U.S. Department of the Interior

MInerals Management Service

Alaska OCS Region
U.S. Department of the interior

Minerals Management Service

Alaska OCS Region

949 E. 36th Avenue

Anchorage, Alaska 99508

Under Contract No. 14-35-0001-30570

Logistical Support and Report Preparation by:

MBC Applied Environmental Sciences

3040 Redhill Avenue

Costa Mesa, California 92626

February 1996

Graphics

SHERATON ANCHORAGE HOTEL

Dana T. Ecklund

Peter Brennan

Audio Visual And Technical Support By:

V IMIG VIDEO

Registration Assistance Provided By:

Russ and Shirley Seppi

courtesy of the

ANCHORAGE CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU

Nuiqsut Whaling Captains Assn. 73

The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission and History of Subsistence Whaling

off Point Barrow Nuvuk - Burton Rexford, Chair, Alaska Eskimo Whaling

Commission (AEWC), Barrow 77

General Discussion 82 - Joseph Kaleak, Whaling Captain, Kaktovik

Frank Long, Jr.; President, Nuiqsut Whaling Captains Assn

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

Thomas Agiak, AEWC Commissioner of Kaktovik

Thomas Napageak, AEWC Commissioner of Nuiqsut

Overview of Recent Sociocultural Studies in Nuiqsut and Kaktovik, Alaska

- Sverre Pedersen 87

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

Management, North Slope Borough

The Bowhead Whale Migration of Fall 1994 - Stephen Treacy and Warren Horowilz 93

Tracking the Habits of Bowhead Whales with Satellite-monitored Radio Tags

- Dr. Bruce Mate 101

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

Industrial Sources of Underwater Noise - Dr. Charles R. Greene, Jr. 111

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

Letter of Authorization for Incidental Take - Ron Morris 119

BP's Bowhead Wha'e Monitoring near the Northstar Development Unit,

August 1995 - Dr. Christopher J. Herlugson 125
the Management of Fish and Wildlife - Lany K. Bright 177

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

Anchorage

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

Trends in Occurrence Rates for Offshore Oil Spills and

the Beaufort Sea - Dr. Richard T. Prentki 187

Analysis and Forecasting of Sea Ice Conditions of the

Alaskan North Slope - Jeff Andrews 195

Modeling and Prediction of Ice Hazards near the OCS Development

Prospects in the Beaufort Sea - Dr. lgor Appel 197

New Arctic NPDES General Permit - Anne Dailey 203

APPENDICES

A Agenda

B Attendee Ust


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

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

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

Lastly, several comments were made during the meeting, acknowledging MMSs support

of studies. MMS would like to similarly acknow'edge the other parties who have brought their

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

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

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

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

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

pertinent conclusions and directions from their sessions.

Mr. Jeff Walker, Chair, introductory Session

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

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

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

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

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

Vanderkooy with CANMAR, and Mr. David McKeehan with INTEC, did an outstanding job in
West ColvUh. HhøhpsPiit National K Peboleum Resen'e i--' Alaska I 

Ne

OIl 

Ga

FIgure 1. North Slope oil 
1 STATUTE MILES

20

1 I KILOMETERS

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

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

on line.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

appropriate Technology, new and borrowed. Lastly, he described how these levers can be
Figure 3. LocatIon and shape of Hammerhead Unit and Kuvium Unit.

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

Mr. Watt described similar engineering designs, using the term Nieveraged technologies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in the North Sea, could be the most leveraging concept for the eastern Beaufort Sea discoveries.
and then laying the pipe into the trench. He descnbed an installation option that is commonly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

unique sociocuftural situation.

All of these introducto.y speakers acknowledged that the industry is working to move

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

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

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

environmental work, environmental studies, and environmental concerns.

Dr. Steve Langdon, Chair, Soclocultural Session

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

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

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

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

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

of the most impcvenshed areas in the nation.
Other people described the development plans for the new Beaufort Sea prospect called

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

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

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

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

letting us participate in this meeting.

Dr. Thomas Albert, Chair, Bowhead Whale Session

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

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

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

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

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

"coattails," one way or another.

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

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

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

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

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

been done by different groups. The major groups of stakeholders who have really contributed
and various others. We should remember which stakeholders have been there the longest. That

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

animal.

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

for letting me participate.
and to collect some of that information that we know we are going to need and that we are going

to regret not having if we wait.

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

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

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

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

collected in the Beaufort Sea development areas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

exploration and development.

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

cleaning up oil spills in ice-covered environments. It is not an easy thing to do but there could

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

fair amount of work helping to prevent the spills. But we still need to look at spill clean up in icecovered and broken-ice situations.
p, p, ppp

projects, taking into account pipeline length.

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

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

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

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

be any discharges of muds and cuttings.

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

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

and sanitary waste. The major discharges are re-injected, including produced waters. This is

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

during the last few years.

GENERAL COMMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

tagging studies shows that there may be some distinct depths within the ocean that the whales
Grant Waithers: I would like to encourage the corporations, the State of Alaska, and the federal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

we should give this creative and serious consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

truly systems managers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a Russian, Canadian, and U.S. international project. It is not just a plan, they had a pilot
y g, y 



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

Before I introduce our first speaker, I would like to recognze Dr. Tom Newbuty, who has

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

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

logistics.

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

Gottlieb, the Regional Director for the Alaska Region.

Judith Gottileb

Regional Director

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

Anchorage, AK 99508

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

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

to look forward and plan for the future.

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

Borough (NSB) Not only are there distinguished representatrves from the North Slope Borough

but we're also happy to have representatives from the villages and whaling captains. Maybe we
Thursday, October 26.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

including the public process.

The draft proposed Five-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 1997 to 2002 was

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

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

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

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

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

issues and alternatives that we need to review and consider.

To help with development of the proposed five-year program in Alaska, we proposed an

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

Committee - the same committee which advises the Secretary of Interior on the offshore
concerns. The future of the program Will depend in large part on improved communication

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

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

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

together, discussing the available information and building open communication.

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

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

that!

Cynthia Quarterman

Director

Minerals Management Service

Washington, D.C. 20240

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

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

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

the OCS Program.

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

OCS Region is a very important part of our Nation's offshore minerals management program, and
Of course, the OCS Program, to be successful, has to be built on open communications,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

region.

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

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

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

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

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

to keep in mind those things.

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

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


are:

ypppjp

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

scope for interested readers.

CORNERSTONES OF SUCCESS

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

Alignment

Simplicity

Ability to Change

Technology

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

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

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

step-changes that can be achieved with alternative approaches to apparently intractable
problems. This paper will unfortunately only scratch the surface of these ideas but will hopefully

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

Alignment

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

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

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

until we break it down into logical elements.

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

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

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

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

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

offered to submit the project to an Environmental Impact Statement (ElS) process. Historically,

Shared or new

Logistics

Air

Barge

Hovercraft

Ice Road
scheme and quite another to develop a shared vision of the future and shared commitment to

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

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

goal, and have the ability and desire to think outside the box.

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

for all to do is iisten, particularly when we carry with us the baggage of past experience and

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

understood and incorporated into a development proposal.

Simplicity

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

the right way, can be made ever more complicated

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

making the simple, complex Often when faced with the challenge of cutting capttal costs, we

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

which is not absolutely necessary. We often design facilities full of nce-to-haves. By looking to

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

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

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

A paradigm of the past is that constructing basic, simple facilities may reduce capital

costs but increase operating costs and decrease reliability. We now believe the opposite is true.
On Northstar we are committed to reducing the costs of development from $1.5 billion

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

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

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

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

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

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

some control and re-invent the project management process.

'Younger people learn more quick)y than older people. Not

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

have less to un-learn.

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

paradigm has shifted and we are back to zero1 discovering a new way of relating. That can only

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

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

it.

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

expecting to achieve a different outcome.

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

audit suppliers and contractors are inappropriate when the parties are truly aligned.
Tom Newbury: Is it much more expensive to build and maintain a pipeline ofishore than

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

Endicott as opposed an onshore pipeline?

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

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

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

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

cheapest, most effective solution. We then lind, once we start gMng our contractors more input

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of doing things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lower the commercial reserve threshold even further.

BACKGROUND

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

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

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

that may have application. The North Slope area has had a number of exploratory discoveries

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

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

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

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

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

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

in the multi-year sea ice zone. Kuvlum is a large hydrocarbon bearing structure with more than
40,000 acres of structure closure and a large oil column. The discovery well, Kuvium # 1,

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

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

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

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

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

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

reasons were as follows:

- Good Reservoir Sand and Large Structure

- Potential for Improving Infrastructure

- Improving Technologies

- Improving Fiscal Terms

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

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

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

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

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

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

paleontological studies will hopefully reduce the reservoir risk.

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

of the North Slope. The eastern Beaufort Sea/North Slope area has had a number of exploratory

utilized in the Kuvium arctic environment. Three general deveopment options have been

reviewed:

Subsea

Existing Bottom-Founded Vessels, and

Purpose Built.

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

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

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

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

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

reserve range.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example, the Tornado bft will drill a glory hole 20 to 24 feet in diameter and a depth of ±40

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

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

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

used in drilling the Kuvium wells.
FIgure 4. CompletIon tree In silo.

on the sea bed. The conduit and

setting down the SSDC.

gy 

dredger to lay out the area for the manifold

and pipelines to shore would be better utilized.

Another marginal development

approach investigated the use of existing

bottom-founded vessels. The bottom-founded

vessels considered Were the Single Steel

Drilling Caisson (SSDC) from Canmar, the

Concrete Island Drilling Structure (CIDS) from

Global Marine, and the Molikpaq from

Beaudnll. All of these vessels are for water

depths ranging from 50 to 80 feet. Since the

water depth averages 105 feet at Kuvium, a

subsea berm is necessary. Berms and gravel

islands of this size have been constructed; the

Uviluk berm would be very similar. Figure 8

shows the development concept using the

SSDC. The appraisal wells could be drilled

prior to the berm construction and be utilized

via a caisson rising through the berm. This

concept also has a conduit for the pipelines

caisson would be installed prior to dredging the berm and
Figure 7. Subsea system.

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

purpose built structure is not required.

TREE

TRENCH

SPOILS

LOW RESERVE POTENTIAL

MANIFOLD GLORYHOLE WITH SUBSEA TREE

SILOS DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

PIOO

TRENCH

FLOY&INE

BUNDLE

DRII LLO

MANIFOLD GLORThOLE

APPROACH TRENCH

MANIFOLD

TEMPLATE

(S
Figire a. Bottom-founde
reach to about 14,000 feet. The departures being considered for Kuvlum are 34 to 1. In some

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

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

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

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

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

rates that are typical in the Beaufort Sea.

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

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

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

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

costs.

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

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

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

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

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

to shore where existing facilities could be used.

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

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

will be utilized as much as possible.
Tom Newbury: Are there complications that arise when oil from many reservoirs is combined in

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

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

flowed into the same pipeline?

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

would come from each field - the pipeline and pumping stations can handle those problems.

y g

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

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

951000 acres divided into 202 tracts, lying predominately between the Trans-Alaska Pipeline

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

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

Sale 86, Central Beaufort Sea, scheduled for April 1997, is predominantly an offshore sale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

waters adjacent to ANWR and the National Petroleum Reseive Alaska (NPRA) will be offered in

these two sales. If included, this will be the first time these lagoonal areas have been offered in

a lease sale.

Public NotIficatIon Process

The Division of Oil and Gas has developed a public notification process that includes no

less than four public comment periods for each regularly scheduled sale. According to state

statute, a lease sale must appear on the five-year program a minimum of two years. Figure 2

gives the public notification schedule for each sale on the five-year leasing program. Sales

located within the Arctic region of Alaska are highlighted.
Figure 1. North S
Proposed 8.1. A

Caps Ys

7A-W 7W Cook but 

CookLM1------.- S

M £ss.m 

Iis'4oitSim

C.caIr1- 

I = Nsw I

2 R f

E_ Figure 2. FIve-yea

Cook bust 
Finding, including wildlife species and habitat, current and projected uses of the sale area,

cumulative effects of oil and gas actMtles on the environment and local communities, and the

fiscal effects on local communities. The public is iven five months during which they may supply

the dMsion with information and comment on these and other topics.

This final call for comments begins the dMsion's best interest finding process. State law

requires that the director of the DMsion of Oil and Gas find that the lease sale is in the state's

best interests before it may be conducted. This final finding and decision by the director must be

issued at least 90 days prior to the lease sale. Six months prior to Issuing the final finding, a

preliminary finding is released followed by a 60-day public comment period. During this comment

period the division schedules at least one public hearing, more if they are requested. Though this

is the only time in which the dMslon conducts its own public hearing, dMsion representatives

attend hearings conducted by local governing bodies throughout the public process.

An important component of the best interest finding is an expianaton of the mitigation

measures, which are designed to aileviate any adverse effects of oil and gas expioration and

development. These mitigation measures, which must be consistent with the Aiaska. Coastal

Management Plan (ACMP) and with iocal borough and municipal coastal management p'ans, are

developed utizing Information received during the comment periods from agencies, oca

governing bodies, environmenta' groups and the oil Industry, and from research by dMsion staff

members.
During the term of its leases a lessee may form an exploration unit which then extends

the life of the leases. If it is determined by the operators of the unit that commercial production

is feasible, then a production unit is formed. The division currently manages four exploration units

and four production units on the North Slope (Figure 3). Forming an exploration unit requires a

plan of exploration agreed to by the division. The dMsion annually reviews these plans, or, if they

are multi-year plans, reviews them just prior to their expiration to ensure activity is proceeding on

schedule. Exploration plans generally require the drilling of at least one exploratory well along

with the possible gathering of 2-D or 3-D seismic data. The division is responsible for ensuring

that an exploratory unit encompasses the minimum area needed to carry out the proposed

exploration plan.

Once the unit operators have made a decision to form a production unit, the

commissioner must approve a participating area (the area of productivity). Unless circumstances

warrant a delay in doing so, ten years after sustained production the unit area is contracted to

include only the participating area. There is no subsequent contraction of the unit. it is also

possible to expand production units. Expansion of a unit can only occur if it is determined that

the participating area (i.e., the area of production) should be expanded. An example of this was

the expansion of the Prudhoe Bay Unit to include the Point Mcintyre field.

Summary

The Alaska Division of Oil and Gas, responsible for conducting the state's oil and gas

leasing program, proposes the offering of essentially all unleased state acreage on the North

Slope and in the Beaufort Sea by the year 1999. The division is also responsible for managing

the units formed from oil and gas leases, and currently manages eight exploration and production

units within Alaska's Arctic region.
Natiortul Petroleum Reserve. Alaska Kuukpik Unit Nuiqsu Kuper

Kuparuk River 

Legend Unit. Oft P . 

FIgure 3. Central Nor
transportation systems For example

Global Ice Loads:

Full scale tests since 1980 demonstrate that the design for an offshore structure can

be based on 100,000 tonnes load This design load represents a reduction factor of 15,

from the 1500,000 tonnes accepted in 1980.

The reduction in the design load will result in significant savings in construction costs

of the prOduction structure and site preparation.

The footprint for the new structure is less than 2% of the footprint proposed during the

1982 Environmental Impact Heanngs on Beaufort Sea Production This will result in

minimal disturbance of the ocean floor and increase flexibility to move the platform to

another field.

Transportation considerations:

A minimum of 1 billion barrels of reserves is required to justify a pipeline down the

Mackenzie Valley which would tie in with other distribution systems. This option is

therefore not considered in this paper.

Arctic marine transportation using ice breakers presents a viable alternative to carry the

crude oil to the market or for transshipment to TAPS. This conclusion is based on the

following:
design and operational experience. Current technology and financial analyses provide additional

evidence of the potential prize.

A recent study conducted for the Canadian Government Panel on Energy Research and

Development (PERD) identilled that a world oil price of $11.10 per barrel would support a

production project from a 350 million barrel field, using marine transportation. CANMAR's financial

analyses for a 200 million barrel reservoir support these findings. Several such discoveries have

been made in Canada.

Small scale production in the Beaufort Sea would result in a number of additional

opportunities. For example:

Development of a service industry and direct Northern Community participation.

Linking development of other small field in both Canada and the Alaskan Beaufort

Sea, thus creating a Stnng of Pearls.

Opportunity to add volume throughput in TAPS.

WHAT NEXT?:

Continue the dialogue with potential operators and regulatory agencies to demonstrate

that such a proposal is viable and feasible.
Grant Wa)ther Sir, are you aware of the Manhattan Project? There were some problems with

that. More recently, of course, we have had the Bocon oil spill. As far as tanker technology goes

in the Arctic, what contingency plans do you have to alleviate catastrophic oil spills? Specifically,

how would you alleviate them? Of particular concern is oil coagulation in the Arctic. It doesn't

decompose nearly as fast as it does in rmer ters. Would you please address those

subjects?

Nick Vanderkooy: I don't have all the answers for you. As the interest is generated, we start

developing the plans. I think we need to jointly look at those specific questions that you have and

build on that. Then build the confidence that the type of structural integrity that you bring into an

Arctic-class ice breaking tanker, that the sheU is sound enough that it can withstand pressures,

that it can run aground without puncturing the shell. We are operating in an environment where

we don't have the Pre-Cambnan Shield sticking out that we can run on top. Along our entire

combined coast it is relatively soft. You saw the structural integrity that was built into the Kigoriak

and that was after 15 years of abuse. The shell is intact. That technology will be incorporated in

the design of the outer shell. The cargo itself is all held in internal tanks, so that provides you with

a double insurance that the cargo is secure in there. Contingency plans will be developed as they

are with all facilities or exploration that is taking place right now. In Canada, we have to go

through a very stringent review process as well. So some of these things will be addressed. From

where I am standing now, and none of the detailed engineering work has been done on it, your

concerns will be addressed and wilt be worked on jointly.

Jim Watt: I have a couple of questions. Does the Canadian Government offer any incentives to

operators in the Beaufort Sea in terms of lower royalties or taxes, anything along those lines?
deliver it to another U.S. port.

Unidentified Questioner: I was trying to get to the point to where your support vessels for U.S.

ports, basically have to be U.S. vessels.

Grant Wafther: What about submarine tankers? Have you looked into that? There was a lot of

speculation on that in the 1960s, late 1970s.

Nick Vanderkooy: I don't think that, at this point in time, for the size of potential production, that

this is a realistic way to go.
It is interesting to note that from the standpoint of Arctic pipelines, the Alaska Arctic has

been studied intensely for about 20 years, ever since exploration welts were drilled here offshore.

What is unusual is that in most frontier areas after 20 years of study, there frequently

usually is something to show for it. There would be a pipeline in existence. One of the reasons

is that there have been some ups and downs, some cycles in the oil and gas economies. It

seems that just about the time we got ready to put one in, the bottom dropped out of the market.

The reservoir didn't prove up. Conditions changed.

We may be looking at this year a prospect which, although shallow water, may be the

actual first real Arctic operational pipeline just off Prudhoe Bay. I'm talking about BP's Northstar

project.

Earlier studies that have looked at ways of transporting oil and gas out of the region have

largely focused on tankers. In the mid- to late 1980s, a lot of research was done on Arctic icebreaking tankers, trying to get transshipment terminals out of the Chukchi Sea area down to Point

Hope; possibly an overland line to the Trans Alaska Pipeline; possibly ice-strengthened tankers

down to Nome; A transshipment terminal and on down south to the lower 48.

These have fallen out of favor now in terms of risk and incidents, etc. The focus has

shifted towards pipelines which have a significantly higher reliability aspect to them in terms of

potential risk to the environment.

One of the first things we want to do is characterize the region not just from a

construction standpoint but from a design standpoint as wel!. Open water conditions can be quite
gyg

As I pointed out, a lot of this work has been done in specific Arctic areas in the

expectation of a marine pipeline installation. But to date, we are still in the process of gathering

additional data to try to improve our calculations, models, and our assessments of risk.

The big risk, of course, is ice scour. That's going to determine the depth to which we

need to bury the pipe below the seabed.

The second one is the potential risk of permafrost. Although that's not typical offshore,

we do find it. We also find discontinuous permafrost patches, relic permafrost at shallow enough

depth locations and soils locations to pose a subsidence problem to a pipe.

The ice cover prevents us from doing the installation the way we would normally do it;

and that is with floating equipment, conventional welding, dredging, etc. We have a very limited

open water season.

And lastly, we have the soils and the soil mechanics issues which are not necessarily

unique to the Arctic but have to be considered.

The first step in the design process is to gather information along the seabed. We can

support this with aerial photography to characterize ice features. The only sure way is to use sidescan acoustic survey techniques to map the existing scour characteristics of the seabed.
fast and relatively stable. It turns out that the Seal Island prospect essentially falls in land-fast ice

zone. It's not perfectly stable or bottom-fast. It does have some movement but it's manageable.

Further out we have the active shear layer which is that section between the fast-ice

region and the offshore pack ice, which is mobile.

In the Canadian Beaufort on the East Amauligak project, we did find permafrost in the

marine section and it had a depth below the mud line of about ten meters. But there is an active

layer, one which is seasonally frozen, which corresponds to about the water depth where the ice

contacts the bottom in winter. So at about the I to 2 m water depth, we have a seasonally frozen

active layer. Both of these types of permafrost do present an issue for pipeline design. We want

to protect against differential settlement and thaw strains which might come into play if this

permafrost were to melt.

As it turned out in these areas, we did not find permafrost near the surface but relatively

low, down around 20 to 25 m. Then it came up right up in here. It was about 18 m below the mud

line and then dropped off very quickly once we got out into the full water depth, which was at 20

to 30 m.

Step two in the process, after we've gathered the information - soils, ice scour, ice

gouge information - is to design the pipeline to be safe against ice scour damage. There is

almost no way to get around the requirement of a deep trench, at least in these areas.
As we get into deeper water, this tends to spread out a little bit. But when we do get

scours, they can be a little more severe. In 150 ft or so, in the very deepest regions, we can get

a relatively flat seabed but when we get scour it is significant.

The trick now, of course, is to determine when scour features originated. Scour may be

hundreds or thousands of years old. The deposition rates in deep water are relatively low,

provided you are not near one of the river deltas. So they can retain their shape for many years.

Now, we're dealing with water depth in the range of 40 ft for the Northstar prospects, so

you can get an idea. But as we go out, we can see it would become a more increased trench

depth or scour depth limitation. Incidently, the deepest water depth in which scours that have

been seen to my knowledge are in the range of about 160 to 180 ft, except off Labrador where

you have large icebergs which can ground, making it a little deeper.

So in gathering this information, we attempt to characterize the area on a map showing

the isolines of mean ècour depth. As we get farther offshore, the mean scour depth gets up to

4 to 6 ft. There are a couple of areas where you have bathymetric relief which has caused some

deeper keels and deeper scours. As we get in shallower water, it's only 2 to 4 ft.

