OCS Study 

MMS 2002-071 

GIS Geospatial Database 

of Oil-Industry and Other Human Activity 

(1979 – 1999) in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea 

Volume 1 

by 

P. Wainwright 

LGL Limited, Sidney, BC 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Minerals Management Service 

Alaska OCS Region 

949 East 36th Ave. 

Anchorage, Alaska 99508 

2 December 2002 

This study was funded by the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region of the Minerals 

Management Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Anchorage, AK, under contract 1435-01-

98-CT-30915. 

This report has been reviewed by the Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of 

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

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

reflect the views or policies of the Minerals Management Service. 
The following is the brief description of the products for this study: 

(1) Wainwright, P. (2002) GIS Geospatial Database of Oil-Industry and Other Human 

Activity (1979 – 1999) in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, MMS OCS Publication 2002-071, Volume 1, 

86pp. (this report) 

Volume 1 of the study summarizes the results of the study and provides maps and graphs 

depicting oil and gas activity. This is the report that MMS has released for this study 

(2) Wainwright, P. (2002) GIS Geospatial Database of Oil-Industry and Other Human 

Activity (1979 – 1999) in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, MMS OCS Publication 2002-071, Volume 2, 

233pp. 

Volume 2 contains many more maps and detailed notes on the status and contents of studyspecific information reviewed in the MMS Field Operations and Resource Evaluation vaults. 

Volume 2 contains proprietary information associated with the collection of information from the 

MMS Resource Evaluation Vault and therefore will not be released at this time. 

(3) Wainwright, P. (2002) GIS Geospatial Database of Oil-Industry and Other Human 

Activity, (1979 – 1999) in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, MMS OCS Publication 2002-071, Volume 

3, Database Documentation. 

Volume 3, the Database Documentation Report, contains a description of the database design and 

holds a copy of the GIS database on a CD within the inside cover. The Database Documentation 

Report will not be released to the public at this time since it contains a copy of the proprietary 

database and relates specifically to it. 

(4) Wainwright, P. (2002) GIS Geospatial Database of Oil-Industry and Other Human 

Activity (1979 – 1999) in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, MMS OCS Publication 2002-071, Human 

Activities Database. 

The database contains all of the available spatial and attribute data on oil and gas activity for the 

Beaufort Sea collected for this study. The database contains proprietary data associated with the 

common-depth-point seismic navigation data extracted from the MMS Resource Evaluation Vault. 

The database will not be released to the public since the user can display and print out the CDP 

seismic navigation lines and shotpoints at their precise locations, which are proprietary. 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited i

TABLE OF CONTENTS – VOLUME 1

Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................viii

Abstract............................................................................................................................viii

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

2. Chronology of Data Compilation................................................................................ 1

3. Completeness of Database and Limitations of Data ................................................... 6

3.1 Status of Database............................................................................................... 6

3.2 Completeness of Database and Limitations of Data ........................................... 7

3.2.1. Seismic Activity.............................................................................................. 7

3.2.2. Drilling.......................................................................................................... 10

3.2.3. Ice Management............................................................................................ 12

3.2.4. Acoustic Surveys .......................................................................................... 12

3.2.5. Other Human Activities................................................................................ 12

4. Summary of Data for the 1990s................................................................................ 13

5. Discussion and Recommendations ........................................................................... 50

6. Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 53

Appendix 1. Selected Documents Pertaining to the Data Compilation............................ 64

Appendix 2. Preparation Of A Sediment Stratigraphy Representative Of The Alaskan 

North Slope ....................................................................................................................... 71

Abstract......................................................................................................................... 72

Acknowledgements....................................................................................................... 72

2-1. Background....................................................................................................... 73

2-2. Methodology..................................................................................................... 74

2-2.1 General Approach and Definition of Categories........................................... 74

2-2.2 Data Assembly and Assumptions within Individual GIS Layers ................. 79

2-2.2.1 Layer 1 .................................................................................................. 79

2-2.2.2 Layer 2 .................................................................................................. 80

2-2.2.3 Layer 3 .................................................................................................. 81

2-3. Use of Stratigraphy and Bottom Type Data for Assessing the Ocean Acoustic 

Environment.................................................................................................................. 83

2-4. References......................................................................................................... 84

LIST OF FIGURES – VOLUME 1

Figure 1. The study area .................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2a. 1990 - September 1 to 15, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................14

Figure 2b. 1990 - September 16 to 30, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................15
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited ii

Figure 2c. 1990 - October 1 to 20, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................16

Figure 3a. 1991 - September 1 to 15, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................17

Figure 3b. 1991 - September 16 to 30, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................18

Figure 3c. 1991 - October 1 to 20, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................19

Figure 4a. 1992 - September 1 to 15, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................20

Figure 4b. 1992 - September 16 to 30, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................21

Figure 4c. 1992 - October 1 to 20, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................22

Figure 5a. 1993 - September 1 to 15, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................23

Figure 5b. 1993 - September 16 to 30, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................24

Figure 5c. 1993 - October 1 to 20, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................25

Figure 6a. 1994 - September 1 to 15, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................26

Figure 6b. 1994 - September 16 to 30, All known seismic, acoustic

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................27

Figure 6c. 1994 - October 1 to 20, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................28

Figure 7a. 1995 - September 1 to 15, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................29

Figure 7b. 1995 - September 16 to 30, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................30

Figure 7c. 1995 - October 1 to 20, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................31

Figure 8a. 1996 - September 1 to 15, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................32

Figure 8b. 1996 - September 16 to 30, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................33

Figure 8c. 1996 - October 1 to 20, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................34

Figure 9a. 1997 - September 1 to 15, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................35

Figure 9b. 1997 - September 16 to 30, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................36
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited iii

Figure 9c. 1997 - October 1 to 20, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................37

Figure 10a. 1998 - September 1 to 15, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................38

Figure 10b. 1998 - September 16 to 30, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................39

Figure 10c. 1998 - October 1 to 20, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................40

Figure 11. Seismic activity during the fall bowhead migration period 

from 1990 to 1998 ...........................................................................................................41

Figure 12a. 1985 – Fall migration period, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................43

Figure 12b. 1985 – Uncertain dates, All known seismic, acoustic 

and drilling activity ..........................................................................................................44

Figure 13. Drilling activity during the fall bowhead migration period 

from 1990 to 1998 ...........................................................................................................49

Figure 2-1. Bathymetric features and place names of the greater North Slope 

study region .............................................................................................................. 74

Figure 2-2. Stratigraphy Layer 0....................................................................................... 87

Figure 2-3. Stratigraphy Layer 1....................................................................................... 88

Figure 2-4. Stratigraphy Layer 2....................................................................................... 89

Figure 2-5. Stratigraphy Layer 3....................................................................................... 90

LIST OF TABLES – VOLUME 1

Table 1. A comparison of sound levels from various sources............................................ 3

Table 2. Index of completeness and adequacy of information in the Human Activities 

Database...................................................................................................................... 8

Table 3. Seismic and acoustic sources in use between 1980 and 1999 .............................. 9

Table 4. Summary of seismic and acoustic activity during the fall bowhead migration 

period in the 1990s.................................................................................................... 45

Table 5. Summary of drilling activity during the fall bowhead migration period in the 

1990s......................................................................................................................... 46

Table 2-1. Correlation of stratigraphic units on the Beaufort Sea shelf and the adjacent 

Arctic Coastal Plain.. .................................................................................................75

Table 2-2. Principal sources for stratigraphic mapping in this study ............................... 76

Table 2-3. Identifications of stratigraphic units made in regional studies....................... 76

Table 2-4. Sources and content of information available for estimating C/D layer 

thickness.................................................................................................................... 82

Table 2-5. Suggested parameters for acoustic propagation modelling in the idealized 

description of the Alaskan North Slope. ................................................................... 84
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS – VOLUME 2

Appendix 3. Completeness of Data in the MMS Field Operations Vault (FOV)............... 1

3-1 OCS Geohazard Reports and Associated Navigation Tapes.............................. 1

3-2 OCS Daily Drilling Reports................................................................................ 2

3-2.1 Missing reports: .......................................................................................... 2

3-2.2 Missing Details: .......................................................................................... 3

3-3 OCS CDP and High Resolution Seismic Surveys .............................................. 5

3-4 Current Status of Vessels Involved in Ice-Management .................................. 10

Appendix 4. Summary Maps ............................................................................................ 13

Appendix 5. Feasibility of Using Human Activities Database and Existing Aerial Survey 

Data to Analyze Bowhead Whale Distribution in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea during 

Autumn vs. Human Activities and Sea Ice ..................................................................... 179

LIST OF FIGURES – VOLUME 2

Figure 4-1. 1980 Seismic activity (Geohazard surveys)................................................... 16

Figure 4-2. 1980 Acoustic activity.................................................................................... 18

Figure 4-3. 1981 Seismic activity (CDP surveys) ............................................................ 22

Figure 4-4. 1981 Acoustic activity.................................................................................... 24

Figure 4-5. 1981 Drilling activity..................................................................................... 26

Figure 4-6. 1982 Acoustic activity.................................................................................... 30

Figure 4-7. 1982 Drilling activity..................................................................................... 32

Figure 4-8. 1983 Seismic activity (CDP surveys) ............................................................ 36

Figure 4-9. 1983 Seismic activity (Geohazard surveys)................................................... 37

Figure 4-10. 1983 Acoustic activity.................................................................................. 40

Figure 4-11. 1983 Drilling activity................................................................................... 42

Figure 4-12. 1984 Seismic activity (CDP surveys) .......................................................... 46

Figure 4-13. 1984 Seismic activity (Geohazard surveys)................................................. 47

Figure 4-14. 1984 Drilling activity................................................................................... 50

Figure 4-15. 1985 Seismic activity (CDP surveys) .......................................................... 54

Figure 4-16. 1985 Seismic activity (Geohazard surveys)................................................. 55

Figure 4-17. 1985 Seismic activity (USGS surveys)........................................................ 56

Figure 4-18. 1985 Acoustic activity.................................................................................. 58

Figure 4-19. 1985 Drilling activity................................................................................... 62

Figure 4-20. 1986 Seismic activity (CDP surveys) .......................................................... 66

Figure 4-21. 1986 Drilling activity................................................................................... 70

Figure 4-22. 1986 Ice-management activity..................................................................... 71

Figure 4-23. 1987 Seismic activity (Geohazard surveys)................................................. 74

Figure 4-24. 1987 Acoustic activity.................................................................................. 76
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited v

Figure 4-25. 1987 Drilling activity................................................................................... 78

Figure 4-26. 1988 Seismic activity (Geohazard surveys)................................................. 82

Figure 4-27. 1988 Drilling activity................................................................................... 86

Figure 4-28. 1989 Seismic activity (Geohazard surveys)................................................. 90

Figure 4-29. 1989 Drilling activity................................................................................... 94

Figure 4-30. 1990 Seismic activity (CDP surveys) .......................................................... 98

Figure 4-31. 1990 Drilling activity................................................................................. 102

Figure 4-32. 1991 Seismic activity (CDP surveys) ........................................................ 106

Figure 4-33. 1991 Drilling activity................................................................................. 110

Figure 4-34. 1991 Ice-management activity................................................................... 111

Figure 4-35. 1992 Acoustic activity................................................................................ 114

Figure 4-36. 1992 Drilling activity................................................................................. 116

Figure 4-37. 1992 Ice-management activity................................................................... 117

Figure 4-38. 1993 Seismic activity (CDP surveys) ........................................................ 120

Figure 4-39. 1993 Seismic activity (Geohazard surveys)............................................... 121

Figure 4-40. 1993 Seismic activity (USGS surveys)...................................................... 122

Figure 4-41. 1993 Drilling activity................................................................................. 126

Figure 4-42. 1994 Drilling activity................................................................................. 132

Figure 4-43. 1995 Acoustic activity................................................................................ 136

Figure 4-44. 1995 Drilling activity................................................................................. 138

Figure 4-45. 1996 Seismic activity (CDP surveys) ........................................................ 142

Figure 4-46. 1996 Acoustic activity................................................................................ 144

Figure 4-47. 1996 Drilling activity................................................................................. 147

Figure 4-48. 1997 Seismic activity (CDP surveys) ........................................................ 151

Figure 4-49. 1997 Seismic activity (Geohazard surveys)............................................... 152

Figure 4-50. 1997 Acoustic activity................................................................................ 155

Figure 4-51. 1997 Drilling activity................................................................................. 159

Figure 4-52. 1998 Seismic activity (CDP surveys) ........................................................ 163

Figure 4-53. 1998 Acoustic activity................................................................................ 165

Figure 4-54. 1998 Drilling activity................................................................................. 169

Figure 4-55. 1999 Seismic activity (CDP surveys) ........................................................ 173

Figure 4-56. 1999 Drilling activity................................................................................. 177

LIST OF TABLES – VOLUME 2

Table 3-1. Status of vessels involved in ice management prior to 1996........................... 11

Table 4-1. 1980 Seismic Activity ..................................................................................... 15

Table 4-2. 1980 Acoustic Activity.................................................................................... 17

Table 4-3. 1981 Seismic Activity ..................................................................................... 21
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited vi

Table 4-4. 1981 Acoustic Activity.................................................................................... 23

Table 4-5. 1981 Drilling Activity ..................................................................................... 25

Table 4-6. 1982 Acoustic Activity.................................................................................... 29

Table 4-7. 1982 Drilling Activity ..................................................................................... 31

Table 4-8. 1983 Seismic Activity ..................................................................................... 35

Table 4-9. 1983 Acoustic Activity.................................................................................... 39

Table 4-10 1983 Drilling Activity .................................................................................... 41

Table 4-11 1984 Seismic Activity .................................................................................... 45

Table 4-12. 1984 Drilling Activity ................................................................................... 49

Table 4-13. 1985 Seismic Activity ................................................................................... 53

Table 4-14. 1985 Acoustic Activity.................................................................................. 57

Table 4-15. 1985 Drilling Activity ................................................................................... 60

Table 4-16. 1986 Seismic Activity ................................................................................... 65

Table 4-17. 1986 Drilling Activity ................................................................................... 69

Table 4-18. 1987 Seismic Activity ................................................................................... 73

Table 4-19. 1987 Acoustic Activity.................................................................................. 75

Table 4-20. 1987 Drilling Activity ................................................................................... 77

Table 4-21. 1988 Seismic Activity ................................................................................... 81

Table 4-22. 1988 Drilling Activity ................................................................................... 85

Table 4-23. 1989 Seismic Activity ................................................................................... 89

Table 4-24. 1989 Drilling Activity ................................................................................... 93

Table 4-25. 1990 Seismic Activity ................................................................................... 97

Table 4-26. 1990 Drilling Activity ................................................................................. 101

Table 4-27. 1991 Seismic Activity ................................................................................. 105

Table 4-28. 1991 Drilling Activity ................................................................................. 109

Table 4-29. 1992 Acoustic Activity................................................................................ 113

Table 4-30. 1992 Drilling Activity ................................................................................. 115

Table 4-31. 1993 Seismic Activity ................................................................................. 119

Table 4-32. 1993 Drilling Activity ................................................................................. 124

Table 4-33. 1994 Drilling Activity ................................................................................. 131

Table 4-34. 1995 Acoustic Activity................................................................................ 135

Table 4-35. 1995 Drilling Activity ................................................................................. 137

Table 4-36. 1996 Seismic Activity ................................................................................. 141

Table 4-37. 1996 Acoustic Activity................................................................................ 143

Table 4-38. 1996 Drilling Activity ................................................................................. 145

Table 4-39. 1997 Seismic Activity ................................................................................. 150

Table 4-40. 1997 Acoustic Activity................................................................................ 154

Table 4-41. 1997 Drilling Activity ................................................................................. 156
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited vii

Table 4-42. 1998 Seismic Activity ................................................................................. 162

Table 4-43. 1998 Acoustic Activity................................................................................ 164

Table 4-44. 1998 Drilling Activity ................................................................................. 166

Table 4-45. 1999 Seismic Activity ................................................................................. 172

Table 4-46. 1999 Drilling Activity ................................................................................. 176
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited viii

Acknowledgements

Kirsten Brown and Trena Hallback made significant contributions to the data 

compilation, particularly in the compilation of information from daily drilling reports. 

Lucia Ferreira and Karen Truman were responsible for digitizing numerous maps and 

figures. Don Connelley (D.C. Marine Consultants) was particularly helpful in finding the 

current whereabouts of vessels formerly involved in ice management operations and in 

contacting their current owners. Will Watson (Watson & Company) was of assistance in 

obtaining GIS data for some geohazard studies. Dr. John Richardson and Charles Greene 

contributed advice, assistance and provided review comments on some aspects of the data 

compilation.

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compile detailed information describing the locations, 

timing, and nature of oil and gas related and other human activities in the Alaskan 

Beaufort Sea between 1979-1998. This information is stored in ArcView shapefiles and 

a Visual Foxpro database.

An important objective is the use of this database to assess concerns expressed by 

subsistence hunters and others living within the coastal villages of the Beaufort Sea about 

the possible effects that oil and gas activity, particularly seismic activity, drilling, and oil 

and gas support vessel activities, may have on the behavior of marine mammals, 

especially the bowhead whale. Such an analysis requires an adequate level of detail. 

However, only one oil company authorized access to proprietary information about 

seismic surveys and publicly available information lacks adequate detail. Information on 

these proprietary seismic surveys is presented in this report at a scale that does not 

compromise the proprietary nature of these data. The Human Activities Database is 

however proprietary because it includes these proprietary data in full detail.

The majority of the data in the database relate to seismic activity, drilling activity and ice 

management activity. The main sources for information were: Common Depth Point 

(CDP) surveys conducted under Federal OCS permit, geohazard surveys for Federal OCS 

wells, USGS geophysical surveys, and daily drilling reports for OCS and State of Alaska 

wells. 

With the exception of ice management activity, the compiled information for the period 

1990 to 1998 is relatively complete and considered adequate for the investigation of 

potential effects of disturbance on the fall bowhead whale migration. However, there are 

significant gaps in the data for the period 1979 to 1989.
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited 1

1. Introduction

In September 1998, LGL Limited commenced a study to compile a GIS database of oilindustry and other human activities in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea between 1979 and 1998. 

The motivation for the study was the need for a quantitative description of human 

activities to support analysis of potential effects on the ecology and biota, particularly 

potential effects on the fall bowhead whale migration. The study area is illustrated in 

Figure 1 and includes the area from the shoreline extending North to 72oN latitude and 

bounded on the East and West by 140oW and 157oW longitudes, respectively.

This report presents documentation of the human activities database, selected summaries 

of the database contents, a summary of the data compilation effort, discussion of 

completeness of the database and limitations the data, and recommendations. Some of 

the data in the database for seismic surveys are proprietary. 

A chronology of the data compilation effort is presented below. The chronology of data 

compilation effort is of some importance because the contents and completeness of the 

database reflects decisions made during the data compilation process. 

At commencement of the project the scope of the data compilation effort was broad. It 

became apparent that time, effort and data availability would limit the data compilation.

