

Patricia Cochran 

Alaska Native Science Commission 

321 1 Providence Drive 

Anchorage, AK 99504 

(907) 786-4023 

Patrick Coughlin 

State Attorney 

State of Alaska 

1031 W. 4th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

(907) 269-5260 

Cleve Codes* 

Chief, Environmental Studies Section 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Service 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

Jim Craig 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Service 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

Marie Crosley 

Division of Oil and Gas 

State of Alaska 

3601 C Street, Suite 1380 

Anchorage, AK 99503-5948 

(907) 762-2593 

Anne Dailey* 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 10 

MS WD-137 

1200 Si Avenue 

Seattle, WA 98101 

(206) 553-21 10 

Terry Carpenter 

Corps of Engineers-Regulatory 

P.O. Box 898 

Anchorage, AK 99506 

(907) 753-2716 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Steven K. Davis 

LGL Alaska Research Associates 

4175 Tudor Centre Drive, #I01 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

(907) 562-3339 

John Decker 

ARCO Alaska, Inc. 

700 G Street 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

(907) 265-1521 

Thomas M. Deeter 

Energy Development Corp. 

1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 2900 

Houston, TX 77002 

(713) 750-7384 

Anthony R. DeGange 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

101 1 E. Tudor Road 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

(907) 786-3492 

Abigail Dunning 

District Counsel 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

P.O. Box 898 

Anchorage, AK 99506-0898 

(907) 753-2532 

Arlen Ehm 

Arlen Ehm Geological Consulting 

2420 Foxhall Drive 

Anchorage, AK 99504 

(907) 333-8880 

Brian Ferguson 

Dept. of F~heries and Oceans 

P.O. Box 1871 

Inwik, NT XOE OTO 

CANADA 

(403) 9793314 

Steven R. Fly 

Union Texas Petroleum Alaska Corp. 

P.O. Box 2120 

Houston, TX 77056-21 20 

(71 3) 968-2552 

June Fowler 

Homestead Investments 

2022 Crataegus Circle 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

(907) 277-4703 

Richard A. Garrard 

ARCO Alaska, Inc. 

P.O. Box 100360 

Anchorage, AK 9951 0-0360 

(907) 2651 536 

John Goering* 

Schd of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences 

University of Alaska 

Fairbanks, AK 997757220 

(907) 474-7895 

Judi Gottlieb* 

Regional Director 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Service 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

Glenn Gray 

Dept. of Governmental Coordination 

P.O. Box 110030 

Juneau, AK 9981 1 

(907) 465-8792 

Dr. Charles R. Greene,Jr.* 

Greenridge Sciences, Inc. 

4512 Vi Huerto 

Santa Barbara, CA 93110 

(805) 967-7720 

email: cgreene@Greeneridge.com 

Lon Hachmeister 

Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp. 

10900 N.E. 8th Street, Suite 1300 

Bellewe, WA 98004 

(206) 688-381 7 

B~ce S. Hamilton 

Union Texas Petroleum Alaska Corp. 

P.O. Box 2120 

Houston, TX 77OS2120 

(71 3) 968-2558 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Don Hansen 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Service 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

James Hansen* 

Division of Oil and Gas 

Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources 

3601 C Street, Suite 1380 

Anchorage, AK 99503-5948 

(907) 762-2593 

Jeannie Hanson 

National Marine Fisheries Senrice 

222 West 7th Avenue, Box 43 

Anchorage, AK 99513 

(907) 271-5006 

Scott Hatch* 

Alaska Science Center 

National Biological Service 

1011 E. Tudor Road 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

(907) 786-3529 

Brian Havelock 

Division of Oil and Gas 

State of Alaska 

3601 C Street, Suite 1380 

Anchorage, AK 99503-5948 

(907) 762-2593 

Jim Haynes 

Division of Oil and Gas 

3601 C Street, Suite 1380 

Anchorage, AK 99503-5948 

(907) 762-2592 

Nolan Heath 

Bureau of Land Management 

222 W. 7th Avenue, #13 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7599 

(907) 271-5477 

Kate Hedstrorn* 

Inst. of Marine and Coastal Sciences 

Rutgers University 

P.O. Box 231 

New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0231 

(908) 932-8959, ext. 258 

Chris Herlugson* 

BP Exploration Alaska, Inc. 