So these numbers aren't particularly unnerving from a pipe trenching standpoint because

we routinely trench pipelines down to 3 or 4 ft deep below the seabed. But this isn't the whole

story.
What this effort produces is a set of curves. The curves were prepared for the Canadian

Beaufort and the eastern side of the Chukchi Sea using two statistical data sets - one being the

number of keels which cut to a certain depth and the other being the frequency of re-scour.

When we get into about 100 ft water depth, that's the worst case for a manne pipeline.

These data sets resulted in a required trench depth of just over 15 ft. That does give us a

problem from a marine construction standpoint because that is five times or so to what we would

normally trench a pipeline.

However, in shallow water, the picture is a little better. Given that we are inside the bamer

islands in many cases, we're in the land-fast zone. Now inside of the 65 ft contour, we're down

to about 6 to 9 ft trench depth. Now, this is a reasonable first step to take for pipelines which

would be largely in the land-fast ice zone and corresponds roughly to the kind of figures that we

are seeing in the Northstar region, although this particular area is somewhat more favorable than

either of these two example sites.

Another issue which I mentioned but which needs to be elaborated is the permafrost

effect on the pipelines. What we are concerned about is that we originally lay the line flat and

straight on the seabed but suppose it has a permafrost boundary which is below that pipe and

it's not even? There is a tendency for permafrost boundanes to be continuous or discontinuous;

they're not just horizontal and flat. If the pipeline is hot, it will, over a period of years, create a

thaw radius around it, which will melt and degrade the permafrost. If that is the type of material

that is thaw unstable - in other words, if it is sift or sitty sand as opposed to gravel and gravely

sand - then this may create settlement or an eroded boundary. That, in turn allows the pipe to

settle unevenly.
gives you an almost thermally perfect carrier, which means that the inner fluid may be transported

at 1500 F, and the outer surface of this is down around ambient soil temperature about 3Oto 350

F. So you get very little heat loss.

Alternative systems include filled elastomers. That's a little cheaper to use and install but

probably not likely to be used in the Arctic.

Those are the two critical design parameters. There are several others but I would like to

move into construction techniques so we can see how these things might blend together.

Well, we don't really want to try to bring in tankers in this type of environment and we can

design the pipeline to be safe if we engineer it property. But let's take a quick look at where the

costs are because ultimately that's one of the reasons why there aren't any marine pipelines right

now.

The big expense is dredging and excavation. That's an upshot of the ice scour risk.

Another one is materials. That is the line pipe itself and the support equipment. Getting it up

there. Logistics. The pipe installation itself is less of a cost factor. Engineering, construction,

management, although not a significant factor, is more expensive than conventional because of

the extensive planning for contingencies.

So as construction engineers we try to see if we can't come up with some novel ways of

reducing the cost of dredging, excavation, and logistics and maybe the cost of any work in

shallow water. I would love to spend about two hours going through some of the designs that
Another dredge that never was built, but saw a lot of sketches done on it, is a so-called

linear dredge. The principle being somewhat similar to the cutLer suction dredge, but in this case,

the arm doesn't swing left and right. It simply goes along in a narrow trench, and it wou'd be built

specifically for Arctic pipeline trenches. It's a good idea but vely expensive and the infrastructure

isn't quite there yet to support this kind of dredge. Maybe some day in the future, but not yet.

Another dredge which has been used up in the Arctic, the Geopotes was mentioned this

morning. It's a trailing hopper dredge which can move massive amountS of material. ft's not vely

good in hard soils. It tends to excavate like a vacuum cleaner. But it has had some work in ice.

One way to get around that is to consider the use of the trailing hopper dredge to get a

broad section cut down to about 5 or 6 ft and then use a more surgicartool likea clam shell

dredge to excavate the remaining 4 or 5 ft. This Is a procedure which has been used in some

cases to get a deep trench without having to move too much material.

But from the standpoint of cost reduction, these trailing hopper dredges are still fairly

expensfe. They would require wintering over in a season or perhaps two, so it's not our first line

of defense.

Neither is a mechanical trencher. It's qufte useful in short sections or maybe a couple of

miles. Tending to be used in deep tor and it is the first of a senes that I'll show that is a posttrenching device. In other words, the pipe is laid on the seabed and then another tool is lowered

on top of the pipe and is dragged along it, and the cutter excavates. It's a submarine dredge, it

you will.
Starting with the most conventional, you won't see this in the Arctic for a long time to

come and certainly not in the Northstar prospect, a third generation semi-submersible lay barge.

These are for deep water. It is the classical method of laying pipelines where the pipe. is welded

in joints, 40-foot joints welded together. Usually, automatic welding is used, and then the pipe is

laid off a stinger.

The barge has a pair of large, horizontal tensioners, which maintain upwards of about 200

tons of horizontal tension to hold the pipe in the correct geometry. These have a working draft

of about 45 ft, so we won't be able to use these in the shallow water.

With an eye towards optimism, back in the 1980s, one of the shipyards, Valmet in this

case, came up with a dedicated ArCtIC pipe layer which would have high speed flash butt welding.

It was a technique developed by the Paton Institute in Russia for joining pipelines. McDermott had

worked on it and perfected it. This would use flash butt welding to make up pipe at about three

or four times the speed normally found in conventional lay barges to enable her to get in and get

out in one open water construction season.

Another method is the reel ship, the Apache. This is a very fast method and this enables

us to spool up pipe like wire on a drum and then pay it off as the vessel steams down along the

right of way. The vessel was built in the late 1970s. It's. been active ever since. It's an excellent

piece of equipment which has seen a lot of service. The only limitationis that 14-inch, 16-inch

diameter is about the largest diameter pipe the Apache can spool up. And that particular vessel
That concludes the general view. I'd like to quickly just go through some of the specifics

that have become of interest in the Northstar work just lately. The prospect is a total distance of

about 5 or 6 mi offshore in fairly shallow water, 40 ft at Seal Island.

Now, ice gouges. Since I made such a big deal about ice gouges, I better say something

about where we are on this. Based on work by Harding and Lawson in 1983, 1984, and 1985, the

maximum gouge depth that we saw was a little over a foot. So that's not too severe. It was a lot

of work by Harding and Lawson's specialists to go through and match up scours year after year

over a period of three years and determine the number of new scours that took place each year.

But they were able to do that and it wasn't as severe as some of the othe! areas that we're

dealing with. Ultimately, that led us to this conclusion of risk. If we look at Site 3-only data and

we take a risk during the entire operating life of the line of one chance in ten thousand, or one

chance in a hundred thousand, the design keel depth would be about 6 ft.

Now, allowing for about another 3 ft or so for the secondary factors I mentioned, we're

looking right now at a scour depth of about 10 ft based on this information. Again, a little bit

better than if we used regional data.

For the soils that we see along the route, to date we don't have enough soils data to say

for certain, but we have not seen evidence of thaw unstable permafrost. We do have mainly silty,

clays here, sandy clays here. More sands, a tendency toward sands down here and then a layer

of fairly thaw-stable materials, sands and gravels, at about 10 ft below the mud line.
what wed use here.

The technique that is a personal favorite of mine, at this point, for the Northstar installation

is a pre-dredged trench with a slot cut in the ice. The pipe is made up in strings and towed out

on the ice and lowered through the ice slot using a combination of buoys and lowering cables.

We may or may not need pipeline tension. Probably not in this case except perhaps in the very

deepest water. The reason I like this is it makes excellent use of local technology and relatively

small equipment. It's a very controllable and manageable installation technique in these water

depths at least. We would have the benefit of having a pre-dredged trench which we would be

certain is already meeting specifIcations As it turns out, an installation like this has been done

recently in Canada in one of the lakes.

A summary of the approaches that we see are essential for marine Arctic lines include:

a good understanding of the limit states, the structural strength of the pipe, ice gouge protection,

and permafrost; construction activities which have to reflect the sensitivity of the environment and

the regional specifics; and lastly, operational reliability, which is what we're left with after the

pipeline is installed. And that, of course, feeds back and comes directly out of the design

integrity, which is done early on.
David McKeehan: Thats a real good question. Right now, were anticipating spreading it out on

the ice uniformly or dispersing it uniformly. But actively in conideration is use of that spoil to

dump back in the trench as a backfill medium. There are some issues associated with that. Mainly

it's the liquefaction of that material. When a pipe is in a trench and you put native soil back in the

trench, if it's not granular and fairly stable, it can actually liquify and lift the pipe out of the trench,

which would be a real problem because then you have the pipe sitting on a liquified soil layer.

We're looking at ways of getting around that by making the pipe heavy with additional

wall thickness, which we may end up just putting the soil back in the trench.

Audience Member: I'd like to follow up on that question. What kind of resources do you have

to 1111 up that hole? Uke gravel? Do you have any access to these materials to fill with?

David McKoehan: Yes, that's a very site-specific study. I assume you're referring to Northstar?

There are enough gravel resources to till that up. It's a cost issue, which amazingly enough, didn't

come out to be as much as I thought it would be. But it's evidently available to do that.

Audience Member Should an on-ice system where you were using conventional excavation

techniques, and you had spreaders there it looked like, probably just to keep material from

flowing from one section to another. But we learned the other day that the pressure of ice moving

could be a hundred thousand tons. How would you anticipate keeping the ice separated when

you have a long cut through it?

David McKeehan: Excellent question. It's one that we're really struggling with. In bottom-fast ice,

we don't think we're going to have too much of motion characteristics. The trick is to get out
David McKeehan: Marine pipelines in seismic areas are fairly common. The techniques that you

try to use, of course, are not to bury it and not to back fill it, which goes counter to what we

probably have to do here. So it's probably fortunate that we don't have to deal with both of those

challenges at the same project at the same time.

However, in case we would have to, or in areas where we do have sizeable amount of

shear motion, the best way to do it is to get to a very thick wall pipe. Now, I'm refemng to D over

T, diameter to wall thickness in the range of 15 to 20. That type of pipe is extremely resistant and

it behaves like that one piece of pipe which I showed here. It will shut in production automatically

before it ruptures. So, in the event that you had the worst combination of a seismic, shear slips,

and faults with a buried line with compact, competent soil and it caused bending of the pipe, the

pipe would probably survive it. Having said all that, there still would be some risk if you had that

case though.

Audience Member You concluded that shipping oil in the Arctic through tankers is

environmentally not sound. Is that correct?

David McKeehan: I didn't quite say that. I think it's not the favorite solution at this point.

AUdience Member Are you familiar with the international North Sea route program?

David McKeehan: No, I'm not.


Task Force members met and developed what they call Evaluation Criteria. These

criteria categorize all the issues and concerns that would be used in debating and making

decisions and recommendations on the proposed Five Year Program. These evaluation criteria

include: prospectivity, which was inclusive of both industry interest and resource potential;

existing infrastructure; technological capabilities and limitations for dnlling, exploration,

production, and oil spill clean up; local and tribal government and community interests;

subsistence and socioeconomic and cultural interests and environmental concerns and values.

Under each of these evaluation criteria, there is a whole list of additional concerns, issues,

conflicts, and problems that were identified, which are summarized in the Stakeholder Task Force

Report.

The Task Force met twice; and local community meetings were also held in some of the

key communities: Barrow, Yakutak, Kodiak, and Kenai. Following discussions and input from the

local stakeholders that they represented, the Task Force came up with the following

recommendations:

Use the Evaluation Criteria in considering the Five Year Planning Areas;

Include the issues and concerns identified as scoping issues to be put in and evaluated

in Environmental Impact Statement (ElS).

Schedule sales to be included in the next fIve year schedule so that they would be held

one per year, and there should be order and predictability in the lease sale schedule.
gg py y ;

to meet with the Native population community leaders and other Native organizations, both to

identify where we can get information and how to incorporate it into our decision making process.

It is important to recognize that while the Task Force worked hard to reach consensus,

there was a multi-diverse group of indMduals, and there was not always consensus by the Task

Force on the recommendations made. The Task Force did provide an opportunity for open

discussion of concerns. Everyone on the Task Force was pleased with the process and welcomed

the opportunity to table issues and concerns early in the process before the government was set

in a decision. The recommendations reflect interest and support for including these live planning

areas in the proposed Five Year Program for further analysis. There was a minority report

submitted that reflected that the Task Force and the recommendations are not consistent with

continued opposition by communities for individual lease sale activities. The Alaska OCS Regional

Office is continuing with outreach programs and working with communities to resolve concerns

and issues for these indMdual lease sales.

The OCS Policy Committee did accept the recommendations of the Task Force and the

Secretary of the Interior used these recommendations in developing the draft proposed Five Year

Program. The OCS Policy Committee has also recommended that Task Forces similar to this

continue to be used where all parties agree that it is a worthwhile effort. The Alaska Regional

Stakeholders Task Force will continue through the completion of the Five Year Program. The Task

Force is in the process of adjusting its membership so that the live planning areas that are

included in the draft program have appropriate representation. There will be new representation

from Cook Inlet, both Native, tribal, and public interests; new representation of the academic

community; and new representatives of tribal and subsistence interests from the North Slope.


will be paid to the North Slope Borough as an institution - political, economic, social, and

educational - that has effectively mediated many of the changes for the Inupiat people allowing

a positive identity to be maintained and transmitted. Finally, perspectives on the direction North

Slope society will take in the future raised by the National Research Council study, Environmental

Information for Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Decisions, will be discussed in regard to the

need for specific kinds of research to address the key issues.

INUPtAT SOCIETY - ADAPTIVE INSTITUTIONS

Present archeological information indicates that human beings began utilizing the North

Slope region as earty as 10-12,000 years ago (Mesa site) (Table 1). That initial utilization seems

to have been onented toward terrestrial, poss,bly supplemented by river and lake resources;

evidence for the utilization of marine resources, particularty seals, begins about 4,200 years ago

(Anderson 1990). Important technological developments, such as the toggling harpoon head,

made possible wrnter sea-ice hunting of seals at blow holes thus beginning the shift toward use

of marine resources in the region.

Although evidence of whaling can be dated to 3,400 years ago (at only one site), it

disappears for sometime and begins again in the archeological record about 2,000 years ago on

Sivuqaq (St. Lawrence Island) and about 1,500 years ago throughout coastal northwest Alaska

from Bering Straits to the vicinity of Point Barrow. Beginning about 1 ,000 years ago, the complex

of cultural elements called the Thule tradition, wfth its broad flexible subsistence technologies and

its success in hunting large marine mammals, made possible large Eskimo villages at a number

of key coastal locations in the North Slope region. In addition, the Thule tradition, also

successfully adapted to the interior of the North Slope and the Brooks Range, emphasizing
1940s Military and construction experiences for many Inupiat men

1 950s Defeat of tuberculosis and extension of medical care produce

"baby boom"

Statehood 1960 Statehood and Barrow Duck-In

1968 Discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay

1972-1974 Formation of North Slope Borough

1977 Ban on bowhead whaling and creation of the Alaska Eskimo

Whaling Commission

1979 Completion of the Alyeska Pipeline

1980-1986 Capital Improvement Program upgrades housing and public

facilities

1994 Opening of Dalton Highway to public

1995 First non-Native mayor of Barrow; repeal of alcohol ban;

reported decline in caribou numbers in pipeline area
population but the constellation of institutions, values, ideas and behaviors allowed for a vigorous

people and culture whose persistence and increase in one of the most extreme environments in

the world is testament to their success.

HISTORICAL CHANGES

In the late 18th century, premonitions of change begah to be felt in the region as new

materials such as iron, tobacco, and perhaps alcohol began to be acquired by the Inupiat

through trading patterns which linked them through Native peoples around Bering Straits to

Russian trading posts at the mouth of the Kolyma River in northern Siberia. The first European

exploration reached the Point Barrow area in 1831.

In the 1850s, American whaling vessels from New England passed north through the

Bering Straits in pursuit of the bowhead whale. This began the process of contact with American

culture. At first the contacts involved relations primarily of trade with Americans providing

technical items such as guns, pots, pans, stoves, and iron as well as unfortunately alcohol, and

Inupiat providing skins, garments, whale bone (baleen), labor and environmental expertise

(Bockstoce 1986). Relations were often not amicable.

In the 1 880s, the whaling industry took a new direction as shore stations were established

by companies to be able to gain access to whales during their spring passage through the leads

between the shorefast and offshore ice. Many Inupiat were employed seasonally by the whaling

stations and some Americans, such as Charles Brower, Fred Hopson and George Leavitt, elected

to settle on the North Slope and take Inupiat wives. By the 1890s, several Inupiat entrepreneurs

had entered the commerce organizing as many as six crews and hiring whites to work for them.
ways by the Inupiat of the North Slope. Perhaps most influentially, lnupiat men became familtar

with the nature of American society and its standard of living through service in the armed forces

and employment at various construction sites. They became familiar with foods, appliances,

clothing, housing and many other technical amenities of American life. Some chose to remain in

this new environment. The majority, however, returned to their North Slope homes with an interest

in improving the quality of life in their home communities.

The extension of medical care for infants and the suppression of tuberculosis in the 1950s

led to a baby boom throughout Native Alaska and a rapid increase in family size among Inupiat.

Coupled with limited availability of local wage labor and a collapsed market for furs, the North

Slope Inupiat were among the most impoverished Americans when the federal government began

its 1War on Poverty in the mid-1960s.

OIL DISCOVERY AND THE NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH

In 1968 oil was discovered at Prudhoe Bay. In 1969, Eben Hopson decided to pursue

Fred Paul's idea for the incorporation of the North Slope Borough as a regional government with

the power to raise revenue through taxing oil development facilities at Prudhoe Bay (McBeath and

Morehouse 1980:77). After significant struggle in the courts with the State of Alaska and wfth oil

companies who sought to halt or sever&y limit its powers, the North Slope Borough was finally

formed in January, 1974. It is at the same time, the largest municipality in terms of space and the

smallest in population.

ft is interesting to note that elsewhere in the United States, Native American populations

in proximity to major resource development projects have rarely benefitted and in almost all cases
of life from the efficiency experts of the corporate wotid.

Subsistence

The North Slope Borough has provided the platform for the protection of Inupiat

subsistence interests ifl a variety of ways. It has established an environmental protection office,

a Department of Wildlife Management, a Coastal Zone Management Plan and a Geographic

Information System (GIS) program to minimize the impact of industrial activities on critical

habitats, animal, bird and fish populations and transportation corridors used by subsistence

hunters.

The North Slope Borough has used its revenue base to challenge legally and politically

actions of state and federal agencies and private companies which the leadership has viewed as

detrimental to the continuity of subsistence species and the habitats they require. The cases of

the Dalton Highway and offshore exploratory oil drilling are examples of its efforts in this area.

One of the most impressive results of North Slope legal and political activity is the

protection and enhancement of the bowhead whale hunt, which as we have seen is central to

Inupiat culture and individual well-being. A crucial innovation was the creation of the Alaska

Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) in 1977 when the International Whaling Commission called

for a total ban on bowhead hunting. In addition to managing the bowhead hunt through the

allocation of strikes and kills between communities, the establishment of rules for the hunt and

criteria for captainship, the AEWC has developed a state-of-the-art scientific plan for the censusing

of whales. Through this institution scientists and Inupiat whalers have gradually developed a

relationship of trust that I hope will result in Inupiat models of science in which rigorouè methods
, qg

States and through invitation of the Minerals Management Service (MMS) undertook a study to

review the adequacy of environmental information for leasing of offshore lands in Alaska. Due to

the likelihood of exploration and development in the Beaufort and, to a lesser extent, the Chukchi

Sea, the convened committee elected to focus its attention on Arctic offshore waters.

It was the view of the committee (and I as a member) that the requirements of the Outer

Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) requires the MMS to study and manage the effects of OCS

activities on the "human environment" broadly defined to include the physical, social and

economic components, conditions, and factors which ... determine the state, condition, and

quality of living conditions, employment, and health of those affected, directly or indirectly, by

activities occurring on the OCS (NRC 1994:129). This is a clear and unambiguous mandate for

MMS to study and manage broadly defined effects on social and cultural systems.

In its general conclusions, the committee found that environmental information for the

lease and exploration phases in the Chukchi, Navann and Beaufort Basins was generally

adequate, "except in the case of effects on the human environment" (NRC 1994:187). The

committee determined that baseline studies of socioeconomic and sociocultural conditions were

generally adequate except that the characteristics of and impacts of enclave development on the

welfare of non-Native migrant workers was poorly analyzed. However, the report went on to note

that studies dealing with changes due to development and the impacts of those changes on

socioeconomic and sociocultural conditions were absent.

In regard to local North Slope conditions, the report found that insufficient research had

been done on the effects of pre-lease anticipatory and speculative activity as parties react to
The committee found that MMS studies had produced substantial documentation of the

scale, timing, and spatial distribution of subsistence activities on the North Slope However, those

studies had not been satisfactorily utilized in identifying impacts of additional oil development in

a detailed quantitative and spatial fashion. Single word assessments of likely impact as low or

moderate in the 1992 EIS were unsatisfactory. More importantly, such assessments are of no use

in determining what if any kind of mitigating measures, such as alternative siting; environmental

protections, and limiting access, might be taken to protect subsistence activities. Given the

present and continuing importance of subsistence activities to the cultural and personal well-being

of members of North Slope society, such assessments are of vital importance. They are also

particularly well-suited to new partnerships invoMng Inupiat, scientists, government agencies, and

oil companies in truly collaborative efforts to address the implications of gradual, but cumulatively

significant, changes likely to take place in the environment on subsistence activities.

The committee was unable to find evidence that the Social and Economic Studies

Program (SESP) had dealt in a systematic manner with long-term or permanent socioeconomic

4. Research and analyze the means and degree to which impacts on subsistence from development

can be mitigated.

5. Research on impacts of demographic growth and population mix on political control, public

policies, and revenue allocation.

6. Secure and maintain adequate funding and experience social scientific staff to carry out necessary

studies.
In light of these findings, the committee found that in order to adequately project and

satisfactorily manage change, a research program of both greater breadth and specificity s

required. Six (6) recommendations with several subrecommendations were made (Table 2). The

most important, in my view, called for:

Research on long-term impacts of all phases of OCS actMties in terms of revenues,

employment, income distribution, and subsistence.

Research on sociocultural adaptations to change as indicated by social indicators of

well-being in addition to cultural measures.

Research through quantitative assessment the impact of cumulative oil development

activity on significant subsistence activities in terms of spatial distribution and harvest

levels.

Research and analyze the means and degree to which impacts on subsistence from

development can be mitigated.

Research impacts of demographic growth and population mix on political control,

public policies and revenue allocation.
Anderson, D. 1990. Prehistory of North Alaska. Pages 80-93 in D. Damas, ed. Arctic. Handbook

of NOTth American Indians, vol. 7. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C.