Effort was focused on the fall bowhead whale migration period (September 1 to October 

20) and the oil industry activities that were considered to be the greatest potential sources 

of noise and disturbance to bowhead whales: Common Depth Point (CDP) seismic 

surveys, geohazard and other high-resolution acoustic surveys, drilling, and ice 

management. Some activities that were potentially important sources of disturbance such 

as subsistence whale hunters and military activities were not within the scope of this 

compilation. Table 1 presents a comparison of noise levels associated with various 

activities. It is important to recognize that the response by whales to a noise source also 

depends on factors such as whether the sound is continuous or transient and the frequency 

of the sound.

2. Chronology of Data Compilation

An initial meeting was held in Anchorage to develop a preliminary database design and 

determine the scope of information to be included in the database. The next step was to 

request assistance from industry by authorizing release of information required for the 

database. An introductory letter was drafted and distributed in November 1998 to 

potential information sources (see Appendix 1, page 64).

At the outset, the scope of the study was broad and there was no special priority given to 

the period of fall bowhead whale migration. Priority was given to compiling information 

on drilling activity, geohazard surveys, CDP and high resolution seismic surveys, and 

ice-breaking activity because these activities were believed to be the most significant 

sources of industrial noise. The initial emphasis was to compile all available information 

from a single source, particularly the Daily Drilling Reports and Geohazard Surveys 

Reports held in the MMS Field Operations Vault (FOV).
#

#

#

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 1. The study area.

The study area extends from 140° to 157° W and from the shore to 72° N.

This map is presented in UTM projection (Zone 6, on NAD83) at approx. 1:2,100,000 scale

Page 2
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited 3

Table 1. A comparison of sound levels from various sources

(from Richardson et al. 1995)

Source / Activity dB at Source

Aircraft:

Bell 212 helicopter 162 

B-N Islander (2 prop) 157

Twin Otter (2 turboprop) 156

C-130 (4 turboprop) 175 

Vessel activity:

Tug pulling barge 171 

Fishing boats 151 – 158 

Zodiac (outboard) 156

Supply ship 181

Tankers 169 – 180 

Supertankers 185 – 190 

Freighter 172

Ice breaking:

Ice-management 171 – 191 

Ice-breaking (Robert Lemeur) 193

Dredging:

Clamshell dredge 150 – 162 

Aquarius (cutter suction dredge) 185

Beaver Mackenzie dredge 172

Drilling:

Kulluk (conical drillship) – drilling 185

Explorer II (drillship) - drilling 174

Artificial island - drilling 125

Ice island (in shallow water) – drilling 86

Seismics and acoustics:

Airgun arrays 235 – 259 

Single airguns 216 – 232 

Vibroseis 187 – 210 

Water Guns 217 – 245 

Sparker 221

Boomer 212

Depth sounder 180

Sub-bottom profiler 200 – 230 

Side-scan sonar 220 – 230

Military 200 – 230 

Ambient Noise: (Burgess and Greene 1999) 65 – 133 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited 4

It was necessary to obtain approval from industry before gaining access to reports held in 

the FOV. All study team members were required to sign non-disclosure agreements 

before being authorized to work with any material from the FOV (Appendix 1, page 68). 

Due to delays in obtaining approvals we were unable to access any information from the 

FOV until early December 1998. At that time, we had received authorization from some 

companies allowing us to access specific reports.

The study team and Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR), Warren 

Horowitz, expended considerable effort attempting to secure authorization to access 

information from industry. Several companies provided authorization to access Daily 

Drilling Reports. Only one company authorized the release of information from CDP 

seismic surveys.

As the work on the Daily Drilling Reports progressed, MMS decided that the information 

being compiled for the database did not involve sensitive information. Therefore, it was 

no longer necessary to obtain industry approval to access the Daily Drilling Reports.

Later (Summer 1999), MMS released all historical geohazard reports eliminating the 

need for specific authorizations to access these data.

Also in Summer 1999, the study team initiated compilation of environmental data for the 

database. Priority was given to compiling information on bathymetry and sediment 

properties because these data are critical for sound propagation modeling. A bathymetry 

coverage was completed from available NOS and USGS bathymetry data. Information 

on sediment properties, however, was limited and difficult to reconcile. The compilation 

of information on sediment properties is reported separately in Appendix 2, page 71.

By November 1999, we had compiled all available information from Daily Drilling 

Reports and Geohazard Reports in the FOV. However, the Daily Drilling Reports for 

some wells were incomplete. Also, some Geohazard Reports were not available from the 

FOV or were lacking both post-plot maps and digital navigation data or dates and times 

of survey lines. Therefore, some geohazard surveys could not be loaded into the database 

and some were loaded without dates. Volume 2, Appendix 3 presents additional details 

regarding the completeness of documentation accessed from the FOV and Resource 

Evaluation Vault (REV). 

In early 2000, it was apparent that there were significant gaps in the database. It was 

determined that priority should be given to the fall bowhead whale migration period. 

There were two possible options for obtaining information on the CDP seismic surveys: 

(1) publicly available information from the OCS and State permit records; and (2) 

proprietary data from the REV. The latter option would result in a data set that could not 

be publicly released.

We obtained copies of publicly available information from the OCS and State permit 

records to determine whether these could provide suitable information for the database. 

Unfortunately, the majority of the permits specified a broad geographic area (sometimes 

the entire Beaufort Sea) and a broad time period. With few exceptions, this information 

did not provide adequate spatial and temporal resolution for the intended use.

In July 2000 it was decided to evaluate the information on seismic surveys conducted 

under OCS permit from the REV for the years 1985, and 1990 to 1999 before proceeding. 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited 5

This required MMS to notify each operator of the proposed disclosure of proprietary data 

to the study team (see Appendix 1, page 70).

It was found that the information from the REV was of varying degrees of completeness. 

In general, data from surveys conducted prior to 1990 did not include dates and times. 

Whereas, most data from 1990 and later either included dates and times in the digital data 

or these were available from an event log in the accompanying report. In most cases, the 

data submitted to MMS were only the lines which met survey specifications. Test shoots 

and survey lines which did not meet specifications commonly were not included. With 

the exception of two permits which were missing dates and times, the data for the period 

1990 to 1999 were considered adequate. 

A significant concern with respect to information on seismic activity was that information 

on surveys conducted under State Miscellaneous Land Use Permits (MLUP) remained 

proprietary and was not available to this project. On investigation, it was discovered that 

in all cases where a seismic survey had required both an OCS and MLUP permit, the 

final data submitted to MMS also included the lines shot in State waters. Therefore, 

complete information was available from the REV except for surveys under MLUP 

permit that did not require an OCS permit. A careful comparison of the publicly 

available information on MLUP permits was made against the data from the REV, 

matching vessels, companies, dates and general locations. It was determined that from 

1990 to 1999 all seismic surveys which had been issued MLUP permits had also received 

OCS permits. However, prior to 1990, in most years MLUP permits had been issued for 

surveys that did not also receive OCS permits. As a consequence, prior to 1990 we were 

unable to obtain information for some seismic surveys.

In August 2000, a meeting was held to discuss options. It was recommended to focus on 

compiling as complete information as practical for a few years - 1992 and 1993 were 

recommended, with the remainder of the 1990s as a backup in the event that complete 

information could not be compiled for these years. It was decided to examine the 

feasibility of the proposed statistical analyses of the database before committing 

significant further effort towards the database. This latter task was directed by Dr. John 

Richardson and appears as a separate report (see Appendix 5). To undertake this 

feasibility assessment either required additional resources or internal reallocation. It was 

decided to reallocate resources by delaying work on implementation of the acoustic 

model component of the original project proposal. The rationale for this decision was 

that the acoustic model component would not be useful if there were not adequate data to 

describe the activities.

Lastly, it was decided to incorporate the proprietary CDP seismic data into the database 

and to investigate methods of presentation that would not compromise the confidential 

nature of the data.

A draft report was prepared incorporating the above and submitted to MMS in May 2001. 

This report was proprietary because it incorporated proprietary information from CDP 

seismic surveys. 

Following a review of the 2001 report, it was decided to focus on compiling complete 

information for a few specific years. 1986 was identified as a primary interest, followed 

by 1992 and 1993, and the remaining years of the 1990s. It was also decided to direct 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited 6

remaining project effort towards compiling data on USGS seismic surveys, ice 

management activity, pipeline route surveys, and daily drilling reports for State wells.

Considerable effort was directed towards investigation of the fate of vessels which 

performed ice manageme nt functions in the Beaufort Sea. The majority of the vessels 

which had been performing ice management were owned by Canadian Marine Drilling 

Ltd. (Canmar) which was originally a subsidiary of Dome Petroleum and subsequently 

became a subsidiary of Amoco. Many of these vessels were sold in 1994 and 1995 by a 

broker, Marcon International Inc. Later Amoco sold its Canmar subsidiary to Livingston 

Marine Co. Ltd. Most of these vessels changed their names after purchase and are now in 

various locations from Europe to China. Don Conelley, Canmar's former Marine 

Supervisor, was working for Amoco at the time of the sale and was extremely helpful in 

tracking down these vessels (see Volume 2, Appendix 3-4).

We were able to confirm that the ship logs were transferred to the new owners and were 

not retained by Amoco at the time of sale in the mid-1990s. We were able to contact the 

current owners of the former Supplier III, IV, and VII and Kigoriak who confirmed that 

they no longer had log books from the time before they became owners and believe that 

these log books were discarded. Efforts were made to contact the current owners of the 

former Supplier V and VI and Robert Lemeur, but these efforts were not successful. 

It does not appear possible to obtain access to the log books of the vessels involved in ice 

management. While there is some information about ice management activity in some 

reports and files, such information is limited and does not provide a complete summary 

of the fall migration period for any year.

Having determined that it would not be possible to obtain complete information on ice 

management activity, the remaining effort budgeted for compilation was directed towards 

compiling information about acoustic surveys in the 1990s, such as pipeline route surveys

and surveys of the boulder patch, and compiling information about State wells in marine 

waters.

3. Completeness of Database and Limitations of Data

3.1 Status of Database

Documentation for the human activity database is presented separately (Wainwright, 

2002). The human activity data are organized into “data sets” where a data set 

corresponds to a set of activities such as a series of lines in a seismic survey or a 

sequence of daily activities in a drilling program. At the time of writing, there are 296 

data sets in the database.

Each data set consists of one or more “human activity” records. Each record describes a 

specific type of activity and its locations and the time period over which it was 

conducted. Where practical, the human activity records provide maximum detail, for 

example, one record may represent a single seismic line, an individual borehole location, 

or a specific activity such as tripping at a well. However, where such detail was not 

available, one human activity record may represent an entire seismic survey or an entire 

week of drilling activity. At the time of writing, there are 55,056 human activity records 

in the database. These are organized in 21 categories of activities, are represented to 

59,792 spatial objects (points, lines, or polygons) and were compiled from 3242 unique 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited 7

“documents” where a document could be a computer data file, a published report, or a 

specific letter or form on file with a government agency.

3.2 Completeness of Database and Limitations of Data

It is best to discuss the completeness of the database and limitations in regards to specific 

types of activity: 

• seismic activity, 

• drilling,

• ice management,

• acoustic surveys, and

• other types of human activities.

Table 2 presents a summary of the completeness and quality of information in the 

database by year and by type of activity rated on a scale from 0 to 3, where “3” is the 

highest level of completeness and quality and “0” indicates significant data gaps. With 

the exception of information on ice-management, vessel activities and geophysical 

surveys in State waters, the information for the years 1990 to 1998 is complete and of 

adequate quality. Information for all years prior to 1990 is of variable completeness and 

quality and would be of limited use in statistical analyses. Information on icemanagement is a significant data gap. The following sections provide additional details 

for each type of activity. Maps illustrating the data in the database, by the above 

categories are presented in Volume 2, Appendix 4.

3.2.1. Seismic Activity

Seismic surveys measure the structure of the seafloor or sub-surface by generating elastic 

energy waves (acoustic shock waves with a frequency less than 100 Hz) and measuring 

the reflected signals. Seismic surveys differ from other forms of acoustic survey by the 

frequency range of the acoustic source and consequently the depth of penetration of the 

seafloor. Higher frequency sources are typically used for bathymetric mapping and for 

surveys where the object is to provide a high level of detail about the seafloor and 

shallow sub-surface sediments. Table 3 presents a summary of seismic and acoustic 

survey methods used in the study area between 1980 and 1999. 

Seismic and acoustic surveys are conducted on behalf of the oil industry for several 

purposes:

• Common Depth Point (CDP) or 3-dimensional surveys are conducted to explore 

and delineate potential hydrocarbon reserves and identify or assess drilling 

prospects. Such surveys always use seismic methods and sometimes conduct 

additional work using acoustic methods;

• Geohazard (or site clearance) surveys are conducted with the objective of locating 

and identifying hazards such as shallow gas, hydrates, unstable sea floors, active 

geologic features and potential shallow water flow-zones to enable exploration 

drilling, facilities installation (such as island construction) and production 

operations to be performed safely. Geohazard surveys often do not use seismic 

survey methods;
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited 8

Table 2. Index of Completeness and Adequacy of Information in the Human Activities Database

1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

CDP Seismic Surveys 

Under OCS Permit 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

OCS Geohazard and 

Pipeline Route Surveys 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3

USGS Surveys 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Seismic Surveys Under 

State MLUP Permit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Seismic and Acoustic 

Surveys in State 

Waters Without 

Permits

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

OCS Daily Drilling 

Reports 0 0 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

State Daily Drilling 

Reports 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2

Ice-Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other Vessel Activity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Data Rating System:

0 Significant data sets are 

missing. These data are 

not suitable for statistical 

analyses.

2 Information is complete, but some data sets lack important details that may limit analyses, i.e., some 

daily drilling reports during the fall migration period do not describe drilling activities; or, information 

for some seismic or geohazard survey lines does not all determination of whether the line was surveyed 

during the fall migration period.

1 Available data provides a 

poor level of detail. 

These data are unsuitable 

for statistical analyses.

3 Information is complete and considered suitable for use in analyses.
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited 9

Table 3. Seismic and Acoustic Sources in Use Between 1980 and 1999

Year(s) Seismic sources Other acoustic sources

1980 – 1981 Unknown Side-scan sonar, uniboom, depth sounder

1982 None Side-scan sonar, uniboom, depth sounder

1983 – 1984 Water gun array, airgun array, single water 

gun, unknown

Side-scan sonar, sub-bottom profiler, polar-scanning sonar, Geopulse 

system, boomer, depth sounder, unknown

1985 Single water gun, unknown Side-scan sonar, sub-bottom profiler, polar-scanning sonar, boomer, depth 

sounder, multibeam bathymetry, unknown

1986 – 1987 Airgun array Side-scan sonar, sub-bottom profiler, Geopulse system, uniboom, depth 

sounder

1988 Single airgun, unknown Side-scan sonar, sub-bottom profiler, Geopulse system, depth sounder, 

unknown

1989 Sleeve gun array, single airgun, unknown Side-scan sonar, sub-bottom profiler, Geopulse system, depth sounder, 

unknown

1990 – 1991 Unknown Unknown

1992 None Side-scan sonar, sub-bottom profiler, depth sounder

1993 Sleeve gun array, unknown Side-scan sonar, sub-bottom profiler, mini-sparker, depth sounder, 

unknown

1994 None None

1995 None Side-scan sonar, sub-bottom profiler, multibeam bathymetry, depth 

sounder

1996 Airgun array Side-scan sonar, sub-bottom profiler, multibeam bathymetry, depth 

sounder, unknown

1997 Airgun array, sleeve gun array, mini-sparker 

array, unknown

Side-scan sonar, sub-bottom profiler, multibeam bathymetry, depth 

sounder, unknown

1998 - 1999 Sleeve gun array Side-scan sonar, multibeam bathymetry, depth sounder, unknown
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited 10

• Surveys with specific objectives such as delineation of potential pipeline routes, 

bathymetric charting of the seafloor, locating and identifying man-made artifacts 

including debris, shipwrecks and sub-sea structures, profiling shallow geologic 

features to assist with engineering studies and facilities design. Such surveys 

typically do not use seismic methods.

Information on seismic activity (CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys) is relatively

complete for the years 1990 to 1999. We are confident that all seismic surveys that were 

conducted in OCS waters during the open water season from 1990 to 1999 are 

represented in the database. However, for several surveys information describing test 

shoots or calibration activity, or lines that were shot off specifications was not available. 

Therefore, it is probable that some additional seismic activity was occurring in the 

vicinity of a survey either before or during the period described in the database.

Information on seismic activity (CDP surveys under OCS permit and seismic surveys 

under MLUP permit) prior to 1990 is known to be incomplete. In most years, the State 

issued at least one permit for which we could not obtain adequate details. Because of 

this, no effort was directed towards obtaining data on proprietary CDP surveys from the 

REV prior to 1990. Therefore, several seismic surveys during the open water period 

prior to 1990 are not represented in the database. In addition, many of the records of 

seismic surveys only provided the locations of the lines and the range of dates for the 

start and end of the survey. In some cases, only the year in which the survey was 

conducted was reported. As a consequence, for many survey lines it is not possible to 

determine whether they were shot during the fall migration period. Most surveys prior to 

1990 did not report data on testing, calibration, or lines that were off specification. As a 

consequence, the information on seismic activity prior to 1990 is not considered 

adequate.

Seismic surveys for exploration purposes in State waters are authorized under MLUP 

permit (Matt Rader, DNR, pers. comm.). However, seismic surveys conducted for other 

purposes, such as shallow hazard assessments, do not require permits unless they are not 

conducted from the ice and or involve contact with the seafloor (Gary Schultz, DNR, 

pers. comm.). No information was available from the State about seismic surveys where 

no permits were issued. Therefore, it is possible that some seismic activity occurred in 

State waters during the open water period between 1990 and 1999 that is not represented 

in the database.

3.2.2. Drilling

Information on drilling activity is relatively complete. Operators have been required to 

submit regular reports of drilling activity for wells in both Federal OCS and State of 

Alaska waters. However, in the early 1980s the level of detail in the reports was at the 

discretion of the operator. Later, both agencies required a greater level of detail. In both 

cases, the reports generally start either at the point where the drillship is positioning over 

the well, where preparations are started to re-enter a suspended well, or where the rig is in 

position and ready to commence a new well. In general, there is no information about 

equipment mobilization, site and camp preparation, or island construction activities.
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited 11

Drilling activities are organized in categories with consideration to underwater noise. 

The first level of classification is based on the type of drilling platform such as 

conventional drillship, SSDC, or artificial island.

Power generation is considered the primary contributor of sound to the water, and 

generally, the more power being used, the more noise produced. The effect of power 

generation on noise is perhaps most noticeable from drillships, which are coupled to the 

water so well. Bottom-founded structures such as the SSDC are well-coupled but the 

power generation and drilling equipment is generally on decks well above the water, so 

less vibration is manifest in the water. Artificial and natural islands do not conduct sound 

and vibration into the water very well.

The second level of classification is based on the type of activity reported. This second 

classification essentially considers sources of underwater noise such as power generation, 

the top drive, pumps and drawworks. The main categories used are the following:

• Actively Drilling, in which the drill string turns and depth generally increases, the 

mud pumps operate, and the drawworks operate. This category was also used to 

record reaming.

• Cleaning, in which the drill string probably turns and the mud pumps operate. 