P.O. Box 196612 

Anchorage, AK 99519S612 

(907) 564-4245 

Carl M. Hild 

Rural/CAP/"ndigenous People's Council for 

Marine Mammals 

P.O. Box 200908 

Anchorage, AK 99520-0908 

(907) 279-251 1 

Tim Holder 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Service 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

Warren Horowitz* 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Service 

999 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

(907) 271 -6554 

Joel Hubbard 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Service 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

Gail V. lrvine 

National Biological Service 

101 1 E. Tudor Road 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

(907) 786-3653 

Jon lsaacs 

Jon lsaacs and Associates 

308 G Street, #313 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

(907) 274-9719 

Chad V. Jay* 

Alaska Science Center 

National Biological Service 

101 1 E. Tudor Road 

Anchorage, AK 99503 
1995 - MMS Arctic SJWIhSis Me8ti~ 

Peter Johnson 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Service 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

Joseph Kaleak* 

North Slope Borough 

Box 3 

Kaktovik, AK 99747 

(907) 640-651 5 

Janet M. Kennedy 

Kinnetic Laboratories, Inc. 

403 W. 8th Ave. 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

(907) 276-6178 

Joe Kirchner 

BP Exploration 

P.O. Box 196612 

Anchorage, AK 99519661 2 

(907) 564-4771 

Judy Kitagawa 

ADEC 

P.O. Box 1709 

Valdez, AK 99686 

(907) 835-4698 

Rich Kombrath 

Division of Oil and Gas 

DNR-State of Alaska 

3601 C Street 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

(907) 762-21 85 

Steve J. Langdon* 

Dept. of Anthropology 

University of Alaska Anchorage 

321 1 Providence Drive 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

(907) 786- 1 723 

Carl Lautenberger 

USEPAJoint Pipeline Oftice 

222 W. 7th Avenue, Box 19 

Anchorage, AK 99507 

(907) 2714306 

Jack Lentfer 

Marine Mammal Commission 

P.O. Box 2617 

Homer, AK 99603 

(907) 235-5945 

Thomas J. Lohman 

North Slope Borough 

Dept. of Wildlife Management 

P.O. Box 69 

Barrow, AK 99723 

(907) 852-0350 

Frank Long, Jr.* 

Box 209 

Nuiqsut, AK 99789 

Maria C. Mahl 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Service 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

(907) 271-6567 

Paul Martin 

Minerals Management Service 

381 Elden Street 

Hemdon, VA 22070-481 7 

Bruce Mate* 

Hatfield Marine Science Center 

Oregon State University 

Newport, OR 97365 

(503) 867-0202 

David McGillivary 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Marine Mammals Management Office 

101 1 E. Tudor Road 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

(907) 7863800 

David McKeehanf 

INTEC Engineering 

15600 JFK Bhrd., 9th Floor 

Houston, TX 77032 

(71 3) 987-0800 
6 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Rosa Meehan 

U.S. FB~ and Wildlife Service 

101 1 E. Tudor Road 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

(907) 786-3492 

Paul Meyers 

National Biological Service 

101 1 E. Tudor Road 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

(907) 786-3584 

Bob Middleton 

Special Assistant 

Minerals Management Service 

1849 C Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

(202) 208-3500 

Judy Miller 

Gallagher Marine Systems 

200 W. 34th Avenue, #844 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

(907) 274-2256 

Chuck Mitchell 

MBC Applied Environmental Sciences 

3040 Redhill Avenue 

Costa Mesa, CA 92626 

(714) 850-4830 

Kathy Mitchell 

Meeting Coordinator 

MBC Applied Environmental Sciences 

3040 Redhill Avenue 

Costa Mesa, CA 92626 

(714) 850-4830 

Ron Morris* 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

222 W. 7th Ave., Box 43 

Anchorage, AK 9951 3 

(907) 271-5006 

Mark Musial 

Golder Associates, Inc. 

8740 Hartzell Road, Suite 200 

Anchorage, AK 99507-3444 

(907) 344-6001 

Thomas Napageak 

Box 112 

Nuiqsut, AK 99789 

Frank Neary 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Service 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

Kristen Nelson 

Petroleum l nforrnation 

P.O. Box 102278 

Anchorage, AK 9951 0-2278 

(907) 248-3622 

Tom Newbury* 

Meeting Coordinator 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Semce 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

(907) 2714604 

Richard C. Newman 

Minerals Management Service 

949 East 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

(907) 2716119 

Lynn Noel 

LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc. 