Bockstoce, J. 1986. Whales, Ice, & Men: The History of Whaling in the Western Arctic. Un,versity

of Washington. Seattle.

Chance, N. 1990. The Inupiat and Arctic Alaska: An Ethnography of Development. Holt, Rinehart,

and Winston. Ft. Worth, TX. 241 p.

Fortuine, R. 1989. Chills and Fevers: Health and Disease in the Early History of Alaska. University

of Alaska. Fairbanks, AK. 393 p.

McBeath, GA, and TA. Morehouse. 1980. The Dynamics of Alaska Native Self-Government.

University Press of America. Lanham, MD. 125 p.

National Research Council. 1994. Environmental Information for Outer Continental Shelf Oil and

Gas Decisions in Alaska. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 254 p.

to go very far offshore. We have to go back and forth every day. In 1994 and 1995, the whales

were close to shore and we didn't have to go out too far. I hope it is going to be like that for a

long time.
= Number refers to locations on Figure 1, not numbers of whales landed.

17 Alfred Unn 1982 41 James Killbear 1993

18 Tommy Agiak 1982 42 Herman Aishanna 1993

19 Alfred Unn 1962 43 Joseph Kaleak 1993

20 Isaac Akootchook 1983 44 James Killbear 1994

21 Nolan Solomon 1983 45 Herman Aishanna 1994

22 Tommy Agiak 1983 46 Edward Rextord 1994

23 Herman Aishanna 1984 47 Tommy Agiak 1995

24 Isaac Akootchook 1984 48 James Killbear 1995

25 Nolan Solomon 1984 49 James Lampe. Sr. 1995

26 Alfred Linn 1986 50 Isaac Akootchook 1995
-70°15 N 70°00 N 35 144°O

FIgure 1. Whale harves

glad and proud to be one of the whalers. It not only gets into your bones; it also gets into your

blood. Whales think like we do. If there is a lot of controversy among whales and the people, it

is very difficult to hunt and catch the whales. There are people, like Mr. Rexford, who have been

whaling for many years. It is important to us that we come from people who subsist on the

bowhead whale.

We go to Cross Island during the first week of September. When there was no industrial

activity in the area or to the east of Cross Island, we would be successful, landing our quota.

Since 1973 we have had a quota, today our quota is four whales. It is very difficult to find even

one bowhead whale when there is a lot of industrial activity. The whales not only pressure us,

they pressure industry also. We both want to do our thing, but I think that there is a way for both

oil exploration and whaling to be successful.

I have been told from the time that I can remember that a whale will be startled or scared

by a little sound. Even tapping on a boat will cause a whale not to surface. It will go further out

and leave you behind for sure - way, way out there.

The main thing that I would like to talk about is the interaction of subsistence whalers and

the involvement of industry. A lot of times there is controversy between the whalers and the oil

industry. There was controversy about Kuvlum, Hammerhead, and Galahad on the east between

Barter Island and Cross Island. As I stated before, when there is industry activity, we have to go

very far out for whales - about 44 miles straight out from Cross Island to catch whales. It takes

hours and is dangerous when you go that far out. A few years ago, we were caught by a bad

storm. We lost a whale and a crew boat, but everybody was found and we returned to Cross

Island safely. It is hard to see far with the little boats that we have; the biggest one is only 26 ft.

We know that whaling is dangerous, but it is our livelihood. We have to supply our community's
Galahad development units are located, will affect the bowhead whale. There is a lot of argument

between the industry and the whalers. I will argue as long as I have a voice. I know that we, as

subsistence hunters, weren't taught to argue over an animal; we were taught to harvest and to

feed our people. But when industrial activity takes place and the arguments get heavy, it is very

hard to even look at people like the meeting attendees. The federal government will argue against

us. The International Whaling Commission will argue against us. And maybe the local people will

argue against too. However, I am glad that I could be part of this meeting.
FIgure 1. Whale harves

of Wildlife Management

whaling. The AEWC, in cooperation with the National Oceanio and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) signed a Cooperative Agreement in 1981. So, for the past 18 years, the AEWC has

worked with the federal government, successfully, in the management of the bowhead whale.

Through this cooperative agreement, NO1AA delegated authority to the AEWC to manage the

subsistence whale hunts. Under this agreement, the AEWC also adopted a Management Plan

which governs, the actual aspects of the hunt. We have found that this system of management

has worked since the inception of AEWC. The local responsibility of joint management of any type

of resource is vital and has been proven to be successful.

The management guidelines for our hunts are set out in a management plan approved

by NOAA. In addition, our hunt is subject to an IWC-imposed annual whaling quota. This quota

has been established at a level close to our people's needs after many years of effort by the

AEWC, with the support of the North Slope Borough, and working with the United States

Congress, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the environmental communities, and the IWC to

do scientific research. Since 1977, representatives of AEWC have attended every annual meeting

of the IWC - and every year scientific research on the bowhead whale conducted through the

efforts of AEWC, the North Slope Borough, and NOAA is provided to the IWC Scientific

Committee. The information gathered and the positions agreed upon at this meeting form the

basis of the presentations made to the International Whaling Commission at its annual meeting.

As a result of our excellent management record and our diligent efforts on behalf of our

subsistence whalers, the AEWC has gained international recognition and respect as a model local

resource manager. Today, the AEWC exists as a tax-exempt, non-profit corporation whose

purpose is to:
elected Commissioners; one from each whaling village. The members of the AEWC are afforded

a public forum to speak on issues that affect them and to set quotas at the Whaling Captains'

Convention held in mid-winter. At this meeting, the 150 whaling captains negotiate their demands

of the whaling captains on priority issues affecting their subsistence whaling activities in their

respective village. Invited participants include the United States Commissioner to the IWC, NOAA

personnel, AEWC Commissioners, AEWC staff and legal counsel, the Mayor of the North Slope

Borough (NSB), the staff of the NSB Department of Wildlife Management, and the AEWC

Cooperating Scientists. Evesy four years, a bowhead quota for our aboriginal subsistence whaling

is set. The whaling captains, at the convention set a quota for each whaling community, based

on historical, cultural, and subsistence nutritional needs.

THE BOWHEAD CENSUS

Significant additional research, the bowhead census, was launched in 1993 by the AEWC

through the NSB Department of Wildlife Management. The census was a great success which

documented a tremendous increase in the bowhead stock.

As all who know our people, the bowhead hunt is a vital component of our culture in the

bowhead subsistence whaling communities. Because the hunt and the Native exemption that

protects our rights to continue hunting are so important to our people, the AEWC takes sole

responsibility for representing all of the ten bowhead subsistence whaling communities.
C

/ 

Figure 1. The wha

Savoonga, Wales
strategic location for our fall bowhead whale hunt. The Eskimo elder bowhead whalers have

clearly idenUfled the natural habitat areas where the bowheads congregate as:

Point Barrow Nuvuk

Eluitqauk Island

Taupkaluk Island

Cooper Island

Martin Island, and beyond east of Martin Island

The migration routes are unpredictable due to nature's conditions. When the oil industry

was doing seismic work during the fall migration, my two colleagues and their crew members

completely searched these above locations and beyond. The entire month of September was

spent in our attempts to locate bowhèad whales, resulting in nothing. Not only were there no

bowheads, there also were no belukhas nor gray whales to be seen. My same two colleagues

and their crew members, along with my crew, repeated this same process years later and again

came up with zero results. After going through this same process, we have never experienced

such a low morale in our lifetime as when there were no whaling activities. After a thorough

coverage of what used to be our whale hunting grounds, my colleagues and their crews

attempted to go beyond the parameters of the seismic work area. In spite of the endangerment

of human life, these attempts were executed repeatedly, and still the end results were the same.

I share the honor, dignity, and humiliation that my colleagues and their crew members

have inherited from those seismic boat experiences. Throughout my 55 years of whaling in Point

Hope, Barrow, and Nuvuk, I have observed, like many other whalers, the impact of underwater

noise on bowhead whales. My honor and dignity as a Whaling Captain are of the utmost

I want to respond to a similar, specific comment by Mr. Kaleak. He mentioned that no

whales were landed during the year that a drill rig was located near Barter Island. Previously, I

had heard about the correlation, and was concerned. So I looked through the data from the

Bowhead Whale Aerial Survey Program (BWASP), checking to see if whales were sighted near

the island. What I found was that during part of 1987, when a rig was being towed into position

at the Aurora Prospect near Barter Island, no whales were sighted near the island. But once the

rig was left in position - it was left ldling but not drilling during the migration - and the tow

boats were gone, then the whales were sighted by BWASP near Barter Island. The BWASP data

indicates that whales were displaced by the towing operation but not by the idled drill rig. This

general subject - the effects of underwater noise from vessels, drill rigs, and ice breakers - will

be discussed further in the next session.

Burton Rexford: To quickly respond to your comment on monitoring: we have been following

the monitoring programs for several years with the North Slope Borough scientists and AEWC.

Tom Newbury: Also, I want to explain that MMS has tried to mitigate the biological consequences

- of noise effects on the whales - with monitoring requirements. We realize that we need more

data to quantify the effects. However, it has been more difficult to mitigate the sociocultural

consequences; the effects on subsistence. We have tried to do it by requiring industry/whaler

coordination.

During the lease sale process, an environmental impact statement (ElS) is prepared.

There is a draft ElS which gives the whalers time to comment on the proposal, and to express

your concerns. However, during the next step (exploration) there isn't time for a draft document
years, or is that a fairly new place where you set up whale camp?

Frank Long: It is a former whaling island. Taaqpak and people before him had whaled on ft.

There are some whale bones out there. The oldest recorded whale is 1937, but there are bones

that are older than that out there. I don't know exactly how old, but when we were conducting

a history and culture survey for the North Slope Borough in 1980, there were live whalebone

heads. So, I would say that whaling had been going on for a long time. I think that the whaters

left the island in 1940s when the federal government required the Natives to attend school. All of

the people from that area either went to Barrow or to Barter Island.

Tim Holder: When you catch a whale do you bnng it up on the island or do you bring it back to

the mainland shore and pull it up there?

Frank Long: We bnng it up on the island. We've a winch that we use. We butcher it there. Then

when we are aI done, we try to take it all home by boat if we can. If not, then we either go to

West Dock or Endicott, and have it trucked to Oliktok Point near Nuiqsut (Figure 1).

I also would like to respond to the question about young people participating and

learning the activity of whaling. In our community, we take out young people. All of my boys have

been exposed to whaling - not at the age that Burton and I started - but we do try to teach

them about our hunt and the area in which we hunt. I first took my youngest boy when he was

ten years old. He loves to go out. He is anxious to go fall whaling, although he recognizes that

there is danger. There is not only danger, but a challenge. It becomes part of you to be a whaler.

It becomes your nature, your life, and your way of breathing. So whakng is very important to us.

In each community, I think we have different views of it, but we teach our children and young
Burton Rexford: My recommendation for the Cross Island area and the whalers from Nuiqsut,

would be to insist on no seismic activity after September 1st. We have done that before; we have

shut down the seismic activity. If I can do anything for Nuiqsut, that is what I would recommend

- September 1st.

Tom Albert: A couple of interesting things have happened during this session. One of them is

that you have heard from some very senior Eskimo people who have spent their whole life

hunting in a rather dangerous environment. Mr. Long said that now they go out 40 miles in a very

small boat - not four miles but Q miles. The thing that I have heard for years, and years, and

years, is that seismic noise scares the whales away.

Somebody asked what can be done to make the coordination process better. When there

are draft ElS public hearings, or industry coordination meetings in the villages, it is like a repeat

of a very brief movie that over the years is attracting fewer and fewer participants. Fifteen years

ago, when I participated in such early meetings, the rooms would be packed; people would come

in and testify. The MMS, industry, whoever, would sit there, nod, and take notes - but nothing

would happen. Over the years, as these meetings have continued, the number of people who

give up an evening to come out and comment on these things is declining. MMS personnel were

kind enough to come to Barrow not long ago for a meeting. It was unfortunate how few people

showed up. But it signifies something - 'what is the sense?'

The main issue, as I see it after years of listening to the whalers, is either they are all lying

or the scientific data (that we will discuss in the next session) on the seismic effects on bowhead

behavior are wrong. Some scientific studies indicate that most whales will respond at 7.5 km. We

will hear that tomorrow, and I am not trying to upset Dr. Richardson unduly. He and I have been


sociocuttural information for these communities useful in the preparation of area environmental

impact statements, leasing plans, and in assessing OCS related impacts.

Project purpose, procedures, and pertinent survey instruments for Nuiqsut and Kaktovik

were reviewed and approved by the city council in each study community prior to survey start-up.

Councils were kept informed of project progress and project staff met with council members

whenever requested (as in Kaktovik). Draft reports were reviewed with each city council and

copies of the final report were distributed to study communities and corresponding regional

organizations.

Data collection took placethrough voluntaryface-to-face interviews using two instruments:

a harvest survey questionnaire modeled after the division's standard community baseline survey

tool (which collects data on household demography, involvement in the cash economy, resource

harvests and uses, and assessments of changes in subsistence harvest and use patterns) and

a Social Effects Questionnaire (addressing changes in social and community organization which

could be affected by OCS development) patterned after research tools developed in prior Social

Indicators research funded by MMS.

Two rounds of North Slope community fieldwork took place. Kaktovik surveys were

carried out in mid-1993 and fieldwork in Nuiqsut was completed in early 1994.

All North Slope fieldwork was led by DMsion of Subsistence staff in participation with staff

from MMS, North Slope Borough (NSB) Departments of Planning and Wildlife Management; and

with the support of locally hired survey assistants who helped with the fieldwork in both Kaktovik

and Nuiqsut.
the community s predominantly lnuplat wfth about 350 persons in 100 househo'ds. The local

economy is best characterized as mixed cash-subsistence, with subsistence harvests of

paramount economic, social, and cultural importance.

Fieldwork s carried out in February 1994, covering the period January 1, 1993 through

December 31, 1993. The survey approach in Nuiqsut, due to the larger population size, was to

take a random sample of 60 househo'ds. Our final household survey tally s 62 househo'ds for

the harvest survey and 60 households for the social effects survey. Relevant Nuiqsut findings are

presented in Table 2.

SOCIOCULTURAL STUDY SUMMARY

Survey findings from both Kaktovik and Nuiqsut show an increase in local subsistence

harvests since previous division baseline harvest surveys, with a particularly strong manne

mammal and estuarine fish component. These two resource categories now make up over 60%

of the estimated annual harvest (by weght) in Nuiqsut, and over 70% in Kaktovik.

Concerns regarding possible negative effects of OCS leasing and development s

clearly expressed in the Nuiqsut Social Effects survey results. Over 80% of sampled households

in Nuiqsut believed that marine mammal and fish resources would decrease as a result of OCS

development, and over 66% of the sampled households were not in favor of either searching for,

or development of, OCS oil or gas resources. Their main concern expressed was that there would

be adverse impacts, such as decreased resource population levels and contamination, on local

harvesting activities and disruption of resource migration patterns. These concerns cannot be
Social Effects

No measures: The Kaktovik City Council did not support this survey.

Harvest Participation

Mean number of resources used per household: 16

Mean number of resources harvested per household: 8.6

Mean number of resources given away per household: 7.7

Mean number of resources received per household: 10.5

Percent of households harvesting any resource: 89%

Percent giving away any resource: 83%

Percent receiving any resource: 92%

Harvest Composition

Fish: 13.4%

Land mammals: 16.9%

Marine mammals: 67.7%

Other: 02.9%
Social Effects

OCS Development

on fish: decrease numbers 80%

no effect 11%

on marine mammals: decrease numbers 87%

no effect 10%

In favor of OCS search for oil: no 67%

yes 28%

In favor of OCS development and production of of:no 68%

yes 25%

Opinion on OCS development and production of of:

more jobs in community 2%

tachnoloy to do it right 2%

in favor of onshore development

instead of offshore 2%

adverse impact on subsistence 52%

pollution concerns 18%

in favor if done carefully 10%

Percent of households harvesting any resource: 90%

Percent giving away any resource: 92%

Percent receiving any resource: 98%
of deer, harbor seals, sea lions, sea ducks, salmon, halibut, and clams were down since the spill.

Fear of human contamination from specific resources, though substantially reduced from

the first post-spill years, still persist among a significant number of households in communities

near the spill site.

It is important to note the finding that many households in the spill area reported that they

had not received adequate information about the safety of subsistence foods, and despite

lingering contamination concerns they returned to using subsistence foods. Economic and

cultural necessities of relying on subsistence foods compelled Alaska Natives of the spill area to

resume subsistence harvests in the face of increased costs of time, money, and heatth concerns.

In the view of many of the people interviewed as part of this study, and especially in

Prince William Sound and among Alaska Native people, the spill caused fundamental changes

to natural resource populations and the natural environment overall that have yet to be

adequately explained. This uncertainty has had profound effects on the outook for the future that

people expressed in communities close to the spill site. This remains an important long-term

impact of the spill.

Another long-term impact of the spill is the prolonged litigation over damage claims. The

lack of judicial sensitivity to, and recognition of, the cuttural importance of subsistence to the

Alaska Native communities of the spill area and, the injury that this culture suffered, continue to

be contested in federal court. Rulings in federal court which made ineligible claims by the Alaska

Native Class concerning injuries to their way of life were especially disheartening to the people
UTERATURE CITED

Fall, J.A. and C.J. Utermole (Eds.). 1995. An Investigation of the Sociocutural Consequences of

Outer Continental Shelf Development in Alaska. Alaska OCS Region, Social and

Economic Studies Unit, Technical Report No. 160. U.S. Department of the Interior,

Minerals Management Seivice. Anchorage, AK.

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION

Tom Newbury: Would you repeat the conclusions you listed at the end of your talk?

Sverro Pedersen: We recommend this particular principle: improve coordination between

agencies responsible for formulating applicable rules, conditions, and mitigation measures. We

need to incorporate broadly-based sociocultural monitoring and evaluation procedures as a

standard set of requirements. We need to seek a broader level of involvement of regional and

local authorities in planning and monitoring of permitted activities. We also need to find better

institutional mechanisms that responsibly improve the working relationship between government,

industry, and the public.

Clove Cowlee: A major portion of the findings that you talked about this afternoon was regarding

perception of impacts. I was wondering if there was anything in your work that would help direct
this would be plenty. But that is probably not adequate, it probably needs to be more time there

As I was telling Dr. Langdon, perhaps what we need is about one generation, in terms of time,

to aUow people think about problems. Because we are presenting sophisticated problems to

people in ways that they have a difficult time reatng to. So even though they have had a couple

of days to think about something, they may not make the best decision. They need more time.

That is my pat answera_ time. With more time we will get better results.

Steve J. Langdon: I would like to make a brief comment about that question as well. In

examining our past policies, it appears that the only currency unfortunately that is present for

mitigation is financial. That is why Mr. Pedersen and the Subsistence DMsion have turned to the

issue of prevention. The reason they have returned to prevention is that these are

incommensurates. People cannot be financially compensated when valued subsistence elements

of their life have been destroyed. That is a fundamental finding. It is a very serious thing for

people to think long and hard about.

Now having said that with regard to subsistence activities and the importance of

subsistence resources to the continuity of the cutture, I wou'd make the second point which is

that the entire framework of this decision, in terms of power and in terms of the allocation of

resources, is so totally skewed as to make it impossible for people to weigh these consequences.

There is no way that they can perceive, at present, any benefit. There is no calculus that shows

them how financial resources will flow to the North Slope Borough. There is no guarantee about

the siting of facilities with regards to the continuity of tax revenues. There are no plans in place

with regard to employment circumstances. Residents of the North Slope shoulder substantial

costs associated with these kinds of decisions with no indication of potential benefits. How can

anybody possibly embrace an activity over which they have such little influence and such an
Governor Knowles openly says that we are going to partner with the industry. I thought that was

very interesting; to come in as a democrat, liberal candidate and the next day he is in office he

comes forth and says we are going to partner with industry. I thought his position, coming from

that party, was to be somewhat of a monitoring position, to tell industry that we need to think

things over. I am not saying that I am associated with either party or have any particular partisan

belief. But I do believe that the State needs to critically examine its role in this situation dealing

with oil development, both onshore and offshore. It is a very difficult position to be in.

Sverre Pedersen: That is an interesting question. All I can say to you is in the work that we do,

we employ methods that are recognized by the scientific community. We present this information.

We just make sure that this information gets considered. There is an entirely different process that

takes over from there on. We do the best that we can to provide information that should be useful

in thinking about these problems.

Grant Walther Don't you need a baseline study? Your studies are old, if I understood that

correctly. Are you getting funding for new studies?

Sverre Pedersen: I haven't seriously sought those funds yet.

Grant Walther. May I suggest that you seriously seek them?


Provide annual analysis of long-term interyear trends in the median depth of the migration axis

of bowhead whales. (This addresses the question of whether whales are swimming in deeper

water from year to year.)

Provide an objective wide-area context for management interpretation of the overall fall

migration of bowhead whales and site-specific study results. (A recent site-specific study at

Kuvium showed a high-resolution map of whales in the vkinity of the drillsite. Our report for the

same year provided a contrasting picture of the entire sweep of the migration as it moves across

the Beaufort Sea.)

Monitor behaviors, swim directions, dive times, surfacing patterns, and tracklines of selected

bowhead whales;

Record and map belukha whale distribution and incidental sightings of other marine mammals;

and

Determine seasonal distribution of endangered whales in other planning areas of interest to

MMS.

STUDY AREA

The annual survey program is based on a design of random-field transects within

established geographic blocks in and adjacent to the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea sate areas

offshore of Alaska. The study area includes Beaufort Sea Survey Blocks 1 through 12 (Figure 1)

between 140° W and i57° W longitudes, south of 720 N latitude.
70 0 

Nu) 

Figure 1. Fail 1994 st

73 

72 

B

71 6901U)
Bowhead Whale Observations

One hundred five sightings were made for a total of 204 bowhead whales observed

during FaIl-1994 surveys in the study area, not counting repeat sightings. Three of these whales

were identified as calves, resutting in a seasonal calf ratios (number of calves/total whales) of

0.015.

The day-to-day timing of the bowhead whale migration was calculated over the entire

study area as a daily sighting rate, or sightings per unit effort (SPUE), and an index of relative

abundance, or whales per unit effort (WPUE). Of the 105 observed sightings of bowhead wha'es,

the first bowhead whales were sighted on 31 August. The data for daily sighting rates showed

a peak of 7.30 SPUE on 2 September, followed by a second peak of 3.81 SPUE on 9 September.

Of 204 bowhead whales sighted during Fall 1994, 160 (78%) were in shallow water (0-50

m deep), 42 (20%) were in waters of transitional depth (51-200 m), and 1 (1%) was sighted in

deeper water (>200 m).