Cleaning includes circulating, reverse circulating, washing. The drawworks also 

must operate. This category was also used to record pumping out of the hole.

• Tripping, which is either pulling the drillstring out of the hole, “POOH” (pulled 

out of hole), or running the drillstring into the hole, “RIH” (running in hole), 

changing rams.

• Logging, which involves running test equipment into and out of the hole or testing 

equipment.

• Standby, which generally involved conducting repairs, waiting on personnel or 

equipment, conducting safety meetings. “Waiting on whales” and “waiting on 

ice” were of special interest and were assigned separate categories.

The activities of "drilling" and "cleaning" use the most power and are therefore expected 

to produce the most underwater noise, followed by "tripping". "Logging" uses the least 

power, followed by “standby”.

For some wells, daily drilling reports provide a summary of all activities conducted 

during a 24-hour period, but are not specific about when these activities occurred. In 

such cases, if there is a mixture of different types of activities or if the activity was 

unknown the period was classified as “Active”. For a few wells, the drilling reports were 

filed on a weekly basis, or daily reports were filed for weekdays but a single report was 

filed covering weekends (including long weekends). 

The terminology used in drilling reports varied between companies and over time and 

sometimes employed shorthand or technical jargon. Therefore, it was challenging to 

ensure consistency in assignment of activities to categories. The classification of drilling 

activities was performed by three individuals (including the Principal Investigator). All 

questions or issues about classifications were reviewed by the Principal Investigator and 

the classification of some daily drilling reports was blind replicated for quality assurance.
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited 12

3.2.3. Ice Management

Information on ice management activity is extremely sparse. The data in the database 

consist of aerial observations of vessels at a specific date and time that were incidental to 

aerial surveys or monitoring of whales in 1986, 1991 and 1992. These observations do 

not describe vessel activity and do not describe the scope of ice-management activity 

during the period of drilling operations. Some additional information exists in relation to 

specific wells, such as tabular summaries of the number of hours of ice-breaking activity 

each day in the vicinity of a drillship (Hall et al. 1994), or a file of sketch maps of the 

status of ice in relation to Kuvlum in 1992. These additional information sources were 

not incorporated into the database because they lacked adequate location information.

It was not possible to identify any complete or systematic source of information on ice 

management. Attempts were made to obtain log books for the ships involved in ice 

management. However, this was not possible. These log books are believed to have 

been destroyed. 

The available information on ice management is of extremely limited value. Information 

on ice management is a significant data gap.

3.2.4. Acoustic Surveys

For the purposes of this report “acoustic surveys” refers to a broad class of activities 

including the use of active acoustic sensors such as side-scan sonar, search-light and 

other sonars, sub-bottom profilers, and single and multi-beam bathymetry, but excluding 

seismic sources. Table 1 provides a comparison of the noise levels for some of these 

methods. Table 3 provides a summary of the acoustic survey methods used by the oil and 

gas industry in the study area. While many surveys of this nature of conducted in relation 

to oil and gas activity, such surveys are also conducted for other purposes such as 

military, navigation, hydrographic survey, research (including geology, archaeology, and 

oceanography), and construction.

The information of this nature contained in the database was compiled from specific 

sources including MMS records of geohazard surveys, pipeline route surveys, surveys of 

the boulder patch, and records of USGS surveys. No information was available on 

acoustic surveys in State waters.

The database is believed to provide a substantially complete description of oil industry 

related acoustic surveys in OCS waters since 1990. However, it is probable that depth 

sounders were used routinely by oil industry vessels for navigation. This activity is not 

described in the database. With the exception of USGS surveys, there is no information 

in the database on acoustic surveys for other purposes (e.g., geophysical surveys in State 

waters, military or hydrographic surveys). Therefore, it is probable that some acoustic 

activities after 1990 are not described in the database.

3.2.5. Other Human Activities

For the purposes of this report, all types of human activities not described above, are 

summarized as a single grouping of “other activities”. However, in the database these 

activities are assigned to separate categories as appropriate, including:
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited 13

• Aircraft, Aerial Survey 

• Construction, Ice Island 

• Geophysical, Borehole Drilling 

• Vessel movement, In transit 

• Vessel movement, Unknown activity 

The information on other oil and gas related human activities is substantially incomplete. 

Examples of types of information missing from the database include helicopter activity, 

ice reconnaissance, supply boat and barge movements, oil spill response training and 

exercises, construction of islands, causeways, camps, etc., scientific and engineering 

surveys such as deployment of current meters, wave buoys, collection of water structure 

data and biological surveys. Many types of human activities not related to oil and gas 

activity are also not included in the database, such as vessel and barge activity to supply 

coastal communities, military activities, and subsistence whale hunting.

4. Summary of Data for the 1990s

As discussed earlier, it was not possible to compile adequate information on seismic 

activity prior to 1990. Therefore, emphasis was placed on compiling as complete as 

possible information for the fall bowhead whale migration period in the 1990s. This 

section presents a summary of the information compiled for the 1990s.

The period of interest for the fall bowhead whale migration is the period from 

September 1

st to October 20th (W.J. Richardson, pers. comm.). This range is from the 

earliest date that the migrating bowhead whales normally reach Point Barrow to when 

they normally have left the study area. For presentation purposes this period is divided 

into three periods: September 1 to 15, September 16 to 30, and October 1 to 20.

The maps presented here (Figures 2 to 10) illustrate the seismic, acoustic and drilling 

activity during the fall bowhead migration period for the 1990s. As mentioned earlier, 

the CDP seismic data are proprietary. There was only one non-proprietary seismic 

survey during the fall migration period in the 1990s, the USGS survey in 1993. There are 

no geohazard surveys using seismics during the fall migration period in the 1990s. 

However, one survey was conducted using acoustic methods.

Table 4 (page 45) provides summary information about the nature of the seismic and 

acoustic activity including kilometers of lines shot, the number of OCS blocks which 

include activity, and the number of 5-km cells which include activity. The number of 5-

km cells provides a measure of the spatial extent of the activity while the ratio of line 

kilometers to 5-km cells provides a measure of the density of the line spacing.

It can be seen (Figure 11, page 41) that with the exception of two years, seismic activity 

was completed by September 30th. The year with the greatest level of seismic activity 

both in terms of kilometers of lines shot and areal extent of the surveys is 1990. There 

was no seismic activity during the fall migration period in 1992, 1994 and 1995.
#

#

#

Ë

Ë

Stinson #1

Sag Delta North (2-32/SN03)

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 2a. 1990 - September 1 to 15,

Ë All known seismic, acoustic and drilling activity Drilling - Artificial Island

$

ó

Drilling - SSDC/MAT

Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

Acoustic Activity

Page 14
#

#

#

Ë

Ë

Stinson #1

Sag Delta North (2-32/SN03)

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 2b. 1990 - September 16 to 30,

Ë All known seismic, acoustic and drilling activity Drilling - Artificial Island

$

ó

Drilling - SSDC/MAT

Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

Acoustic Activity

Page 15
#

#

#

Ë

$

Ë

Stinson #1

Fireweed #1 (Y-0267)

Sag Delta North (2-32/SN03)

Sag Delta North (2-38/SN01)

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 2c. 1990 - October 1 to 20,

Ë All known seismic, acoustic and drilling activity Drilling - Artificial Island

$

ó

Drilling - SSDC/MAT

Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

Acoustic Activity

Page 16
#

#

#

ó

Galahad #1

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 3a. 1991 - September 1 to 15,

Ë All known seismic, acoustic and drilling activity Drilling - Artificial Island

$

ó

Drilling - SSDC/MAT

Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

Acoustic Activity

Page 17
#

#

#

ó

Galahad #1

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 3b. 1991 - September 16 to 30,

Ë All known seismic, acoustic and drilling activity Drilling - Artificial Island

$

ó

Drilling - SSDC/MAT

Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

Acoustic Activity

Page 18
#

#

#

ó

Galahad #1

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 3c. 1991 - October 1 to 20,

Ë All known seismic, acoustic and drilling activity Drilling - Artificial Island

$

ó

Drilling - SSDC/MAT

Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

Acoustic Activity

Page 19
#

#

#

ó

Ë

Kuvlum #1 (Y-0866)

Point McIntyre (P2-55)

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 4a. 1992 - September 1 to 15,

Ë All known seismic, acoustic and drilling activity Drilling - Artificial Island

$

ó

Drilling - SSDC/MAT

Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

Acoustic Activity

Page 20
#

#

#

ó

Ë

Kuvlum #1 (Y-0866)

Point McIntyre (P2-55)

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 4b. 1992 - September 16 to 30,

Ë All known seismic, acoustic and drilling activity Drilling - Artificial Island

$

ó

Drilling - SSDC/MAT

Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

Acoustic Activity

Page 21
#

#

#

ó

Ë

Kuvlum #1 (Y-0866)

Point McIntyre (P2-30)

Point McIntyre (P2-55)

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 4c. 1992 - October 1 to 20,

Ë All known seismic, acoustic and drilling activity Drilling - Artificial Island

$

ó

Drilling - SSDC/MAT

Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

Acoustic Activity

Page 22
#

#

#

Ë ó

Ë

Kuvlum #3 (OCS Y-0866)

Endicott (2-66/SD-12)

Port McIntyre (P2-06)

Port McIntyre (P2-12)

Port McIntyre (P2-16)

Port McIntyre (P2-30)

Port McIntyre (P2-46)

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 5a. 1993 - September 1 to 15,

Ë All known seismic, acoustic and drilling activity Drilling - Artificial Island

$

ó

Drilling - SSDC/MAT

Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

Acoustic Activity

Page 23
#

#

#

ËË ó

Ë

Kuvlum #3 (OCS Y-0866)

Endicott (2-66/SD-12)

Endicott (4-06/Q-32 SDI)

Point McIntyre (P2-06)

Point McIntyre (P2-12)

Point McIntyre (P2-16)

Point McIntyre (P2-29)

Point McIntyre (P2-30)

Point McIntyre (P2-42)

Point McIntyre (P2-46)

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 5b. 1993 - September 16 to 30,

Ë All known seismic, acoustic and drilling activity Drilling - Artificial Island

$

ó

Drilling - SSDC/MAT

Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

Acoustic Activity

Page 24
#

#

#

ËË ó

ó

Ë

Kuvlum #3 (OCS Y-0866)

Wild Weasel #1 (Y-1597)

Endicott (3-25/M-27)

Endicott (4-02/Q-28 SDI)

Endicott (2-66/SD-12)

Point McIntyre (P2-06)

Point McIntyre (P2-12)

Point McIntyre (P2-15)

Point McIntyre (P2-16)

Point McIntyre (P2-29)

Point McIntyre (P2-30)

Point McIntyre (P2-42)

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 5c. 1993 - October 1 to 20,

Ë All known seismic, acoustic and drilling activity Drilling - Artificial Island

$

ó

Drilling - SSDC/MAT

Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

Acoustic Activity

Page 25
#

#

#

Ë

Endicott (4-38/K-34)

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 6a. 1994 - September 1 to 15,

Ë All known seismic, acoustic and drilling activity Drilling - Artificial Island

$

ó

Drilling - SSDC/MAT

Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

Acoustic Activity

Page 26
#

#

#

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 6b. 1994 - September 16 to 30,

Ë All known seismic, acoustic and drilling activity Drilling - Artificial Island

$

ó

Drilling - SSDC/MAT

Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

Acoustic Activity

Page 27

THERE WAS NO ACTIVITY DURING THIS PERIOD
#

#

#

Ë

Endicott (3-07/N-28)

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 6c. 1994 - October 1 to 20,

Ë All known seismic, acoustic and drilling activity Drilling - Artificial Island

$

ó

Drilling - SSDC/MAT

Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

Acoustic Activity

Page 28
#

#

#

ËË

Ë

Endicott (4-32/K-38)

Endicott (4-38/K-34)

Endicott (1-33/M-23)

Endicott (2-16/M-16) Point McIntyre (P2-32)

Point McIntyre (P2-37)

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 7a. 1995 - September 1 to 15,

Ë All known seismic, acoustic and drilling activity Drilling - Artificial Island

$

ó

Drilling - SSDC/MAT

Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

Acoustic Activity

Page 29
#

#

#

Ë Ë

Endicott (1-33/M-23)

Point McIntyre (P2-32)

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 7b. 1995 - September 16 to 30,

Ë All known seismic, acoustic and drilling activity Drilling - Artificial Island

$

ó

Drilling - SSDC/MAT

Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

Acoustic Activity

Page 30
#

#

#

Ë Ë

Endicott (1-31/M-21)

Endicott (4-06/Q-32 SDI)

Point McIntyre (P2-32)

Point McIntyre (P2-56)

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 7c. 1995 - October 1 to 20,

Ë All known seismic, acoustic and drilling activity Drilling - Artificial Island

$

ó

Drilling - SSDC/MAT

Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

Acoustic Activity

Page 31
#

#

#

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 8a. 1996 - September 1 to 15,

Ë All known seismic, acoustic and drilling activity Drilling - Artificial Island

$

ó

Drilling - SSDC/MAT

Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

Acoustic Activity

Page 32
#

#

#

Ë

Endicott (4-34/O-38)

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 8b. 1996 - September 16 to 30,

Ë All known seismic, acoustic and drilling activity Drilling - Artificial Island

$

ó

Drilling - SSDC/MAT

Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

Acoustic Activity

Page 33
#

#

#

Ë

Endicott (4-34/O-38)

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 8c. 1996 - October 1 to 20,

Ë All known seismic, acoustic and drilling activity Drilling - Artificial Island

$

ó

Drilling - SSDC/MAT

Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

Acoustic Activity

Page 34
#

#

#

Ë Ë

Endicott (1-19/I-18)

Endicott (2-46B/S-13)

Point McIntyre (P2-27)

Point McIntyre (P2-36)

Point McIntyre (P2-45A)

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 9a. 1997 - September 1 to 15,

Ë All known seismic, acoustic and drilling activity Drilling - Artificial Island

$

ó

Drilling - SSDC/MAT

Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

Acoustic Activity

Page 35
#

#

#

ËË

Ë

Endicott (3-17B/M-31)

Endicott (2-46B/S-13)

Point McIntyre ((P2-27)

Point McIntyre (P2-33)

Point McIntyre (P2-36)

Point McIntyre (P2-45A)

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 9b. 1997 - September 16 to 30,

Ë All known seismic, acoustic and drilling activity Drilling - Artificial Island

$

ó

Drilling - SSDC/MAT

Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

Acoustic Activity

Page 36
#

#

#

Ë

Point McIntyre (P2-33)

Point McIntyre (P2-36)

Point McIntyre (P2-27)

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 9c. 1997 - October 1 to 20,

Ë All known seismic, acoustic and drilling activity Drilling - Artificial Island

$

ó

Drilling - SSDC/MAT

Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

Acoustic Activity

Page 37
#

#

#

Ë

Ë

Endicott (3-17D/M-31)

Endicott (3-37/L-35)

Endicott (3-07A/L-29)

Point McIntyre (P2-04)

Point McIntyre (P2-08)

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 10a. 1998 - September 1 to 15,

Ë All known seismic, acoustic and drilling activity Drilling - Artificial Island

$

ó

Drilling - SSDC/MAT

Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

Acoustic Activity

Page 38
#

#

#

ËË

Ë

Endicott (3-17D/M-31)

Endicott (2-30/O-09)

Point McIntyre (P2-11)

Point McIntyre (P2-08)

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 10b. 1998 - September 16 to 30,

Ë All known seismic, acoustic and drilling activity Drilling - Artificial Island

$

ó

Drilling - SSDC/MAT

Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

Acoustic Activity

Page 39
#

#

#

ËË

Ë

Endicott (3-17D/M-31)

Endicott (3-37/L-35)

Endicott (2-30/O-09)

Point McIntyre (P2-11)

Point McIntyre (P2-08)

Point McIntyre (P2-59A)

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 10c. 1998 - October 1 to 15,

Ë All known seismic, acoustic and drilling activity Drilling - Artificial Island

$

ó

Drilling - SSDC/MAT

Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

Acoustic Activity

Page 40
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 41

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Lines (km)

Sep 1-15

Sep 16-30

Oct 1-20

Figure 11a. Seismic activity (kilometers of lines surveyed) during the fall bowhead 

migration period from 1990 to 1998. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

5-km grid cell

s

Sep 1-15

Sep 16-30

Oct 1-20

Figure 11b. Seismic activity (number of 5-km grid cells in which seismic activity 

occurred) during the fall bowhead migration period from 1990 to 1998. 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited 42

0

50

100

150

200

250

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

OCS blocks

Sep 1-15

Sep 16-30

Oct 1-20

Figure 11c. Seismic activity (number of OCS lease blocks in which seismic activity 

occurred) during the fall bowhead migration period from 1990 to 1998.

While it is possible to compare the pattern of seismic activity in the 1990s with that for 

the 1980s, care must be used when making this comparison because the information on 

seismic activity in the 1980s for several years is substantially incomplete and in many 

cases dates of the surveys are not known. In general, the surveys are substantially larger 

in spatial coverage with a lower density of lines in the 1980s. The data for 1985 (Figure

12a, page 43) indicate an extensive area in which seismic activity occurred during the fall 

migration period.

Table 5 (page 46) and Figure 13a, b and c (page 49-50) provide a summary of drilling 

activity during the fall migration period by platform (caisson systems, drillships and 

artificial islands). Drilling from drillships (Explorer II and Kulluk) occurred only during 

1991 to 1993 and only in OCS waters. The SSDC, a single caisson drilling system, was 

active in 1990 in OCS waters. The remaining active well locations were all artificial 

islands in State waters. 

As discussed in Section 3.2.2, drilling from drillships is associated with more underwater 

noise that drilling from the SSDC or artificial islands. In addition to noise from drilling 

activity, drillships require ice ma nagement support during operations while the caisson 

systems and artificial islands only require ice management during construction and 

abandonment. It should also be noted that 1992 was considered a “bad” ice year in which 

significant ice management support was required and the Kulluk experienced frequent 

shutdowns because of the proximity of ice. 
#

#

#

ó

ó

ó

#

# #

# ## ## # ## #

# #

# ## #

# ## ##

# ## ## #

# ## #

# ## ## #

#

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 12a. 1985 - Fall Migration Period,

A significant amount of additional activities have

uncertain dates and may also have occurred

during this period.

ó Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

USGS Acoustic Activity

Page 43

Geohazard Seismic Activity
#

#

#

CDP Seismic Activity

70°

70°

71°

71°

72°

72°

156°

156°

153°

153°

150°

150°

147°

147°

144°

144°

141°

141°

Beaufort Sea

Kaktovik

Camden

Bay

Canning

River

Deadhorse

Colville

River

Teshekpuk

Lake

Barrow

(includes CDP, geohazard and USGS surveys,

Federal OCS and State wells)

North

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Figure 12b. 1985 - Uncertain Dates,

Activities with uncertain dates that may have

occurred during the fall migration period.