4175 Tudor Centre Drive, Suite 101 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

(907) 562-3339 

Teny Obeney* 

BP Exploration Alaska, Inc. 

P.O. Box 19661 2 

Anchorage, AK 9951 9-661 2 

(907) 564-5989 

Brunhilde O'Brien 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Service 

949 East 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

(907) 271-6514 
7995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Danielle Ohms 

ARC0 Alaska, Inc. 

700 G Street 

Anchorage, AK 99510 

(907) 263-1 1 73 

Kathleen Osawski 

Dames and Moore 

5600 B Street, Suite 100 

Anchorage, AK 99518 

(907) 562-3366 

Russell N. Page 

Weather Service Forecast Oflice 

National Weather Senrice 

6930 Sand Lake Road 

Anchorage, AK 99502-1 845 

(907) 266-51 13 

Walter B. Parker 

U.S. Arctic Research Commission 

3724 Campbell Airstrip Road 

Anchorage, AK 99504 

(907) 333-5189 

Jennifer Parnell 

BP Exploration 

900 E. Benson 

Anchorage, AK 99519 

(907) 564-5326 

Harshad Patel 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Service 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

(907) 271-6031 

Mamie Pavlick 

MBC Applied Environmental Sciences 

3040 Redhill Avenue 

Costa Mesa, CA 92626 

(714) 850-4830 

Sverre Pedersen* 

Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game 

1300 Cdlege Road 

Fairbanks, AK 99701 

(907) 479-621 1 

Gary Pelka 

BP Exploration 

900 E. Benson 

Anchorage, AK 99519 

(907) 564-5677 

Robert Pollard 

LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc. 

4175 Tudor Centre Drive, Suite 101 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

(907) 562-3339 

Dick Prentki* 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Service 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

(907) 271-6599 

Lon' Quakenbush* 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Senrice 

101 12th Avenue, Box 20, Room 232 

Fairbanks, AK 99701 

(907) 456-0442 

Cynthia Quarterman* 

Director 

Minerals Management Service 

1849 C Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

(202) - 

Matt Rader 

Division of Oil and Gas 

State of Alaska 

3601 C Street, Suite 1380 

Anchorage, AK 99503-5948 

(907) 762-2593 

Brien E. Reep 

Exxon Ventures (CIS) Inc. 

P.O. Box 196601 

Anchorage, AK 99516 

(907) 564-3605 

Burton Rexford* 

Chairman 

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission 

P. 0. Box 424 

Barrow, AK 99723 

(907) 852-2392 
8 1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

W. John Richardson* 

LGL environmental research assoc. 

P.O. Box 280 

King City, Ontario L7B 1A6 

CANADA 

(905) 833-1244 

Stuart Richardson 

4600 Southpark Bluff Drive 

Anchorage, AK 99516 

(907) 3457743 

Ted Rockwell 

U.S. EPA 

222 W. 7th Avenue, Box 19 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7588 

(907) 271-5083 

Pam Rogers 

Division of Oil and Gas 

State of Alaska 

3601 C Street, Suite 1380 

Anchorage, AK 995035948 

(907) 762-2593 

David Roseneau* 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge 

2355 Kachemak Bay Drive, Suite 101 

Homer, AK 996038021 

(907) 235-6546 

Allan Ross 

BP Exploration 

900 E. Benson 

Anchorage, AK 99519 

(907) 564-5377 

David Rugh 

National Marine Mammal Lab 

NOAA/NMFS 

7600 Sand Point Way, NE 

Seattle, WA 981 15 

(206) 526-4018 

John F. Schindler 

2473 Captain Cook Drive 

Anchorage, AK 99517-1 254 

(907) 248-4!38 

Steven Schmitz 

State of Alaska/DNR/Div. of Oil and Gas 

3601 C Street, Suite 1380 

Anchorage, AK 995035948 

(907) 762-2597 

Scott Schliebe* 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Senrice 

101 1 E. Tudor Road 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

(907) 7- 

Russ and Shirley Seppi 

889 Lancaster Drive 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

Jeny Shearer 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Service 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

Kirk Shewood 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Setvice 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

Randy Skiller 

BP Exploration Alaska, Inc. 