Belukha Whale Observations

Although the study area and survey altitude were designed to record the fall migration

of bowhead whales, belukha whales, which undertake a somewhat parallel migration, were always

counted and were considered suitable for selected analyses. Over the Fall 1994 field season, 92

sightings were made for a total of 514 belukha whales. Sightings of belukha whales were

distributed between 140° W and 156° W longitudes, south of 720 N latitude.
QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION

Tom Albert: Do you foresee this program continuing? I know, at least from the North Slope

Borough perspective, we think this is an important program. Do you foresee this continuing?

Steve Treacy: I think so. As you know, the Federal government is belt tightening everywhere. But

I think that this program has a value in that it provides a third perspective. The industry has their

site-specific studies and the whalers have their own knowledge of what they see out there each

year. The perspective of this study is the larger sweep of the fall bowhead migration across the

Beaufort Sea. I think it is almost necessary to the proper interpretation of results of some of the

site-specific studies. BP, which will be talking later today, I think, will come closest to maximizing

the use of some of our collected data in their study. So it does have value to industry and to the

whalers, and I think it will probably hang in there.

Anne DaIley: I think you mentioned that you said you saw 204 different whales. Those were

different sightings, but how many different indMdual whales do you think you actually saw?

Steve Treacy: The 204 represents the total number of whales counted in 1994. And, of course,

that number varies each year. I was going to give a little update on the 1995 Fall migration, too.

We just finished our field season and brought people back on the 20th. During the month of

September, we had good weather and we saw 413 bowhead whales. That's not to assume that

the population has doubled in one year. It just has to do with sighting conditions. In October, the


gy g

tags with poor attachment or placement provided the least amount of data. One was heard from

only five times but provided the longest documented tag attachment (49 days). Utility status

messages were received from only six tags (depth/duration). Five of these reported low battery

voltage toward the end of their operation suggesting that they quit due to battery exhaustion from

frequent transmissions (every surfacing) in a very cold environment. The number of messages

sent by each tag varied from 524 to 8164 ( = 3180) at the time of their last status message.

Most of the locations (80%) were location class zero (with unknown accuracy). We

eliminated 216 locations (30%) which resulted in: (1) such long distances whales would have

traveled at unreasonably high speeds (> 25 km/h) or, (2) locations on land. The remaining

locations described 111 days of tracking and 9633 km of trackline with mean speeds of individual

animals ranging from an average of 1.0 to 6.2 km/h).

Whale 10824 provided the most detailed record with 203 locations during 34 days. It

moved 4053 km through Canadian, U.S., and Russian waters. The whale spent considerable time

near Herschel Island and Demarcation Bay. Had fewer locations been received, the migration

route would still be apparent and the tag would have had a longer operational life, perhaps

revealing more of the animal's wintering habitat. However, some of the detailed movements would

have been lost and swim speeds would have been underestimated.

Sensor data from 11 whales were received during 1 - 34 days. The number of summary

periods of information available for the three data types (duration, depth, time at depth) varied

between whales. The latter two categories have never before been collected for bowhead whales.

We received 566 periods of dive duration information, 477 periods of dive depth information, and
to previous observational studies of bowhead surfacing and dive behavior, but indMduàl ranges

exceeded literature values. The sensor information revealed characteristics of dMng depths and

durations that can affect aerial or shipboard surveys, thus influencing population estimates due

to regionally different behaviors.

Changes in the dive behavior of whale 10824 were observed when, on 20 September,

between Harrison Bay and Pt. Barrow, it moved to areas where ice covered 90+% of the surface.

Thereafter, the tag reported significantly fewer but longer dives, the mean percentage of time

exposed to the air was significantly greater, the longest surfacings during periods were

significantly longer, and much more time was spent deeper than 48 m. These differences likely

reflect behavioral responses to heavy ice conditions. This whale may have made deeper, longer

dives under the ice and longer surfacings in small open pools, or polynyas, between the ice. It

may also reflect some bias in heavy ice situations where the tag may not always clear the water

surface to acknowledge a surfacing. For example, this tag recorded 25 summary periods where

the longest dive exceeded 61 mm, 23(92%) of which occurred in 90+% ice cover. Although such

long dives may actually occur in heavy ice, it is possible the animal broke ice to breathe and

the tag did not come out of the water to register a surfacing.

None of the dive behavior variables we examined from each of the tags showed

consistent diel patterns. It is likely the dive information reflected more about the animal's prey

preferences and available water depths than a limitation of the animal's diving capability. We have

no information that would indicate that 500 m is a limitation of the animal's diving ability.
Mate, B.R., S. Nieukirk, R. Mesecar and T. Martin, 1992. Application of remote sensing methods

for tracking large cetaceans: North Atlantic right whales (Eubaiaena glade/is). Final

Report, Minerals Management Service 91-0069, 167 pp.

Fancy, S.G., L.F. Pank, D.C. Douglas, C.H. Curby, G.W. Gamer, S.C. Amstrup and W.L. Regelin,

1988. Satellite Telemetry: A new tool for wildlife research and management. U. S. Dept.

of Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 172. 55 pp.

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION

Steve Treacy: You described a lot of information. Could you give us a few main points?

BruceMate: Sure. First, we tagged 12 animals of similar size in one location in one week. They

did not all move in the same direction, in similar water depths, or at the same speed. This

suggests the animals do not move 'en masse' in response to a single 'environmental cue.'

Seeing individuals back-track after significant westerly movement was contrary to conventional

wisdom. The importance of Herschel Island and Demarcation Bay was emphasized by the

amount of time several animals spent there often on multiple occasions. It looks like bowhead

whales, on average, should be visible from the air about 13% of the time. This takes into account

some visibility down through the surface and surfacing sequences but there is variation between

individuals and geographic areas. The latter may be due to changes in environmental conditions

or in animal behavior. The animals are only at the surface about 5% of the time. Some animals
Bruce Mate: It would be wonderful to do this type of bowhead research in conjunction with a

prey study where a net or towed array provided prey depths and densities. We did that this year

in August and September with the National Marine Fisheries Service for blue whales in southern

California. You can see where the prey densities are and what they're doing.

Sverre Pedersen: This question relates to bowhead whales going to the bottom. We have

indications from the air that the bowhead whales are feeding on the bottom. They're coming up

with mud. The mud plume is coming off their back and I just didn't know if you had data that was

accurate (precise enough) to indicate that?

Bruce Mate: Our depth data were measured to the nearest 4 m and reported to the nearest 16

meters. It could be adjusted to be more accurate but it would take more bit space in a message

only 256 bits long. The specific timing of deep dives could be reported to coincide with locations

but it would be at the sacrifice of the sensor data. It is a possible thing to do. We've seen the

same thing with right whales in the North Atlantic, just before this bowhead study. Animals came

up with mud on them in 200 m deep water and we knew they had to be going to the bottom.

It would be nice to have people going to areas of interesting satellite data to confirm what

is going on when certain dive patterns occur. It does appear that bowheads utilize the bottom

often, but I can't be quantitative about it.

Larry Bright: Did you mention the battery life was about 30 days?
, ypqy y

water and then the broad portion of the back. About in the middle of that broad portion of the

back so that, hopefully, when the animal surfaces to breathe, we'll get a message.

Thomas Napageak: I can just feel that bowhead whale trying to come up, trying to break the

ice, with a tag on it, like a sliver. That's harassing.

Bruce Mate: Your point Is well taken. And iVs one that we had a concern over as well. There

aren't any of us in our group who tag animals who wish to really harass them or acquire

information from an animal that is compromised, or to do any serious damage to an animal. We

talked with a number of people and it was the feeling that the animal uses principally its blowhole

to come up through the ice, and that this area of the back had the least amount of scaning. We

actually checked with folks at Barrow about the scarring, and there's been some data actually

prod ued on scamng. So we picked an area of the animal that did not have a lot of scamng and

which we thought would not come into contact with ice, because, of course, we also wanted the

tag preserved.

When we've seen tags come off, by the way, to set your mind a little at rest. We've seen

a female with a calf that went 42 days and 2,500 miles in the North Atlantic that lost its tag and

16 days later just a small white mark about the size of a pencil was where the attachments were.

It didn't look too bad.

(and other injuries) can occur when marine mammals are exposed to nearby explosions.

However, it is not known whether the strongest non-explosive man-made sounds, e.g., seismic

pulses, can impair the heanng of nearby whales. If so, these effects are expected to be restricted

to very short rangesIess than those at which avoidance normally occurs (Richardson et al.

1995:372-6).

Bowheads exhibit a wide range of reactions to man-made noises, in part depending on

the type and level of the noise. These reactions range from:

tolerance (no overt behavioral response) to

subtle behavioral changes (e.g., minor changes in surfacing-respiration-dive cycles),

more conspicuous changes in general activities,

short-term avoidance (swim away, or change course to divert farther to the side), and

possibly

longer-term displacement (suspected but not proven in bowheads).

SHIPS AND BOATS

In general, bowheads react strongly and rather consistently to approaching vessels of a

wide variety of types and sizes. Bowheads interrupt their normal behavior and swim rapidly away.

This reaction often begins when the approaching vessel is still as much as 4 km away, when the

received level of vessel noise may be rather lowonly a few decibels above the natural ambient

noise level. Surfacing, respiration, and dMng cycles are affected; fleeing bowheads have short

surfacings with few breaths per surfacing, and often have short dives. Bowheads in the path of

an oncoming vessel often attempt to NwnU it, rather than swimming away from the path of the
when the received level is 20 dB or more above the natural ambient noise level at corresponding

frequencies, feeding bowheads often move away; traveling bowheads approaching the noise

source often adjust their courses so as to pass farther to the side than would have occurred

without a course change. Both feeding and traveling bowheads exposed to these types of rather

steady, low-frequency noises tend to have short surfacings with few breaths. Traveling bowheads

sometimes slow down when approaching one of these noise sources, and speed up when

moving away.

Noise from conventional drillships and their associated support vessels tends to be

stronger than that from semi-submersibles, and both are noisier than various platform- and islandbased drilling operations. Given the rather high levels of noise emitted by conventional drillships

and their support vessels (especially icebreakers), there is evidence that some traveling

bowheads 10 to 20+ km from the drilisite may divert farther to the side.

Long-term consequences of these short-term reactions are poorly known. After several

years of intensive offshore oil exploration in the Canadian Beaufort Sea, utilization of that area by

summering bowheads seemed to decrease. It is not known whether this was a cumulative, longterm effect of industrial activities, or was caused by naturally variable food distribution or other

factors.
CONCLUSIONS

Noise from oil industry operations can elicit short-term behavioral reactions, often

including sudden dives and other changes in surfacing-respiration-dive sequences. When strongly

disturbed, pre-existing activities of bowheads are often interrupted and they may swim away. In

general, bowheadslike other baleen whalescommonly tolerate exposure to man-made noises

that are weak, e.g., no more than 10 or 20 decibels above the natural background sound,

especially if the noise is steady. Bowheads tend to be more sensitive to the increasing noise of

an approaching boat. They tolerate higher levels of pulsed seismic sounds than of steady drilling

or dredging sounds, but often show strong avoidance when a seismic vessel approaches within

6-8 km. Sensitivity seems to vary greatly among whales, and responses are often graded: Weak

sounds may elicit subtle behavioral reactions, stronger sounds of that type elicit more obvious

behavioral changes, and still stronger sounds elicit active avoidance. Short-term behavioral

reactions typically persist for periods of a few minutes to a few hours. Uttle is known about the

long-term consequences of these short-term behavioral reactions.

their distribution with frequency, uualIy by a fast Fourier transform (FF1), the results are

described by sound pressure spectral densIty levels, in dB re (1 Pa)2/Hz.

Sound sources are described by their source level, the SPL that would be measured

from an equivalent point source of sound at a distance of 1 m. For example, a sound projector

source level might be said to be 172 dB re 1 Pa-m. A large sound source like a ship must be

measured sufficiently tar away that it appears to be a point source; its source level then applies

only to far-field observations. Sound sources are often directional, and their source levels then

vary with direction.

INDUSTRIAL SOUNDS

Industrial sounds can be distinguished by their time charactenstics: they are generally

either transients (short-lived, like explosions, hammerblows, airgun bursts and sonar pings) or

continuous (long-lasting, like machinery sounds, propulsion sounds from ships and boats

underway, dredges, and offshore drilling sounds).

Continuous Sound Sources

As a general rule, the character of sounds from vessels underway is related to vessel size.

Large vessels tend to have big, powerful engines, and propellers turning slowly, producing high

levels of sound predominantly at low frequencies. Thus, large tankers and container ships may

have source levels> 185 dB re 1 Pa-m (frequencies 45-7070 Hz) and dominant sound power

at frequencies below 100 Hz. An outboard-powered Zodiac, on the other hand, is reported to
turboprop P3 Orion has been reported to have a source level of 162 dB re 1 1iPam in the 5680

Hz band.

Transient Sound Sources

The strongest transient sound source is an explosion. An 0.5 kg TNT charge has an

effective broadband peak source level of 267 dB re 1 1&Pa-m. Peak pressure is proportional to

onty the cube root of the charge weight, however. Received level computations of peak pressures

from explosions require consklerations of shock wave propagation for distances over which the

wave is not acoustic. Black powder, which bums (dellagration) at much slower rates (0.03-0.3

m/s) than does dynamite or TNT (4.6-9.1 km/s), has a much lower effective peak source level;

0.5 kg yields a broadband source level of 246 dB re 1 iiPa-m.

Geophysical surveys (seismic surveys in all but the shallowest water use arrays of

airguns for impulsive sound sources. An array may have from 3 to more than 40 airguns of

different volumes. An airgun is charged with high pressure air (often 2,000 psi), which is released

suddenly into the water to create a rapidly-expanding air bubble, which creates a shock wave

whose amplitude depends on the air pressure and on the airgun volume. The risetime of the

wave is slow compared to that from high explosives, and marine bfe is not damaged to the extent

it can be, depending on distance, by high explosives. Controlled timing of the air release of the

airguns in a horizontal array results in a wave focused toward the crustal layers beneath the array.

The airgun array depth, often 6 m, results in the surface-reflected waves providing a strong

negative pressure pulse just following the direct, positive pulse. The sound levels for horizontal

propagation are reduced compared to the levels of the downward wave and are aspect

dependent because of the phasing of the waves from the individual guns. Generally, levels to
whether the sounds are continuous or transient. Comparisons of the two general categories of

sounds may be made on the basis of long-term average powers or intensities, but the peak levels

of short sound bursts may also be important. Until more is known about animal responses to

continuous and transient sounds, it seems best to describe them separately.

Explosions produce by far the highest peak pressures among the transient sound

sources, 267 dB re 1 pPa-m for even a small 0.5 kg charge of TNT. Powerful search sonars and

high-energy nonexplosive sources used in seismic surveys also generate high peak pressures.

However, their short duration and long intervals between bursts reduce average sound levels.

The strongest of the continuous sound sources, such as supertankers, container ships and

icebreakers, generate high levels of sound near the surface (on the order of 195 dB re I pPa-m)

for long periods. The ATOC source produces the same source level, although it does not operate

continuously and it is about 900 m deep.

determine ambient noise levels and sound propagation loss rates in spring lead

conditions as needed to predict noise exposure vs. distance from the noise source;

determine the effects of underwater noise from oil production platforms and

icebreakers on distribution and movement patterns and behavior of bowhead and

belukha whales migrating through leads in spring;

avoid interfering with other studies and with the spring bowhead hunt.

Objective 1 was addressed by subcontractor Greenendge Sciences. Reactions of

bowheads to steady low-frequency drilling noise were summarized at previous Information

Transfer Meetings and in Richardson et al. (1991). This presentation briefly mentions the work

with dnlling noise, but concentrates on more recent work concerning reactions to icebreaker

sound. In comparison with the drilling sound, icebreaker sound has broader bandwidth and is

more variable over time.

METHODS

Most of the work was done in the area 25-75 km northeast and east of Barrow. During

consultations with the Barrow Whaling Captains' Association, Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission

and the North Slope Borough Dept. of Wildlife Management, it was agreed that this area was far

enough east of the whaling activities near Barrow to avoid any potential interference.

Recordings of drilling or icebreaker sound were projected into the water using one or

more underwater loudspeakers suspended from the edge of the pack ice or, occasionally, the
above ambient. Details are given in Richardson et al. (1991).

ICEBREAKER NOISE PLAYBACKS

In 1991 and 1994, we tested the reactions of bowheads to noise from an icebreaking

supply ship, the Robert Lemeur, recorded while it was managing ice. The icebreaker noise

extended up to higher frequencies, well above 1 kHz, than did the drilling noise used in the earlier

playbacks. Icebreaker noise also was much more variable over time.

The projectors could not emit sounds with a source level as high as those ofthe actual

icebreaker. Therefore, a given received level of icebreaker sound would be found farther away

from the actual icebreaker than from our projectors. The projectors used in 1991 and 1994 did

not adequately reproduce the components below about 40 Hz.

Bowheads often came within a few hundred meters of the projectors during playbacks.

However, the proportion of bowheads that came within 400 or 500 m during playbacks was

reduced relative to control conditions.

Most bowheads that approached wfthin 3 km came close enough to the playback site for

received sound levels to exceed natural background levels at corresponding frequencies.

Therefore, the icebreaker sounds were probably audible to most of these whales. Among

bowheads that came within 3 km of the projector site, we noticed diversion by 180180 whales

or groups during icebreaker playbacks, but only 1 of 116 cases under control conditionsa

highly significant difference. Some bowheads showed apparent diversion at low Icebreaker-toambient ratios, <10 dB, whereas others showed no obvious diversion at much higher icebreaker-
place to place, depending on sound propagation conditions, ambient noise level, and the reaction

threshold of a particular whale. Some bowheads might not react to the Robert Lemeur engaged

in icebreaking unless it were within 2 kmconsidering the case of a whale with a 30 dB reaction

criterion, shallow water, poor propagation, and high ambient noise. Other bowheads might react

at distances as great as 95 km, considering a whale with a 10 dB reaction criterion, deep water,

good propagation, and low ambient noise. U one considered a different icebreaker, a somewhat

different set of predictions would result, as the underwater sounds from different icebreakers are

not identical.

Thus, one of the important results of this study is that there is no single reaction threshold

and no single reaction radius. Instead, the probabihty of reaction and the strength of reacton tend

to increase gradually with decreasing distance, increasing received sound level, and increasing

signal-to-ambient ratio.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the playbacks, we concluded that spring migrating bowheads show both behavioral reactions and course diversions in response to icebreaker noise. Because of the high source

levels of icebreaker noise, these effects could extend to distances considerably greater than those

observed directly during the playbacks. If effects are common out to radii of 10-50 km, as playbacks suggest, a single icebreaker could affect a large area. We found that bowhead mothers

with accompanying newborn calves are less likely than other bowheads to travel through heavy

ice. Of all bowheads, it is probably the mothers and newborns whose migrations are most likely

to be interrupted if there is icebreaking in or near the migration comdor.

Because there were no provisions to incidentally take, the seismic operators agreed to stop

seismic on ice activities on March 30th. This date coincided with the start of the denning season.

This date greatly reduced the window of availability for seismic operators to gather data safely.

In 1980 the MMPA was amended to allow a small take exemption for various activities including

on ice seismic activities. The NMFS regulations required the operators under a federal or state

seismic permit to submit a report to NMFS on sighting of any ringed seals. As long as NMFS

ascertained that the level of take was not adversely affecting the Beaufort Sea ringed seal

population the take permits could be issued for a five year period.

The take provision was eventually expanded to endangered species (the LOA) thereby

allowing the incidental take of bowhead whales in 1990 for a period of fIve years. The

authorization for this take required a far greater monitoring and reporting effort than the original

ringed seal regulations. Additionally, the authorized operator had to prepare a plan of cooperation

with each village that hunted bowheads that were affected by the oil and gas exploration activity.

Extensive monitoring and subsequent data collection was obtained for several offshore

drilling projects. Under the original Letter of Authorization, NMFS ascertained that bowhead

whales were avoiding the drilling rigs. No in-water seismic activities were attempted under a Letter

of Authorization and therefore no monitoring data was collected for this type of activity.
are authorized. Conversely, we dont have an application. For example, Ill get a call from a fellow

in Houston and he'll say, Send me an application for a Letter of Authorization. And I say, uWell,

we don't have an application. I'll tell him that you have to send us a letter. Keep in mind, there

are no applications. It's not like getting a hunting license. You actually write us a letter and then

we write you a letter back.

Bruce Mate: For those of us who didn't see the new regulations that were proposed and

recognizing that after the comment period, it may change, can you give us the benefit of what

the thrust of the changes were? You indicated that there was some, perhaps, disappointment on

the industry side of not ever showing takes or that you sort of alluded to the fact there may have

been some programs that didn't really produce information in that direction as well.

Can you give us an idea of what the new ones were proposed?

Ron Morris: Well, I think it will come out about the same way as in the past. I think the industry

will be in a better position based on the analysis and the better reports that are being produced

to insist when industry doesn't say there is a takeI'm not going to get into companies. But my point is that the last report we received

showed an avoidance by bowheads to an oil rig drilling. And the industry did the study. They paid

for it. A nice big report. But the bottom line was there was no take. Their analysis of the data

showed no take.

We analyzed the data and did a full-blown scientific analysis that said there was a take.
Ron MorrIs: We hope to have the regulations in place sometime in January that will apply to all

the Arctic areas in which the AEWC hunts. It's my understanding that the companies which want

to do work in your area are anxious to come up and meet with you and want me to come with

them to talk to you. But yes, by the next open water season, there should be regulations in place.

A company could apply and they would have to come to you and tell you what they want to do.

I would be with them. We'd try to work out a monitoring plan, etc. If there are regulations.

And Nuiqsut would be totally involved, as Thomas Napageak and I have worked in the

past. We'll do that again this next time.

Richard Newman: Who needs to educate whom as to the meaning of the word take? I think

all anybody is squabbling about is what does it really mean. I think maybe the industry might

perhaps be objecting to saying that they're taking anything because the word "táke as legally

defined here means something totally different from the ordinary common English language use

of the word.

Ron Morris: Well, Congress, in their infinite wisdom, has come up with a new, revised definition

of harassment, which is a take. I think the gentleman's point is well taken. For some of us when

you talk about take, you're talking about Wildlife Biology 101. A take is once you reduce an

animal, you kill it and it's on the ground. It's yours. You've taken it.

Well, in the marine mammal vernacular, if you cause an animal to do something it

normally isn't doing, you've taken that animal. Now, that's not the same. But that's what a take

is according to the Marine Mammal Regulations, Rules and the Law.
and provisions have to be made to protect the subsistence uses.

And that's where all the shouting, of course, comes from, because the Natives are vocal.

You've heard their story and their arguments for why they need these animals. That's where most

of the conflict arises in this business of take and the animals being farther away from the hunters

than they normally would be.