ó Drilling - Drillship

USGS Seismic Activity

USGS Acoustic Activity

Page 44

Geohazard Seismic Activity
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 45

Table 4. Summary of Seismic and Acoustic Activity During 

the Fall Bowhead Migration Period in the 1990s

Seismic Activity1 Acoustic Activity 

CDP Surveys USGS Surveys Geohazard Surveys 

Sep 

1-15 

Sep 

16-30 

Oct 

1-20 

Sep 

1-15 

Sep 16 - 

Oct 20 

Sep 

1-30 

Oct 

1-20 

Line km 3934 867 1001 - - - - 

1990 5-km blocks 197 141 109 - - - - 

OCS blocks 201 141 99 - - - - 

Line km 94 - - - - - - 

1991 5-km blocks 16 - - - - - - 

OCS blocks 14 - - - - - - 

Line km - - - - - - 1213 

1992 5-km blocks - - - - - - 26 

OCS blocks - - - - - - 29 

Line km 464 - 38 - - - 

1993 5-km blocks 81 - 11 - - - 

OCS blocks 90 - - - - - - 

Line km - - - - - - - 

1994 5-km blocks - - - - - - - 

OCS blocks - - - - - - - 

Line km - - - - - - - 

1995 5-km blocks - - - - - - - 

OCS blocks - - - - - - - 

Line km 917 224 - - - - - 

1996 5-km blocks 20 10 - - - - - 

OCS blocks 14 5 - - - - - 

Line km 493 93 - - - - - 

1997 5-km blocks 16 8 - - - - - 

OCS blocks 14 8 - - - - - 

Line km 761 779 637 - - - - 

1998 5-km blocks 18 32 19 - - - - 

OCS blocks 18 31 21 - - - - 

 

1 Some seismic surveys also employed acoustic survey methods. Acoustic surveys did not employseismic

survey methods.
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 46

Table 5. Summary of Drilling Activity During 

the Fall Bowhead Migration Period in the 1990s 

Hours Drilled 

Year Well Name Platfrom Activity 

Sep 

1-15 

Sep 

16-30

Oct

1-20

1990 Fireweed #1 Canmar SSDC/MAT Actively drilling 0 0 9.8

 Cleaning 0 0 4

 Stand by 0 0 11.3

 Tripping 0 0 17

 Total for Well 0 0 42.1

 Sag Delta North (2-32/SN03) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 360 360 66

 Sag Delta North (2-38/SN-01) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 0 0 385.5

 Pre drilling activity 0 0 40.5

 Totals for Well 0 0 426

 Totals for 1990 360 360 534

 

1991 Galahad Explorer II Abandonment 0 0 10.5

 Active (unknown) 0 24 0

 Actively drilling 8.5 127.5 200

 Cleaning 0 72.5 52

 Logging 0 74.5 78.5

 Pre drilling activity 9.5 43.5 0

 Tripping 6 18 2

 Waiting On Ice 0 0 3.5

 Totals for Well 24 360 346.5

 Totals for 1991 24 360 347

 

1992 Kuvlum #1 Kulluk Abandonment 0 9.5 39

 Actively drilling 139.5 0 0

 Cleaning 12.5 0 0

 Logging 96.5 44 56.5

 Pre drilling activity 0 76 44.5

 Stand by 1.5 1.5 39.5

 Tripping 110 0 106

 Waiting On Ice 0 229 72.5

 Totals for Well 360 360 358

 Point McIntyre (P2-30) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 0 0 456

 Point McIntyre (P2-55) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 360 360 288

 Totals for 1992 720 720 1102

 

1993 Endicott (2-66/SD-12) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 360 360 20.5

 Endicott (3-25/M-27) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 0 0 41.5

 Endicott (4-02/Q-28 SDI) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 0 0 203

 Endicott (4-06/Q-32 SDI) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 0 6.5 0

 Kuvlum #3 Kulluk Abandonment 0 0 16

 Actively drilling 138 112 0
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 47

Hours Drilled 

Year Well Name Platfrom Activity 

Sep 

1-15 

Sep 

16-30

Oct

1-20

 Cleaning 22 27 8

 Logging 33 47.5 28

 Stand by 116.5 31.5 31.5

 Tripping 50.5 87.5 42.5

 Waiting On Whales 0 54.5 0

 Totals for Well 360 360 126

 Point McIntyre (P2-06) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 360 360 480

 Point McIntyre (P2-12) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 360 360 480

 Point McIntyre (P2-15) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 0 0 192

 Point McIntyre (P2-16) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 360 360 480

 Point McIntyre (P2-29) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 0 24 480

 Point McIntyre (P2-30) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 360 360 480

 Point McIntyre (P2-42) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 0 216 480

 Point McIntyre (P2-46) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 72 360 0

 Wild Weasel #1 Kulluk Actively drilling 0 0 119

 Cleaning 0 0 67

 Logging 0 0 17

 Stand by 0 0 86.5

 Tripping 0 0 47

 Totals for Well 0 0 336.5

 Totals for 1993 2232 2767 3800

 

1994 Endicott (3-07/N-28) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 0 0 42

 Endicott (4-38/K-34) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 13 0 0

 Totals for 1994 13 0 42

 

1995 Endicott (1-31/M-21) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 0 0 7.5

 Endicott (1-33/M-23) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 350 324.5 0

 Endicott (2-16/M-16) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 3.5 0 0

 Endicott (4-06/Q-32 SDI) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 0 0 8.6

 Endicott (4-32/K-38) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 7.5 0 0

 Endicott (4-38/K-34) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 9.5 0 0

 Point McIntyre (P2-32) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 360 360 72

 Point McIntyre (P2-37) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 288 0 0

 Point McIntyre (P2-56) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 0 0 48

 Totals for 1995 1019 685 136

 

1996 Endicott (4-34/O-38) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 0 276 480

 Totals for 1996 0 276 480

 

1997 Endicott (1-19/I-18) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 5.7 0 0

 Endicott (2-46B/S-13) Artificial Island Abandonment 0 19 0

 Actively drilling 249.5 86.5 0
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 48

Hours Drilled 

Year Well Name Platfrom Activity 

Sep 

1-15 

Sep 

16-30

Oct

1-20

 Cleaning 9.5 35 0

 Logging 7.3 5 0

 Stand by 54.8 51.5 0

 Tripping 39 97 0

 Totals for Well 360.1 294 0

 Endicott (3-17B/M-31) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 0 12.3 0

 Point McIntyre (P2-27) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 360 360 480

 Point McIntyre (P2-33) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 0 144 480

 Point McIntyre (P2-36) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 360 360 480

 Point McIntyre (P2-45A) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 360 216 0

 Totals for 1997 1446 1386 1440

 

1998 Endicott (2-30/O-09) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 0 38 39

 Cleaning 0 0 10

 Logging 0 0 11

 Stand by 0 0 84

 Tripping 0 0 33

 Totals for Well 0 38 177

 Endicott (3-07A/L-29) Artificial Island Abandonment 18 0 0

 Actively drilling 122.1 0 0

 Cleaning 22.8 0 0

 Logging 17.9 0 0

 Stand by 54.4 0 0

 Tripping 109.3 0 0

 Totals for Well 344.5 0 0

 Endicott (3-17D/M-31) Artificial Island Abandonment 0 0 17.5

 Actively drilling 0 122.5 129.5

 Cleaning 0 20 21.5

 Logging 0 31 17.3

 Pre drilling activity 15.5 75 0

 Stand by 0 33.5 43.1

 Tripping 0 78 113.8

 Totals for Well 15.5 360 342.7

 Endicott (3-37/L-35) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 1.5 0 0.7

 Point McIntyre (P2-04) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 144 0 0

 Point McIntyre (P2-08) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 360 360 480

 Point McIntyre (P2-11) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 0 144 480

 Point McIntyre (P2-59A) Artificial Island Active (unknown) 0 0 312

 Totals for 1998 866 902 1792
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 49

Drilling from Caisson Systems

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Hours active

Sep 1-15

Sep 16-30

Oct 1-20

Figure 13a. Drilling activity from caisson systems (i.e. SSDC/MAT) during the fall 

bowhead migration period from 1990 to 1998 (hours of activity, 

excluding “waiting on ice” and “waiting on whales”). 

Drilling from Drillships

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Hours active

Sep 1-15

Sep 16-30

Oct 1-20

Figure 13b. Drilling activity from drillships (Explorer II and Kulluk) during the fall 

bowhead migration period from 1990 to 1998 (hours of activity, 

excluding “waiting on ice” and “waiting on whales”). 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited 50

Drilling from Artificial Islands

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Hours active

Sep 1-15

Sep 16-30

Oct 1-20

Figure 13c. Drilling activity from artificial islands (in State waters) during the fall 

bowhead migration period from 1990 to 1998 (hours of activity, 

excluding “waiting on ice” and “waiting on whales”).

5. Discussion and Recommendations

Seismic Data (CDP and Geohazard Surveys): 

1 MMS has relatively complete information describing seismic activity conducted 

since 1990. However, this is the result of fortuitous circumstance. Adequately 

detailed information about seismic activities conducted in State waters under 

MLUP permit is not publicly available and this study was unable to access 

proprietary information held by the State. Therefore, there was a significant 

potential that information about seismic activity since 1990 would be incomplete. 

However, it was fortunate that in all cases all seismic activities since 1990 where 

a MLUP permit was issued had also received an OCS permit and that the 

companies had chosen to provide MMS with details of the activity conducted in 

State waters. 

It is inevitable that some activities will receive a MLUP permit and not require an 

OCS permit. Therefore, unless a data sharing agreement is reached with the State, 

one expects that MMS will have some data gaps in future years. It is 

recommended that MMS initiate discussions with the State regarding access to 

proprietary seismic data for inclusion into the HAD.

2 In many cases, the data on seismic activities submitted by companies to MMS 

documents only the seismic lines and shots that were completed to specifications. 

For environmental assessment purposes it is also important to consider the lines 

that were not shot to specifications, any activity associated with testing or 

calibration of the seismic source, and “ramping” (source firing at reduced levels) 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited 51

between lines. During calibration or between lines it is possible that the source is 

firing at different levels than during normal production lines. Such differences in 

source levels may also be important for environmental assessment.

It is recommended that MMS consider requiring companies to submit more 

complete documentation of seismic activity including location coordinates, 

shotpoint number, date, time, type of source and source levels for all shots 

including off specification, between lines, testing and calibration. 

Documentation should consist of two data sets: a “raw” data set with the above 

information for all shotpoints; and a “cleaned” data set with only the shotpoints 

that were completed to specifications. 

3 Navigation Data (CDP, Geohazard and Pipeline Surveys):

In loading the electronic data on seismic activity from the MMS Field Operations 

Vault it became apparent that the data submitted to MMS varied significantly in 

formats and completeness of documentation. With few exceptions none of the 

data were formatted in a manner that allows easy inspection using GIS. This 

presents obstacles to quality assurance or inspection of the data as received. This 

is of concern because the time of submission would be when companies can most 

effectively address questions or deficiencies.

Some of the problems observed with the data from the Vault included lack of 

documentation of UTM Zone or whether coordinates were in feet or meters, some 

invalid dates and times and missing coordinate information were also 

encountered. In one case, the data submitted did not appear to be complete. 

Some data sets were mislabeled.

It is our opinion that if data were submitted in a common GIS format, such as 

ESRI shapefiles, that this would not be a burden on the companies and would 

greatly facilitate inspection by MMS at the time of submission. ESRI shapefiles 

are a public (open source) format that is widely supported by commercial and 

public domain GIS software. It is recommended that MMS consider requiring 

companies to submit electronic data as ESRI shapefiles with documentation of 

map projection and attribute data. Required attribute data are described in 

recommendation #2 above.

4 Drilling Activity:

Information on drilling activity was relatively complete. Information submitted to 

MMS and the State in daily drilling reports since 1990 provided sufficient detail 

for this study. Almost all cases where there was less detail than considered 

adequate were prior to 1990. The few problems that were encountered in reports 

since 1990 were cases of illegible fax copies or a few missing pages in the files. 

It seems likely that existing procedures will continue to provide a source of 

adequate information on drilling activity.

Submission of daily drilling reports in electronic format could facilitate loading 

data into the HAD. This could consist of a simple spreadsheet format where each 

row would include start date (GMT), start time (GMT), end date (GMT) end time 

(GMT) and a description of the activities conducted. However, it is 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited 52

recommended that companies not be required to report activities using the HAD 

classification at this time. This would require documentation, training, and 

support and could interfere with timely submission of daily drilling reports.

5 Ice-Management Activity:

Very limited information was obtained on ice management activity (ice-breaking). 

The only information available is incidental records of ice-breaker positions 

recorded during aerial surveys. It was not possible to obtain access to the log 

books of the vessels involved in ice-management. These log books are believed 

to have been destroyed. It was not possible to identify any other information 

source that might provide significant information on ice management activity. 

Since ice management activity (at least one vessel) is routinely associated 

with drillship operations, this represents a substantial level of activity which 

is not adequately described. Ice management activity represents a substantial 

level of activity which is missing from the database and from the maps (e.g., 

Figure 2 through Figure 10), especially for the years 1991, 1992 and 1993. This 

remains a significant data gap. 

It is not likely that information on future ice management or ice-breaking activity 

will become available unless there is a directed effort towards ensuring that these 

data are collected in future. If investigation of potential effects of disturbance 

from ice management and ice-breaking is considered a priority, it is 

recommended that MMS consider working in cooperation with operators to 

ensure that these data are collected.

6 Seismic and Acoustic Data (CDP, Geohazard and Pipeline Surveys):

Some information describing the nature of acoustic sources (source levels and 

frequency distribution) was compiled and loaded in the database. However, 

higher priority was given to compilation of basic information describing location, 

date and time. Therefore, a substantial body of acoustic data (source and ambient 

observations) exists and was not loaded into the database. Much of these data are 

in hard copy tabular formats or stored in analogue format on magnetic tapes. It is 

not likely that the compilation of these data would be of short-term benefit for the 

statistical analysis of potential effects of human activities on bowhead whale 

migrations. However, there is a potential that some data may be lost if no effort is 

made to archive them.

7 Acoustic Properties of Sediments:

The efforts in this study to produce a GIS data set on sediment properties to 

support acoustic modeling based on existing information met with limited success 

(Appendix 2). This is due to three factors: (1) There is a lack of consensus on the 

general composition and origins of the upper layers of the regional continental 

shelf. (2) The available information does not provide complete spatial coverage 

of the study area. (3) The estimation of acoustic properties (sound velocities, 

attenuation coefficients and densities) based on stratigraphy is based on limited 

data. 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited 53

The limitations of the current GIS data set on acoustic properties of the seafloor 

limit the ability to model underwater sound propagation with confidence. This 

presents an information gap that could potentially be addressed by a large-scale 

compilation of existing data and synthesis analysis. However, it is likely that a 

substantial amount of proprietary industry data exist that were not considered in 

previous analyses of regional stratigraphy and/or may be relevant to estimation of 

acoustic properties. The success of such a synthesis analysis likely depends on 

the access to these proprietary data.

Of particular interest would be additional data for areas identified by this study as 

having substantial contents of Categories A, A/B, B and B’ (i.e., Appendix 2, 

layers 1 and 2) should be analyzed to both further confirm the distinctions made 

between the Holocene and Holecene/Late Pleistocene species and to quantify the 

validity of extrapolations of category thicknesses and sequencing into areas not 

included in the earlier studies. Additional information on the locations and 

acoustic properties of the internal reflectors (B’) characteristic of category B are 

also of interest. 

Better information on acoustic properties of the seafloor would improve the 

ability to model underwater sound propagation. However, this may be of limited 

benefit to MMS without information to characterize the location, timing and 

nature of industrial noise sources. Further, this would not eliminate the need for 

direct observations of sound in future site-specific studies.

It is recommended that MMS give modest priority to a large-scale compilation 

of existing sediment data and a synthesis analysis of stratigraphy and acoustic 

properties provided that access to relevant proprietary industry data can be 

secured. A sensitivity analysis of sound levels at various ranges from sources as 

functions of both the composition of the sea floor and the above acoustic 

parameters would be useful in assessing the priority that should be given to 

improving this data set.

8 Human Activities Database:

Substantial effort has been expended on the development of the Human Activities 

Database. However, the structure of the database and the classification of data 

records have not yet been evaluated by attempting to use the database for specific 

purposes, such as hypothesis testing. It is recommended that before substantial 

additional effort is expended to expand the database or make the database 

available in a distributed, multi-user environment (such as Oracle/SDE), that 

the structure, completeness and standards used in the database be evaluated by 

attempting to use the database on a pilot basis for practical applications. 

6. Bibliography

This bibliography lists the sources for information in the Human Activities Database plus 

a few additional entries for literature cited in this report.

AMOCO Daily Report - Subsurface Data (Sandpiper #2) 

AMOCO Daily Drilling Report (Belcher) 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited 54

AMOCO Daily Drilling Report (Galahad) 

AMOCO Daily Drilling Report (Mars) 

AMOCO Daily Drilling Report (Sandpiper #2) 

AMOCO Daily Well Construction Reports (Mars) 

ARCO Daily Drilling Report (Cabot #1) 

ARCO Daily Drilling Report (Kuvlum #2) 

ARCO Daily Drilling Report (Kuvlum #3) 

ARCO Daily Drilling Report (Warthog #1) 

ARCO Daily Drilling Reports (Fireweed #1) 

ARCO Daily Drilling Reports (Kuvlum #1) 

ARCO Daily Drilling Reports (Wild Weasel #1) 

BP Exploration Daily Drilling report (Endicott 1-21/K-25) 

BP Exploration Daily Drilling report (Endicott 1-69/V-19 MPI) 

BP Exploration Daily Drilling report (Endicott 2-18/L-16 MPI) 

BP Exploration Daily Drilling report (Endicott 2-20/L-15 MPI) 

BP Exploration Daily Drilling report (Endicott 2-36/O-14 MPI) 

BP Exploration Daily Drilling report (Endicott 2-46/Q-15 MPI) 

BP Exploration Daily Drilling report (Endicott 2-58/S-09 MPI) 

BP Exploration Daily Drilling report (Endicott3-07/N-28) 

BP Exploration Daily Drilling report (Sag Delta North 1-11/SN-04) 

BP Exploration Daily Drilling report (Sag Delta North 1-17/SN-02) 

BP Exploration Daily Drilling report (Sag Delta North 2-32/SN03) 

BP Exploration Daily Drilling report (Sag Delta North 2-38/SN-01) 

BP Exploration drilling summary report (Endicott 1-23/O-15) 

BP Exploration drilling summary report (Endicott 2-40/S-22) 

BP Exploration drilling summary report (Endicott 4-34/O-38) 

Burgess, W.C. and C.R. Greene Jr. 1999. Physical acoustics measurements. p. 3-1 to 3-65 

In: W.J. Richardson (ed.), Marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of Western 

Geophysical's open-water seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 1998. 

LGL Rep. TA2230-3. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and Greeneridge 

Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Western Geophysical, Houston, TX, and 

U.S. Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. 390 p.

Coastal Frontiers Corp. 1998. Liberty Development 1997-1998 Boulder Patch Survey. 

Coastal Frontiers Corp. July 1996. Northstar Development 1996 Pipeline Route Survey 

Final Report. for BP Exploration Alaska Inc. 

Coastal Frontiers Corp. June 1996. Northstar Development Preliminary Pipeline Route 

Survey August 1995. Final Report for BP Exploration Alaska Inc. 