P.O. Box 196612 

Anchorage, AK 995196612 

Pete Sloan 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Service 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

(907) 271 -6123 

Tom Smith 

State of Alaska 

3601 C Street, Suite 1380 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

Page Spencer 

National Park Service 

2525 Gambell Street 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

(907) 257-2625 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Steve Thompson 

Golder Associates 

8740 Hartzell Road, Suite 200 

Anchorage, AK 99507 

(907) 344-6001 

Lyman Thorsteinson* 

Western Regional Office 

National Biogical Service 

909 1 st Avenue, Suite 800 

Seattle, WA 98104 

(206) 220-4614 

Dennis Thurston 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Service 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

Don C. Tomlin 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

1675 C Street 

Anchorage, AK 99501-5198 

(907) 271-4124 

Steve Treacy* 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Service 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

Declan Troy 

Troy Ecological Research Associates 

2322 E. 16th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

(907) 276-3436 

Mary Ann Turner 

Branch of Environmental Operations and 

Analysis 

Minerals Management Senrice 

381 Elden Street 

Herndon, VA 22070-481 7 

(703) 787- 1 734 

Nick Vanderkwy* 

CANMAR, Ltd. 

700 2nd Street, S.W. 

Calgary, T2P OX5 Alberta 

CANADA 

(403) 2983514 

Bill Van Dyke 

State of Alaska 

3601 C Street, Suite 1380 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

(907) 762-2550 

Jeny H. Veldhuis 

ARC0 Alaska, Inc. 

700 G Street 

P.O. Box 100360, ATO-1402 

Anchorage, AK 99510 

(907) 265-6396 

Jeff Walker* 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Service 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

Rance Wall 

Regional Supervisor 

Resource Evaluation 

Minerals Management Service 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

Grant Watther 

Mammoth Productions 

P.O. Box 102418 

Anchorage, AK 9951 0 

(907) 279-9999 

Jim Watt* 

Union Texas Petroleum 

P.O. Box 2120 

Houston, TX 77252-21 20 

(713) 968-2604 

Bruce Webb 

Division of Oil and Gas 

State of Alaska 

3601 C Street, Suite 1380 

Anchorage, AK 995035948 

(907) 762-2593 

Mary A Weger 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

P.O. Box 898 

Anchorage, AK 99506-0898 

(907) 753-2716 
1995 - MMS Arctic Synthesis Meeting 

Frank Wendling 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals Management Service 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

William J. Wilson 

LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc. 

4175 Tudor Centre Drive, Suite 101 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

(907) 562-3339 

Jim Winegamer 

ARC0 Alaska, Inc. (AT0 1476A) 

P.O. Box 100360 

Anchorage, AK 99510-0360 

(907) 265-6376 

Sue Zerwick 

Alaska OCS Region 

Minerals ~anagement Service 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

Pete Zseleczky 

Mgr., Land Dept. 

BP Exploration Alaska, Inc. 

P.O. Box 19661 2 

Anchorage, AK 99519-661 2 

(907) 564-5446 
The Department of the Interior Mission 

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the lnterior has responsibility for 

most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use 

of our land and water reTs0urces; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the 

environmental and cutRTral values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the 

enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral 

resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by 

encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The Department also has a major 

responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island 

territories under U.S. administration. 

The Minerals Management Sewice Mission 

As a bureau of the Department of the Interior, the Minerals Management Service's (MMS) primary 

responsibilities are to manage the mineral Tesources located on the Nation's Outer Continental 

Shelf (OCS), collect revenue from the Federal OCS and onshore Federal and lndian lands, and 

distribute those revenues. 

-- Moreover, in working to meet its responsibilities, the Offshore Mlnerals Management Program 

administers the OCS competitive leasing program and oversees the safe and environmentally 

sound exploration and production of our Nation's offshore natural gas, oil, and other mineral 

resources. The MMS Royalty Management Program meets its responsibillies by ensuring the 

efficient, timely, and accurate collection and disbursement of revenue from mineral leasing and 

production due to lndian tribes and altottees, States, and the U.S. Treasury. 

The MMS strives to fulfill its responsibilities through the general guiding principles of: (1) being 

responsive to the public's concerns and interests by maintaining a dialogue with all potentially 

affected parties and (2) carrying out its programs with an emphasis on working to enhance the 

quality of life for all Americans by lending MMS assistance and expertise to economic development 

and environmental protection.