Grant Waither: I have a couple of questions. First is what penalties are there for violations

regarding this act? And second, if there are substantial penalties, are companies denied being

able to do geophysical exploration or oil exploration or drilling in the Arctic? And if so, do they

have to wait out a year or two? Is that one of the penalties? It seems like that would be a penalty

that would work.

Ron Morris: If they don't have a permit, they'd better not take, period, because that's a big time

offense.

Grant Waither: Has any company ever been denied a permit?

Ron Morris: No.

Grant Waither: So its just a matter of writing for the permit?

Ron Morris: Not necessarily. The purpose of the monitoring plan and to do what we're doing is

to gather enough information so that we could make a more learned decision in future outcomes.


Chris Herlugson: Right now, we are not doing that. We are very early in our planning for the

Northstar Development. As some of you may have heard, we are in the very initial stages of

working on an EIS for this project. A lot of what will happen in the future will depend upon the

outcome of the EIS, i.e., what is required in terms of future monitoring; what we believe is

required in terms of monitoring our activities ourselves. So, I can't say right now what we would

be doing. Personally, I would be hesitant about getting into tagging studies for a project of this

scope. It is always possible, but I think right now that might be out of the scope of something like

this.

Rather than talk about our research, I would like to expand on a few things that should

be done alter listening to this session and after having been involved in bowhead whale-related

matters for many years.

The first point is, and this goes back to something that some people were talking about

earlier, to give some consideration to the traditional knowledge of the people who live in the area.

For future work that is done in the Beaufort Sea area, give more consideration to the traditional

knowledge of the people who live there.

The fellows sitting in the back here, Mr. Burton Rexford, Mr. Joe Kaleak, etc., have lived

their whole lives in the Beaufort Sea area. They know a lot about what's going on. In general, and

I've watched this for a long time, their views are pretty much just ignored. MMS deserves credit

for having these people on the agenda to present their views themselves. I think that was really

good.

Let me give you an example. We heard from Mr. Frank Long and others the other day,

about the problem with marine seismic exploration noise and what it does to the distribution of

bowhead whales. Here's a case where traditional knowledge is saying one thing and limited

scientific studies are seeming to say something else.

Another example about traditional knowledge is just today, in a presentation by Dr. Bruce

Mate, he showed a slide by one of my colleagues, Craig George, of a bowhead whale breaking

through the ice. Dr. Mate showed a slide from Ms. Lou Quakenbush. But anyway, let's not forget

where this idea came from. There's a person who is now dead who said, Look, you dummies,
course, is to go to the library and get out reference boOks and find out what's really going on.

But we did not have a library at that time with all this information. Two reasons: 1) we didn't have

a library in Barrow, and 2) the information wasn't written down. The closest thing we ever had to

a really good arctic iibrar in Barrow, was Dr. Max Brewer. When he retired from NARL and left,

we were deprived of that. But I did the best I could and turned to the local library system, which

was people like Mr. Harry Brower, Sr., Mr. Burton Rexford and some of these other folks. They

told me very consistent things about these whales.

1) There's a lot more than you people are counting. 2) They're not afraid of ice

like you and like gray wha'es are. 3) They don't all stay in the lead. They go by

Barrow on a broad front. I don't know how broad it is but it's a whole lot broader

than that little patch of open water (lead). 4) These animals are afraid of noise.

They respond to noise. 5) We don't think all of them come past Point Barrow,

which is where you scientists are counting them, because we know from Eskimo

people on Saint Lawrence Island that some of the whales go over to Chukotka.

They don't ever come to Barrow.

So if you guys are going to do a study to count whales, you'd better do It

properly.

So we spent millions upon millions of dollars and many years essentially working out step

by step what these people told us. And, in particular, this one person who very patiently sat

down with us to explain: Harry Brower.
offshore like the hunters say they are?

My guess is that when you do that study property, you'll find out that the Eskimo hunters

are just as right about that as what they told us in 1981 about whales being not afraid of ice.

The fourth point I want to briefly mention is the need for scientific review boards for some

of these studies, particularly the ones that everyone knows are going to be controversial. To

MMS's credit, but not after a lot of prodding I might add, they instituted a scientific review board

for the socalled "noise in the lead study" that Drs. Greene and Richardson conducted. I think

probably everyone will admit that the associated review process helped that study to become

better than it might have been and certainly helped to keep the evaluation of the data hopefully

on track. And the final report from that study, we'll see today.

If you have a scientific review board, they need to take into account the major

stakeholders. We've heard the word "stakeholder" used a couple of times lately. The major

stakeholders for such studies in the Beaufort Sea without any doubt are the AEWC, the North

Slope Borough, the oil industry, and probably others.

The fifth general point, I'd like to mention is that you need a proper power analysis of the

data that come from these impact assessment studies. I'm not a statistician but I've read so many

reports over these many years which present four or five hundred pages of text and then basically

come down in the Executive Summary to say "no adverse effects noted." But yet, the number of

observations in the study is often times minuscule. The number of pages in the report is usually

substantial. The number of observations is often minuscule.



Pack ice consists of annual ice and heavier multi-year ice that is in motion. Shore-fast,

or land-fast ice, is ice that freezes to shore and is fixed in place. Drifting ice consists of floes of

annual and multi-year ice that can be loosely or tightly packed depending upon the action of the

pack ice. Drifting ice creates linear openings, called leads, and nonlinear openings called

polynyas. These openings occur throughout the winter, but their locations are not predictabte.

Islands and prominent points of land create generally predictable areas of open water called

recurring leads and polynyas. These areas are important marine bird and mammal habitats.

Bowhead Whales

The entire western Arctic stock of bowhead whales enters the Chukchi Sea via the

nearshore lead system in April, and most pass Point Barrow by early June. Mating activity has

been reported during the spring migration through Chukchi waters. Presently, bowheads are not

known to summer in the Bering or Chukchi seas (Miller et al. 1983), although historic records of

commercial wha'ing show that whales were harvested there in summer. Bowheads feed on

zooplankton at the surface, in the water column, and on or near the bottom. Bowheads travel

through the Alaskan Beaufort Sea into the Canadian Beaufort for the summer and return through

the Chukchi to the Benng Sea for the winter beginning in late September.

Bowhead whales are an important subsistence resource for indigenous coastal people

of the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas. Due to ice conditions and migration routes some of

the villages hunt whales only in spring, others only in fall, and some are strategically located to

hunt both spring and fall.
Ringed seals are the most abundant of the seals in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas and

they are present all months of the year, even in areas of continuous ice. They maintain breathing

holes in the ice and excavate ice caves for resting and pupping. Ringed seals are known to

maintain more than one lair (Kelly et al. 1990). Ringed seals give birth in lairs in late March to

early April.

Ringed seals would be vulnerable to oil spilled under or in broken ice. Ringed seals

disturbed during the pupping season by on-ice seismic programs and ice road construction for

exploration and development, could respond by abandoning dependent pups. In May and June,

ringed seals haul out on top of the ice to molt. Molting appears to be physiologically demanding

and may be a stressful time for seals. Seals may be more vulnerable to disturbances or exposure

to hydrocarbons at this time.

Spotted Seals

Spotted seals do not maintain breathing holes and prefer more open areas with less ice.

They are present in the Chukchi Sea from May to October and are found in the lagoons. They

are especially concentrated in Kasegaluk Lagoon at Akoliakatat and Utikok passes often with

more than 1,000 seals per location (Frost et al. 1983). Some spotted seals (probably < 1,000)

are found in the Beaufort Sea in summer. Haul out areas in the Beaufort Sea include Oarlock

Island in Dease Inlet, the Colville River delta and Smith Bay.
of walruses hauled out on ice or land are sensitive to noise generated by boat and air traffic and

respond by stampeding into the water. This can result in calf mortality by trampling or separation;

and 2) walrus are benthic feeders, therefore oil spills or drilling mud disposal could affect their

food source.

Polar Bears

Pack ice of the Beaufort, Chukchi, and Bering seas is the essential habitat for polar bears

in Alaska. The Beaufort Sea is never completely ice free and provides summer habitat for polar

bears. When the ice advances in the fall bears begin to move south, some move into the Chukchi

and Bering seas, while others remain in the Beaufort. There is evidence that polar bears west of

Point Barrow may constitute a somewhat discrete population separate from bears of the Beaufort

Sea.

The primary food of polar bears is ringed seals, however many other edible and nonedible items are eaten as well. Polar bears mostly hunt ringed seals in leads. Concentrations of

bears may occur in certain areas due to ice conditions, which affect the availability of ringed

seals. The presence of carrion may also result in concentrations of bears, but these

concentrations are not regular or predictable in their occurrence.

All polar bears make day beds or temporary dens in winter, however, only pregnant

females den for extended periods of time. Pregnant females enter dens in late October or early

November. Cubs are born in December but do not emerge from dens until late March or early

April. Maternity dens are excavated in drifted snow but can be on pack ice, fast ice, islands, or

on the mainland. Approximately 53% of the 90 dens found in the Beaufort Sea between 1981 and
Spectacted Elders

In Alaska, spectacled elders nest in the Yukon-Kuskokwm (Y-K) delta and across the

North Slope, pnmanly from Cape Simpson to the Sagavanirktok River. The breeding population

on the V-K delta declined from an estimated 47,700 pairs circa 1972 (Dau and Kistchinski 1977)

to less than 3,000 pairs in 1992 (Stehn et al. 1992) and was listed under the Endangered Species

Act as threatened in 1993.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the National Biological Service (NBS)

using aerial surveys and satellite telemetry has begun to identify motting, fall staging and

winteting areas. In November, 1994 an estimated 32,000 spectacled elders were observed in the

vicinfty of St. Lawrence Island in the polynya to the south of the island and along the ice edge.

Following up on a telemetty signal in March 1995, the Service tound an estimated 140000

spectacled elders in extremely tight flocks in small openings of continuous ice. This location was

about half-way between St. Lawrence and St. Matthew islands. A return visit one month later

found an estimated 155000 spectacled elders in the same location but less tightly packed due

to larger openings in the ice (Lamed et al. 1995a). This number matches the current estimate of

the world population spectacled eiders. Prior to this discovery, the major spectacled eider winter

area was unknown.

Spectacled eider hens, fitted with satellite transmitters in the Prudhoe Bay area, in August

were found to be in the Chukchi between Point Lay and Cape Lisbume in September. Along with

many females were an estimated 30,000 males (Larned et al. 1995b). An additional 41000 birds

were observed in Mechigmenen Bay on the Chukosk Peninsula.
In fall, shorebirds, especially phalaropes concentrate in lagoons and on shore to stage

for fall migration. Oil spills in nearshore areas during this time of year could affect a significant

portion of the population.

UTERATURE CITED

Amstrup, S.C., and D.P. DeMaster. 1988. Polar Bear, Ursus maritimus. Pages 39-56 in J.W.

Lentfer, (ed.). Selected Marine Mammals ofAlaska: Species Accounts with Research and

Management Recommendations. Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C.

Amstrup, S.C., and C. Gardner. 1994. Polar bear maternity denning in the Beaufort Sea. J. WildI.

Manage. 58(1):1-1O.

Dau, C.P., and A.A. Kistchinski. 1977. Seasonal movements and distribution of the spectacled

eider. Wildfowl 28:65-75.

Davis, R.A., and D.H. Thomson. 1984. Marine mammals. Pages 47-79 in J.C. Truett, (ed.). The

Barrow Arch environment and possible consequences of planned offshore oil and gas

development. Proceedings of a synthesis meeting, 30 October-i November, 1983.

Girdwood, AK.

Fay, F.H. 1982. Ecology and biology of the Pacific walrus, (Odobenus rosmarus divergeris Illiger).

North American Fauna No. 74. U.S. Dep. Inter. Washington, D.C. 279 pp.
y, , p

Whaling Comm., July 1983. Cambridge. 9 pp.

Quakenbush, L., and J. Cochrane. 1993. Report on the conservation status of Steller's eider

(Polysticta stelleri), a Candidate Threatened and Endangered Species. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Fairbanks, AK. 26 p.

Quakenbush, L., A. Suydam, K. Fluetsch, and C. Donaldson. In Prep. Breeding biology of

Steller's eiders nesting near Barrow, Alaska: 1991-1994.

Stehn, R.A., C.P. Dau, B. Conant, and WI. Butler, Jr. 1993. Decline of spectacled eiders nesting

in westem Alaska. Arctic 46(3):264-277.

Stoker, S.W. 1978. Benthic invertebrate macrofauna of the eastem continental shelf of the Bering

and Chukchi seas. Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. Alaska. Fairbanks, AK. 259 pp.

Suydam, R., L Quakenbush, and M. Johnson. 1995. Migration of king and common elders past

Point Barrow, Alaska- Spring and Summer/Fall 1994. Sea Duck Symposium, 23rd Annual

Pacific Seabird Group Meeting, 8-12 November 1995, Victoria, B.C., Canada. (Abstract).

Woodby, D.A., and G.J. Divoky. 1982. Spring migration of elders and other waterbirds at Point

Barrow, Alaska. Arctic 35:403-410.


impernentation techniques. The objectives of the Strategy were to identify and protect important

habitat, provide for subsistence uses, and to further the goals of the 1973 international Agreement

on the Conservation of Polar Bears between Canada, Norway, Denmark, the former Soviet Union,

and the United States. Particular reference is provided to Article II which instructs Each

Contracting Party shall take appropriate action to protect the ecosystem of which polar bears are

a part, with special attention to habitat components such as denning and feeding sites and

migration patterns, and shall manage polar bear populations in accordance with sound

conservation practices based on the best available scientific data.N

In order to assess information on polar bear and habitat use the Service focused on two

sources of information: published and unpublished scientific information or data; and traditional

knowledge which is oral spoken info4mation provided by Native polar bear hunters based upon

years of observation. Each source of information has its own particular strengths and also

limitatons. The evaluation of scientific information was through conventional literature review. The

evaluation of traditional knowledge involved an extensive effort to interview and collate information

from Native hunters and naturalists. In total 61 indMduals residing in 12 villages were interviewed.

The product of these interviews was a series of maps which depict traditional knowledge of

seasonal polar bear habitat use, such as denning and feeding areas, observed within the area

used by the residents for hunting or traveling. The information on composite maps was verified

for each village during follow-up visits.

Threats to poar bear habitat were identified as industrial activity, shipping, contaminants,

mining, global warming, and human population growth and corresponding demands or effects

upon efther habitat or polar bears themselves. The Strategy identifies general Important Habitat

Areas for protection. These include feeding areas associated with recurrent leads and polynyas,
The Service will continue to work with Minerals Management Service (MMS) in the early

planning stages of lease sales to identify resource issues of concern while the Strategy

should provide a focus of the areas of important values to polar bears.

The Service will continue efforts to be instrumental in other programs which either

indirectly or directly affect the ecosystem of the region. Examples include the Bering Sea

Ecosystem initiative, the Coastal Zone Management Plan process, and the U.S.-Russia

conservation initiatives.

The Service has begun surveys to delineate marine mammal carcass locations and in the

future anticipates further studies to evaluate the energetic value, importance and use of

carcasses by polar bears. This information and maps will be provided to industry in order

to minimize potential disturbance of areas used for feeding. Initial surveys reveal that the

number of carcasses available s much less in the Beaufort Sea region than in the

Chukchi and Bering seas regions in western Alaska.

A Village Communication Plan will be developed and funds sought for its implementation.

Authorization to form an Advisoiy Committee and operational funding will be sought.

The Service will continue discussions towards developing a U.S.-Russia polar bear

conservation agreement for bears of the Alaska-Chukotka (ChukchilBenng Sea)

population.
Scott Schllebe: There was a couple of years ago. In the Chukchi Sea, I think there were three

LOAs: two to Shell and one to Chevron. They spanned a period of two years and, I believe, four

or five exploratory drill sites.

Clove Cowles: I was just wondering how Fish and Wildlife Service handled this question of the

interpretation of the observations of bears m relation to industry and the definitions of take. Just

as a comparison to this morning's discussion as far as bowhead whales and how monitoring may

be involved with interpretation of observations relative to take and how you have handled that

with the bears.

Scott Schllebe: Our definition of tak& is an alteration of behavioral processes. That can be

attraction or avoidance. In the case of the Chukchi Sea, there were quite a number of encouriters

between polar bears and the survey crew. I don't think there were very many encounters between

polar bears and ice breakers or vessels that were managing ice. There were many more

encounters or interactions between walruses and those activities. Some of the monitoring in that

case indicated that takes included preclusion by industrial activities of walruses' use of ice near

the drilling rig. Back to your initial question, the incidental take permits do not authorize the lethal

take, they only authorize the incidental take. There have been a number of incidental takes of

polar bears concurrent to oil and gas activities, not only in the Chukchi Sea but also in the

Beaufort Sea. That is the framework for the Letter of Authorization which provides protection to

industry for those types of takes.

Cleve Cowles: Is it Fish and Wildlife Service's expectation that industry report quantified takes

or has the Service done that independently?
150 CFR 18.117 Requirements for monitoring and report state that "The Ho'der of a Letter of Authorization

must submit a report to the Services Alaska Regional Director within 90 days of the completion of any

exploratory activities. The Ho'der and the Service shall meet and discuss the report each year. The report

must include the followtng information... Results of the monitoring activities including an estimate of the

actual level of take; ...'
is presented. Observations of YOY cod densities in September 1990 are related to this Species

ecology and oceanographic patterns in the eastern Beaufort Sea.

I. NBS-MANAGED OCS STUDIES

Our environmental studies address prioriLy research questions and information needs

identified by the MMS through the Alaska Regional Stakeholders, other State and Federal

agencies, and other interest groups. A program goat is to integrate these mission-oriented studies

with other NBS research (e.g., Alaska Science Center). In this way, the NBS and its partners (eg.,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAAJ) can address broader environmental

issues or regional ecosystems that may be affected by oil-and-gas or other human activities. In

every OCS study, MMS information needs are of priority concern and our milestones reflect

current oil-and-gas leasing and Environmental Impact Statement schedules. Our monitoiing

studies involve systematic sampling of both control and impacted sites subsequent to baseline

studies to develop time series data for detecting impact, trends, and changes in the baseline.

In FY 95 the NBS continued seabird colony and contaminants monitoring in Cook Inlet,

Norton Sound, and Arctic tease areas. In addition, new research was initiated to develop the

technologies needed to evaluate potential visual and acoustic disturbance effects on Pacific

walrus. Previously, the NBS's Alaska Science Center (ASC) had identilled the need for programs

to (1) monitor the status and trends of Alaska and Pacflc coast marine birds, and (2) integrate

contaminants monitoring into ecosystem research, as high pnoriLy research areas.
Chukchl Seabirds (ASC and NBS)

In summer 1995, FWS biologists monitored cliff-nesting seabird species (kittiwakes [Rissa

spp.] and murres) at colonies located at Capes Usbu me and Thompson. These surveys extended

the time series from the mid-1970s and late-1960s, respectively. Monitoring objectives were

supported by prey and telemetry studies to investigate summer (short-term) and winter

(long-term, telemetry only) habitat use by common (Una aalge) and thick-billed (U. Iomvia)

murres. The research is testing a hypothesis relating contrasting population trends in murres at

the colonies to differential patterns of habitat use in the Bering Sea.

Alaska Marine Mammal Tissue Archival ProJect(AMMTAP) (NBSJ NMFS, NatIonal Institute

of Standards and Technology)

The success of the AMMTAP reflects its many partners. Major research collaborators

indude the: NOAA, Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada), University of Ulm Germany,

FWS, North Slope Borough, State of Alaska, Kawerak and TOX Corporations, Alaska Sea Grant

Program, and the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Advisory Committee. The purpose of AMMTAP is

to collect tissues from Alaska marine mammals and to store these samples for future

contaminants analyses. Marine mammals sampled are important subsistence resources and

indude: ringed seals (Phoca hispida), bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus), spotted seals (P.

Iargha), harbor seals (P. vitulina), Pacific walrus, northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus). Steller

sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus), belukha whales (Delphinapterus leucas), bowhead whales

(Balaena mysticetus), and polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Uver, fat (blubber), and kidney tissues

are collected from freshly-killed animals using standardized sampling procedures. Contaminant

analyses mclude petroleum hydrocarbons, trace metals, PCBs, and persistent polychlorinated
Young-of-the-year (YO arctic cod are planktonic and their occurrence and depth distribution

appears synchronous with the spring bloom. Phytoplankton and early life stages of zooplankton

are their major foods. Juveniles remain planktonic until the end of their first growing season.

Older cod prey on zooplankton, substrate and ice-associated crustaceans, and young fish,

including YOY cod. Information from northern Alaska indicates that most males mature at 2 and

3 years and females at 3 years. Spatial variation in the relative abundance of arctic cod is best

known in nearshore areas, especially in late summer and autumn when onshore movements are

common.

Objectives

The MMS sponsored NOPA research in the Alaska Beaufort Sea during 1988-1991 with

objectives to (1) describe anadromous fish movements and migrations, and (2) investigate

spatial-temporal relationships in fish habitat use. The study area included hearshore waters

between Harrison Bay and Barter Island. In 1990, Camden Bay was the site of NOAA's fish

telemetry studies (Jarvela and Thorsteinson, in press) and more than 50% of our fish sampling

effort (Thorsteinson et al. 1991). The combination of multiple research objectives, limited field

time, and inclement weather resulted in only one period of systematic sampling in Camden Bay.

In this paper I describe how the presence of relatively high, uniform densities of YOY

arctic cod in nearshore waters of Camden Bay provides new insights into this species ecology

in arctic Alaska.
Arctic cod densities were estimated by computing the volume (m3) of water fished per

10-minute set (distance towed Im] X area [m2J of the tow net mouth) and standardizing the catch

to numbers per 1000 m3. The coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated (as in Zar 1984) to

describe relative variability in station catches and spatial patchiness across the bay. The

classification of CV values developed by Grossman et al. (1990) was further adapted to Camden

Bay where: values s25% indicate an even distribution; 25% <CV <75% a relatively even

distribution; 50% <CV <75% moderate patchiness; and CV >75% high patchiness. Area swept

methods (Bakala and Smith 1978) were used to describe arctic cod abundance and biomass.

Ninety-five percent (95%) confidence intervals were computed for population standing stocks and

wet-weight biomass. Sample sizes were based on the computation of effective degrees of

freedom (v) as described by Cochran (1963).

Hydrographic (CTD casts) data was processed as described in Thorsteinson etal. (1991).

Additional meteorological and oceanographic data was obtained from stations located on the

ANWR coast (Underwood et al. 1995).