Coastal Frontiers Corp. June 1999. Northstar Development 1998 Pipeline Route Survey 

Final Report. for BP Exploration Alaska Inc. 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited 55

Coastal Frontiers Corp. October 1998. Northstar Development 1997 Pipeline Route

Survey Final Report. for BP Exploration Alaska Inc. 

Comap Geosurveys, Inc. Dec. 1985. Geological Hazards Survey, Prospect Thorgisl, 

Outer Continental Shelf, Beaufort Sea, Alaska (covering all or portions of Blocks 

403, 404, 405, 406, 447, 448, 449, 450, 491, 492, 493 and 494 UTM zone 7). For 

AMOCO 

Comap Geosurveys, Inc. Jan. 1985. Geological Hazards Survey, Prospect Fireweed, 

Harrison Bay, Beaufort Sea, Alaska. (covering tracts: 71-1, 71-11 and 71-12). For 

ARCO Exploration Company Project #J4924/5 

Dames & Moore. 1983. Potential Geologic Hazards and Constraints - Mukluk Island Site; 

Block NR 5-4-280, Lease OCS Y-0334, Harrison Bay, Beaufort Sea, Alaska. 

Prepared for Sohio Alaska Petroleum Company 

Dames & Moore. Apr. 1985. Potential Geologic Hazards and Constraints; Prospect: 

Block NR6-4-678 Vicinity; Camden Bay Area, Beaufort Sea, Alaska. Prepared 

for Union/Shell/Amoco Bidding Group, April, 1985; 44.23/13

Dames & Moore. Apr. 1985. Potential Geologic Hazards and Constraints - Prospect: 

Block NR7-3-705/Vicinity; Camden Bay Area, Beaufort Sea, Alaska. prepared 

for Union-Shell-AMOCO bidding group. 

Dames & Moore. Dec. 1983. Potential Geologic Hazards and Constraints - Sandpiper 

Island Exploration Site; Block NR 6-3-424, Lease OCS Y-370, Tract 71-322, 

Beaufort Sea, Alaska. Prepared for Shell Oil Company 

Dames & Moore. Nov. 1983. Potential Geologic Hazards and Constraints - Fur Seal 

Island Site; Block NR7-5-4-370, Lease OCS Y-0353, Tract 71-220; Harrison Bay, 

Beaufort Sea, Alaska. Prepared for Texaco. 

Dames & Moore. Oct. 1985. Potential Geologic Hazards and Constraints, Prospect: 

Block NR5-4-140/Vicinity Near Cape Halkett, Beaufort Sea, Alaska. Prepared for 

AMOCO Production Company 44.29/24

Dames & Moore. Sep. 1984. Potential Geologic Hazards and Constraints, Prospect: 

Block NR 5-2-883/Vicinity Near Cape Halkett, Beaufort Sea, Alaska. Prepared 

for Shell Western E&P, Inc. 

Deepsea Development Services, A Division of SAIC. 1994. Shallow Hazards Report, 

Wild Weasel Prospect, Beaufort Sea, Alaska. For ARCO Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, 

Alaska 

EBA Engineering and Fugro-McClelland. No Date. High-Resolution Geophysical Survey 

and Assessment of Potential Shallow Drilling Hazards - Dease Inlet (NR 5-1), 

Blocks 688/689, OCS-Y-0747/Y-0748; Cabot Prospect, Beaufort Sea, Alaska; 

Volumes I, II, and III. 

EBA Engineering Inc. 1991. ARCO Cabot No. 1 Prospect - Geotechnical Site 

Investigation - Site Data Report. Vol. 1, 2, and 3. 0211-0196 For ARCO Alaska 

Inc. 

ESRI shapefile: Bf37#1~1.shp dated 1999-10-13 provided by Warren Horowitz (MMS) 

ESRI shapefile: bwaspflts.shp dated 19999-09-14 08:21, points representing waypoints 

for BWASP aerial surveys 1987-1998 provided by Warren. Horowitz, MMS 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited 56

ESRI shapefile: bwells~1.shp dated 1998-12-01 15:21, points representing well locations 

provided by Warren. Horowitz, MMS 

ESRI shapefile: Lb97shotpt.shp dated 2001-09-13 provided by Warren Horowitz (MMS) 

ESRI shapefile: Lb98shotpt.shp dated 2001-09-13 provided Warren Horowitz (MMS) 

ESRI shapefile: nosc-flts-79-91.shp dated 1999-09-15 15:29, points representing 

waypoints for NOSC/Ljungblad et al. aerial surveys 1979-1991 provided by 

Warren Horowitz, MMS 

ESRI shapefile: ns95shotpt.shp dated 2001-07-30 16:44 points representing shotpoint 

locations for Northstar 1995 pipeline route survey.

ESRI shapefile: ns96shotpt.shp dated 2001-07-30 16:44 points representing shotpoint 

locations for Northstar 1996 pipeline route survey 

ESRI shapefile: ns97shotpt.shp dated 2001-07-30 16:44 points representing shotpoint 

locations for Northstar 1997 pipeline route survey 

ESRI shapefile: ns98shot_pt.shp dated 2001-07-30 16:44 points representing shotpoint 

locations for Northstar 1998 pipeline route survey 

ESRI shaprefile: WarthogL.shp created from raw navigation data provided by 

Fairweather E&P Inc. to Warren. Horowitz (MMS) April 1999 

Exxon Daily Drilling Report (Antares #1) 

Exxon Daily Drilling Report (Antares #2) 

Exxon Daily Drilling Report (BF-37#1) 

Exxon Daily Drilling Report (Orion #1) 

Exxon Daily Drilling report (Thetis Island #1) 

Exxon Weekly Progress Report (BF-37#2) 

Fairweather E&P Services, Inc. Sep. 1997. Warthog No. 1 - Camden Bay, Beaufort Sea 

Shallow Hazard Survey Results. Prepared for ARCO Alaska, Inc. 

Folder: "CTD_DTL" containing BP and NODC data supplied by MMS on CD-ROM 

dated 30 March 1995 

Folder: "MET" containing BP meteorological data supplied by MMS on CD-ROM dated 

30 March 1995 

Gallagher, ML, KD Brewer and JD Hall. May 1992. Galahad Exploration Prospect Site 

Specific Monitoring Plan Final Report, May 1992. Prepared by COPAC for 

AMOCO 

Hall, J.D., M.L. Gallagher, K.D. Brewer, P.R. Regos and P.E. Isert. 1994. ARCO Alaska, 

Inc. 1993 Kuvlum exploration area site specific monitoring program/Final report.

Report by Coastal & Offshore Pacific Corp., Walnut Creek, CA, for ARCO 

Alaska Inc. [Anchorage, AK]. 219 pp. + Data Appendix Vol. 1, 2.

Harding Lawson Assoc. 1980. Plate 10 - Trackline Map Tracts 46 and 47 (October 20, 

1980) Investigation of Rock Habitats and Sub-Seabottom Conditions, prepared for 

Amerada Hess Corp. 

Harding Lawson Assoc. 1980. Plate 2 - Trackline Map (Nov. 12, 1980) Investigation of 

Rock Habitats and Sub-Seabottom Conditions, prepared for Exxon 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited 57

Harding Lawson Associates. 1988. Geophysical and Geotechnical Site Evaluation Karluk 

Prospect, Beaufort Sea, Alaska. HLA Job No. 9611,282.08 Prepared for Chevron 

USA, Inc. 

Harding Lawson Associates; Engineers, Geologists & Geophysicists. 1983. Geophysical 

and Geotechnical Site Evaluation of OCS Leases Y-0279 and Y-0280, Beaufort 

Sea, Alaska. HLA Job No. 13167,001.01 Prepared for Exxon Company USA 

LGL Limited and Greeneridge Sciences, 1987. Responses of Bowhead Whales to an 

Offshore Drilling Operation in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, Autumn 1986 for Shell 

Western E&P 

LGL Limited. July 1985. Studies of the potential for drilling activities on Seal Island to 

influence fall migration of bowhead whales through Alaskan nearshore waters. 

report for Shell Western E&P Inc., LGL Project # TA779 

Malme, C.I., et al. August 1989. Analysis and ranking of the acoustic disturbance 

potential of petroleum industry activities and other sources of noise in the 

environment of marine mammals in Alaska, by BBN Systems and Technologies 

Corp, OCS Study MMS 89-0006

McClelland-EBA, Inc. Feb. 1986. High-Resolution Geophysical Survey and Assessment 

of Potential Shallow Drilling Hazards - Phoenix Prospect, Harrison Bay Area (NR 

5-4) Diapir Field, OCS Lease Sales 71 and 87, Beaufort Sea, Alaska. Report to 

Tenneco Oil Company

MMS File 86-17 - letter from Edward J. Ticken, Harding Lawson Assoc. Job # 

4022,119.09 

Navigation data for OCS Permit 81-50, from 9-track magnetic tape in REV (MMS).

Navigation data for OCS Permit 83-48, from 9-track magnetic tape in REV (MMS).

Navigation data for OCS Permit 84-41, from 9-track magnetic tape in REV (MMS). 

Navigation data for OCS Permit 84-43, from 9-track magnetic tape in REV (MMS). 

Navigation data for OCS Permit 85-29, from 9-track magnetic tape in REV (MMS). 

Navigation data for OCS Permit 85-35, from 9-track magnetic tape in REV (MMS). 

Navigation data for OCS Permit 85-38, from 9-track magnetic tape in REV (MMS). 

Navigation data for OCS Permit 85-38, from MMS Resource Evaluation Branch Server 

Navigation data for OCS Permit 85-49, from 9-track magnetic tape in REV (MMS). 

Navigation data for OCS Permit 85-50, from 9-track magnetic tape in REV (MMS).and 

MMS Resource Evaluation Branch Server 

Navigation data for OCS Permit 85-53, from 9-track magnetic tape in REV (MMS). 

Navigation data for OCS Permit 85-57, from 9-track magnetic tape in REV (MMS). 

Navigation data for OCS Permit 86-13 from MMS Resource Evaluation Branch Server 

Navigation data for OCS Permit 90-05, from 9-track magnetic tape in REV (MMS).and 

"Chronological Events Log" in REV (MMS) 

Navigation data for OCS Permit 90-06, from 9-track magnetic tape in REV (MMS).and 

"Chronological Events Log" in REV (MMS) 

Navigation data for OCS Permit 90-07, from 9-track magnetic tape in REV (MMS). 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited 58

Navigation data for OCS Permit 90-15, from 9-track magnetic tape in REV (MMS).and 

"Chronological Events Log" in REV (MMS) 

Navigation data for OCS Permit 90-18, from 9-track magnetic tape in REV (MMS). 

Navigation data for OCS Permit 91-03, from 9-track magnetic tape in REV (MMS). 

Navigation data for OCS Permit 93-07 from MMS Resource Evaluation Server and 

"Chronological Events Log" from permit file in REV

Navigation data for OCS Permit 93-08, from 9-track magnetic tape in REV (MMS). 

Navigation data for OCS Permit 97-04, from 9-track magnetic tape in REV (MMS). 

Navigation data for OCS Permit 98-05, from 9-track magnetic tape in REV (MMS). 

Navigation data from FOV (MMS) 9-track magnetic tape labeled "Amoco Y-0918 

Beaufort Belcher" 

Navigation data from FOV (MMS) 9-track magnetic tape labeled "BE 

Temp.Orion.Posall.Data; 594 BER085C 001/001 01 0000588; 700D14 85316 

85317 SL 1600" 

Navigation data from FOV (MMS) 9-track magnetic tape labeled 

"BE.Temp.Santares.Zones.Date; 594 BER080C 001/001 01 0000510; 700 D10, 

85316 85317 SL 1600" 

Navigation data from FOV (MMS) 9-track magnetic tape labeled "Gemini prospect 

navigation data; Gemini UKOA (Canvas back) Format: UKOOA 1978; No. Shots 

23181" 

Navigation data from FOV (MMS) 9-track magnetic tape labeled "Navigation Data 

Geohazard Survey Tenneco Oil Aurora Prospect 9-2-87; Shotpoints 10,458" 

Navigation data from FOV (MMS) 9-track magnetic tape labeled "NOFF12xMAN IS, 

Beaufort Sea; Surveyed for NORTEC by Itech 21-9-84; 3920 records; 3897 

points; Hammerhead and Leopard; Union Y-0849, Y-0850 Beaufort Hammerhead 

Prospect" 

Navigation data from FOV (MMS) 9-track magnetic tape labeled "Shotpoint location 

data reel = 019580; client MTS/AMOCO Area Beaufort Sea UKOOA Format; 

Shotpoints: 14194 OCS Y-0302 Mars" 

Navigation data from FOV (MMS) 9-track magnetic tape labeled "Sohio Group Survey 

Beaufort Sale 71; Reel #871478; Mukluk 28-11-83 Geohazard locations 

11/28/83” 

Navigation data from FOV (MMS) 9-track magnetic tape labeled "Tenneco data shot by 

GSI, Alaska Beaufort Sea 1984; OCS Y-0338; Phoenix" 

Navigation data from FOV (MMS) 9-track magnetic tape labeled "Texaco data shot by 

GSI, Beaufort Sea 1984; OCS Y-0338; Phoenix" 

Navigation data from FOV (MMS) 9-track magnetic tape labeled "Thorgisl Beaufort Sea; 

xB252UDI" 

Navigation data from FOV (MMS) 9-track magnetic tape labeled "West Maktar 

Navigation Pivot Point Positions; UKOOA 1978; 25559 Records" 

Navigation data from FOV (MMS) 9-track magnetic tape labeled "Y-0804 Beaufort 

Exxon Orion 700D24" 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited 59

Navigation data from FOV (MMS) 9-track magnetic tape labeled “Y-0871 (1of2) 

Beaufort; Shell (Union, Amoco) Corona (Hans); Hans data only” 

Navigation data from FOV (MMS) 9-track magnetic tape labeled “Y-0871 (2of2) 

Beaufort; Shell (Union, Amoco) Corona (Hans); Nortec - Union Oil Geohazard 

Survey; Beaufort Sea Block 678; Survey by Itech Sept. 23-25 – 1984” 

Navigation data from FOV, MMS file Y-0871, 9-track magnetic tape labeled “Beaufort 

Shell (Hans) Corona; Shotpoint location data reel 021875; client: Shell (Dames & 

Moore); 1984 Beaufort Sea Shell data” 

Navigation data from REV (MMS) 9-track magnetic tape: MMS Permit OCS 86-17 

Navigation data obtained from LGL Limited (King City) with permission of BPXA. Data 

are as a series of files ("FinalSrc") in UKOAA format providing locations of 

shotpoints, dates and times. 

Navigation data obtained from LGL Limited (King City) with permission of Western 

Geophysical. Data are as a series of files in UKOAA format providing locations 

of shotpoints, dates and times. 

Navigation file: Phase1.SP1 (Watson Company provided to MMS on floppy disk) 

September 28, 1999 

Navigation file: Phase2.SP1 (Watson Company provided to MMS on floppy disk) 

September 28, 1999 

Northern Technical Services. Feb. 1985. Data Report NR 6-4 Federal OCS Lease Blocks 

624 & 625, Beaufort Sea, Alaska (Hammerhead). Prepared for: Union Oil 

Company of California 

Northern Technical Services. Feb. 1985. Shallow Hazard Survey NR 6-4 Federal OCS 

Lease Block 631, Beaufort Sea, Alaska (Hammerhead). Prepared for: Union Oil 

Company of California 

OCS Study MMS 2002-017. June 2002. Evaluation of Sub-Sea Physical Environmental 

Data for the Beaufort Sea OCS and Incorporation into a GIS Database. Data on 

CD-ROM

Pelagos Corp. Feb. 1990. Galahad Prospect OCS Y 1092, Block 412 (NR 6-4) Geologic 

Hazard Assessment, Beaufort Sea, Alaska OCS. For AMOCO Production 

Company, Denver, CO 

Pelagos Corp. June 1990. West Maktar (IO) (Kuvlum) Prospect Geologic Hazard 

Assessment, Beaufort Sea, Alaska OCS. For Chevron U.S.A. Inc., San Ramon, 

CA 

Pelagos Corp. Mar. 1990. Canvasback (Gemini) Prospect Geologic Hazard Assessment, 

Beaufort Sea, Alaska OCS. For Chevron U.S.A. Inc., San Ramon, CA 

Pelagos Corp. Sep. 1987. Aurora Prospect Shallow Hazards Survey, OCS Y-0943, Block 

890 (NR 7-3), Beaufort Sea - Alaska OCS. For Tenneco Oil Company 

Pool Arctic Alaska Daily Drilling Report (Liberty) 

Rader, Matt. Personal communication. State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, 

Anchorage, AK.

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 1-19/I-18) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 1-31/M-21) 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited 60

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 1-47A/M-20) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 1-51/V-20) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 2-12/Q-16) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 2-16/M-16) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 2-30/O-09) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 2-44/R-12 MPI) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 2-50/U-08) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 2-54/Q-12) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 3-07/N-28) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 3-07A/L-29) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 3-17B/M-31) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 3-19/R-28) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 3-21/L-34 SDI) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 3-23/N-32 SDI) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 3-25/M-27) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 3-37/L-35) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 3-39/J-39 SDI) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 3-47/Q-35 SDI) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 3-49A/M-40) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 4-02/Q-28 SDI) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 4-04/T-26) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 4-06/Q-32 SDI) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 4-06A/Q-30) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 4-32/K-38) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 4-38/K-34) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 4-40/P-43) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Endicott 4-44/M-44) 

Report of Sundry Well Operations (Sag Delta North 5-03/SD-09)

Richardson, W.J. Personal communication. LGL Limited, King City, ON.

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene Jr., C.I. Malme and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine 

Mammals and Noise. Academic Press Inc., San Diego, CA, 576 pp.

SAIC Deepsea Development Services. 1993. Shallow Hazards Report, Kuvlum Prospect. 

Beaufort Sea, Alaska 

Schultz, Gary. Personal communication. State of Alaska, Department of Natural 

Resources, Fairbanks, AK.