Results

Marine conditions were encountered at 13 stations sampled; transitional waters were

observed in Simpson Cove. The average temperature of the upper 2-rn layer was 1°C at the most

northern stations of the bay warming to 2.5°C within 2 km of the coast. Salinities >30 ppt were

found in all exposed waters. Winds were from the northwest at approxirnatety 3.5 rn/sec during

the 31-hr sarnpling period. Oceanographic conditions in Sirnpson Cove included surface

temperatures of 4°C and salinities of 26 ppt. A strong salinity gradient was evident with 31 ppt,

<4°C water, near the sea floor.
Figure 1. Camden Bay study area, station locations, and subareas.
pyy 

Browniow Pt. The highest relative abundance of YOY cod was observed within 6 km of the

exposed coast. Greatest densities were reported at stations north of Collinson Pt. (Simpson Cove

not included) (Table 2):

Discussion Table 2. Spatial distribution of VOY arctic cod

(fish/bOO m3) In Camden Bay, September 2-3, 1991.

Underwood et al. (1995) report

large numbers of arctic cod in standard

fyke net catches in Simpson Cove during

July - September sampling periods in

1988-1991. Examination of the age

composition of their arctic cod catches in

1988 and 1989 reveals an absence of YOY

fish in July. Instead the inshore catches

were dominated (90%) by 2-4 year old fish.

Presumably, these cod were feeding on the rich mysid and amphipod food resources

characteristic of arctic lagoons. Small numbers of YOY cod were captured in August and

September 1990 at Simpson Cove and at Kaktovik and Beaufort lagoons. The onshore movement

of YOY fish in autumn suggests a 50 mm size in fish transitioning from planktonic to benthic food

habits. It may also reflect the size when cannibatism and predation are reduced. Older cod were

rarely sampled in association with YOY fish in offshore habitats.

Prior to this research, and that of Underwood et al. (1995), little information was available

about the fishes in the eastern sector of the Alaska Beaufort Sea. This is particularly true in

Distance

Offshore: 2-4 km 2-6 km >6 km

Arey Island 55 25 2

Camden Bay 168 128 3

Browniow Point 1 0.7 0.2
A northwesterty wind had been blowing for several days prior to September 2-3 and this might

explain the paucity of fish near Browniow Point. Considenng the variable nature of winds in this

region, their effect on coastal circulation, and the known occurrence of nearshore concentrations

of older fish in nearby waters each fall (i.e., Kaktovik fishery), a spawning population and nursery

ground could be located to the east. If this is true, early life history development, including the

transport and development of eggs and growth of YOY fry, would be inextricably linked to the

physical processes and productivity of Camden Bay. A coastal eddy is suggested by the coastal

configuration, bathymetry, and known currents in the eastern bay. Veiification of such a nursery

aits further testing.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Laune E. Jarvela and David A. Hale for their participation in this study. This study

was funded by the Minerals Management Service (MMS), U.S. Department of the Interior (DOl),

as part of the MMS Alaska Environmental Studies Program. The interpretations of data and

opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the

views and policies of the DOl.
Hale, D.A. 1991. A descnption of the physical charactenstics of nearshore and lagoonal waters

in the eastern Beaufort Sea, 1989. Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Anchorage,

Alaska.

Jarvela, LE. and L.K. Thorsteinson. In press. Movements and temperature occupancy of sonicalty

tracked Dolty Varden and Arctic Cisco in Camden Bay, Alaska. Special Symposium

Publication, American Fisheries Society.

Sekerak, A.D. 1981. Summary of the natural histoly and ecology of the arctic cod (Boreogadus

saida). Final Report to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Outer

Continental Shelf Environmenta' Assessment Program, Juneau, Alaska. 10 p.

Thorsteinson, LK., LE. Jarv&a, and D.A. Hale. 1991. Arctic fish habitat use investigations:

nearshore studies in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, summer 1990. Annual Report. National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and

Assessment, Anchorage, Alaska. 166 p.

Underwood, T.J., J.A. Gordon, M.J. Miflard, LA. Thorpe, and B.M. Osborne. 1995. Charactenstics

of selected fish populations of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal waters, Final Report,

1988-1991. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks Fishery Resource Office, Alaska

Fisheries Technical Report Number 28, Fairbanks, Alaska. 590 p.

Zar, J.H. 1984. Biostatistical anatysis. Second edition. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New

Jersey.
considered of Iitte impaitance to the population.

We are conducting a study sponsored by Minerals Management Service to assess the

manner and degree with which disturbance may affect walruses in sea ice and open sea habitats.

The study will focus on the effects of over-flying helicopters on the use of haulouts by walruses

along the ice edge.

METHODS

TELEMETRY

The disturbance study will involve pre-treatment, treatment, and post-treatment

observations on haulout patterns and movements of animals fitted with transmitters to assess the

overall impact of the disturbance on indMdual walruses. The treatment will consist of exposing

hauled-out animals to helicopter overflights. The study well require suitable methods for (1)

capturing and handling live animals, and (2) satellite telemetry for determining at-sea movements

of walruses. Testing of methods was initiated in summer 1995 at a haulout at Cape Peirce, in the

Bristol Bay area.

AnImal capture and handling

Handling walruses to attach satellite transmitters and collect biological samples requires

that they be immobilized for an adequate period of time. A vanety of immobilizing drugs have

been used in the past (Gales 1989), including ketamine (Hagenback et al. 1975), phencyclidine
FIgure 1. Range of Pacific walrus (from Fay 1982).

(Semalyn, DeMaster et al. 1981), etorphine (Hills 1992, Griftiths et al. 1993), Telazol (Stirling and

Sjare 1988, Grifflths et al. 1993), and carfentanil (Hills 1992). In our 1995 field efforts, we used

carfentanil, because it has a relatively rapid induction time and requires a small volume for

delivery. Furthermore, the recent availability of an improved antagonist, naltrexone, graatly

reduces the chance of renarcctization which was thought to be a problem associated with

carfentanil in the past (Hills 1992). To extend the period of immobilization, we intubated and

anesthetized the animal with Isoflurane gas. A similar procedure has been used successfully on

Steller sea lions (pers. comm. D. Calkins, Alaska Department of Fish & Game). This has the

advantages of a more controlled level of anesthesia, longer duration, and resolution of

tachycardia and hypertension due to the Induction drugs, as seen with other large animals, such

as elephants (Dunlop et al. 1994).

Transmitters

Both VHF radio transmitters and satellite-linked radio transmitters (Platform Transmitter

Terminals, PUs) have been used for monitonng walruses. Time-depth recorders (TDRs) have

been used to obtain dMng patterns of Atlantic walruses (Stewart et al. 1993, Wiig et al. 1993).
for future use in studies of walrus in sea ice habitats.

OTHER PERTINENT RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

Measures of anImal condition

Methods of determining animal condition from an evaluation of blood or other tissue

components and various body measurements are being investigated in search of alternative

means of assessing population status. Potentially, some of these methods may be incorporated

at a later date into disturbance studies where measures of individual condition and physiological

stress may be informative. Areas of investigation include hematology and serum chemistly. and

extent and distribution of body tat.

GIS data base

U.S. and Russian scientists conducted periodic surveys of walruses in the Bering and

Chukchi seas from 1958-1990, which include aerial counts of walruses on sea ice in the Russian

and U.S. sectors, aerial and photographic counts of walruses at Russian land haulouts, and

ground and aerial counts of walruses at U.S. land haulouts (Estes and Gilbert 1978, Estes and

Gol'tsev 1984). Most of the information from U.S. surveys is accessible only through agency

reports (e.g., Buckley 1958, Kenyon 1960, 1961, 1968, 1972). Data from early Soviet surveys were

published in the Russian language (e.g., Fedoseev 1962, 1981, Gol'tsev 1968, 1972, 1976) and

may be difficult for many researchers to obtain and use. These data, together with oceanographic

data on the Bering and Chukchi seas such as bathymetry, sea ice distribution, surficial substrate,

and the spatial distribution of selected benthic organisms, will be incorporated into a GIS data
Houston, TX. 120 p.

Brueggeman, J.J., D.P. Volsen, R.A. Grotefendt, GA. Green, J.J. Bums, and O.K. Ljundblad.

1991. 1990 walrus monitoring program: the Kiondike, Burger, and Popcorn prospects in

the Chukchi Sea. Unpubt. Rep. to Shell Western E. & P. Inc., Houston, TX. 130 p.

Buckley, J. L 1958. Preliminary reportwalrus survey, May 10-12, 1958. Unpubl. Rep., U.S. Fish

and Wildi. Serv., Anchorage, AK. 4 p.

DeMaster, D.P., J.B. Faro, J.A. Estes, J. Taggart, and C. Zabel. 1981. Drug immobilization of

walrus (Odobenus rosmarus). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sd. 38:365-367.

Dunlop, Ci., D.S. Hodgson, R.C. Cambre, D.E. Kenny, and H.D. Martin. 1994. Cardiopulmonary

effects of three prolonged periods of isollurane anesthesia in an adult elephant. J. Amer.

Veter. Med. Assoc. 205:1439-1444.

Estes, J.A., and J.R. Gilbert. 1978. Evaluation of an aerial survey of Pacific walruses (Odobenus

rosmarus divergens). J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 35:1130-1140.

Estes, J.A., and V.N. Gol'tsev. 1984. Abundance and disthbution of Pacific walrus, Odobenus

rosmarus dWergens: Results of the flrst Soviet-American joint aerial sutvey, autumn 1975.

Pages 67 to 76 in F.J. Fay and GA. Fedoseev, editors, Soviet-American cooperative

research on marine mammals. Volume 1 - Pinnipeds. National Oceanographic and

Atmospheric Administration Technical Report, National Marine Fisheries Service 12.
Studies of Marine Mammals, 1972). (In Russian).

GoI'tsev, V. N. 1976. [Aerial surveys of the Pacific walrus in the Soviet sector during autumn

1975). Unpubl. Rep., TINRO, Magadan, Russia. 22 p. (In Russian).

Griffiths, D., 0. Wiig, and I. Gjertz. 1993. Immobilization of walrus with etorphine hydrochloride

and Zoletil. Mar. Mammal. Sci. 9:250-257.

Hagenback, C.C., H. Undner, and D. Weber. 1975. Fiberoptic gastroscopy in an anaesthetized

walrus, Odobenus rosmarus. Aq. Mamm. 3:20-22.

Hills, 5. 1992. The effect of spatial and temporal vanabihiLy on population assessment of Pacific

walruses. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Maine, Orono. 217 p.

Kenyon, K. W. 1960. Aerial surveys of marine mammals in the Bering Sea, 23 February to 2

March 1960 and 25-28 April 1960. Unpubl. Rep., U.S. Fish and WildI. Serv., Anchorage,

AK. 47 p.

Kenyon, K. W. 1961. Report of a survey of marine mammals in the Chukchi Sea conducted for

the Atomic Energy Commission, 29-30 March 1961. Unpubl. Rep., U.S. Fish and WildI.

Serv., Anchorage, AK. 10 p.

Kenyon, K. W. 1968. Table of estimates of walrus numbers for aerial surveys conducted in

Feb-March 1960, April 1960, March 1961, and April 1968. Unpubl. Rep., U.S. Fish and

WildI. Serv., Anchorage, AK. 3 p.
Stirling, I., and B. Sjare. 1988. Preliminary observations on the immobilization of male Atlantic

walruses (Odobenus rosmaws rosmarus). Mar. Mamm. Sci. 4:163-168.

Von Recum, A.F., and J.B. Park. 1981. Permanent percutaneous devices. CRC Crit. Rev.

Bioengin. 5:37-77.

Wiig, 0., I. Gjertz, 0. Grifflths, and C. Lydersen. 1993. DMng patterns of an Atlantic walrus

Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus near Svalbard. Polar Biol. 13:71-72.

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION

Anne DaIley: I was just wondenng, with this thing strapped onto the tusk of the walrus, did it

impede their ability to gather food?

Chadwick Jay: No one really knows. We do mount the transmitter over to the side of the tusk.

When the walrus feeds, it feeds with its face right down and the tusks dragging along the

substrate. The transmitter is attached to the side of the tusk.

Anne Dailey: Would the transmitter eventually come off if they are strapped on with metal

bindings and epoxy?


pp

on the animals. You have an antenna coming out of a bird from an internal transmitter. Have you

recovered any animals so you can take a look at those sites and see how they deal with it? Or

do you do something special with it?

Scott Hatch: With respect to the wounds we inflicted, that could be a factor. We lost three of our

birds within two or three days post-release. Those we attribute to possible infection, It turns out,

from what I understand from the veterinarians and vanous people I have talked to, a bird's

immune system is better in this context than perhaps, pinnipeds and some other mammals that

have been used, when you are doing implants. They have a lot of problems releasing pinnipeds

after an operation like this, and they will get infections. It is a major factor. You have to have a

much more stenle environment, perhaps, for doing this. Ours is clean, not stenle, surgery. The

veterinarian we are working with feels this would be a low incidence thing at most. But we do

have a few cases of modality, soon enough after release, that that would be a likely scenario. But

birds, as I said, seem to be little prone to that kind of a thing.

As far as recovering the birds, no we haven't done so. I don't believe there is any way

we could home in on these transmitters. We do have some transmitters, even now, out there,

apparently on beaches gMng us the locations. it is useful, in one way, because we can look at

the redundancy of those locations from fixed transmitters out in the field. We have a number of

those. Unlike, maybe a VHF, where you go out with a directional antenna and have some prayer

of actually locating the dead animals, we don't have that ability here. Maybe we could design

something in the future to recover the dead birds. That would certainly be the way you would like

to do it - have a look and do the autopsy.

Brenda Ballachey: You might mention the harlequin ducks...

jgpp

Also, I should mention here that AMNWR has designated Cape Lisburne as an annual

monitoring site under their seabird monitoring program. However, the Refuge rarely receives

enough money to visit it every year without outside support. The Refuge has also designated

Cape Thompson as a second-level seabird monitoring site, and as such, we try to conduct work

there every three or four years; But again, to meet this goal, we usually have to rely on outside

help for funding.

Since 1976, we have acquired a total of 14 years of data on murres and kittiwakes at

Cape Lisbume, and nine field seasons of Information on these species at Cape Thompson. Also,

because seabird research was conducted at Cape Thompson during the Atomic Energy

Commission Project Chariot days, we have some valuable 19591961 data on the birds from that

colony. We are lucky enough to have access to this historical information because Dr. L.G.

Swartz, the principal investigator of the AEC-sponsored study, was both Dr. Springer's and my

major professor at UAF during the early 1970s, and he turned his field notes over to us shortly

before he retired.

Earlier today, you heard about a spring lead system that is important to a variety of birds

and marine mammals in the Chukchi Sea. I would like to point out that there is another system

that develops in the region dunng the summer months that is also important to seabirds and a

variety of other wildlife. There is a strong current that flows northward through the Bering Strait

and part of this flow passes by capes Thompson and Lisburne and eventually rounds Point

Barrow. This northward flow of water persists most of the year, and during summer, it carries a

rich drifting boreal pelagic food web past the colonies.
g, y gpp

at about the time kittiwake chicks begin to hatch. However, if development of the Alaska Coastal

Water mass is poor and nearshore waters remain cold, strong inshore runs of 0+ and 1+ age

class sand lance either fail to matenarize or are delayed, and surtace-feeding kittiwakes fledge

few nestlings. Conversely, in years when development of Alaska Coastal Water is good and

nearshore temperatures warm sufficiently, large schools of sand lance appear in the surlace

waters and kittlwake productivity improves markedly (productivity in cold and warm water years

can vary from almost zero to more than one chick per pair). I should also mention that we have

some evidence suggesting that water temperatures can become too warm. In 1984, when

temperatures were the highest we have recorded, few sand lance appeared and kittiwakes failed

reproductively.

As a general rule, annual changes in summer water temperatures and the productMty of

kittiwakes tend to be similar at the Thompson and Usbume colonies. However, in 1995 we

observed a marked difference in kittiwake productMty between these locations. At Cape Lisburne,

where large schools of sand lance appeared before kittiwake eggs hatched and persisted

throughout most of nestling period, productivity was relatively good, about 0.8 chicks per nest.

In contrast at Cape Thompson, kfttikes laid eggs, but reproductive success was essentially

zero, because most paws abandoned their nests shortly after hatching began. The near-complete

failure of kittiwakes at Cape Thompson appeared to result from a severe mid-season shortage

of prey in surface waters. Although sand lance were clearty present in the Thompson region, as

indicated by murres bringing them to chicks and the high overall productivity of these dMng birds

(about 0.85 fledglings per egg, a level nearty identical to that recorded at Cape Lisburne), they

were apparently not available to surface-feeding kfttikes. We will be reviewing satellite imagery
E

15OOO10000-

15,501

16,123

14,100. .

16,613

16,390

15,548

Percent change between 1976 and 1995=+116%

Average annuai increase = 6%/yr

5)00 75767778798081 828384858687888990919293949596

Years

FIgure 1. Trend In number of murres on boat plots 11, 12, 25, 20, 30, 32, 65, 66, 70, and 72 at Cape

Lisbume, Alaska between 1976 and 1995 (counts are slng)e counts without any measures of

variability).

We now have several different sets of plots that we count at the Lisbume and Thompson

colonies, and this is an approach that I am using at other colonies. For example, we are currently

censusing several plot sets in the Barren Islands where I've been conducting a murre monftonng

project for the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council since 1993. Basically, when you attempt to

count a whole colony or a large section of it, you are rarely able to count it more than once or

twice during the correct time of year and day because of logistics and weather. Since daily

variation in attendance of murres tends to be fairly high (e.g., in the order of plus or minus 20%),
0

E

Percentchangebetween 1987and l995=+62%

Average annual increase = 8%/yr

I T I I I F I I I

87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

Years

Figure 2. Trend In number of murres on land plots 1-7 at Cape Usbume, Alaska between 1987 and

1995 (counts are multiple counts with measures of varIability: 1987, n=8 1992, n=9 1993, n=5; 1995,

n=1 0).

are available from it, it shows the same pattern. This year, we started another level of counts on

two sets of smaller plots that we established to obtain data on productivity. As a result, in about

four to lIve years we'll actually have five separate sets of data that can be used to track changes

in murre populatIon numbers at the colony Using several different sets of census plots to track

bird numbers at colonies Is a valuable tool When we see the same patterns emerge from the

various data sets, it increases our confidence in the results. Because patterns are sImilar on the

96

1500

1,675

2,094
.

784

987

Percent change between 1977 and 1986 = +79%

Average annual increase = 9%/yr

0 I I I I I I I 767778798081828384858687888990919293949596

Years

Rgure 3. Trend in number of black-legged kittiwakes on boat plots 65, 66, 70, and 72 at Cape

Usburne, Alaska between 1977 and 1995 (counts are singte counts without any measures of

variability).

highly significant one, but never-the-less an increasing trend. I bring this to your attention now,

because I will show you similar results from Cape Thompson later. In general, the pattern is the

same at both locations. This suggests that something happened in the eastern Chukchi Sea

during the late 1980s - early 1990s that caused attendance to decline at both colonies. Now that

numbers appear to have decreased, we will follow the situation to see if it develops into a

negative trend.

500- 597
z

0 , u 75767778798081 28384858687888990919293949596

Years

Figure 4. ProductivIty of black-legged kittiwakes at Cape Usbume, Alaska between 1976 and 1995.

somewhat and productivity rose. I should mention that 1992 was somewhat of an anomalous

year. Water temperatures were indeed cooler, compared to the mid-1980s, but productivity was

also lowered by cold late summer air temperatures and snowlalls that killed chicks. In 1995, sea

surface temperatures were slightly higher on average during late summer and air temperatures

were unseasonably mad, compared with 1992, and reproductive success improved.

I should mention that we have other types of data from the Usbume colony. Some of

these data sets appear to be tightly coupled wtth some of the environmental information we've

been collecting, and this is exciting because it is beginning to help us understand how the

eastern Chukchi system works.

I initially started to explore relationships between seabirds and changing environmental

conditions with Dr. A!an Springer, a partner of mine at the Institute of Marine Sciences UAF, and

Dr. Edward Murphy, who is now a professor at the Institute of Arctic Biology UAF. All of us are

continuing to work together on this subject to this day. In fact, Ed will be sending me some

information from Bluff in Noiton Sound next week because he has observed some of the same
0 i i i i i i i u I i I I i i I 75767778798081828384858687888990919293949596

Years

FIgure 5. Trend In number of murres at Colony 4, Cape Thompson, Alaska between 1976 and 1995

(counts are single counts without any measures of variabIlity).

data were included in some of the data sets, they would show that a population decline occurred

between the early 1960s and the mid-1970s. Based on the 1976-1995 data, we believe that

numbers may be starting to recover.

This graph shows data from set of murre plots established by Swath in the late 1950searly 1960s that we continue to track today (FigUre 6). The counts shown here are multiple counts

with measures of variability. Error bars are not present because these data are still being

analyzed; however, I know what they basically are. I am only showing you the information from

the late 1970s - mid-1990s. As you can See, there has been no significant trend in murre numbers

during this interval on these plotsit's basically a flat line. However, this next graph shows data

collected on another set of plots that were set up 1988 (Figure 7). These data do show a weak

positive trend.
These latter data are hardly compelling by themselves. However, we have some other

information that suggests the Cape Thompson murre population may be beginning to change.

We have noticed over the years that at colonies (e.g., the Barren Islands) with populations that

have little depth to them (e.g., age structures skewed toward older adults), numbers of birds on

the cliffs begin declining rapidly as soon as chicks begin leaving and going to sea. The adults

go to sea with the chicks and the nesting cliffs become bare in only about 10-14 days time.

In contrast at Cape Lisbume, we obviously have a large floating population of subadults

that will soon be entering the breeding population. At this colony, numbers begin to increase on

the plots about a week before chicks start to leave. This year, after sea-going started, numbers

on some plots increased dramaticallyin some cases doubling aver about two weeks time. The

late-season increase persisted for about two weeks and then numbers finally began declining as

the last chicks started to depart the cliffs This increase in numbers clearly results from an influx

of prospecting subadults. When we watch sections of plots carefully, we see new birds show up

that begin to hang out on the edges of the occupied breeding territories and territorial disputes

increase. We also see that when members of breeding pairs leave the nesting ledges with their

chicks, some of these new birds quickly move into the vacant nesting sitessometimes as many

as three or four individuals. These birds spend most of their time checking the nesting habitat out.

The presence of these large flumbers of prospecting birds indicates that there is a large, healthy

pool of non-breeders out there that are waiting to be recruited into the breeding population.

We've started to notice a similar late season increase in murre numbers at Cape

Thompson, and Dr. Murphy also noted this for the first time at Bluff this year. Ed now has

numbers increasing on plots at the end of the census period. As a result, we predict that within
a few years' time we're going to lind increasing trends at both colonies (populations of murres

have remained low at both locations since at least the mid-I 970s).

Here is the last graph I have that shows some of the data on kittiwake numbers at Cape

Thompson (Figure 8). Just as we saw in the Cape Usbume data set, no trend is apparent in

population numbers over the 20-year long 1976-1995 penod. However, a significant positive trend

is present between 1976 and 1990. As I mentioned earlier, this pattern is similar to the pattern we

found in the 1976-1987 portion of the Cape Usburne data set. It appears, based on information

from both locations, that kittiwakes were increasing at the colonies until about the late1980s.

Again, these complimentary data sets suggest that something may have occurred in the eastern

Chukchi Sea in the early 1990s that caused kittiwake attendance to decline at the colonies. In

both cases, we will make an effort to track kittiwake numbers over the next few years to ee if this

apparent change is real. We will also review available environmental data to see if we can

pinpoint any specific conditions that may have contributed to this apparerttchange in attendance

at the colonies.

In conclusion, I would like to leave you with the message that the types of long-term data

sets I have shown you are now starting to pay oft. We are in the process of developing a much

better understanding of how these seabirds respond to changing environmental parameters.

There is no doubt that these types of long-term information bases have great value, and we would

like to thank NOAA and the MMS for the support they have given us over the years that has

allowed us to continue collecting these kinds of data.
FIgure 8. Trend In number of black-legged klttiwakes at Colony 4, Cape Thompson, Alaska between

1976 and 1995 (counts are single counts without any measures of variability).

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION

David Rugh: You spoke about some of the variabilities in the environmental conditions in the

timing of birds leaving. Have you ever tested inter-observer counts? That is, you've been a

common factor for about 20 years. Would someone else make an identical count to yours?

David Roseneau: Basically, yes. First of all, I can say that we've been lucky enough at Cape

Lisbume to have one of the original investigators present almost evety year. Either Alan Springer

or myself in most cases. When the Fish and Wildlife Service became involved, Art Sowis and Vern

Byrd also began counting the birds. They've been there a number of years with either Alan or

myself, so they're now well-trained members of the census team. Basically we have somebody

present every year who has a number of years of experience at the colony.

But to answer your question, yes, we've looked at differences in observers' counts. We

did that back in the 1970s. We've locked at differences between observers, various types of

individual obsen,er error, the kinds of errors that can be introduced when making these types of

counts, and basically, these kinds of errors do not appear to have large impacts on results. In

general, given such factors as daily variation in bird numbers, these types of errors tend to only

play minor parts.


interest The vehicle for joining forces Is the University of Alaska Coastal Manne Institute Funds

of up to one million dollars per year are made available to the Alaskan CMI through fiscal year

1997. There is no limit set on dollar amount for each project, but the intent of the CMI is to fund

several smaller as opposed to fewer larger projects. A similar CMI is operating in Louisiana as

a joint venture between MMS and Louisiana State University.

The Alaskan CMI is administered at UAF under the School of Fisheries and Ocean

Sciences as a special project under the Dean's office. Direction for the CML is provided by a

Technical Steenng Committee of six. It is composed of two members from MMS, two members

from the UAF marine research community, and two members from the State of Alaska. MMS

members are Dr. Cleve Cowles from Anchorage and Ken Turgeon from MMS headquarters in

Herndon, VA. The two UAF members are Dr. Vera Alexander (as Director of the Institute) and Dr.

John Goering. The two State members are Diane Mayer, Director, DMsion of Governmental

Coordination and Gordon Kruse, Division of Commercial Fisheries Management and

Development, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game.

The CMI annually develops a request for Letter of Intent (LOl) based on the mutually

shared research interests of MMS and the State as stated in a series of Framework Issues.

Projects funded through CMI provide infoñnation which can be used by the MMS and the State

for management decisions specifically relevant to the MMS mission. That is, projects are pertinent

to either the OCS oil and gas program or the marine minerals mining program and provide useful

information for one of the phases of program management, or for the scientific understanding of

the potential environmental effects of these resource development activities in the arctic and

subarctic environments. Additionally, projects are frequently designed to foster the training of

researchers in relevant fields of study, especially through the award of graduate student
selected projects. Final review (internal and/or external) and potential acceptance of a project

occurs the following February. Funding for selected projects is generally available in March-April.

RESEARCH PRODUCTS

The CMI-funded projects provide a variety of products, including a contribution to an

annual CMI report detailing work in progress, and a detailed final report at the culmination of the

work. In addition, investigators are strongly encouraged to publish their findings in peer reviewed

journals and to present their work at symposia and to the lay public when appropriate Data

collected on CMI-funded projects are forwarded lathe National Ocean Data Center, or to other

appropriate repositories so they become available to other researchers and to the public.

The CMI has initiated three projects which are addressing biological information needs

relative to the Arctic Coastal Ecosystem. These include:

North Slop. Amphidromy Aseesament - Natural stable isotope abundances measured

in tissues of Alaska North Slope coregonine fishes are being shown to reflect differences

in feeding habitat relative to size and age This methodology is being developed so that

it may be used as a tool for proxy analysis of fish behavior in future North Slope

environmental monitoring studies. Development of the methodology consists of sampling

Arctic and least ciscos, broad whitefish, Dolly Varden, and representative non-commercial

fish and forage species thtough collaboration with existing sampling programs being

conducted by the North Slope Borough's Department of Wildlife Management and BP

Exploration through contracts to LGL, Ltd. Intensive sampling at a limited number of sites

is enabling an analysis of population structure using natural stable isotope abundance.
The Alaska Frozen Tissue Collection and Associated Electronic Database: A

Resource for Marine Biotechnology - The Alaska Frozen Tissue Collection (AFTC) is

the primary regional archive for frozen zoological samples and a major contributor to

biotechnology studies of Alaska and its waters. Advances in molecular biology are rapidly

establishing the value of frozen specimens for detecting environmental change. Samples

in the AFTC are essential for monitoring long-term trends in marine organisms. Though

we are acquiring new material from several sources, important opportunities have been

missed and, unfortunately, some investigators are still unaware of this resource. The

objective of this project is to expand the Collection's zoological scope of marine

organisms and thereby establish the AFTC as a state-funded regional resource for

monitoring long-term trends in Alaska's marine environment. An electronic database will

be developed that is accessible through the Internet, thus facilitating the transfer of

information and sharing of genetic resources among investigators. The AFTC is also

expanding collaborative efforts with the Alaska Marine Mammal Tissue Archival Project

(AMMTAP) and other marine mammal projects throughout the state.

problems. As a result, the Service is attempting to apply the concept of managing and protecting

ecosystems to everything it does from reviewing permits, evaluating fisheries, and managing our

Nationa' Wildlife Refuges. Director Mollie Beattie said the Service's ecosystem approach

represents a new way of managing natural resources that takes into account the entire

ecosystem and balances recreational use, economic development, and conservation of fish and

wildlife so that each is sustainable.

in early 1994, the Service designated ecosystems across the country based largely on

watersheds, and established ecosystem teams composed of managers and scientists within the

agency. These teams have spent the last year contacting potential partners, establishing

cooperative projects, and developing Action Plans that are intended to supply management

direction and a 1collective vision1 of future ecosystem conditions.

As of October 1, 1995, the Service has reorganized its personnel structure around

ecosystems. Field offices within a given geographic area will be supervised by a single assistant

regional director. Supervision will be based on the location of field oThces, not the services or

programs they administer. This new organizational structure is designed to assure that issues are

viewed more in a geographic or ecosystem context than in a programmatic, or specific resource

context. Geographic supervision also provides greater opportunity to integrate our activities

toward common priorities and to facilitate cooperation with our partners in land and resource

management.
Grant Wafther Like field work. Do you need more field data?

Larry Bright: Well, in certain areas, we need data of a different type, for example, habitat on the

North Slope. We work quite a bit with oil companies. There have been individual attempts to

classify and map habitats on the North Slope. But we haven't pulled all of those together for a

unified look at habitat across the coastal plain. So we really don't know what habitats are truly

limited, what is abundant, what might be critical to certain species at certain times of the year.

We need to pull that kind of information together on a landscape level. With this kind of

information in hand, we can form strategies that protect or restore habitats across thefr normal

range of vanation, and foster the variety of wildlife that depend on them. ft is difficult to make

enlightened decisions on a project by project basis without that kind of overview of the system.

Grant Weither The reason I asked the question the way I did is because I attended an

archeological dig the last few summers, down near Delta Junction; the Broken Mammoth Site,

for those of you who might be familiar with it. it is very interesting that not onty do they have

professionals who were 'professional' Ph.D. archeologists, geochemists, etc. who were there to

analyze what was going on in the dig and to pursue whatever they were after. But they also had

a field school which ran simuttaneousty. They recruited students from all over the country. The

first year was mostly Alaskan students, but the latter years they have had people from other

schools. But then there was a group of volunteers who showed up who were like amateur

archeologists. These were people who travel the circuit of digs all around the world. These people

are quite knowledgeable. They are all trained as to how to do the professional held work. They

are trained in the techniques before they actually go. They attend sthool for a week or so. Out

in the held they have critique sessions evely night. It the collection of data is a problem, if there




addition of the Eby and Holloway (1994) eddy form stress to improve the representation of the

Beaufort Undercurrent.

The model has Lagrangian drifters which trace the paths taken by particles released at

given locations. Drifters moving with the ice velocity were used to compare the motions in the

model with buoys released by Roger Colony during 1983. This comparison showed that there is

substantial room for improvement in the simulation. However, the velocity fields from this

simulation were sent to the Minerals Management Service which has produced its own buoy

trajectories. These trajectories were made using the ice velocity when there is greater than 80%

ice concentration and the water velocity plus 3.5% of the wind velocity for lower ice

concentrations. It is these buoy trajectories which were used in their Oil-Spill Risk Analysis

(OSRA) report.

The results of the central model simulation are consistent with the large-scale circulation

features of the Western Arctic. In particular, the Beaufort Gyre and its seasonal variability in the

sense and amplitude of its circulation are reproduced to the extent of our ability to quantify them

in the target year of 1983. Local reversal of the climatological circulation along the continental

shelf (the Beaufort Undercurrent) is not reproduced at the resolution of the current study.

Incorporation of the Eby and Holloway eddy form stress parameterization improves the degree

of skill in the Undercurrent region, though to an unknown degree. Clearly, simulations at

enhanced resolution (perhaps 4 or more times finer than presently employed) are necessary to

resolve the processes responsible for the generation of the Undercurrent.

The bulk properties of the ice distribution observed during 1983 - including ice

concentration and thickness and its seasonal growth and retreat - are reproduced well by the
Haidvogel, D.B., J. Wilkin, and R.E. Young. 1991. A semi-spectral primitive equation ocean

circulation model using vertical sigma and orthogonal curvilinear horizontal coordinates.

J. Comp. Phys. 94:151-185.

Hedstrom, K.S., 1994. Technical Manual for a Coupled Sea-Ice/Ocean Circulation Model (Version

1). OCS Study MMS 94-0020.

Hedstrom, K.S., D. B. Haidvogel and S. Signonni, 1995. Model simulations of ocean/sea-ice

interaction in the Western Arctic in 1983. OCS Study MMS 95-0001.

Hibler, W.D., III. 1979. A dynamic thermodynamic sea ice model. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 9:815-846.

Kozo, T.L and R.Q. Robe, 1986. Modeling winds and open-water buoy drift along the eastern

Beaufort Sea coast, including the effects of the Brooks Range. J. Geophys. Res.

91:13011-13032.

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION

Dick Prentkl: Some of the emphasis in this meeting is development very close to shore, within

12 miles or 12 km, in some cases. Development would be over a much smaller area than the

areas of concern in your Arctic model. What would be your recommendation on how to model
Rutgers, Andreas MUnchow who would love to go up and make more measurements. I talked to

him about what was actually known. He said that it is such a difficult area to work in that they

haven't made many studies up there. There is a lot that is not known.

Igor Appel: The trajectory of ice motion shown are they received under the

Kate Hedstrom: The model trajectories that I produced are based on the ice velocities.

Igor Appel: From five points...

Kate Hedstrom: Oh, the five launch point releases were done by MMS and include a wind-driven

component.

Igor Appel: Are they influenced only by the wind?

Kate Hedstrom: No. If there is 80% or greater ice cover, they move with the ice velocity. If there

is less than that, then they move with the ocean velocity, plus 3.5% of the wind.

Igor Appel: It seems that the trajectory from the third and fourth point are significantly different

at least in the winter. If this is true, what is the explanation that the envelopes are different? The

points are very close to each other, but the envelope is significantly different.

Kate Hedstrom: I don't know the answer to that. They are dominated by the ice velocities from

that model.
Dick Prentkl: Right now I don't think that Minerals Management Service is doing any joint work

with the Canadians in Beaufort Sea oceanography. We do have one project which is working with

the Japanese in the Chukchi Sea. I have a comment on Dr. Albert's question on using Native

knowledge. We haven't done too much oceanographically in the last live years or so; but

between 1975 and 1985, we conducted at least a handful of studies where we did have

researchers talk with Natives. Some of the things that came out of that were, if you look at the

ice nomenclature, the ice types that the scientists track, we track about as many as the Natives

do: 40, 50 or 100. I forget whatever the number is, but science has taken some of those Native

categories and uses them. Interviewers have also gone back and obtained information on historic

ice overrides and information on what Natives remember about hstoiic bad ice years, etc. We

do have that data incorporated into the database. But that was work that we did mostly between

1975 and 1985, I believe.

Cleve Cowles: Another thought in that respect: the physical oceanography study at the Coastal

Marine Institute is cooperating with the North Slope Borough on a logistic basis. Because that

study is incomplete, there probably hasn't been much communicated back to the 'ocal people

on the North Slope; but part of the overall concept or design of the Coastal Marine Institute is to

have the people at the Coastal Marine Institute try as much as possible to establish that

communication. I would see that happening in the future.
less than 0.1% of the spills, but 77.1% of the volume spilled. Spills of less than one barrel

constitute 91.9% of the spills, but only 4.3% of the volume spilled.

Size and causes of large platform and pipeline spills on the OCS are variable. There have

been only eleven major platform spills on the OCS, with the largest being the Santa Barbara spill

of 1969 of 80,000 bbl. Most large platform spills are still under 10,000 bbl. Causes of platform

spills range from vessel collisions (3), blowouts (4), structure or equipment failure (3), and

hurricane (1). There have been twelve large pipeline spills, again, mostly less than 10,000 bbl,

but with largest, at 160,638 bbl, occurring in 1967. Anchor dragging caused seven of the spills,

trawis, hurricanes, and corrosion each caused two.

OIL SPILL OCCURRENCE RATES

The MMS uses oil-spill risk analysis most extensively in lease sale Environmental Impact

Statements (ElSs) where the only direct measure of oil development is the resource estimate. All

other aspects in the development scenario in the ElS - pipeline miles, number of platforms,

years and rates of production - are derived from the resource estimate. Any OCS production

in the Beaufort Sea is expected to be piped through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline (rAP) to Valdez

and then tankered elsewhere. The MMS has also, therefore, compiled statistics on TAP tankenng

and spills.

The spill occurrence rates can be expressed and normalized in terms of number of spills

per volume of crude oil produced, piped, or tankered. The rate statistics used by MMS

incorporate a statistical trend analysis to evaluate whether the data indicate a change in the

frequency of large oil spills. For example, improving safety technology could be reducing the
gpp

likelihood of large oil spills. Details of how the trend analysis is done can be found inAnderson

and LaBelle (1994). Factoring in the most recent years of spill records (post-1987) has lowered

the MMS estimate for the platform spill occurrence rate, has increased the estimates for the

pipebne spill occurrence rate, but has not changed the estimate for the worldwide tanker spill

occurrence rate (Figure 2). The changes are attributable to both a longer historical record (= more

data) and periodic statistical re-evaluations of rates and trends. The increase in spill rate for

pipelines between the 1990 and most recent, 1994 analyses is not due to so much to an increase

in spillage, but rather to a disappearance of a statistical trend toward less frequent spillage. The

1990 analysis included pipeline data through 1964-1987, with no spills in the last six years of that

record. Subsequently, pipeline spills occurred in 1988, 1990, and 1992; and the apparent trend

in decreasing spillage disappeared. On the other hand, a decreasing trend in frequency of

platform spills was substantiated in the 1994 analysis.

For the first time in the 1994 MMS estimates, spill occurrence rates were calculated for

tanker and barge spills occurring in U.S. waters, and for spills of North Slope crude oil

transported by tanker from Valdez, Alaska (Figure 3). Thus, estimates for tanker spills of Beaufort

produced oil can now be directly projected from experience along the tanker route on which

Beaufort oil would be shipped. The frequency of spills from TAP tankers has been slightly less

than that for all tankers in U.S. waters or for all tankers. The frequency of large spills from barges

is more than threefold higher than for any other transportation mode. The barge statistic may

have some future relevance to the Beaufort Sea. It has been suggested that crude of Canadian

Beaufort oil discoveries could be barged to the U.S. Beaufort Sea and sent through the TAP

pipeline. However, also note that although large spills from barges are more frequent than from
Figure 2. ComparIson of historic spill rates for spills of at least 1,000 bbl.

either pipelines or tankers, the average and median sizes of large barge spills are much less

those of pipelines and especially tankers.

APPUCATION

Statistically, the occurrence of oil spills can be treated as following the Poisson probability

distribution, which governs the occurrence of rare and random events. Radioactive decay is

another example of a process which follows a Poisson distribution. Figure 4 shows an example

of how MMS applies the spill occurrence rates and Poisson distribution In the draft ElS for

Beaufort Sea Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 144 (USD01, MMS 1995), our next proposed

Beaufort lease sale. Because of the emphasis on the theme of cumulative and string-of-pearts

development during this meeting, the example is for the cumulative case, which includes Sale 144

plus other developed and undeveloped Federal and State offshore resources totaling 1.842 billion

barrels (BbbI). The figure is for spills within the Beaufort Sea, and thus incorporates spill rates for

pipelines and platforms, but not for tankers. The combined spill occurrence rate for pipelines and

platforms times the 1.842 Bbbl resource provides the statistically expected number of 3.26 spills.

Application of the Poisson distribution provides estimates of probability of having no spills, the

probability of having a specific number of spills, the probability of having one or more spills, and

the most likely number of spills.
FIgure 3. ComparIson of spill rates and sizes by source.

0 AVERAGE SIZE

MEDIAN SIZE

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0. 1I t

I-
undeveloped resources = 1.842 BbbO: Poisson distribution for expected number of 3.26 spills.

REFERENCES

Anderson, C.M., and R.P. LaBelle. 1990. Estimated occurrence rates for analysis of accidental oil

spills on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. Oil and Chemical Pollution 6: 21-35

Anderson, C.M., and R.P. LaBelle. 1994. Comparative occurrence rates for offshore oil spills. Spill

Science and Technology Bulletin 1(2):131-141.

Lanfear, K.J., and D.E. Amstutz. 1983. A reexamination of occurrence rates for accidental oil Spills

on the U.S. Outer Continenta' Shelf. Pages 355-365 in 1983 Oil Spill Conference.

American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.

Stewart, R.J. 1975. Oil spillage associated with the development of offshore petroleum resources.

Report to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Martingale, mo.

Cambridge, MA.

Stewart, R.J. 1976. A survey and critical review of U.S. oil spill data resources with application to

the tanker/pipeline controversy. Report to Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Department of

the Interior, Washington, DC. Martingale, Inc. Cambridge, MA.

USD01, MMS, Alaska OCS Region. 1995. Beaufort Sea Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale

144 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. OCS EIS/EA MMS 95-0043. Anchorage, AK.
that change the trend?

Dick Prentkl: It might. If you remember the first pipeline spill which occurred in our records in

1967 was 160,000 barrels. It was by far the largest spill we have had on the OCS, almost by a

factor of two. There have been only 12 spills on record and the first one is much larger than the

rest. So yes, it would drive down the average volume. Which is one argument for using median

spill size when you do analyses rather than the average spiN size. But if you use the average spill,

you may be more environmentally conservative - if you want to call assuming larger

catastrophes are conservative, a little semantics problem there.

Ion Hachmelster In your last figure you showed a high probability of spills occurnng between

two and four for pipelines. Have you coupled that with some of the other information you had on

some of your earlier slides to estimate what volume of spills might be likely there within those two

to four spills?

Dick Prentkl: That two to four spills was for both pipelines and platforms not just pipelines. So

it would be all of the spills in the Beaufort Sea that you could expect from development of all of

that oil. Generally when we look at this in-house, we have looked both the average spill size and

the median. If we are dealing with a large number of spills, we might in our analysis use a spill

size distribution such that if you had six spills, six times, you are going to get six times the

average volume. But your median spill size is usually much smaller than average size, and you

want half of the six spills to be < the median and half to be> the median. So if you have six

tanker spills, with an average size of 100,000 barrels, you might assume one of half a million

barrels and five of 20,000 barrels. Usually if you deal with smaller numbers of spills, like three,
Jim Craig: I know. You are not hoping, that is the expected model...

Dick Prentkl: We are projecting that number.

JIm Craig: Projected number would be a better way to say it. My question is related to the

location of these expected spills and how they are addressed in the environmental impact

statement. Since most of this oil is probably transported south through TAPS, and then on

tankers, where would the spill locations actually be?

Dick Prentkl: The way we currently handle tanker spills allows us to plot a tanker route and then

spill randomly all along that route. So essentially, so if we are projecting two tanker spills we can

distribute the probability of those two spills along the entire tanker route. Generally, MMS

assumes that half of the tanker spills would occur in our model area or Alaska area and half

somewhere farther south. For pipeline spills, we generally do the same thing. I am not quite sure

how such spills were distributed what happened in the Beaufort ElS. Usually, pipeline spills are

spread along the hypothetical pipeline routes. But those routes aren't known anywhere near as

well as tanker routes out of Prince William Sound. For example, from the first day of the meeting

I recall that there may be a 20 mile pipeline from Northstar to shore,crossing the Banier Islands

or not. They way we do things now, that 20 mile pipeline would have the same number of spills

projected for it as one that went from Northstar through Bering Strait and then down to the lower

48 without ever touching land. We don't have any distance factor, length of pipeline factor, in that.

If you get to development and try to use these numbers, you might need to factor that into your

analysis.

on longer time scales, the NIC employs a combination of sea ice forecasting techniques to

produce the Alaskan seasonal ice prediction. These techniques include: a) a linear air

temperature/ice thickness relationship with date of initial ice break-up, b) absence or presence

of multi-year ice in shipping lanes, and c) an analog/statistically based procedure that relates

regional ice anomalies with variations in large-scale atmospheric forcing of sea ice. Methodology

for producing MC seasonal sea ice forecasts are discussed with particular emphasis on historical

skill in predicting the severity of summer ice conditions in the western Arctic.