Shell Western E&P Daily Drilling Report (Corona) 

Shell Western E&P Daily Drilling Report (Sandpiper #1) 

Shell Western E&P Daily Drilling Report (Sandpiper #2) 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited 61

Shell Western E&P Daily Drilling Report (Seal Island) 

Shell Western E&P Daily Drilling Report (Tern Island "A" #2) 

Shell Western E&P Daily Drilling Report (Tern Island #1) 

Shell Western E&P Daily Drilling Report (Tern Wildcat) 

Sohio Daily Drilling Report (Mukluk #1) 

Standard Alaska Production Daily Drilling report (Endicott 2-28/P-19 MPI) 

Standard Alaska Production Daily Drilling report (Endicott 2-44/R-12 MPI) 

Standard Alaska Production Daily Drilling report (Endicott 3-09/L-28 SDI) 

Standard Alaska Production Daily Drilling report (Endicott 3-21/L-34 SDI) 

Standard Alaska Production Daily Drilling report (Endicott 3-23/N-32 SDI) 

Standard Alaska Production Daily Drilling report (Endicott 3-39/J-39 SDI) 

Standard Alaska Production Daily Drilling report (Endicott 3-49/J-40 SDI) 

State of Alaska, Division of Oil and Gas March 2002. website: 

http://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/products/data/wells/display_well_data_1990_t

o_Present.htm 

Tenneco Oil Daily Drilling Reports (Aurora #1) 

Tenneco Oil Daily Drilling Reports (Phoenix #1) 

Union Oil Daily Drilling Reports (Hammerhead #1) 

Union Oil Daily Drilling Reports (Hammerhead #2)

USGS. Sep. 2001. website: http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/k/k185ar/html/k-1-85-

ar.meta.html 

USGS. Sep. 2001. website: http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/d/d185ar/html/d-1-85-

ar.meta.html 

USGS. Sep. 2001. website: http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/k/k180ar/html/k-1-80-

ar.meta.html 

USGS. Sep. 2001. website: http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/k/k181ar/html/k-1-81-

ar.meta.html 

USGS. Sep. 2001. website: http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/k/k183ar/html/k-1-83-

ar.meta.html 

USGS. Sep. 2001. website: http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/k/k281ar/html/k-2-81-

ar.meta.html 

USGS. Sep. 2001. website: http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/k/k282ar/html/k-2-82-

ar.meta.html 

USGS. Sep. 2001. website: http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/k/k283ar/html/k-2-83-

ar.meta.html 

USGS. Sep. 2001. website: http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/k/k381ar/html/k-3-81-

ar.meta.html 

USGS. Sep. 2001. website: http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/k/k382ar/html/k-3-82-

ar.meta.html 

USGS. Sep. 2001. website: http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/k/k482ar/html/k-4-82-

ar.meta.html 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited 62

USGS. Sep. 2001. website: http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/p/p193ar/html/p-1-93-

ar.meta.html 

Wainwright, P. 2002. GIS Geospatial Database of Oil-Industry and Other Human 

Activity (1979 – 1999) in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Database Documentation. 

Unpublished report by LGL Limited for MMS, Anchorage, AK, 38 p.

Watson Company. February 1998. Final Report, BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Liberty, 

High Resolution Geophysical Survey, Foggy Island Bay in Stefansson Sound, 

Alaska Report No. Lib-FF, Volume #1 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Badami #1) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Badami #2) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Duck Island 2-56/Eider) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Duck Island 2-56A/Eider-01) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 1-09A/L-21) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 1-15/P-25) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 1-17A/I-17) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 1-19/I-18) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 1-25A/K-22) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 1-31/M-21) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 1-33/M-23) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 1-33A/N-24) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 1-33B/L-24) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 1-47A/M-20) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 1-51/V-20) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 1-59/O-24) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 1-61/Q-20) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 2-12/Q-16) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 2-24/M-12) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 2-28/P-19) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 2-30/O-09) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 2-30A/EI-02) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 2-46/Q-15) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 2-46A/R-10) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 2-46B/S-13) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 2-48/O-13) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 2-54/Q-12) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 2-60/U-13) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 2-66/SD-12) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 3-03/J-33) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 3-07A/L-29) 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1

LGL Limited 63

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 3-09/L-28 SDI) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 3-09/L-28A SDI) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 3-17/J-30 SDI) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 3-17B/M-31) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 3-17C/M-31) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 3-17D/M-31) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 3-19/R-28) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 3-25/M-27) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 3-39/J-39) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 3-39A/I-37) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 3-43/P-36) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 3-49/J-40) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 4-06A/Q-30) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 4-10/M-28) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 4-32/K-38) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 4-34/O-38) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 4-38/K-34) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Endicott 4-40/P-43) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Kalubik #1) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Kalubik #2) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (North Milne Point #1) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (North Milne Point #2) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Northstar #2) 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Sag Delta #8) 

WSA Well Operations Telex (Endicott 1-47) 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 64

Appendix 1. 

Selected Documents Pertaining to the Data Compilation 

Letter of Introduction Requesting Assistance 

by Authorizing Release of Information 

November 3, 1998 

Re: Request for Assistance on a Project to Develop a GIS Database of Oil and Gas 

Related and Other Human Activities in the Beaufort Sea Between 1979 - 1998

Gentlemen; 

Recently MMS awarded a contract to LGL Limited to develop a GIS database of oil and 

gas related and other human activities in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea between 1979-1998. 

We plan to use this database to analyze potential effects of oil industry activity on 

subsistence whale hunting and to test hypotheses related to factors affecting bowhead 

whale distribution and relative abundance as described in the MMS Bowhead Whale 

Aerial Survey Program (BWASP) reports. 

We first would like to explain the background of our project, provide a brief project 

description, and request your assistance in making information available to the study 

team. 

Background

Subsistence hunters and others living within the coastal villages of the Beaufort Sea have 

voiced concerns about the possible effects that oil and gas activity may have on the 

behavior of marine mammals, especially the bowhead whale. Their concerns involve 

seismic activity, drilling, and oil and gas support vessel activities within the Beaufort Sea. 

Concerns related to seismic activity were raised at an MMS sponsored workshop on 

seismic noise in the Beaufort Sea (OCS Study MMS 97-0014). 

Residents expressed concerns that past seismic and other industrial activity from the oil 

industry has shifted the migration route of the bowhead whale farther offshore. Also, 

there are concerns that noise from drilling activities associated with ice breakers, 

resupply ships, tugs, helicopters, and noise from the seismic vessel and instrumentation 

from the seismic source may have altered the normal whale migration route. 

Maps of prior oil industry activity shown at the seismic workshop were inconclusive and 

had not resolved the temporal relationship between past seismic activity and possible 

bowhead displacement. Previous studies in evaluating the effects of marine mammals on 

oil industry activity have also been inconclusive, because they pertained to individual 

instances, within a brief window, over a small geographic area. Therefore, we need an 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 65

historical database for oil and gas industry activity and other human activities in order to 

determine any long term disturbance effects on the bowhead whale in the Beaufort Sea. 

Project

The objective of this study is to compile detailed information describing the locations, 

timing, and nature of these human activities in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea between 1979-

1998. This information will be stored in ArcView and an application will be developed 

to analyze and display this information graphically, particularly in regards to potential 

noise and disturbance associated with human activities. 

Data Request

We need your assistance in obtaining the human activity data for this project in order for 

us to address the concerns of the subsistence hunters on the North Slope of Alaska. We 

recognize that information on some oil industry activities, such as details of recent 

exploration activities, may be sensitive. The information of interest to this project is of a 

non-sensitive nature (e.g. locations of helicopters, icebreakers, timing of drilling activity), 

except for CDP shotpoint seismic navigation survey files under Permit. We will ensure 

that sensitive information is protected. This will be accomplished by: 

All members of the study team will sign appropriate non-disclosure agreements. 

The “data owners” will be given the opportunity to review the contents of the draft 

database and will be able to veto the inclusion of any proprietary information prior to 

project completion. 

The database will be maintained by MMS in Oracle/SDE. Proprietary data can be 

included and appropriately identified so that access to sensitive information is 

restricted. 

Where practical, specific location information can be generalized to a broader area. In 

this manner, specific location information which may be sensitive can be protected, 

but information about timing and nature of activity is still made available. 

The objective of the study is to compile as complete and detailed information on oil 

industry related activities as possible, because decision making is improved when 

complete information is available. However, we respect the need to protect sensitive 

information. 

We seek your help to achieve the project objectives by (1) authorizing access to 

information held in the MMS security vault and other repositories, for the purpose of 

allowing the contractors to compile non-sensitive information, and (2) providing access to 

additional specific information, particularly information concerning the collection of 

High-Resolution, CDP seismic shotpoint data and their daily activity logs. These data are 

collected during geophysical surveys conducted under State of Alaska and OCS Federal 

Permits for the Beaufort Sea, held by your organization and/or contractors on behalf of 

your organization. 

Therefore, we ask that: 

You respond in writing as soon as practical providing authorization for access to 

information in the MMS security vault and other repositories for the compilation of 

non-sensitive information contained in geohazard reports, navigation tapes, daily 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 66

drilling reports, oceanographic/meteorological data, daily seismic logs, and post plot 

maps, pertaining to your company’s operations between 1979-1998 on all leases 

within the Beaufort Sea solely for use in this project as described in this letter 

(attachment 1). 

You respond in writing providing authorization for access to non-sensitive information 

from geophysical surveys and daily drilling reports held by the State of Alaska 

pertaining to your company’s operations between 1979-1998 within the Beaufort Sea 

solely for use in this project as described in this letter (attachment 1). 

You forward a copy of this letter to relevant contractors before November 16th 1998 

authorizing them to release shotpoint navigation file and daily seismic activity log 

information about specific CDP and HRD geophysical surveys under Permit 

(attachment 1) to the study team for this project and requesting that they provide 

reasonable assistance. 

On completion of the study we will be pleased to send a copy of the final report and a 

subset of the database containing the information describing your organization’s activities 

to the organization that cooperated with the study. 

The study team for the project consists of LGL Limited (prime contractor), 

Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc. (ESRI), Greeneridge Sciences Inc., 

Charles I. Malme Engineering and Scientific Services and ASL Environmental Sciences 

Ltd. We expect that the project will take up to two years to complete. 

For your convenience an example letter of authorization with respect to non-sensitive 

information held by MMS is found in attachment 2. It would be of considerable benefit 

to the study if you would provide verbal authorization to access non-sensitive information 

in daily drilling reports held in the MMS Field Operations Vault by calling Mr. Jeff 

Walker, Regional Supervisor for Field Operations, Alaska Region, at (907) 271-6190. 

This would allow the study team to begin to the compilation process. 

Thank you in advance for your cooperation and timely response. If you have any 

questions about the project or this request for assistance or wish to discuss the project and 

its objectives, please contact Warren Horowitz at (907) 271-6554. Questions of a 

technical nature about the database and protection of sensitive information can be 

directed to the consultant’s Project Manager, Peter Wainwright at (250) 656-0127. 

Yours Sincerely, 

John Goll 

Regional Director MMS 

cc. Warren Horowitz 

 Peter Wainwright 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 67

(Attachment 2)

Date: 

Warren Horowitz 

Minerals Management Service 

Alaska OCS Region 

949 E. 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508-4363 

fax: (907) 271-6504 

Re: Request for Assistance on a Project to Develop a GIS Database of Oil and Gas 

Related and Other Human Activities in the Beaufort Sea Between 1979 - 1998

This letter is to authorize access to information in the MMS security vault and other 

repositories for the compilation of non-sensitive information contained in geohazard 

reports, navigation tapes, daily drilling reports, oceanographic/meteorological data, daily 

seismic logs, and post plot maps, pertaining to Company’s operations between 

1979-1998 on all leases within the Beaufort Sea solely for use in this project as requested 

in Mr. John Goll’s letter of November 3, 1998.This letter is to authorize access to 

information in the MMS security vault and other repositories for the compilation of nonsensitive information contained in geohazard reports, navigation tapes, daily drilling 

reports, oceanographic/meteorological data, daily seismic logs, and post plot maps, 

pertaining to Company’s operations between 1979-1998 on all leases within the 

Beaufort Sea solely for use in this project as requested in Mr. John Goll’s letter of 

November 3, 1998.This letter is to authorize access to information in the MMS security 

vault and other repositories for the compilation of non-sensitive information contained in 

geohazard reports, navigation tapes, daily drilling reports, oceanographic/meteorological 

data, daily seismic logs, and post plot maps, pertaining to Company’s operations 

between 1979-1998 on all leases within the Beaufort Sea solely for use in this project as 

requested in Mr. John Goll’s letter of November 3, 1998.This letter is to authorize access 

to information in the MMS security vault and other repositories for the compilation of 

non-sensitive information contained in geohazard reports, navigation tapes, daily drilling 

reports, oceanographic/meteorological data, daily seismic logs, and post plot maps, 

pertaining to Company’s operations between 1979-1998 on all leases within the 

Beaufort Sea solely for use in this project as requested in Mr. John Goll’s letter of 

November 3, 1998 

Yours Sincerely, 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 68

NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT 

In connection with the employment of ____________________ a resident of 

_______________ (the “Employee”) by LGL Alaska Research Associates Inc. and the 

performance of work required under contract 1435-01-98-RP-30915: “Reference Manual 

and GIS Geospatial Database of Oil-Industry and Other Human Activity (1979-1998) in 

the Beaufort Sea” (the “Contract”) between LGL Limited and the Minerals Management 

Service (MMS), the Employee has requested access to certain information held in the 

MMS Field Operations Vault which MMS has agree to provide under this nondisclosure 

agreement (the “Agreement”) on the following terms and conditions: 

1. As a condition to MMS allowing the Employee access to such information, MMS 

requires that the Employee agree as set forth below to treat confidentially any and all 

information pertaining to current and historical oil and gas exploration and production 

activities in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea including daily drilling reports, navigation 

tapes, and records of geophysical permits, which MMS or its officers, employees, 

counsel, or agents (hereinafter collectively "Representatives") furnishes to the 

Employee in connection with the performance of this Contract, whether furnished 

before, on or after the date of this agreement, and all notes, analyses, compilations, 

studies, reports, or other documents prepared by the Employee, which contain or 

otherwise reflect such information (collectively, the "Information"). 

2. The Employee hereby agrees that the Information will not be used by the Employee 

expect for the purpose of performing the work specified in the Contract, and will be 

kept confidential by Employee for a period of twenty-five (25) years from the date 

hereof; provided however, that: 

i) any of such information may be disclosed to other employees of LGL Alaska 

Research Associates Inc or LGL Limited who need access to such information for 

the purpose of completion of the Contract, all of whom shall be informed by the 

Employee of the confidential nature of such information and shall be directed by 

the Employee to treat such information confidentially; 

ii) any disclosure of such information may be made to which MMS consents in 

writing; and 

iii) the obligation of confidentiality and non-use contained herein shall not extend to 

such of the Information which (a) at the time of its receipt by the Employee is 

already in, or subsequently comes into, the public domain through no fault of the 

Employee, LGL Alaska Research Associates Inc. or LGL Limited (but only to the 

extent that it so becomes available), or (b) becomes available to the Employee 

without restriction on disclosure from a third party who has a lawful right to make 

a disclosure thereof. 

3. The Employee will promptly upon the request of MMS return to MMS all of the 

Information furnished by, or on behalf of, MMS, without retaining any copy thereof, 

and any analyses, compilations, studies, reports, or other documents which may be 

prepared by the Employee which reflect Information will be kept confidential by the 

Employee and will not be used in any way, or shall be destroyed upon request of 

MMS, such destruction to be certified in writing to MMS by the Employee. 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 69

4. It is acknowledged that MMS does not make any representations or warranties as to 

the accuracy or completeness of the Information. It is agreed that neither the MMS 

nor its Representatives shall have any liability to the Employee resulting from the use 

of the Information. 

5. It is acknowledged that the Agreement and the obligations created under this 

Agreement survive beyond the term of the Contract. 

6. In the event that the Employee is requested or required by oral questions, 

interrogatories, requests for information or documents subpoena, civil investigative 

demand, by order of any governmental authority, or similar legal process to disclose 

any of the Information supplied to by MMS in the course of the completion of the 

Contract, it is agreed that the Employee will provide MMS with prompt written notice 

of such request(s) so that MMS may seek an appropriate protective order and/or 

waive compliance by the Employee with the provisions of this Agreement. It is 

further agreed that if, in the absence of a protective order or the receipt of a waiver 

hereunder, the Employee is nonetheless, in the opinion of its counsel, compelled to 

disclose any of the Information to any tribunal or else stand liable for contempt or 

suffer other censure or penalty, the Employee may disclose such information to such 

tribunal hereunder, provided the information so disclosed is clearly marked as 

confidential to MMS. 

7. The Employee acknowledges and agrees that a breach of the provisions of this 

Agreement would cause MMS to suffer irreparable damage that could not be 

adequately remedied by an action at law. Accordingly, the Employee agrees that 

MMS shall have the right to seek specific performance of the provisions of this 

Agreement if necessary to prevent disclosure of the Information, such right being in 

addition to all other rights and remedies that are available to MSS at law, in equity, or 

otherwise. 

8. If any provision of this Agreement or its application is held to be invalid, illegal, or 

unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality, or enforceability of any of the 

other provisions and applications therein shall not in any way be affected or impaired. 

This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State 

of Alaska. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been signed on this ____________, 2000 

By: ___________________________ By: ____________________________ 

Printed Name: ___________________ Printed Name: ____________________ 

Title: __________________________ Title: ___________________________ 

Organization: ____________________ Organization: _____________________ 

Address: _______________________ Address: ________________________ 

______________________________ _______________________________ 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 70

CERTIFIED MAIL

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Name 

Company 

Street Address 

City, State, Zip 

Dear Name: 

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) has contracted with LGL Limited (hereafter 

referred to as the contractor) to compile a Geographic Information System database of oil 

and gas activities (drilling, vessel, seismic operations, and aircraft traffic) in Federal and 

State waters in the Beaufort Sea, Alaska. These data, as well as ice coverage data, will be 

used within a future study to correlate any possible effect on the migration of the 

bowhead whale. Specifically, the contractor will have access to navigation tapes, the 

weekly progress reports, and the final completion reports from the seismic surveys on the 

following list. The purpose of these data is to determine where vessels were operating at 

any given time. 

MMS Permit 

Number Nature of Survey 

 

Prior to the MMS disclosing any proprietary information to the contractor, the contractor 

or the contractor’s agent will be required to execute a written commitment not to transfer 

or to otherwise disclose any information or data to anyone. 

Following completion of the study, the MMS may wish to publish certain generalized 

information concerning the location of seismic vessels. This generalized information will 

not be published without your written consent. 

If you care to comment on the use of these data, please contact this office within 10 

working days of receiving this letter. Thank you for your assistance in this manner. It is 

our hope that this study will be part of a more analytical approach to whether or not oil 

and gas activities have had any effect on the bowhead whale and to what degree. 

If you have any questions, please call Rance Wall at (907) 271-6060. 

 Sincerely, 

 Larry W. Cooke 

 Acting Regional Supervisor 

 Resource Evaluation 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 71

Appendix 2. 

Preparation Of A Sediment 

Stratigraphy Representative Of 

The Alaskan North Slope 

by 

John R. Marko 

ASL Environmental Sciences Inc. 

1986 Mills Road, R.R. 2 

Sidney, B.C. 

V8L 5Y3 

March, 2001 

File No. 61-394-M 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 72

Abstract 

Acoustic sounding and geohazard drilling data as well as analytic studies of seafloor 

stratigraphy based upon such data were reviewed to develop a basis for setting up a 

subsea sediments database capable of supporting modeling of acoustic propagation in 

waters shallower than about 80 m on the continental shelf between 141°W and 152.5°W. 

Our approach identified 5 major categories of sediment layers recognized in earlier 

studies which appear to form a basis for describing the subfloor down to depths relevant 

to acoustic propagation in the overlying ocean. These categories were largely based upon 

identifications made by Foster in the western part of the study area and appeared 

consistent with observations made by other workers in the same and other areas. 

Occurrences of theses categories was documented in a 3-layer GIS database which also 

included surface characterizations for local areas known to have anomalous surface 

showings of boulders gravel etc. A fourth layer, semi-infinite in extent, forms the 

foundation for all other overlying layers is assumed to be composed on one of the 

identified categories. 

Acknowledgements 

This project was heavily reliant on key inputs of reports, anecdotal information and 

insights from the U.S. Geological Survey and its present or past personnel. Particularly 

key individuals in this regard, were Stephen Wolf, Erk Reimnitz and David Foster. Their 

patience and active cooperation were greatly appreciated. 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 73 

2-1. Background 

Development of an MMS model of sound propagation in marine areas on the North Slope 

of Alaska requires realistic descriptions of variations in sound speed (cs), mass density 

(ρ) and dissipation or attenuation rates (a) in both the water column and in the upper 

layers of the regional seafloor sediments. Such descriptions allow specification of 

characteristic acoustic impedances for plane wave propagation: 

Zs = ρcs , 

which, together with attenuation rates, determine reflected and refracted sound levels in 

the presence of non-uniform propagation in the marine and underlying terrestrial layers. 

Given the relatively narrow temporal windows of interest, namely, the late summer-early 

fall marine mammal migration periods, approximate water column acoustic specifications 

are available from accumulated CTD (conductivity, temperature and density) profiles and 

established relationships between sound speed and attenuation rates and the latter 

parameters. Some difficulties in this regard are anticipated in shallower waters and in the 

vicinity of major river mouths where factors, such as wind direction, states of ice 

clearance and melt, impact directly on the character of the water column. On the other 

hand, such circumstances also diminish the relative importance of the in-water portions 

of the acoustic propagation paths, reducing sensitivity to water column variability and 

allowing generic seasonal profiles to be used with moderate accuracy. 

Equivalent generic characterizations of sub-sea floor portions of acoustic paths are more 

problematic because of both the extremely complicated and spatially inhomogeneous 

nature of North Slope geology and the greater technical and logistical challenges 

involved in ascertaining its details. Specifically, the present sea floor and its underlying 

sediment structures are a consequence of terrestrial- and marine-depositions and subaerial- and sub-marine-erosion-processes acting during the numerous cycles of sea level 

advance and retreat associated with the past million years or so of the Earth’s history. 

The resulting sequences of large-scale, relatively uniform sediment layers or stratigraphic 

types also typically show local idiosyncrasies or modifications associated with nearby 

terrestrial geology, ancient estuaries or paleovalleys and past effects of sea ice movement 

and sub-aerial exposure to freezing temperatures. Unfortunately, characterizations of 

larger scale stratigraphic structures and their local modifications must be deduced from 

data which are very limited in spatial extent: usually comprised of at most, several dozen 

borehole sediment profiles and recorded echo returns of “boomer” acoustic impulses 

periodically transmitted downward along relatively narrow survey vessel tracks. 

Interpretations of these returns in terms of distinct sediment layers, each associated with a 

relatively common set of geological origins and physical properties, are often ambiguous 

and dependent upon simple constant sound speed assumptions which have only 

approximate validity. Some non-uniformities internal to individual stratigraphic units, 

associated with, for example, relict permafrost and gas pockets, introduce particularly 

large discontinuities in acoustic impedance which produce acoustic reflections strong 

enough to prevent meaningful probing of deeper layers. Actual assignments of sound 

speed, density and attenuation rate values to the identified distinct layers must eventually 

be made using results from a small number of detailed studies (Hamilton, 1980) of such 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 74 

properties or from standard listings of “typical parameters” for various categories of 

sediment type (Urick, 1983). 

2-2. Methodology 

2-2.1 General Approach and Definition of Categories 

Our characterizations of the acoustic properties of sub-sea portions of the North Slope 

draw upon bodies of acoustic sounding or stratigraphic data and accompanying borehole 

drilling results which have been collected since the early 1970’s by USGS researchers 

and independent geological consultants in conjunction with hydrocarbon exploration 

activities. Data and analyses were obtained in the form of reports and charts for selected 

portions of the inshore continental shelf (Figure 2-1) between, roughly, Cape Halkett 

(152.5°W) and Demarcation Bay (141°W). Major contributions to this body of 

knowledge date back to 1972 (Reimnitz and Bruder, 1972; Reimnitz et al., 1974) with 

research activity peaking in the 1980’s in preparation for actual North Slope hydrocarbon 

production. Results obtained in this and subsequent periods have led to a slowly evolving 

and still fairly tentative consensus picture of the composition and origins of the upper 

layers of the regional continental shelf. 

Figure 2-1. Bathymetric features and place names of the greater North Slope study 

region (Reimnitz et al., 1978). 

Particular difficulties were encountered in characterizing the uppermost regional 

sediment layers, with early workers (Reimnitz et al., 1972; Craig and Thrasher, 1982; 

Dinter, 1982) associating such layers with Holocene deposits which thicken in offshore 

directions to reach layer depths as large as several tens of meters on the middle and outer 

continental shelves. Subsequent work by Wolf et al. (1985), Foster (1988) and Reimnitz 

and Wolf (1998) has reinterpreted these data in the light of later recognitions of the 

highly erosional nature of the regional shelves. In this view, true Holocene sediments are 

presently confined only to a relatively small number of inner shelf areas and protected 

embayments. Even in such areas there is abundant evidence of physical mixing of these 

and older sediments by ice gouging and hydraulic processes. This conception of the sea 

floor was first offered by Foster (1988) based upon analyses of data recorded between 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 75 

western Prudhoe Bay and Cape Halkett at the west end of Harrison Bay as well as from 

earlier data from more eastern areas analyzed by Wolf et al. (1985). Foster’s work 

included specific efforts to establish connections or cross-linkages between the derived 

identifications and previous classifications of stratigraphy in both the same study area and 

in other portions of the North Slope shelf and on the adjacent Alaskan Coastal Plain. 

Numerous additional discussions of the resulting cross-linkages, illustrated in Table 2-1, 

were held with S. Wolf of the USGS during the present study to maximize the 

compatibility of our descriptions with current “state of the science” understandings. 

Table 2-1. Correlation of stratigraphic units on the Beaufort Sea shelf and the 

adjacent Arctic Coastal Plain. Dotted lines show correlation between units and wavy 

lines show correlation of reflectors (Foster, 1988). 

Our decision to use the stratigraphic units and notation developed by Foster as the 

principal basis of our classification scheme was dictated by a motivating need to extract 

acoustic modelling data on a fairly wide regional basis from a very patchy body of 

previous classifications derived from highly localized individual studies. This approach 

allowed coverage of shelf areas between the Canadian border in the east and 152.5°W in 

the west based upon the 5 independent studies or reports listed in Table 2-2, each of 

which provide information on different but sometimes overlapping portions of the overall 

area of interest. 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 76 

Table 2-2. Principal sources for stratigraphic mapping in this study 

Study Spatial Boundaries: western 

(°W); eastern (°W): range of 

water depth (m). 

Craig and Thrasher, 1982 152.5, 150; 5-30 

Foster, 1988 151; 148; 0-50 

Wolf et al., 1985 149; 145.5; 0-40 

Dinter, 1982 147.5; 141; 20-100 

Wolf et al., 1989 146; 141; 0-50 

An additional summary of: Foster’s stratigraphic categories; their connections with 

earlier studies; and their times of deposition (both in terms of geological epochs and in 

thousands of years (ka)) is presented in Table 2-3. 

Table 2-3. Identifications of stratigraphic units made in regional studies. Broken –

lines are used to make tentative cross-identifications between units of similar age 

and properties identified in different studies (Reproduced from Foster, 1988) 

The linkages indicated in Table 2-1 and Table 2-3 illustrate the above-noted tendency of 

earlier studies to overestimate the horizontal and vertical extent of the Holocene layer 

deposited during the most recent period of sea level transgression. This confusion was 

most apparent in the Craig and Thrasher (1982) and Dinter (1982) interpretations of areas 

at, respectively, the western and eastern ends of our study region. Difficulties appeared to 

arise primarily from the earlier workers’ neglect of differences between the shallow 

Holocene layer (Foster’s Sequence A) which tends to thin in the offshore direction and 

Foster’s Sequence A/B which thickens in a seaward direction on the middle and outer 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 77 

shelf. Sequence A/B, believed to be a late Pleistocene deposit, overlies a relatively 

ubiquitous, more definitively late Pleistocene layer, Sequence B, in the latter areas and, 

thus, would be expected to be a still younger layer associated with times closer to the 

start of the Holocene transgressions. On the other hand, 14C results showing a Holocene 

component within the upper portions of Sequence B on the inner shelf also make it 

possible that sequence A/B was deposited within sequence B, not above. In the absence 

of additional age determinations and other information, it is, therefore, probably most 

appropriate to tentatively identify A/B as a Holocene/Late Pleistocene sequence and 

sequence B as a somewhat older Late Pleistocene layer. This confusing situation 

undoubtedly accounted for spatially-detailed geohazard mappings (e.g., the Comap, 1985 

Torgisl survey) in which Holocene layer thicknesses greater than 60 m were reported. In 

other instances, higher spatial resolution stratigraphic mappings failed to distinguish 

between Holocene and Pleistocene layers, focusing instead upon providing estimates of 

the depths associated with transitions from soft, clayey sediments to harder, coarser 

sediment horizons. 

Although in some cases it may be difficult to unambiguously distinguish between the 

acoustic properties of sediments in adjacent stratigraphic layers, our classification efforts 

tried, as much as possible, to both retain geological distinctions noted by the actual 

acoustic data set analysts and draw on the cross-linkages identified by Foster (Table 2-1 

and Table 2-3). The 6 distinct stratigraphic classifications of the Foster scheme included 

the aforementioned Holocene and Holocene-like Pleistocene sequences A and A/B as 

well as four distinguishable Pleistocene layers, B, C, D and E which are described below. 

The first of these layers, Sequence B, is the predominant late Pleistocene species 

identified in most early regional studies. It consists of mixtures of marine silt, clay and 

pebbly mud deposited during both the Pelukian (Sangamon) and Simpsonian (Early 

Wisconsin) transgressions along with, especially on the middle and outer shelf, sediments 

of terrestrial origin associated with coalescing river fan deltas which were built up during 

earlier sea level lowstands. This sequence often hosts strong internal reflectors associated 

with ice-bonded sediments and gas concentrations which, by decreasing depths of 

acoustic penetration, locally limit capabilities for measuring layer thicknesses or for 

extracting details of deeper layers. The spatial uniformity of this layer is also frequently 

disrupted by its abundant content of cut and fill channels and paleodelta sequences. 

Sequences C and D are also transgressive marine deposits created during at least two 

distinctive middle Pleistocene periods associated with rising sea levels. Sequence C is 

believed to have been associated with the Wainwrightian transgression onto the adjacent 

coastal plain more than, roughly, 160,000 years ago. Sequence D is, of course, still older. 

These sequences have similar, acoustically transparent, characteristics and appear to be 

associated with mixtures of gravelly sand and gravelly mud. 

Finally, the deepest (oldest) sequence in the Foster scheme (E) is of non-marine fluvial 

origin. Limited data suggests it thins in an offshore direction and is composed primarily 

of heavy sand and gravel deposited sometime after the Fishcreekian trangression of, 

approximately, 1.9 to 2.5 million years ago. The age of this deposit was estimated as no 

greater than 1.8 M years and no younger than Middle Pleistocene. It is clearly the deepest 

layer likely to be of relevance to acoustic propagation in the overlying ocean layer. 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 78 

Unfortunately, classification of submarine sediments into the 6 discussed categories is 

feasible only in that small fraction of the study region associated with Foster’s own 

studies. Even in those areas, large gaps in coverage were produced by the local opacity of 

sequence B introduced by the noted presence of strong internal reflectors associated with 

ice-bonded sediments, gas pockets and other local layer anomalies. In such areas, it was, 

thus, necessary to specifically identify the widespread prevalence of such reflectors by 

the designation of a sub-category B’. It is to be recognized that because of the minimal 

penetration of the acoustic beams to depths much greater than a few meters from the 

surface of this subcategory, all estimates of the depths this and deeper layers have had to 

be obtained by extrapolation or interpolation from adjacent B’-free areas. 

As well, it proved infeasible to utilize all 6 (exclusive of the B’ subcategory) Foster 

categories since the majority of prior and subsequent classifications in the region as a 

whole utilized smaller numbers of stratigraphic categories (see Table 2-1 and Table 2-3) 

Nevertheless, efforts were made in the present study to use the general trends and 

parameters associated with these categories to provide coverage of the major stratigraphic 

transitions out to, roughly, the 80 m depth contour on the Alaskan shelf between 141°W 

and 152.5°W. Retained categories: A, A/B, B, C/D were designed to allow 

characterization of: the most common surface layers (A (Holocene), A/B and B (late 

Pleistocene)); the immediately underlying Pleistocene C and D layers comprised of 

similar, coarser sediments; and, finally, the very coarse Middle to Early Pleistocene 

sediments of Sequence E. For ocean acoustics purposes, Sequence E can be considered as 

the basement layer of the submarine acoustic environment. Additional local details on 

surface features of note, including gravel and boulder patches, were retained as additional 

characteristics of the uppermost sediment layer. 

Actual representation of the regional stratigraphy utilized just 3 layers in an ARCINFO 

GIS database. The contents of these layers are listed below. 

Layer 1 Contents: Thickness contours of the Holocene and Holocene-Pleistocene 

transition Categories A and A/B, respectively as well as polygons delineating notable 

characteristics of the sea floor such as the presence of boulders, gravel beds or other 

features relevant to description of the acoustic environment. 

Layer 2 Contents: Thickness contours of the late Pleistocene Categories Band B’. 

Layer 3 Contents: Thickness contours of the Middle Pleistocene Category C/D. 

The basement or “floor” of these layers is assumed be composed of a semi-space of 

infinite depth containing Category E sediments. The actual thickness of this category 

which directly overlies the terrestrial Gubik Formation was about 35 m in Simpson 

Lagoon (near 150°W) (See Figures 5-3 and 5-5 (Foster, 1988)). Even such a thickness, at 

the thin, shoreward, end of this seafloor constituent is comparable to or larger than the 

sum of thickness of all overlying layers in many portions of the study area, thus justifying 

its treatment as an infinite half-space. 

Polygons representing sediment Category thicknesses and/or surface material character 

were constructed using 3 different line types according to the following coding. 

1. Solid line: data taken from previously reported/graphically represented data. 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 79 

2. Dashed broken line: data obtained by extrapolation or interpolation over small gaps or 

by extensions (usually over distances shorter than 10 km) of previously 

reported/graphically represented data into adjacent areas. 

3. Dotted broken line: data extrapolated/interpolated over very large spatial gaps in the 

available data sets. 

This additional information offers the user representative measures of the reliability of 

the individual layer data provided for any particular portion of the region of interest. 

2-2.2 Data Assembly and Assumptions within Individual GIS Layers 

2-2.2.1 Layer 1 (Figure 2-3)

Relatively reliable mapping of Holocene Category A layer thicknesses on the inner and 

middle shelf were available between, roughly 151°W and 145.5°W from the work of 

Foster (1988) and Wolf et al. (1985). Layer thicknesses in the 148°W-149°W area of 

overlap between these two bodies of work are in reasonable agreement, giving us a fair 

degree of confidence in the 1- 7 m thickness values deduced for these areas. Similarly, 

mappings by Wolf et al. (1989) in discontinuous sections of the shelf between 141°W and 

146°W delineated other concentrations of Category A equivalent sediments. The 

specified concentrations of this material were confined to areas within a few kilometers 

of the shoreline in Beaufort, Nunagapak and Demarcation Lagoons (Figure 2-1) 

Potentially similar material was also reported by Wolf et al. (1989) in slightly thicker 

coast-paralleling bands roughly 10 km offshore in western Camden Bay and east of, 

roughly, 143° 30’W. The latter, spatially discontinuous, features were identified as 

overlying central portions of a similarly coast paralleling band at least 15-20 km in width 

comprised of Unit 2 material which, by description showed continuity with the Unit A 

identified by Dinter (1982) (Table 2-1 and Table 2-3) in immediately adjoining western 

areas. These bands were therefore assumed to be composed of Category A/B materials. In 

the light of Wolf et al.’s (1989) own uncertainty regarding the origins of their identified 

Unit 1 material, it was also assumed to be a variant of the sequence A/B so frequently 

misidentified as Holocene elsewhere in the region and, hence, not specifically delineated 

in our mappings.Finally, the discrepancy between the alternative seaward thinning and 

thickening of the Holocene layer inferred for eastern and western Harrison Bay by Foster 

(1988) and Craig and Thrasher (1982), respectively, was resolved by assuming that the 

latter report of thickening in western areas was, yet, another consequence of 

misidentification of A/B material as Category A material. This inferred presence of A/B 

material as well as evidence for local ice bonded sediments in the vicinity of the 

stamukhi-grounding region near the 20 m depth contour motivated a decision to retain 

Craig and Thrasher’s Holocene thickness estimates for our Category A mappings only in 

waters shallower than 20 m. 

Mappings of Category A/B layer thickness provided estimates of the spatial distribution 

of this stratigraphic element as first documented by Foster in the NE corner of his study 

region (between 148°W and 149°W and in waters deeper than about 30 m) in terms of 

two-way travel times (TWTs) to the bottom bounding surface of this material. The actual 

depths of such interfaces below the sea floor were established from the conventional 

geophysical rule that such depths were obtained by subtracting local water depth from 0.8 

times the measured two-way travel time. In the absence of data at equivalent depths in the 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 80 

adjacent Wolf et al. (1985) study region, the presence of compatible thicknesses of 

Dinter’s Unit A (Category A/B) material at comparable depths further east was taken as a 

reasonable justification for interpolating and connecting A/B layer thickness contours 

between the two regions. This step, when combined with the shoreward boundaries 

delineated for Wolf et al.’s (1989) ‘pre-Holocene” Unit 2/Category A/B material allowed 

mapping of the thicknesses of a band of the latter material which appeared to comprise 

the uppermost layer of the sea floor on the basis of most acoustic data gatherered in 

waters deeper than 25- 30 m in the study area. The available data and our interpolations 

into the region of the Wolf et al. (1985) study extended the prevalence of this sediment 

layer, which thickens to seaward, as the principal sea floor constituent out to at least the 

80 m water depth contour. 

Surface details going beyond the Category A and A/B stratifications were obtained for 

areas east of Tigvariak Island (°146.2W) from Wolf et al. (1985 and for more western 

areas east of 148° W from Reimnitz and Ross (1979). In the former case polygons were 

defined using designations from the original references as “bouldery”, “mottled“, and 

“platy” deposits on the silt and sand sea floor surfaces. With the exception of the 

bouldery categories, these terms are primarily derived from the appearances of the 

reflected acoustic signals. The Reimnitz and Ross data give much more detail of the 

structure of the “bouldery” areas, presenting separate designations of areas with high and 

moderate densities of boulder and cobble coverage and distinguishing these categories 

from nearshore “beach boulders” and areas associated with “broad, fuzzy bottom 

echoes”. 

2-2.2.2 Layer 2 (Figure 2-4)

The late Pleistocene layer associated with our defined Category B, was only mapped 

directly by Foster and given in terms of layer thickness values for areas west of 148°W. 