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION

Dick Prentkl: I assume that the bad ice years are attributable to the ice pushed against the

Alaska shores - not that there is more ice in the polar ocean in those years. Is that your

understanding?

Jeff Andrews: Well, there were a couple of other things. As far as our validation goes for the ice

severity, we look basically at the distance to the ice edge on 15 September. The main point of

measurement is Point Barrow, because that is the choke point for the ice movement. The

measures include distance to the 5/lOths boundary on 15 September, the number of days that

the sea route to Prudhoe Bay is ice free, the number of days that the route is 5/lOths covered,

and the number of days between the initial and final days. We use all of this to calculate a

cumulative severity index.

There is another source of information - the drifting buoys - that we have been using

since 1988. The drifting buoys give the rate of movement of the ice per day; we have been trying

to correlate that into the forecast conditions. Initially, it looked like the rate was less than 2 kn per
been flying up there since 1987. Each year is d3fferent. This year there weren't any chunks of

pack ice to break up the new ice. Often, if you have wind and small pieces of floe ice or sails, the

floes would act like ice breakers and break up the new ice. This year there wasn't any of that.

Jeff Andrews: The one slide that I showed that showed on the DMSP, that showed the area

northwest of Barrow. We didn't see that for a week. The SSMI gave us an indication that ice was

being advected. Well we were having a hard time buying that because the ice edge had been

30 miles to the north. When the clouds finally broke, we saw that the ice was there. And about

that time the coal barge was coming up on a resupply mission and they couldn't get in because

the ice was too thick. The delay lasted about a week and a half, waiting for the ice to advect a

little bit further offshore so they could go into Barrow.

I have an advantage over most of the people who analyze the satelhte images in that I

flew for lIve years over the ice. I can identify easily what I am seeing on satellite images. If I am

looking at shuga, brash, young, or new ice. Also, you have to consider sun angle, hours of

daylight, and sea surface temperatures.

Tom Newbury: I really appreciate your index. I noticed that Steve Treacy referred to the index

in his talk about the median depth analysis of the bowhead whale migration and its relationship

with ice. It also correlates very well with observations dunng some of the operations. Your index

shows cycles in severity, that every lIve years there tends to be severe ice conditions. In 1985

when the Corona Prospect was explored, the ice conditions were severe. Later, in 1991 and 1992,

when Galahad and Kuvlum were drilled there was severe ice again. It is a very useful index for

us.
Construction in Alaska OCS waters needs knowledge, not only of the general

development of processes in ice cover, but also detailed knowledge on the influence of ice

conditions in the area of structures. Therefore, for cases with an increased probability of

hazardous conditions, additional systems of ice management should be considered as a

mandatory measure.

Ice Cover In the VicinIty of Alaska OCS

Ice cover influences industrial activities differently in ice-infested waters. Sometimes ice

cover is useful for supporting offshore activities in the Arctic. It can be used to unload and

transport cargo, build moorings and artificial islands, and create air strips. At the same time, ice

cover can be hazardous for other activities.

First of all, the presence of any ice should be considered a hazardous phenomenon in

most cases. But the appearance of ice cover with high ice concentrations is dangerous for all

kinds of activities in ice-infested waters. Heavy ice cover (with concentrations more than 50-60

percent) exists in the vicinity of much of Alaska's OCS, usually until the end of July In

unfavorable years, heavy ice exists alIsummer and through to freezing in autumn.

Feasible dates for the beginning and ending of navigation along the Beaufort Sea coast

with icebreaker support can be considered a good example of interannual variability. Beginning

navigation is possible in the first half of June. An average date for beginning navigation is early

July but can start as late as the end of July. Ending dates of navigation vary from early October
important parameters.

Methodology of Calculations

Long-term statistical forecasts take into account previous transport in atmosphere, air

temperature, and vorticity (velocity of rotation) of the ice drift in the Arctic Ocean. Allowing for

changes in the location of points used to determine atmospheric forcing on sea ice, presents the

main advantage of the developed approach.

Mathematical modeling of the evolution of sea ice cover is considered to be an effective

means of developing ice forecasts. In our models we combine theoretical constructions, using

the laws of physics, with empirical conclusions, developed as the result of field observations.

Anisotropic descriptions of ice cover behavior and allowing for changes in ice edge configuration

are other features of the model used.

Joining numerical and physical-statistical methods seems the most appropriate approach

for long-term forecasting. For shorter periods, numerical methods have obvious advantages which

permit the calculation of spatial and temporal changes of many ice cover state parameters.

Numerical calculations allow us to get the spatial distribution of different sea ice cover

characteristics, such as: ice concentration, thickness distribution, edge configuration, drift velocity,

zones of divergence and compacting, distribution of ice floe sizes, and their strength and motion.
cover. This phenomenon is included in the numerical model. Compacting in ice cover is usually

connected with the movement of cyclones over the region. The compacting corresponds to

specific parts of atmospheric formations and its intensity - to velocity and trajectory of cyclones

and anticyclones. The zones of significant negative air pressure in moving deep cyclones are

characterized by the predominance of heavy winds, falling pressure, convergence, and heavy

compacting of ice cover.

Theory explains this phenomenon by the convergence of isolabaric wind - the wind

component, connected with movement of atmospheric synoptic formations. The greater the

atmospheric pressure gradient and the velocity of cyclone movement, the greater the compacting

in ice cover. This is typical for conditions outside the coastline influence. In the vicinity of islands

and coastline, compacting is determined by wind speed and its direction relative to the coast. The

strongest compacting is observed in a relatively narrow belt of ice cover along the coastline or

fast ice1 which includes the location of all exploratory drill sites on the Beaufort Sea Outer

Continental Shelf.

The reliability of the calculation of intensity and orientation of compacting has been

confirmed by observation data from ship and air reconnaissance.

The processes of compacting in ice cover are accompanied by the formation of pressure

ridges. In its turn, ridged ice cover intensifies all hazardous influence. But, in addition, pressure

ridges might cause another specific hazardous influence on underwater constructions.
of a vessel causes critical changes in its stability and can also influence other marine structures.

Analysis of existing observation data on icing helped to develop methods of icing

calculation. The parameterization of those data allowed us to use a nomogram or prepare simple

calculation schemes to estimate current and future intensity of icing.

In the autumn-winter period another similar hazardous process can be observed. It is the

adhesion of snow-ice masses to the hull of a ship or other marine structure. The bond between

hull and ice leads to formation of a snow-ice RpiUowh that can even cause the vessel to stop.

WInd Waves

Ice cover in the Beaufort Sea not only causes direct influences, but distribution of ice

cover also determines development of another hazardous phenomenon - sea waves. Significant

retreat of ice cover from the Alaska coast creates favorable conditions for the development of high

seas presenting hazards for ships and structures. Development of waves depends upon wind

speed and direction, sea depth and bottom topography, and also wind fetch. The fetch in the

vicinity of Alaska OCS, to a great degree, depends upon ice edge location. Waves can be

especially high in September and October when long wind fetch and also deep cyclones are

often present. When fetch is equal 800 km, wave heights can reach 7-9 m. Wind waves can be

calculated and predicted with high accuracy.
system for working in Alaska OCS and cooperation between exploring and supporting companies

can be found in Appel (1994).

UTERATURE CITED

Appel, IL. 1994. Scientific operational ice support for offshore exploration in Arctic seas: state

and strategy of development, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston. 241-248.

Appel, 1.1., and C.B. Samuels. 1995. Simulated sea ice data. Fourth Conference on Polar

Meteorology and Oceanography, Dallas. 47-52.

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION

Tom Newbury: You showed a prolile of the amount of open water in 1993. Do you have a simitar

projecUon for 1992? During Kuvium operations in 1992, there was very bad ice, but dunng

operations in 1993 there was vely little ice.

Igor Appe: When we developed the method it was verified on many years. The years of 1991

and 1992 were not included into consideration to create the method. But later, the method was

verified on these two years before the real forecast was developed. And it shows mild ice

distribution in 1991 as tar as I remember and very heavy ice conditions the next year.
depends upon the morphology of the ice pressure structure. And this morphology depends upon

all processes during the previous winter. It can be calculated and I don't think it is necessary to

forecast the structure of ridges but we can calculate the keel depths, and we can estimate

possible scouring variability from year to year.

Grant Walther Then you mentioned that the subsoils were also impacted by the scounng. Does

there seem to be a predictable range as to what the amount would be subsurface?

Igor Appal: Yes, there are a few works devoted to the study of this process. Modeling, as theory

explaining the deformation under the scouring and also laboratory experiments showing the same

results. So there are estimations that can be taken into account.
in the same geographical area (in contrast to individual NDPES permits which are for single

discharge points). The Arctic general NPDES permit covers offshore oil and gas stratigraphic test

and exploratory operations but does tQI cover discharges from development or production

wells. The area of coverage for the permit is the federal waters of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas

planning basins (as defined by the Minerals Management Service) and the Alaska state waters

contiguous to landward boundary of the aforementioned planning basins (Figure 1).

WHAT'S NEW IN THE ARCTIC NPDES GENERAL PERMIT?

There are several unique features of this permit. This is the first permit issued under the

recently issued offshore oil and gas effluent limitations guidelines. The area of coverage for this

permit is defined by the Minerals Management Service planning basins rather than the specific

federal or state lease sales. The permit also contains new conditions on the discharge of drilling

muds and cuttings, including a toxicity limit on muds and a mud management plan requirement.

The areal restrictions on drilling muds and cuttings discharges have been enlarged. In addition,

the Arctic general permit is the first NPDES oil and gas permit which includes a Best Management

Practices Plan requirement.

PERMIT CONDITION

The bases of the permit conditions include the Clean Water Act, the effluent limitations

guidelines for offshore oil and gas, best professional judgment, Ocean Discharge Criteria (CWA

Section 403c), and the Alaska Water Quality Standards. The exploratory waste streams authorized

with limitations are: 1) drilling muds and cuttings, 2) deck drainage, 3) sanitary wastes, 4)

domestic wastes, 5) test fluids, and 6) other miscellaneous discharges.
ARCTIC

0

50Sc1

FIgure 1. ArctIc N
First oil and gas general permit to require Best Management Practice Plans.

The permit has a new procedure for drilling muds.

The permit has new provisions to protect sensitive areas.

Permit has not been legally challenged.

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION

Tom Newbury: You mentioned that the permit is only for exploration, that production is under

a different permit. Is the latter permitting procedure in place?

Anne Dailey: No, that permit is not in place for the Arctic because there were no production

operations. If there is a production operation, (I have already talked to folks at BP about this wIth

respect to Northstar), we anticipate that they would send in an application for an individual

NPDES permit. EPA would handle that as an indMdual permit for that facility. The reason for that

is that there were no production operations when we were developing this permit. Plus,

exploratory operations are likely to be there one, two, or maybe three months. Production

operations are expected to be there for a very long time. So it is appropriate to look more

specifically at the site that they are actually talking about and ligu ring out what sort of monitoring

is needed for that site, giving that site more attention than you would in a general permit. In a

general permit, you have to address the whole area. I gather that there may or may not be





9:15 am Northstar Development Project

Terty Obeney, BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Anchorage

10:00 am 30 MINUTE BREAK

10:30 am Kuvium Unit - Development Options

Jim Watt, Union Texas Petroleum, Houston, lx

10:45 am State of Alaska leasing program and development unit responsibilities

James Hansen, Alaska Dept of Natural Resources, Anchorage

11:00 am Arctic offshore production - a Canadian perspective

Nick Vanderkooy, C,4NMAR, Ltd., Caigaiy, Alberta

11:30 am Session summary, including MMS Stakeholder Task Force processes

Jeff Walker, MMS, Anchorage -

12:00 to 1:30 pm LUNCH
Sverre Pedersen, Division of Subsistence, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game,

Fairbanks

4:30 pm Summary of session

Dr. Steve J. Langdon, Dept of Anthropology, UM

5:00 pm ADJOURN
Dr. W. John Richardson, LGL, King City, Ontario

10:10 am 20 MINUTE BREAK

10:30 am Letters of Authorization for Incidental Take of Marine Mammals

Ron Morris, National Marine Fisheries Service, Anchorage

11:00 am BP's bowhead whale rnonitonng near the Nocthstar Unit, August 1995

Dr. Christopher J. Herlugson, BP, Anchorage

11:15 am Summary of session, including overview of NSB bowhead whale research

Dr. Thomas Albert Department of Wildlife Management, NSB, Barrow

11:30 am 15 MINUTE BREAK

11:45 am GUEST SPEAKER

Arctic Marine Pipelines

David S. McKeehan, INTEC Engineering, Houston, 1)(

12:30 to 1:30 pm LUNCH
3:10 pm 20 MINUTE BREAK

3:30 pm Population studies of murres and kittiwakes at Cape Usburne and Cape Thompson

David Roseneau, FWS, Homer

3:50 pm University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute sponsored studies in the Arctic OCS

Dr. John J. Goering, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of

Alaska, Fairbanks

4:10 pm Overview of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Ecosystem Approach to the

management of fish and wildlife

Larry Bright, FWS, Fairbanks

4:30 pm Summary of session

Led Quakenbush, FWS, Fairbanks

5:00 pm ADJOURN
9:45 am 30 MINUTE BREAK

10:15 am Modeling and prediction of ice hazards near the OCS development prospects in the

Beaufort Sea

Dr. Igor Appel, Fairweather Forecasting, Inc., Anchorage

10:45 am New Arctic National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit

Anne Dailey, Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, WA

CONCLUDING SESSION

11:15 am Concluding Synthesis by panel, including Conference Chair and all Session Chairs.

12:00 NOON ADJOURN



Igor Appel*

Fairweather Forecasting, Inc.

715 L Street, #1

Anchorage, AK 99501

(907) 258-9165

Michael Bafirey

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 E. 36th Avenue

Anchorage, AK 99508

Brenda Ballachey

National Biological Service

1011 E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503

(907) 786-3417

(907) 786-7033

Molty Bimbaum

Pipeline Office

Dept. of Governmental Coordination

411 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 2C

Anchorage, AK 99501-2345

(907) 271-4317

Max Brewer

U.S. Geological Survey

4200 University Avenue

Anchorage, AK 99508-4667

John W. Bridges

Marine Mammals

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1011 E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503

(907) 786-3810
Jim Bunch

Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans

200 Kent Street

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E6

(613) 990-7284

Michael Burwell

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 E. 36th Avenue

Anchorage, AK 99508

Robin Lee Cacy

Public Affairs Officer

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 E. 36th Avenue

Anchorage, AK 99508

(907) 271-6070

Terry Carpenter

Corps of Engineers-Regulatory

P.O. Box 898

Anchorage. AK 99506

(907) 753-2716

Jim Craig

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 E. 36th Avenue

Anchorage, AK 99508

Marie Crosley

Division of Oil and Gas

State of Alaska

3601 C Street, Suite 1380

Anchorage, AK 99503-5948

(907) 762-2593

Anne Dailey*

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 10

MSWD-137

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101

(206) 553-2110 
y pg

P.O. Box 898

Anchorage, AK 99506-0898

(907) 753-2532

Men Ehm

Men Ehm Geological Consulting

2420 Foxhall Drive

Anchorage, AK 99504

(907) 333-8880

Brian Ferguson

Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans

P.O. Box 1871

Inuvik, NT XOE OTO

CANADA

(403) 979-3314

Steven R. Fly

Union Texas Petroleum Alaska Corp.

P.O. Box 2120

Houston, TX 77056-2120

(713) 968-2552

p

P.O. Box 110030

Juneau, AK 99811

(907) 465-8792

Dr. Charles R. Greene,Jr.*

Greenridge Sciences, Inc.

4512 Via Huerto

Santa Barbara, CA 93110

(805) 967-7720

email: cgreene@Greeneridge.com

Lan Hachmeister

Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp.

10900 N.E. 8th Street, Suite 1300

Bellevue, WA 98004

(206) 688-3817

Bruce S. Hamilton

Union Texas Petroleum Alaska Corp.

P.O. Box 2120

Houston, TX 77056-2120

(713) 968-2558
Division of Oil and Gas

State of Alaska

3601 C Street, Suite 1380

Anchorage, AK 99503-5948

(907) 762-2593

Jim Haynes

Division of Oil and Gas

3601 C Street, Suite 1380

Anchorage, AK 99503-5948

(907) 762-2592

Nolan Heath

Bureau of Land Management

222 W. 7th Avenue, #13

Anchorage, AK 9951 3-7599

271-5477

Kate Hedstrom*

Inst. of Manna and Coastal Sciences

Rutgers University

P.O. Box 231

New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0231

932-8959, ext. 258

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 E. 36th Avenue

Anchorage, AK 99508

Gail V. Irvine

National Biological Service

1011 E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503

(907) 786-3653

Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs and Associates

308 G Street, #313

Anchorage, AK 99501

(907) 274-9719

Chad V. Jay*

Alaska Science Center

National Biological Service

loll E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503
P.O. Box 1709

Valdez, AK 99686

(907) 835-4698

Rich Kombrath

Division of Oil and Gas

DNR-State of Alaska

3601 C Street

Anchorage, AK 99503

(907) 762-2185

Steve J. Langdon*

Dept. of Anthropology

University of Alaska Anchorage

3211 Providence Drive

Anchorage, AK 99508

(907) 786-1723

Carl Lautenberger

USEPA-Joint Pipeline Office

222 W. 7th Avenue, Box 19

Anchorage, AK 99507

(907) 2714306

381 Elden Street

Hemdon, VA 22070-4817

Bruce Mate*

Hatfield Marine Science Center

Oregon State University

Newport, OR 97365

(503) 867-0202

David McGillrvary

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Marine Mammals Management Office

1011 E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503

(907) 786-3800

David McKeehan*

INTEC Engineering

15600 JFK Btvd., 9th Floor

Houston, TX 77032

(713) 987-0800
3040 Redhill Avenue

Costa Mesa, CA 92626

(714) 850-4830

Kathy Mitchell

Meeting Coordinator

MBC Applied Environmental Sciences

3040 Redhill Avenue

Costa Mesa, CA 92626

(714) 850-4830

Ron Morris*

National Marine Fisheries Service

222 W. 7th Ave., Box 43

Anchorage, AK 99513

(907) 271-5006

Mark Musial

Golder Associates, Inc.

8740 Hartzell Road, Suite 200

Anchorage, AK 99507-3444

(907)344-6001

Anchorage, AK 995O8

(907) 271-6119

Lynn Noel

LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc.

4175 Tudor Centre Drive; Suite 101

Anchorage, AK 99508

(907) 562-3339

Teny Obeney*

BP Exploration Alaska, Inc.

P.O. Box 196612

Anchorage, AK 99519-6612

(907) 564-5989

Brunhllde O'Brien

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 East 36th Avenue

Anchorage, AK 99508

(907) 271-6514
900 E. Benson

Anchorage, AK 99519

(907) 564-5326

Harshad Patel

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 E. 36th Avenue

Anchorage, AK 99508

(907) 271-6031

Mamie Pavlick

MBC Applied Environmental Sciences

3040 Redhill Avenue

Costa Mesa, CA 92626

(714) 850-4830

Sverre Pedersen*

Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game

1300 Coflege Road

Fairbanks, AK 99701

(907) 479-6211

Minemis Management Service

1849 C Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20240

(202) 208-3500

Matt Rader

Division of Oil and Gas

State of Alaska

3601 C Street, Suite 1380

Anchorage, AK 99503-5948

(907) 762-2593

Brien E. Reep

Exxon Ventures (CIS) Inc.

P.O. Box 196601

Anchorage, AK 99516

(907) 564-3605

Burton Rexford*

Chairman

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission

P. 0. Box 424

Barrow, AK 99723

(907) 852-2392
Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge

2355 Kachemak Bay Drive, Suite 101

Homer, AK 99603-8021

(907) 235-6546

Allan Ross

BP Exp'oration

900 E. Benson

Anchorage, AK 99519

(907) 564-5377

David Rugh

National Marine Mammal Lab

NOM/NMFS

7600 Sand Point Way, NE

Seattle, WA 98115

(206) 526-4018

John F. Schindler

2473 Captain Cook Drive

Anchorage, AK 99517-1254

(907) 248-4548

Randy Skiller

BP Exploration Alaska, Inc.

P.O. Box 196612

Anchorage, AK 99519-6612

Pete Sloan

Alaska OCS Region

Minerals Management Service

949 E. 36th Avenue

Anchorage, AK 99508

(907) 271-6123

Tom Smith

State of Aiaska

3601 C Street, Suite 1380

Anchorage, AK 99503

Page Spencer

National Park Service

2525 Gambetl Street

Anchorage, AK 99503

(907) 257-2625
Minerals Management Service

949 E. 36th Avenue

Anchorage, AK 99508

Declan Troy

Troy Ecological Research Associates

2322 E. 16th Avenue

Anchorage, AK 99508

(907) 276-3436

Maiy Ann Turner

Branch of Environmental Operations and

Analysis

Minerals Management Service

381 Elden Street

Hemdon, VA 22070-4817

(703) 787-1734

Nick Vanderkooy*

CANMAR, Ltd.

700 2nd Street, S.W.

Calgaiy, T2P 0X5 Alberta

CANADA

(403) 298-3514

Mammoth Productions

P.O. Box 102418

Anchorage, AK 99510

(907) 279-9999

Jim Watt*

Union Texas Petroleum

P.O. Box 2120

Houston, TX 77252-2120

(713) 968-2604

Bruce Webb

Division of Oil and Gas

State of Alaska

3601 C Street, Suite 1380

Anchorage, AK 99503-5948

(907) 762-2593

Maiy A. Weger

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

P.O. Box 898

Anchorage, AK 99506-0898

(907) 753-2716
P.O. Box 196612

Anchorage, AK 99519-6612

(907) 564-5446
gg p pppj

responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island

territories under U.S. administration.

The Minerals Management Service Mission

As a bureau of the Department of the Interior, the Minerals Management Service's (MMS) primary

responsibilities are to manage the mineral resources located on the Nation's Outer Continental

Shelf (OCS), collect revenue from the Federal OCS and onshore Federal and Indian lands, and

distribute those revenues.

Moreover, in working to meet its responsibilities, the Offshore MInerals Management Program

administers the OCS competitive leasing program and oversees the safe and environmentally

sound exploration and production of our Nation's offshore natural gas, oil, and other mineral

resources. The MMS Royalty Management Program meets its responsibilities by ensuring the

efficient, timely, and accurate collection and disbursement of revenue from mineral leasing and

production due to Indian tribes and allottees, States, and the U.S. Treasury.

The MMS strives to fulfill its responsibilities through the general guiding principles of: (1) being

responsive to the public's concrns and interests by maintaining a dialogue with all potentially

affected parties and (2) carrying out its programs with an emphasis on working to enhance the

quality of life for all Americans by lending MMS assistance and expertise to economic development

and environmental protection.