Identification of this same layer with materials bounded by Wolf et al.’s (1985) surfaces 

4 and 5? in adjacent areas as far east as 145.5°W and with the Unit 3 materials mapped 

by Wolf et al. (1989) in areas still further east, likewise, provided a quantitative basis for 

estimating Category B stratigraphy between 141°W and 151°W. Unfortunately, however, 

data in the latter two studies only extended out to approximately 40 m water depths, 

necessitating eastward extrapolation of Foster’s data to obtain estimates of related 

structures in out to roughly the 80 m depth contour. West of 145.5°W, this extension of 

Foster’s results is readily justified by the agreement achieved near the 40 m depth contour 

with thicknesses reported for the equivalent layer by Wolf et al. (1985). 

Further east, data on the most equivalent of the layers identified by Wolf et al. (1989), 

Unit 3, are less detailed, particularly in Camden Bay west of Barter Island, where the 

defining local lower bound (Horizon A’) of this layer was rarely unambiguously 

detectable in the available acoustic sounder datasets. Nevertheless, except in the eastern 

portion of the Bay, where tectonic activity has raised older material to the upper sea floor, 

it is clear that, as in adjoining western areas near 145°W, Category B material comprises 

the sea floor out to distances of 15-20 km from shore and to water depths of about 25m. 

In slightly deeper waters in this area, the Category B layer underlies a relatively narrow 

strip of Category A/B material before appearing again on the sea floor surface at 

distances more than 25 km from the coastline. East of Barter Island mappings presented 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 81 

by Wolf et al. (1987) again showed Category B (Unit 3) material to be the uppermost 

seafloor layer for distances ranging out to 6 km to 15 km from the coastline. Further 

offshore the Category B layer again was overlaid with strips of Category A/B material. In 

this case, however, particularly near 142 °W, the outer boundaries of the latter layers 

were not well defined and the adjoining more offshore surface species were not specified. 

Details on the underlying Category B/Unit 3 material were limited to TWT contours 

corresponding to its local lower bounding surface (Horizon A) in waters inshore of, 

roughly, the 40 m depth contour. Under these circumstances, we chose to assume a rough 

continuity in the structure of the upper sea floor layers exclusive of the narrow area of 

East Camden Bay (near 144 °W) where tectonic activity in waters shallower than 40 m 

apparently replaced eroded near-surface bodies of Category A/B and B materials with 

older strata. Elsewhere, neglecting Wolf et al.’s (1987) reported small showing of 

Category B (Unit 3) material on the sea floor at depths of 30 m in western Camden Bay, 

we assumed Category A/B material to be the surface species in all areas seaward of the 

25 m bathymetric contour. Contours of TWTs for the Category B bottom boundary were 

then interpolated and extrapolated among: the Wolf et al. (1989) data sets inshore of the 

40 m bathymetric contour and outside the tectonic region of Camden Bay; from Wolf et 

al.’s (1986) results for areas west of 145.5 °W and from Foster’s (1986) results obtained 

further west. Since only the later results extended out beyond the 40 m bathymetric 

contour it was also necessary to use Wolf et al.’s estimates of the seaward slope of 

Horizon A in areas east of Barter Island to estimate the thickness of the category B layer 

as a function of offshore distance at water depths as large as 80 m east of 148°W. 

Values of Category B thickness in the Foster study area, which supported the described 

eastward extrapolation were themselves derived from acoustic travel times to the bases of 

both this and the immediately overlying layers (Category A or A/B material). The 

“onlapping” of Category B material on successive older layers dictated that various 

portions of the lower Category B boundary were associated with transitions to Sequence 

C, D and E materials in the Foster nomenclature scheme. Other difficulties in extending 

thickness estimates throughout the full Foster study area arose from the presence of socalled “acoustic transmission boundaries” (Foster, 1988) which delineated areas 

containing internal (to the sequence B layer) reflectors of sufficient strength to preclude 

both estimation of the full depth of Category B material and observation of transitions 

associated with deeper layers. Our procedure was to obtain layer thickness estimates in 

such areas by interpolating acoustic travel times to the bottom of the Category B into 

these regions from the abundant transparent zones in, respectively, the eastern and 

western portions of the Foster study region. 

2-2.2.3 Layer 3 (Figure 2-5)

As was the case for the Category B mappings of Layer 2, there was no common source of 

data for the defined Category C/D material capable of supporting coverage for all areas of 

interest. Data on this material are essentially non-existent for areas west of the 151° W 

limit of the Foster (1988) study. Specific C, D or C/D information for areas in the rest of 

our area of interest are listed in Table 2-4. Even in these cases, however, inspection 

indicates that, with the exception of data on the depth of the upper surface of E, most of 

the compiled data is directly usable only in characterizing C layer thicknesses. The most 

useful results on a region-wide basis were the observation by Foster (1986) that: 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 82 

1) D tends to thicken in a seaward direction from zero on the inner shelf, 

reaching maximum thicknesses on the middle and outer shelf; and 

2) C thins in a seaward as well as landward directions and extends to the outer 

shelf. 

Table 2-4. Sources and content of information available for estimating 

C/D layer thickness 

 W. 

Longitude 

Range 

Data Source Data Type

148°-151° Figures 5.3 

and 5.5 

(Foster, 

1988); 

Figure 5.6 

(Foster, 1988) 

Depth to top of material E and thickness of its 

“overburden”; 

Depth to upper boundary of D 

145.5°-149° Figure 15 

(Wolf et al., 

1985) 

Depth to upper boundary of material D 

141°-146° Figure 5 

(Wolf et al., 

1989) 

Areal coverage of surface exposures of “Units 4 and 5” 

in an area just west of Barter Island (by a process of 

elimination, these units can be identified with C and D, 

respectively.) 

Estimation of C-layer thicknesses from the difference in the depths of Foster’s R30 and 

R40 surfaces indicated that, near 148°W, these thicknesses increase from negligible 

values nearshore to a 15 m maximum near the 30 m bathymetric contour and slowly 

tailed off into deeper waters. Similar results were deduced from Wolf et al.’s (1986) data 

along two offshore lines about 0.5 ° and 1° further east. In this case, substantial (6-8 m) 

layer thicknesses persisted in inshore areas. Direct estimates of D-material distributions 

were available only from a small area between 148°W and 149 °W where Foster (1988) 

presented TWT data for the upper surfaces of both Sequence D and E. These data suggest 

that the D-layer only slowly increases in thickness in the offshore direction, reaching a 

maximum observed thickness of about 4m near the 25 m bathymetric contour. As well 

this material and the normally overlying C-layer is totally removed from an area south of, 

roughly 70.7 °n between 148.5 °W and 149.5 °W, where the surface of the E-layer is 

separated from the sea floor only by a few m of overburden, which we have assumed to 

be Category B material. 

Given the dearth of data and the, generally, lessened importance of Category C/D relative 

to higher-lying species as a determinant of the acoustic environment in the overlying 

ocean, we chose to provide descriptions of Category C/D thickness in terms of direct 

relationships between layer thickness, TC/D, and water depth, d, which are, with one 

exception, universal in the study region at depths inside the 80 m bathymetric contour. 

The specific exclusion in this case is the area noted near 149 °W above where neither of 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 83 

the C or D constituents of this layer were observed to be present (Foster, 1988). These 

relationships are: 

TC/D = 10 (1 + (d)/20) m, for d< 20m; 

TC/D = 20 + 5(d-20)/10 m, for 20m ≤ d ≤ 30m; and 

 TC/D = 25 - 10(d-30)/50 m, for 30m < d ≤ 80m. 

This choice allows the C/D layer to rise gradually in a seaward direction from a 10 m 

nearshore value, reaching a broad peak thickness of 25 m at the 30 m bathymetric contour 

and thinning slowly to 15 m in waters 80 m deep. 

These relationships and the boundaries of the identified C/D-free area constitute the 

information content of Layer 3. 

2-3. Use of Stratigraphy and Bottom Type Data for Assessing the Ocean Acoustic 

Environment 

Combined use of all three layers should allow a reasonably realistic representation of 

regional variations in sea floor composition relevant to acoustic environmental 

investigations. Areas of poor reliability included both: those areas west of 150 °W where 

the presence of strong reflectors internal to the Category B layer (usually 5-15 m below 

the surface of this layer) precluded extraction of details on all but the uppermost surface 

layer: and areas including and seaward of the strongly tectonically modified areas near 

144 °W where upheavals have left older materials (assumed to be Category C/D) as the 

sea floor surface species and clearly distorted the stratigraphy in all adjoining areas. In 

the latter case, the availability of good layer 1 and 2 data east and west of the older 

surface material still enabled development of a fairly representative database in such 

areas. On the other hand, much more limited data in areas further offshore, particularly in 

the elements of Layer 2, necessitated heavy reliance on extrapolation and consequent 

uncertainties in data quality or total absences of information. 

As indicated in Section 2-1, actual use of stratigraphy data in characterizing an ocean 

acoustics environment still requires assignment of sound speeds, densities and attenuation 

coefficients to each of the component of the defined sediment layers. Such assignments 

are clearly significant simplifications since, even within the identified layers, drillhole 

data are indicative of considerable site to site variability in layer composition and in the 

internal sequencing of constituents. The category progression A, A/B, B, C/D, E was 

assumed to correspond to a similar progression in the relative presence of silt, mud, clay, 

sand and gravel, with Category A comprised primarily of silt, clay and mud and with the 

sand and gravel contents of the subsequent categories progressively rising to a peak in the 

deepest, oldest material of Category E. Within this picture, reviews of the related 

literature (Hamilton, 1980, Urick, 1983, Akal and Jensen, 1983) and of the recent work of 

VerWest and Bremner (1997) on the North Slope were used to derive the set of density, 

sound speed and attenuation coefficients listed in Table 2-5. 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 84 

Table 2-5. Suggested parameters for acoustic propagation modelling in the idealized 

description of the Alaskan North Slope. 

Category Density (g/cm3) Speed (m/s) Attenuation (dB/wavelength) 

A 1.75 1600 1 

A/B 1.8 1700 0.5 

B 1.85 1725 0.4 

C/D 1.95 1830 0.15 

E 2.0 1900 0.1 

For widespread use in the study region, these listings should be supplemented by 

additional representations of effects arising from: 

a) the various patches of boulders, gravel and other designations included as 

surface descriptors in layer 1; 

b) the presence of strong reflectors internal to the variety of Category B material 

designated by the sub-Category B’ which is commonly present at the western 

end of the study region. 

In the first instance, it is feasible to locally replace say the first m of the uppermost 

material with a 1m thick layer of a material with appropriately higher values of density 

and sound speed (i.e. for concentrated boulders a density of 2.5 g/cm3 and a 2500 m/s 

sound speed) as well as comparably lowered attenuation coefficients. Adjustments for the 

internal reflectors associated with B’ are more problematic. These reflectors can have 

multiple sources associated with gas pockets, frozen sediments and mechanically 

modified sediment structures produced by interactions with ice keels. In the absence of 

detailed information at a given site, a general representation of related effects may be 

obtained by assuming the internal reflectors occupy the bottom half of the B’ layer and 

have the large 2500 m/s to 3000 m/s sound speeds reported for ice bonded sediments by 

Rogers and Morack (1979) in the same area. This assumption, in conjunction with 

allowing the standard B parameters to prevail in the upper half of B’ will naturally give 

the enhanced reflections and diminished downward propagation characteristic of this subcategory. 

Ultimately, of course, it would be desirable to obtain acoustic propagation data in all 

general areas of interest in order to provide the comparisons with models needed to refine 

the assignment of Table 2-5. 

2-4. References 

Akal, T. and F.B Jensen, 1983. Effects of the seabed on acoustic propagation. In

Acoustics and the Seabed (N.G. Pace ed.) Bath Univ. Press, Bath, UK, pp.225-

232. 

Craig and Thrasher, J.D., and G.P. Thrasher, 1982. Environmental geology of Harrison 

Bay, northern Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 82-35, 25 p. 

Dinter, D.A., 1982. Holocene marine sediments on the middle and outer continental shelf 

of the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous 

Investigations Series map I-1182-B. 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 85 

Dinter, D.A., 1985 Quaternary sedimentation on the Alaskan Beaufort Sea shelf: 

influence of regional tectonics, fluctuating sea levels and glacial sediment 

sources. Tectonophysic, , 114. pp.133-161. 

Foster, D.S., 1986. Quaternaryacoustic stratigraphy between the Colville River and 

Prudhoe bay, Beaufort Sea Shelf, Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey Open File 

Report 88-276, 107 p. 

Hamilton, E.L., 1980. Geoacoustic modelling of the sea floor. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 68, 

pp.1313-1328. 

Hopkins, D.M., 1967. Quaternary marine transgressions in Alaska, in the bering Land 

Bridge (Hopkins, D.M., ed), pp. 91-120. 

Rawlinson, S.E., 1986. late Cenozoic geology of the Arctic coastal Plain between the 

Colville and Canning Rivers, in Correlation of Quatenary deposits and events 

around the margins of the Beaufort Sea (J.A. Heginbottom and J.S. Vincent, eds.),

Contributions from a joint Canadian-American workshop, April, 1984. Geological 

Survey of Canada Open File Report 1273, pp 31-33. 

Reimnitz, Erk and K.F. Bruder, 1972. River drainage into an ice covered ocean and 

related sediment dispersal, Beaufort sea, coast of Alaska. Geological Society of 

America Bulletin, 83,pp.861-866. 

Reimnitz, Erk, and P.W. Barnes,, 1974. Sea ice as a geologic agent on the Beaufort Sea 

shelf, in The coast and shelf of the Beaufort Sea Shelf : Proceedings of a 

Synposium on Beaufort Sea Coast and Shelf Research (J.C. Reed and J.E. Sater, 

eds.), pp.301-353. 

Reimnitz, Erk and R. Ross., 1979. Lag deposits of boulders in Stefansson Sound; 

Beaufort Sea, Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 79-1205, 26p. 

Reimnitz, Erk and S.C. Wolf, 1998. are North Slope surface alluvial fans pre-Holocene 

relicts? U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1605, pp. 1-9. 

Rogers, J.C. and J.L. Morack, 1979. Beaufort Seacoast Permafrost Studies. In 

Environmental Assessment of the Alaskan Continental Shelf, Vulume X Hazards 

data Management, pp. 1-31. 

Smith, P.A., R.W. Hartz and D.M Hopkins, 1980. Offshore permafrost studies and 

shoreline history as an aid to predicting offshore permafrost conditions, in NOAA 

Environmental Assessment of the Alaskan Continental Shelf: Annual reports of 

Principal Investigatosr, March, 1980, v.4, pp.159-255. 

Smith, P.A., 1985. late Cenozoic stratigraphy of the Beaufort Sea inner shelf near 

Prudhoe bay, Alaska: 14th Arctic Workshop, Arctic Land-Sea Interaction, 

Abstracts 6-8, Nov.1985, Dartmouth, N.S.,Canada, Pp. 25-28. 

P.A. Smith, 1986. The Late Pleistocene-Holocene stratigraphic record, Canning river 

Delta region, northern Alaska, in Correlation of Quatenary deposits and events 

around the margins of the Beaufort Sea (J.A. Heginbottom and J.S. Vincent, eds.). 

Contributions from a joint Canadian-American workshop, April, 1984. Geological 

Survey of Canada Open File Report 1273, pp 51-54. 
Human Activities GIS Database Volume 1 

LGL Limited 86 

Urick, R.J. 1983. Principles of Underwater Sound,McGraw-Hill, N.Y., 423p. 

VerWest, B.J. and D. Bremner, 1997. Sound propagation and attenuation from airgun 

sources in shallow water., ARCO Exploration and Production Technology Report 

RR97-0010, 24 p. plus figures. 

Wolf, S.C., Erk Reimnitz and P.W. Barnes, 1985. Pleistocene and Holocene seismic 

stratigraphy between the canning River and Prudhoe bay, Beaufort Sea, Alaska, 

U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 85-549, 49 p. 

Wolf, S.C., P.W. Barnes, D.M. Rearic and Erk Reimnitz 1989. Quaternary seismic 

stratigraphy of the inner contintal shelf north of the Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge, pblished in Petroleum geology of the Northern Part of the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge, Northeastern Alaska.U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 

1778, pp. 61-78. 
#

#

#

70°71°72°

154°

154°

149°

149°

144°

144°

60 0 60 120 KilometersFigure 2-2. Stratigraphy - Layer 0 (Thickness < 1 meter. See text for details).

Barrow

Deadhorse

Kaktovik

TeshekpukLake

ColvilleRiver Canning 

River

Camden

Bay

Beaufort Sea

Da
#

#

#

0.0

10.0

2.5

15.0

5.0

20.0 5.0

3.0

25.0

2.0

20.0

1.0

4.0

4.0

2.0

0.5

3.0

30.0

18.3

6.0

4.0

22.9

2.0

1.0

2.0

2.0

4.0

8.0

19.8

4.0

35.0

16.8

7.0

3.0

40.0

4.0

3.0

4.0

21.3

24.4

4.0

0.0

2.0

2.0

3.0

6.0

2.0

3.0

15.2

1.0

2.0

45.0

1.0

5.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

5.0

2.0

6.0

8.0

1.0

25.9

27.4

1.0

7.0

1.0

2.0

6.0

2.0

5.0

13.7

3.0

4.0

6.0

1.0

3.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

1.0

6.0

2.0

6.0

5.0

6.0

6.0

1.0

4.0

5.0

2.0

5.0

6.0

2.0

2.0

6.0

5.0

7.0

6.0

4.0

6.0

5.0

2.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

6.0

3.0

6.0

8.0

7.0

8.0

5.0

8.0

3.0

8.0

3.0

5.0

70°71°72°

154°

154°

149°

149°

144°

144°

60 0 60 120 KilometersFigure 2-3. Stratigraphy - Layer 1 (Thickness in meters. See text for details).

Barrow

Deadhorse

Kaktovik

TeshekpukLake

ColvilleRiver Canning 

River

Camden

Bay

Beaufort Sea

Da

A/B A

A
#

#

#

60

5

0

45

35

50

65

70

40

25

55

30

35

30

75

40

15

15 20

80

85

45

90

95

105

100

25

20

10

165

140

160

145

65

10 135

155

125

120

115

130

110

7

45

50

45 55

55

35

40

150

70°71°72°

154°

154°

149°

149°

144°

144°

60 0 60 120 KilometersFigure 2-4. Stratigraphy - Layer 2 (Thickness in meters. See text for details).

Barrow

Deadhorse

Kaktovik

TeshekpukLake

ColvilleRiver Canning 

River

Camden

Bay

Beaufort Sea

Da

B'

B

B
#

#

#

12.29

13.81

15.34

16.86

10.76

10.76

18.38

0.00

13.81

19.91

13.81

12.29

19.91

12.29

13.81

21.43

13.81

15.34

21.43

12.29

15.34

13.81

16.86

22.96

21.43 18.38

13.81

24.48

21.43

23.99

16.86

8.47

22.96

24.48

15.34

24.60

22.96

23.99

24.60 24.48

21.43

22.96

24.60

22.96 24.48

12.29

23.38

16.86

12.29

24.60

22.77

23.99 23.38 23.99 22.77

23.38

70°71°72°

154°

154°

149°

149°

144°

144°

60 0 60 120 KilometersFigure 2-5. Stratigraphy - Layer 3 (Thickness in meters. See text for details).

Barrow

Deadhorse

Kaktovik

TeshekpukLake

ColvilleRiver Canning 

River

Camden

Bay

Beaufort Sea

Da

C/D